The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-03/03/2022 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 March 3, 2022 10:22 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Zoom) ERIC DANTES— Member ROBERT LEHNERT= Member NICHOLAS PLANAM.ENTO—Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JOHN BURKE— Deputy Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Frederic C. Scofield Jr. (Grantor Rev. Intervivo Trust) #7588 3 - 8 Sheena Acharya and Adrian Sapollnik# 7599 8 - 12 John and Beth Wittenberg# 7596 12- 13 Neil A. and Sandra Rousso # 7597 14- 19 Shannon Holdings II, LLC# 7600 20- 21 Kathleen M. Becker Living Trust#7601 22 - 24 Glenn and Margaret Solomon #7602 24- 27 W. Jonathan Fabb/WJF Farms, LLC#7604 27 - 31 Jeannette and Jeffery Wilke #7605 32 - 37 Bridget Clark Rymer#7603SE 37 -41 Donya Kaufer O'Brien #7606 41 - 51 Jay P. Mandelbaum and Lauren Gordon #7579 51 - 56 Vincent Bertault #7580 56- 77 March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :' Welcome everyone to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We're finished with Executive Session, let me ask the Board is there are any agenda items anybody on the Board wants to add in future at this time? Would you please stand and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. Apologies for getting such a late start. One day when we have a Justice Court this won't happen. I'm going to read off the SEQRA reviews. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests at Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following : Frederic Scofield, Sheena Acharya and Adrian Sapollnik, John and Beth Wittenberg, Neil A. and Sandra Rousso, Shannon Holdings II, LLC, Kathleen M. Becker Living Trust, Glenn- and Margaret Solomon, W. Jonathan Fabb/WJF Farms, LLC, Jeannette and Jeffery Wilke, Bridget Clark Rymer and Donya Kaufer O'Brien so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBRE DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING #7588—FREDERIC C. SCOFIELD,JR. (GRANTOR REV. INTERVIVO TRUST) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public hearing before this Board today is for Frederic C. Scofield, Jr. (Grantor Revocable Intervivo Trust) #7588. This is a request for a variance from 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 additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum secondary front yard setback of 20 feet located at 2355 Village Lane in Orient. Good morning Rob. We have a secondary front yard setback of 18.4 feet the code requiring a minimum of 20 and this one also needs HPC approval.. State your name for the record please. ROB HERRMANN : Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. Leslie as you know this is an application for 1.7 feet of relief from the newly adopted secondary front yard setback which is required for a 2 foot wide by 9.3 foot long one story addition. This is really what the Board would typically refer to as a deminimus type application. The roughly 19 sq. ft. addition is proposed 18.3 feet from the secondary front lot line along Willow St. where 20 feet March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting is required and the existing dwelling is currently located just 7 feet from the same lot line. As part of the interior renovation of the dwelling an existing kitchen space is being converted to a second bedroom so the square footage that's provided by the proposed addition is needed to increase the space enough to qualify as a legal bedroom. The addition can't be eliminated or reduced in size to avoid the need for a variance altogether. Meryl Kramer the project architect I believe is attending via Zoom and she can explain the architectural design in more detail if the Board wishes. As we argue in our application we renovated it all (inaudible) dwelling will remain consistent with the character of the neighborhood which was developed over a hundred and fifty years ago, consists predominantly of pre-existing undersized parcels like the applicants many of which also contain dwellings with non-conforming front yard setbacks. One such property has been before the Board is located three to the south of the applicants where the Board granted relief for a 16 foot front yard setback this was prior to the existence of the secondary front yard setback from Village Lane in 2007 that was Appeal #6078. As I just noted the dwelling has an existing secondary front yard setback from Willow of 7 feet. The addition is effectively located at the rear of the house relative to Willow and so the requested relief really is insubstantial in every way and not adversely impact the neighboring property owners. I should also note that the structure is listed as a historic structure. A Certificate of Appropriateness was issued for the property from the Historic Preservation Committee on January 4, 2021. The project also will not adversely impact physical or environmental conditions but rather would have a beneficial environmental impact. The entire dwelling is being raised roughly 2 feet to FEMA compliant base foot elevation. The existing conventional septic system would be replace with a low nitrogen IA sanitary system and a new storm water drain system would be installed as part of the total renovation. Because the property is located more than 100 feet from the surface waters of Orient Harbor to the west and also separated from Orient Harbor by Village Lane. The project is located outside the wetlands jurisdiction both the State D.E.C. and the Town Trustees. Also you should note that unlike most applications where the Board finds that the application is a self-created difficulty this property has actually been in the same family since prior to 1957 so we're not presuming to (inaudible) today's requirements would be. So it is hopefully a simple application for minor relief but again if the Board has any questions I'm happy to answer them and hopefully Meryl is on and can answer any questions the Board might have with respect to the architectural (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if anyone has any questions, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : It seems pretty minor to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. . 4 March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You know it. Rob could you please clarify on the Notice of Disapproval the lot size is described as being non-conforming 5,227 sq. ft. but on the survey the lot size is illustrated as 11,590. So I don't know if that's just a clerical error on. ROB HERRMANN I believe noticing that myself Nick when I got the disapproval letter it was so long ago that I don't recall so just give me a moment just to look at the letter and remind myself. So in the disapproval it mentions a 5,227 sq. ft: lot yeah that's just an error. I don't want to speak for Amanda but I'm guessing that may have been (inaudible) used as.a template and the area wasn't updated but the actual lot area is noted on the survey and I think you just read that off correctly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do we need an updated Disapproval? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we'll call it a scribblers error. I think you're absolutely right I mean we go by the survey in terms of square footage that's stamped by a licensed professional. MEMBER DANTES : Plus the (inaudible) they're using these lots measuring less than 20,000 sq. ft. so in a way CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It still comes in it's the same determination. ROB HERRMANN : That's a good point Eric thank you there's a lot area shown on the survey as 11,590 sq. ft. so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's also on the application. ROB HERRMANN : Yeah and if the lot of 5,000 sq. ft. it would be half the size so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very large side yard really, really big. Is there anyone in the audience oh I'm sorry Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Please come forward and state your name. VINCENT BERTAULT : Good morning everybody, my name is Vincent Bertault I live in Orient, 95 Navy St. and I'm just on the opposite corner of the lot from,the property of Mr. and Mrs. Scofield. I never have the opportunity to actually meet them but I would like to congratulate them about the:project they are starting to do on their property which deserves such attention as we experience the same problem as they do within the area. However looking at the plan March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting and the information we got from the architect and the information provided by the website I would like to have a little bit more clarification as to how the septic and the storm water and the system will be designed and studies as we experience again exactly the same issue where we face (inaudible) a huge amount of complaint and hostility for doing exactly the same thing (inaudible) presented in this application what exactly are the concept of this project of septic with the problem of raising the land and being in the flood plain and having a lot of issue when storms and water are (inaudible) in the area. I sent (inaudible) actually to Kim (inaudible) if you don't mind on the screen how important is the issue of raising the house because every time there is a little bit of storm their property as well as ours is (inaudible) with water is my question. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome, thank you for your comment. Rob can you address the design of the IA system that's being proposed? ROB HERRMANN : I can I'm not completely clear what the question is but I can just speak generally. There's currently a conventional septic system on the property that dates back to (inaudible). The proposal is to install in its place an IA sanitary system FUJI Clean Fiberglass system it's in five series with leaching galleys which are depicted on the first page of the site plan (inaudible) it's in the middle of the sheet here and the sanitary system is located here between the house and Village Lane and of course as the Board is familiar the idea of these systems is that they provide actual microbial treatment of the waste that's sitting in what's called the OWTS the on-site waste water treatment system and the idea is that the effluent then gets sent to the leaching galleys unlike a,conventional septic tank cesspools as a lower nitrogen content and this creates less of an environmental impact as then groundwater then flows ultimately in this case to Orient Harbor surface waters. The question that FEMA issue is there's a crawl space that's underneath the existing house that as shown on the plan as being reconstructed in order to raise the existing dwelling up 2 feet to meet FEMA so that if the entire land is not being raised 2 feet it's the dwelling and foundation itself that's being raised 2 feet in order to elevate the house to a FEMA compliant base flood elevation. I don't know if I've answered your question but that's I don't know what more I can tell you about this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well certainly the sanitary system will have to be approved by the Department of Health. ROB HERRMANN : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So whatever I don't anticipate having seen the property there's any necessity you doing grading particularly relative to that system but that would be entirely up to the approval by the Building Department and Department of Health for the system itself. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : And finally the advantages some of these newer systems would be pressurized shallow leaching fields is that you don't have to create this big mounded systems with retaining walls like we had to do with the conventional systems. MEMBER DANTES : I'd like to point out also there is (inaudible) drainage system (inaudible) leaching valley so there's information about the drainage system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Either way that plan is available in our office if you wish to (inaudible) VINCENT BERTAULT : Okay I totally understand what (inaudible) however this system you described this system MEMBER DANTES : You're supposed to talk to the Board sir not to VINCENT BERTAULT : I'm sorry, I totally understand the concept of how these systems work however and it's not very clear in this application because of the nature of the design of this system and how it should be implemented within the land requires according to flood plain and the level of that property a certain distance of the (inaudible) top of the system. You don't have enough grade to be able to do that hence the reason of my question and this is what we went through already with our property, how do you manage (inaudible) difference between the two. You have to put the MERYL KRAMER : May I speak for a moment to try and answer the question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure go ahead Meryl, state your name. MERYL KRAMER : This is Meryl Kramer I am the architect I'm not the engineer but I will say that the septic system and the site drainage system are both designed by the engineer by a civil engineer who keeps in mind and who did design all minimum requirements for the clearance between the bottom of all the elements for drainage, leeching and septic, the clearance between the bottoms of those units and where ground water is. So I can assure you that we've met or exceeded those minimum requirements and that there will be no you know you're going to be leaving the property in a better situation than when where we found it. I mean the point that you made about this area being the first to flood you're correct, the grade in this particular area of Village Lane area quite low therefore water drains to it which is one of the reasons why it's in the flood zone and why we're raising it and trying to preserve the structure. So to answer your concerns this has been considered by the engineer, factored into the design and has been or is in the process of being approved by the Health Department. They've reviewed the drawings and have you know we're in the process of getting approvals. I hope that answers your questions. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Meryl. Anyone else in the audience. Anything else from the Board? Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBRE DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING#7599—SHEENA ACHARYA and ADRIAN SAPOLLNIK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sheen Acharya and Adrian Sapollnik #7599. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280'-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 1, 2021 amended October 14, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and install a gunite spa/hot tub at 1) dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) spa is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 645 Glen Court (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. ROB HERRMANN : Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. This is an application for really two modest proposals for which together require three variances due to A. limited lot area between Glen Ct. front lot line and a coastal erosion hazard area boundary which results in a very constrained buildable land area of 10,209 sq. ft. and B. limited lot depths between both the rear of the existing house and the top of bluff between the front of the house and the front lot line along Glen Ct. Specifically due to the limited buildable land area and the fact that the existing lot coverage already exceeds 20%, 23.1% it is not possible to add any structure on the property without variance relief for lot coverage. Due to the fact that the rear of the existing house is located 50 feet from the top of the bluff it is not possible to locate the proposed spa between the house and the bluff without variance relief on the 100 foot bluff S March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting setback. Due to the fact that the front of the house is approximately 30 feet from the front lot line it is not possible to create an attached garage space at the front of the house without variance relief from the required 40 foot front yard setback. As we argue in our application granting these variances would not create a change to or adversely impact the character of the neighborhood. As all of the sound front properties located along Glen Ct. are characterized by similarly shallow lots and limited buildable land areas. Every dwelling is located less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff along Glen Ct. and several are located less than 40 feet from the front lot line. While some of these non-conformities are certainly pre-existing dating back to the subdivisions of Birch Hills and (inaudible) in the 1960's. Applicant's property is Lot 1 on the 1968 map of Vista Bluff. Several have been more recently established with the benefit of variance relief. Most relevant to the applicant's for lot coverage relief for example is the variance that was granted in 2015 to the property located two to the west at 445 Glen Ct. pursuant to Appeal No. 6865. There a pre-existing dwelling which replaced with a new dwelling, an attached rear deck, swimming pool and spa at 25.1% lot coverage of a slightly greater buildable land area. The square footage requested here is actually less than the square footage that was granted in that application for similarly sized lot. I should note here corrections in my written application which referenced the (inaudible) lot coverage in that case is 25.3% it should actually be 25.1% as I just stated. I also want to provide something in a way of an update to the proposed lot coverage we're requesting here. As you see on the site plan there is a 46 sq. ft. front entry landing that's shown on the survey that was actually recently replaced by some smaller landing of 28 sq. ft. as part of some ongoing renovations that were permitted by building permit #45881. Thus if we had an updated survey at this point with (inaudible) landing the proposed lot coverage here would be 2,591 sq. ft. for 25.4% rather than 25.6%. It's a small change but less is better than more and I wanted to clarify that for the record. Fortunately we just had a situation where the lag time between the survey in preparations for submissions for variance application and being heard there's other non-variance renovations going on at the house. Once and a while I get something like this happens in this case it happens to be favorable. With respect to the bluff setback relief for the proposed spa it is worth again referencing Appeal No. 6865 as in that case the swimming pool and spa total of 305 sq. ft. were approved 50 feet from the top of the bluff whereas here we have it proposes a 64 sq. ft. spa obviously there's no pool and that's spa is 41 feet from the top of bluff. The spa can't be moved any farther from the bluff and would be constructed actually partially in place for the recently removed chimney. That chimney shows on the survey but again that chimney has been removed as part of that building permit and it would also be placed over an existing patio area which is to remain it was recently approved for replacement by the Trustees. So while the spa does increase lot coverage I think something like .63 percentage points it doesn't increase the in fact impervious surface of the property just lot coverage is defined by code. It was a prior variance granted to this property in 1992 under Appeal 4104 that allowed for the existing 30 March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting foot front yard setback to what was described in that decision as a garage addition but which was in fact openly designed and described to the Board as a 9.5 foot deep by 19 foot wide storage extension. Evidence of this is provided in a letter to the ZBA by Abigail Wickham dated May 19, 1992 which was prior to the Board's decision in July 1992. That letter is in the Board's file. Worth noting that because if you look at that decision it sounds like we're here asking for the same thing that was granted a long time ago and we're not. Through the course of that application the garage was actually abandoned by the prior owner in favor of storage but it is this owner's desperate wish to finally convert the storage space to an actual garage by simply expanding what is presently non-habitable un-conditioned storage space that has no interior connection to the habitable portion of the dwelling. Un-conditioned storage space with no interior connection to that portion of the dwelling expanding it 9.6 feet closer to Glen Ct. The addition would thus create no new habitable space but it would place the dwelling structure 20.3 feet from the front lot line thus necessitating our request for almost (inaudible) front yard setback relief. There is fairly recent precedent for this relief as well just three properties to the east at 995 Glen Ct. in 2008 the Board granted relief for an attached garage addition 20 feet from the lot line, that was Appeal No. 6166. We're actually asking essentially for the same relief. In that decision the Board found that the relief granted would not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. Noting to other homes in the area have direct front access to their attached garages, the applicants are seeking the same benefit. With respect to the impacts on the immediately surrounding properties in this case we argue in the application, the garage addition would actually be located 33 feet from the actual paved roadway of Glen Ct. and it would be situated a conforming distance from the side lot line no closer than the existing dwelling is to that lot coverage. The spa will have no impact on the neighboring properties as it would not be visible from the road and it will be located in the center of the property more than 40 feet from both adjacent neighbors side lot lines. Finally with respect to potential environmental impacts neither the proposed spa or garage addition will adversely impact the physical environment on the subject or neighboring properties. Subject bluff is well vegetated and stabilized with retaining walls both at its toe and its crest. The proposed spa will be located more than 140 feet from the Long Island Sound and adjacent to the house. As I just noted in the (inaudible) and with an existing developed patio area. Therefore the spa would increase town defined lot coverage by 0.63 percentage points but would not add to the (inaudible) impervious surface area or increase the properties erosion risk. The sap also would not result in the increase risk of runoff toward Long Island Sound as an addition to the spa being situated with an existing patio surface retaining wall at the top of the bluff maintains a flat slope between the house and the top of bluff and this wall was actually just recently repaired and raised in height pursuant to a Southold Trustees Wetland Permit. An 8 by 6 drywell was proposed to capture spa discharge and as part of that Trustees Permit there was also a requirement for a 10 foot non-turf buffer March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting to be established and maintained in perpetuity along the edge of that retaining.wall. The garage is proposed on the front side of the house 94 feet from and as far away from the top of bluff as possible and a 4 by 6 drywell is proposed to capture recharge roof runoff from the finished garage including existing storage space and the proposed addition. If the Board has any questions CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Clarify please the setback from the top of the bluff(inaudible) to the proposed spa. ROB HERRMANN : It's 41 feet to the spa and 94 feet to the garage. If you look at the site plan it's a 50 foot setback to the backside of the house now. The spa is located basically centered upon what's noted as a chimney to be removed on the site plan and since has been removed. It's an 8 by 8 spa basically leaving 1 foot of space between the spa and the back of the house you get the 41 foot setback to the retaining wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I can see the house is at 50 feet. ROB HERRMANN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to put that correctly in the record. Rob questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Why don't you move on and I'll see if I can come back to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Why not put the spa on the side yard and not create a bluff setback? ROB HERRMANN : You could put the spa in the side yard it would not be a desirable location, it would set the spa closer to the neighbor, you would still require a variance and then it would actually be in basically an undeveloped section of the property. Here it is a historically existing patio at grade between the house and retaining wall so the logic both recreationally and with respect to code it's just (inaudible) to sit the spa in that patio area. If you looked at the side yard the sense was that then not only would you lose a desirable location at the center of the house (inaudible) but then you'd have to create some sort of additional patio, additional pavers something over to the side and you then would be bringing that recreational use much closer to the neighbor to the west and anyway we would still be here for a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anything from you Pat? March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBRE DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.The motion carries. HEARING # 7596—JOHN and BETH WITTENBERG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John and Beth Wittenberg #7596. This is a request for a'variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's September 30, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 3608 Old North Rd. in Southold. BETH WITTENBERG : Good morning my name is Beth Wittenberg. Yes we wanted to request a variance our rear yard is where our septic tank is located so that would present a big problem if we needed to put a pool there. Also there's a fair number of trees that would be needed to take down. On the side we have a much more open area and either no or extremely minimum trees would have to be taken down. We're lucky to have a flagged lot so we have a long driveway and our neighbors are basically not visible to us. I did send out Fetters as the ZBA requested and I heard back from a number of neighbors who had received the letters saying March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting that they had no concerns and supported the project. If there are any questions I can answer I'm happy to and our architect is here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware everyone on the Board has visited the site as we do with all properties prior to a public hearing so we looked at the surrounding properties. BETH WITTENBERG : I hope you were able to see the outline of the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it was definitely very visible. Let's see if the Board has any questions. Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Will it be possible for anyone to see this pool from the public street? BETH WITTENBERG : No we are down a flagged lot so we cannot (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Short and sweet. 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. MEMBRE DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7597— NEIL A. and SANDRA ROUSSO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Neil A. and Sandra Rousso #7597. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's August 12, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 60 feet located at 1700 Alvahs Lane in Cutchogue. Would you state your name for the record please. LARRY BUSCEMI : Larry Buscemi agent for the homeowners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like this home is to be located with a 40 foot front yard setback where the code requires a minimum of 60 feet in an AC zone. LARRY BUSCEMI : That is the intention. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is also a -proposed in-ground swimming pool in a code conforming rear yard which is not before the Board. LARRY BUSCEMI : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that what is actually the 40 foot setback is just a corner of an angled garage rather than the subject (inaudible) which is at a conforming 60 feet no is that 50 feet. LARRY BUSCEMI : No it's about 50 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's still 10 foot off. LARRY BUSCEMI : There's a topographical reason for this request. I know you've been to the property you see that there's a precipitous drop in the back of the property and the farther back you go more fill would have to be brought in, more environmental impacts, more drainage, more everything so in order to simplify the construction and the impact on the environment and the neighbors we brought this action to bring the house closer. I provide the Board with some photographs and the approximate setbacks of the neighbors on the block not that most of the house all the houses on the street are pre-code they're all older so there's not enough technically precedent so as the character in keeping with the neighborhood most of the houses on the block are less than 40 feet on the property excuse me from the street. This would be in character in keeping with the neighborhood. The site plan side of the house specifically in this spot does not interfere with any vistas of the neighbors but have the Feast impact on the neighbor's sight lines and the aesthetics. I also provided a copy of an aerial photograph showing that there's an R40 neighborhood within a few hundred feet at the back of March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting this property where everybody has less than 60 feet of front yard setback. For what it's worth its different zoning but it still shows the character of the area. Does the Board have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes, you're basically got a blank slate and you're here for a variance for a front yard on an empty lot. Now I know there is a slope but you're not showing that on your survey or site plan. You got a pool proposed on the back and your elevations looks like the rear elevation takes the slope into account and you're quoting neighbors. Is there a variance that they got to present to us? Building permits anything to make the case because like I said right now you got a blank slate. LARRY BUSCEMI : Well as I was saying those houses that are on the block are all pre-code, they're all fifty or hundred years old. So (inaudible) variance MEMBER LEHNERT : You're showing me a plan that basically says it's flat. Now I know what's out there but I've been there. LARRY BUSCEMI : So again the further back the house goes the more fill will have to be brought in. You can build this house as of right 20 feet back and if necessary we'll do that but for the benefit of not only the homeowners but the environment, the look of the property they wanted to bring it forward. Again the main dwelling sits only at 10 foot setback variance required really it's only the garage that points out (inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : As you understand our purview is to give the least amount of relief necessary and you're stating that you can build as of right. LARRY BUSCEMI : But the relief necessary is what's in the best interest of the area isn't it? It's best interest is not bringing in dump trucks full of fill to put this house in and to dig a 3 foot deeper foundation would be necessary to bring the house back to 20 feet. MEMBER LEHNERT That's a matter of engineering. LARRY BUSCEMI : It is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add actually to the design as,l've seen it knowing the terrain, the scale of this house is essentially different than other homes that you cited in the photograph. But I think if you just place it in a conforming location and flipped the garage I guess it's the north side you still would have the same walkout basement level. It just seems like it's a difficult application to look but you're trying to take advantage and I understand of March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting the terrain but you can still place the same house just seems to me reversed on ,the lot in a conforming location. LARRY BUSCEMI : I don't believe that the slope starts that far back if that could be physically possible. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Using the survey, walking the property it's my opinion but having said that I'd have to concur with what Rob stated. LARRY BUSCEMI : We could bring a topographical survey. You've seen the slope, it's not going to change the situation. MEMBER DANTES : What about exploring design change just move that garage section back 20 feet to be in line with the rest of the house? LARRY BUSCEMI : But then that would make it even worse not better. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What about flipping the pool? LARRY BUSCEMI : The pool is not even subject to this application and if necessary (inaudible) MEMBER ACAMPORA : You're showing a proposed 36 foot pool with 25 feet between the pool and the covered porch so you know there could be some room for push back on the house. LARRY BUSCEMI : The pool is going to be down a hill is what's happening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand what the challenges are in constructing this and the desire to really have the least adverse environmental impact possible or the least amount of (inaudible) fill but Rob is correct, the Board when something is brand new unless there are unless a conforming setback would be absolutely impossible to achieve and it is considered a building lot we try and grant a very minimum variance if we have justification for granting it. I certainly (inaudible) some veracity to the slope and not to cut a lot of trees down that just adds to drainage problems and runoff and all that sort of thing. Also I don't seem to have and I might not just be finding it or maybe I don't have the second floor plans with this. LARRY BUSCEMI : Those were presented in email again they were slightly modified. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does somebody else maybe my packet is missing it I don't see a second floor plan in my packet. LARRY BUSCEMI : Are you talking about the elevation or the floor plan? .March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Floor plan not the elevations. It doesn't matter for the setback but it's just part of the total packet. While you're looking for that, does the applicant intend to do any farming in that large open field (inaudible)? LARRY BUSCEMI : I don't think so no. They do seem to have I mean it's a site plan but it does have topographical lines. I have the second floor plan. The homeowner is making the: (inaudible) it's like a cliff and then it gets level again and that's what they're contemplating (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO-r Well technically the house can just be pushed back further on the lot to a level location. LARRY BUSCEMI : What would you do about the cliff? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well there's an existing driveway that runs down the property isn't that LARRY BUSCEMI : They're putting (inaudible) the neighbor (inaudible) back yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I'm not suggesting 600 feet but absolutely it's a design choice. MEMBER DANTES I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any other questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no more questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Is there anyone on Zoom? Let me ask you this, would you consider talking to your client about just pushing the house back a little bit further? LARRY BUSCEMI : Absolutely, you want to adjourn this so we can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think if you're willing to do that I thing you heard some concerns from the Board. There's nothing across the street, there's not going to be much visual impact however we really don't have prior variances there because it all pre-dated zoning as you pointed out. Although it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood our MEMBER LEHNERT : This site plan you presented to us with the topographical information I mean you're showing a 1 foot difference between the proposed rear of the house and the next foot down in grade which is more than enough room to make this comply without cutting and filling the side of a mountain. 17i March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting LARRY BUSCEMI : Well you can't drop off a severe drop off right behind the back of the house. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's a design choice. LARRY BUSCEMI : That's going to require some sort of structural CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Then they're going to need a big deck, they're going to have a big retaining wall to have any outdoor space. That isn't to say that they can't you know put in a (inaudible) it would all be conforming. You have plenty of a side yard and rear yard. MEMBER LEHNERT : There's plenty of room on this property for a conforming house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm saying is if they do what Rob said MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) push it back the required what was it 20 feet it's a foot difference. MEMBER LEHNERT: There's a Lot of options. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's where I'm going with this, we have a lot of options and I think what would be the most prudent thing to do would be to give your client an opportunity to discuss it. We've all heard what we're talking about, why don't we just you want to adjourn this to the Special Meeting and see what gets submitted? Is that going to give you enough time? LARRY BUSCEMI : Yeah we'd like to minimize the time so we'll get whatever we'll get it done. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, Rob and I feel it could be closed I don't know if anything more to be gained. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's going to submit an amended application we should consider it. If he's going to push it back much farther we'll see how much farther back. If you feel you can actually get it all the way back to a conforming 60 feet then in fact he can just withdraw this application and we're done. LARRY BUSCEMI : But point being what if we move it back and so it's a 3 foot variance request instead of a 20 foot variance would that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I would argue if you move it 3 feet you could move it 20 feet. LARRY BUSCEMI : Well maybe you know there's some sort of topographical reason where that would be a serious problem. MEMBER LEHNERT: Well that needs to be presented. ,. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly and that's my point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean I'm willing to entertain the fact that there may be something that you know it's one thing if you traverse wooded property. To be honest I walked a little bit into it but I didn't walk all the way down, I didn't have.civil engineering (inaudible) with me to really determine what that slope was and what the number of trees that would have to be cut. I'm just simply saying before we close this if they want to try and do better we can afford them the opportunity to do that and then we can make a decision. We can close it in two weeks. LARRY BUSCEMI : I appreciate the opportunity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we can either accept the amended or you know deny it and then you will have to redesign it. LARRY BUSCEMI : Fair enough. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with everybody? I don't think there is anybody in the audience so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on March 17th. Is there a second? LARRY BUSCEMI : Another hearing on the 17th? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a public hearing, that's where we deliberate in the other building on decisions so there's no testimony. If we have your amended plans then we will discuss them. We won't have a decision because we don't know what we're looking at. So we have a motion to adjourn a second from who? MEMBER PLANAMENTO Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBRE DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING #7600—SHANNON HOLDINGS II, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Shannon Holdings II, LLC #7600. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's September 21, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 34685 NYS Rt. 25 in Orient. Would you state your name for the record. LISA POYER : Lisa Poyer with Twin Forks Permits good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Lisa. So this is a side yard setback at 3.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15 feet. LISA POYER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we've all been out there and inspected the property just so you know. What would you like to tell us? LISA POYER : So the property is 48,823 sq. ft. it's in the R40 zone. The owners are seeking relief from a side yard variance. The existing house has an existing setback of 3.2 feet for one part of the structure and then the other part is 6.1 feet due to the angle of the existing house in relation to the property line. They're looking to reconstruct this section of the residence to create a larger mudroom area, a family room, another full sized bathroom, a laundry room and storage. What exists there right now is a garage with the laundry room, storage and mud room. So they're just kind of looking to create(a family room basically converting the garage facing the family room right now. They are also looking to propose a second floor addition on top of the existing area and that would contain a family room. I'm going to go through all the dimensions of the proposed CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we have the plans, I think right everybody we got the drawings? LISA POYER : There's going to be one small addition on the street side which is the western side of 7 feet so that will expand the first floor otherwise the first floor footprint will primarily remain in the exact same location for that portion in the area of the side yard setback. Then the 6.1 foot setback would then be increased to 6.8 feet. The owners are trying to keep it within that area cause it already exists, they're trying to expand their living area just a more usable space for their family. The other portion of the house it's an old section of the house the other area it has a lot of little boxy rooms inside as you can see from the floor plans so they want to create more a media room upstairs where the family could kind of gather and watch tv relax and spend time together. The proposed second floor (inaudible) will be lower than the existing March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting roof height of the primary section which is closer to the street it's more visible. The existing house from Main Rd. and Old Main Rd. this new section will be in that back portion it will be behind the line of the existing house. The nearest neighbor the physical location is about 170 feet to the north and there's heavy vegetation between this section of the house and that residence. We have not heard anything from that neighbor with regards to any objections to the project. This has been designed to keep within the confines of what's there right now and a lot of you know the living area to the (inaudible). I'm here to answer any questions the Board or the public may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No not really, it is what it is. It's already there at the 3.2 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Basically it's a second story on top of an existing garage and there's no neighbor that will be affected by it. LISA POYER : They're 170 feet away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Anyone on Zoom? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBRE DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING #7601— KATHLEEN M. BECKER LIVING TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kathleen M. Becker Living Trust #7601. 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 construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 154 King Street (adj. to Orient Harbor) in Orient. State your name please. BARBARA COHEN : My name is Barbara Cohen I'm here on behalf of the applicant Kathleen (inaudible) Becker. I'd like to correct the record CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not M. Becker BARBARA COHEN : So the property is located 154 King St. in Orient, New York. It is a legal non- conforming irregular shaped parcel improved with a single family house on it. The proposed plan is to enlarge the house by 154 sq. ft. as the plan shows. In the space there that is adjacent to the garage the garage is where the rear yard setback which is pre-existing at 5 feet 9 inches. So that's what triggers the request. The variance is that non-conforming rear yard. As far as any of the other zoning requirements we are 40 zone district, lot coverage doesn't impact the create a further non-conformance. The other approvals before the Historic Preservation Commission are being reviewed now cause it is in the historic district although the house itself (inaudible) the house. The proposed space there is really for an office an study. The (inaudible) is for Kathleen Becker gets up in years that a lot of consideration is being done to think about to how to be able to stay in the house and function on the first floor. The improvement this enlargement is also (inaudible) larger plans to do maintenance and repairs of the house overall. It's history when it was created there was a prior variance early on that (inaudible) created the property and the house the garage apparently was pulled in from somewhere else and connected to this breezeway and that breezeway wasn't really constructed very well and you'll see the shape of the existing garage is not it's a (inaudible) traditional roof and so it's actually very difficult for a van or something on top to go into the garage. So the thought was to reframe the roof of the garage and rebuild that breezeway which then connects to the single (inaudible) area and then continue on to doing roofing, shingles and some new windows as well. So again the issue here is really (inaudible) rear yard setback that gets triggered because of those enlargements. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that setback is actually from an unpaved sort of private curbed quite a large curb looks almost like a right of way to the road, the other homes that are along they are setback considerable distances from there so there wouldn't really be any visual a 2- F March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting obstruction or impact to any other property that I can see. It's also adjacent to a very open flat grassy area. BARBARA COHEN I actually called the (inaudible) subdivision and there was actually a discussion at HPC as to what's public street what's the (inaudible) and it was determined that it's the King St. north fagade and east fagade as you can (inaudible). That road is a private road, it actually is part of several lots as (inaudible) subdivision there so it's not a public right of way in that sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat do you have any questions on this.one? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : My understanding is basically it's an interior renovation on the house and garage you're changing the roofline a little bit and not changing the footprint? BARBARA COHEN : Yeah footprints don't change at all and (inaudible) comes exactly to the same footprint. MEMBER DANTES : You're not proposing any changes to the grade of the property? BARBARA COHEN : No, we're just filling a space really. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I do have a question, I'm surprised HPC is required to review this, they really don't have jurisdiction over any historic districts only historically landmarked structures. So why is it that they're reviewing this? I'm just curious. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : Most of the houses are apparently on the historic list. BARBARA COHEN : It is strange enough that's it's actually named as The Grover House and (inaudible) but I have the original district's creation of the district I have that application I've gone through it and basically I thought okay it's a property within the historic district and it should go before them. Then it became an issue of what fagade and what's visual from the street and of course it's so set back from the street CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no visual from the street. BARBARA COHEN : Ultimately they narrowed their (inaudible) once they finally when we got to the site and understood you know the physicality of it all and it's winter so they look out the window and said okay King St. and the eastern side you know we can see Willow St. because March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting the back of the (inaudible) there's no building so you can see the Willow Terrace so okay we're (inaudible) hopefully the next pre-submission hearing will be the end of you know of all this discussion and discovery because we finally narrowed down jurisdictions so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our Notice of Disapproval includes HPC approval so you know we would condition any approval we grant relative to their approval. Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nothing, I had a difficult time finding it however. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I just happened to know where it is. I didn't but that was one of the few times that I knew where I was actually driving to. Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did see the sign yes we did. There's a lot of lots in that area in general you know we see quite a few of them that are very irregular all pre-dating zoning. Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBRE DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING #7602—GLENN and MARGARET SOLOMON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Glenn and Margaret Solomon #7602. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 15, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to rebuild an existing single family dwelling destroyed of fire, 1) located less than the code required minimum secondary front yard setback of 25 feet, 2) located less than the code 4 March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 358 Ark Hill Rd (Private Rd. off of East End Rd.) on Fishers Island, Sam welcome. SAM FITZGERALD : Thank you, thank you good to see everyone again. My name is Sam Fitzgerald appearing on behalf of the owners. Glen and Margaret Solomon. Just a quick background on this application-in June of 2021 a fire broke out in the Solomon's house this is in the Shingle Hill neighborhood. Thankfully the Solomon's weren't there they hadn't arrived for the summer yet and no one else was in the house and no one was hurt thankfully. The fire started in an exterior wall.The house was over a hundred years old and it had the old fashioned balloon framing which allowed the fire to climb up the wall very quickly into the eaves and then spread into the rafters and then the whole roof went and so it's actually in this case the house burned from the top down. It was a tragic total loss. The Fire Department actually did a great job of containing the fire so it didn't spread to any adjoining properties and I'd just like to just say a hearty thank you to Mike Verity in the Building Department, the fire happened on a Saturday afternoon and Mike was there on Sunday morning and he was able to condemn the house which is the first step in getting a demolition going. This Shingle Hill neighborhood is the most 'densely populated on Fishers Island and it's a favorite of young families like the Solomon's. Tons of kids who ,run around everyone's yard so it was crucial that we got the site contained, cleaned up and secured as soon as possible and Mike was very instrumental on that. So now in the rebuilding process the Solomon's lot is non-conforming, it's way undersized for its zone. It's a wedge shaped lot, three sides, two front yards and a rear yard. The existing house is non-conforming in one of the front of the front yard setbacks and the rear yard setback. There's no places you can move the house on the property that would make it conforming. Now Mike told us early on that if we were to rebuild an exact replica of the existing house in the same exact location that he would give us a building permit to rebuild and not have to get a zoning variance as good as it to see all of you but it's always been our intention to build a house back in the same or build the same house back in the same location. In the process what we thought was that if we could make some tweaks to the house that would significantly improve the house let's do that. So the proposal that we have in front of you is very similar to the existing house but with some tweaks. So the site plan you see on the screen here nearly identical to the existing, we've bumped out the footprint just a little bit. I think that we're adding 75 sq. ft. to the footprint. There's a back porch that's been expanded but generally speaking it's really of the same footprint. One big improvement that we're proposing is that we move the house back from the front yard so currently along Arch Hill Rd. we have a 10.4 setback and we'd like to move the house back 18 feet or thereabouts so that we have 18.5 foot setback. So this will give some relief to the Solomon's from the public right of way and certainly be of benefit to the neighborhood. But otherwise the rear yard setback stays exactly the same. That's it I think zoning wise. One other improvement we're making is the old house March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting on the second floor of the old house was built completely within the roof so you had you know it was a (inaudible) they have six bedrooms up there and all contained within the roof, no side walls really to speak of. So they did this with a lot of dormers some tricky framing, all the bedrooms had sloped ceilings you know they were really low ceiling heights along the perimeter of the house along the eaves so what we would like to do is raise the second floor height so we have a normal ceiling height throughout and then we'll put back on a roof that is of a similar type and style as the existing but is a lot simpler. But again that height conforms to zoning. So I think that's the summary, if you guys have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I don't have any, I,think it's a really terrible loss but you know in the neighborhood that's very tight knit and is used to seeing old structures (inaudible) and it sounds to me that you're going to make some slight improvements and if you did exactly what was there then you wouldn't even be before the Board. So I don't have any questions, I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Everything on that road is non-conforming. I don't think there's anything that's conforming and look at the lot there's no way we're going to be able to.make it on that triangle other than non-conforming. Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No you can probably make it look old if you asked him to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sure it will be in context. SAM FITZGERALD : Everyone is committed to ensuring that the house fits in architecturally with the surrounding houses. Certainly that's a huge restoration and something that we will absolutely make sure happens, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about you Nick, anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no one.in the audience. Anyone on Zoom? Pat is there anything from you on this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nothing from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is.there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. • March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBRE DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries, we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7604—W.JONATHAN FABB/WJF FARMS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBRE DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Welcome everybody. Liz do you want to go over the is there anybody on Zoom at the moment? Why don't you just review how they can participate if they want to make comments. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. Good afternoon everyone, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask that you raise your hand. Once you do that we will give you further instructions on how you will be able to speak. If you are using a phone please press *9 to raise your hand. We will see it and then we will let you know what you need to do next. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board this afternoon is for W. Jonathan Fabb/WJF Farms, LLC #7604. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's November 1, 2021 Notice if Disapproval based on an March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting application for a permit to construct an agricultural pole barn/shed at 1) shed located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 12595 Oregon Rd. in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? Please come forward and state your name for the record. WILLIAM FABB : William Fabb owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi nice to meet you. WILLIAM FABB : Nice to meet you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a proposed storage building with a side yard setback at 10 feet where the code requires a minimum of 20 feet. WILLIAM FABB : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You also need Planning Board site plan approval. WILLIAM FABB : Which I've already been granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay let me make a note of that. WILLIAM FABB : The only thing that's open on the Planning Board is a small revision on color of the building and they had one question on the engineer revision on the drainage for parking but otherwise we worked through everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you tell us what that storage building is being proposed for? WILLIAM FABB : Yes I operate a certified organic farm so it's a smaller site and for us to put our equipment on and off the farm we need to have wash records and things so we're asking the Board to allow us to grant us the side yard setback variance because of the size of that lot. It's going to push us into the middle of our crop rows okay so by moving us off to the west side which in essence is in the middle of between my farm and Zuhoski farm it also allows us to encompass our irrigation well and put all of our utilities and things right there. It will be solely used for our organic tractors and equipment for that farm. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, what crops are you growing? WILLIAM FABB : We are currently in squash, zucchinis, tomatoes, carrots vegetables. We also have a certified organic hemp product as well which we utilize for oncology patients so we have a couple of different things going on there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the storage building then is for farm equipment. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting WILLIAM FABB : Farm equipment solely, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and what are you going to be using the barn for? WILLIAM FABB : The equipment barn? Which is the one the variance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That one needs a variance but you have two you have a pole barn. WILLIAM FABB : The other one is going to be offices as well as washing and processing in there for packaging and it's also got bathrooms for the employees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The barn is for processing and offices. Well you may or may not know but the Board goes out and inspects all properties before a hearing so we've seen what's surrounding and (inaudible) adjacent to a nursery. WILLIAM FABB : Basically that building that we're proposing the variance for we need to leave a buffer for Zuhoski's because of the (inaudible) sprays insecticides and things from our crops so it fits nicely because that building fits right into our buffer zone there so then it doesn't interfere with valuable space that we need for our crops. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood. Let's see if the Board has any questions, anything from you_Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Why go through this, why not just move it over 10 feet? WILLIAM FABB : Cause it's a hardship for us because'the way our crops run north and south then that would push us into our row spacing. Everything is fed with drip lines and irrigation and that would mean reworking all of our irrigation mains and things like that. MEMBER DANTES : Can you just describe how much work that would be. WILLIAM FABB : It would be excavation, it would be approval from the Department of Agriculture. We've also go full approval on this from Suffolk County. So if I have to go back for what's already been approved which was started back in '19 then I need to go back through the process of the county as well as far as (inaudible) the Farmland Commission with Suffolk County. Suffolk County then has us go through to generate a site plan, then we went through all the meetings with them as well. They finally approved this site plan back in 2020, then we went in front of the Department of Health for the bathrooms, was able to grant that and then we were simultaneously working with Planning which Planning now has gone through so now the only issue left is the variance from the west side of the farm. We set that back it's almost 675 feet off the road. Our neighboring farm the Zuhoski's both have signed off on this, they don't feel that there's a problem with that we work closely with them. So we're trying to keep it off March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting the road in back as far as we can. There's also a permitted well right there for all the crops so it works well for us to be able to keep everything in that location. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could you verify or clarify for me, is this development rights sold land? WILLIMA FABB : This is development rights sold land to the county. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The county easement and it's one hundred percent sold so this is one hundred percent preserved land. WILLIMA FABB : That's correct. The county is allowing to back up development rights as long as you have a bona fide farm. So if you're an agricultural entity which we are they're allowing you to be able to operate because let's face it with equipment costs and things that are going on now you need to house the stuff, you can't leave it out in the middle of the field so they're allowing you to go back through with site plan, it took a while to get through but we basically got it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Does the sale of development rights easement have like a reserve developable area for agricultural structures? WILLIMA FABB : Not in this case no. Now if somebody was going to preserve agricultural lands moving forward they can box out either a building lot or something like that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this lot is stripped of its development rights and you're entitled under agricultural use to place buildings anywhere on the property? WILLIAM FABS Yes with siteplan approval. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right the Suffolk County AG and WILLIAM FABB : Farmland Committee. MEMBER DANTES : They were the ones who own the easement so they can make modifications to it? WILLIAM FABB : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No, nothing from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : No Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the survey and site plan I noticed that the farm stand that he had isn't included. WILIAM FABB : That is correct, that is our farm stand. When we originally planned that because of COVID we were extremely limited. I'm trying to be able to keep ourselves afloat so I worked with the Building Department okay and we were able to put up the 3,000 sq. ft. without a building permit for a farm stand based on what we were allowed so because of the character and the things that we've done we went and we actually took down that grain silo from our neighboring farm that we're also operating on conventionally and we utilized that for our farm stand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBRE DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. We'll have the decision in two weeks. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7605—JEANNETTE and JEFFERY WILKE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jeannette and Jeffery Wilke #7605. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 4, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 3380 Oaklawn Ave. in Southold. So this is additions and alterations to a dwelling with a single side yard setback at 10 feet the code requiring a minimum of 15. EILEEN WINGATE : We have an existing garage/shed (inaudible) so the clients were thinking that when that comes down the house is only 1,000 sq. ft. and they need some garage space, some workshop space, some storage space above the garage. In looking at the site because it's waterfront the limitations were extremely Limited. So the architect came up with a solution of attaching the garage to the house that it would be under one roof and we could try to use the existing line of the house and (inaudible) the garage in a logical place where it would (inaudible). So in trying to locate a two car garage with some storage we felt it was most appropriate to keep it in line with the existing building and not get involved in any kind of waterfront activity. We barely slide by the 100 foot now but it's nice that we won't have to take out any mature trees, disrupt the waterfront too much. We thought this was a good location to grab some extra space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is an attached garage, it's going to have the same side yard setback as the EILEEN WINGATE : the existing house. There's a big cutout as you see between the garage and house and that was so that we didn't have to fool with windows, that we didn't have to fool with so the contact that we've made with the very old cottage is very minimal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have lots of good photos and as you know we've all been out to the site and seen it. Let's see if the Board has any questions here, Rob I'll start with you. MEMBER LEHNERT : I understand why you're doing it along the back Line of the house but you couldn't find 5 feet somewhere to move it? EILEEN WINGATE : We really couldn't because what it does is it advances into the yard significantly and what we did was because the grade there's a really nice gentle slope on the property, we dug the proposed structure into the ground so we have I think it's 36 or 42 inch wall so we've actually lowered the height of the garage to 19.2 which is exactly the same height as the neighbor's garage. So we set it down tried to squash it down so that it's not as big as it might be from the clients side but you know you start turning it ninety degrees it starts eating March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting up your entire space not to mention we have some mature trees and the whole front half of the property is unusable because then we're into D.E.C. and Trustees and MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm just talking about sliding it 5 feet to get your setback and make it comply. EILEEN WINGATE : It does impact the way the house works, I hear you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should point out that it's paralleling an existing garage on the neighbor's property that has a 3.6 foot side yard setback. I'm sure that there are lots of non- conformities in that neighborhood. Are you aware of any particular prior variance relief for side yard setbacks in there? EILEEN WINGATE : I didn't research all it's a private road so there's really only two houses on (inaudible) so no but I did go into Trustees and looked at what kind of applications they had in the past. I didn't come up with any variances for either property. I didn't look too hard for variances I was all over Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is a rather unique property, it's very isolated from other properties. How about you Nick, any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think Rob basically asked what I was inquiring about. The only other thought I had which I can understand the reasoning when somebody wants an attached garage but it seems that by right you could also have an accessory garage in a compliant location if it were to replace the freestanding one. EILEEN WINGATE : A detached garage requires more space on the side yards. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's not the front yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it's still in the front yard but in fact it would require a greater side yard setback than the dwelling. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Detached accessory would be set to meet the minimum front yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's for a front yard we're looking at a side yard setback. MEMBER DANTES : Right but it's usually less like 5 feet for an accessory garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Depending on the size. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting EILEEN WINGATE : Then if we detached it's very hard to locate and it wants to be convenient too, it is storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, I mean the applicant wants to have an attached garage. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Come forward and state your name. ROBERT HERZOG : Good afternoon Members of the Zoning Board. My name is Robert Herzog. My property address is 3392 Oaklawn Ave. Southold, New York 11971 and I own the property directly to the west of the applicant for the variance. My home and the applicant's home are on a private road and my property is the only property affected. There are no other homes in close proximity. I am here because I object to my neighbor's application to do the garage and storage area with less than the required 15 foot setback from the property line. The applicant's survey shows that the extension would be 10 feet from my property line from the property line not just my property line. It would be 10 feet from the property line that would mean the extension variance would be (inaudible) wide and 41 feet long. That is expanding non-conforming that was a word that they used in the application conforming and non-conforming. That is expanding the non-conforming part of his house by 205 sq. ft. I will be looking at the west side of his house being 55 feet wide, two stories high and I'm going to feel boxed in because we really have open spaces around the homes now. The open space providing me views of the surrounding area will be gone and I'll feel boxed in. The extension is very large and does not comply to the character of the neighborhood. The applicant's home is 1,160 sq. ft. and the proposed extension is 860 sq. ft. that is a 74% increase in the size of his home. It also two stories high and much taller than his home. Requesting a variance so close to the property line is not (inaudible) to me because of its large size. It is a detriment to my property because of its closeness, the water runoff from the roof, the water runoff from the construction of a 3 foot deep retaining wall needed to recess the extension floor. I also object to the variance because it is not necessary to enable a reasonable use of his property. Applicant's property is 29,984 sq. ft. and his house and garage are on the west side of the property line. There is a large amount of property not (inaudible) on. The variance proposal is self-created and the position can be located in an alternate location with the 15 foot setback and no variance required. The plans for the extension have no direct access to the house making an alternate location no problem. If you don't have access to the house you can move it anywhere you want. There is no hardship because it can be easily located with a 15 foot setback. I spoke with Mr. Wilke the applicant in September and he said the variance would enable him to enlarge his bedroom and provide a place for guests to sleep above the garage. The dormers on either side of the roof were for ventilation and light. His camper that was between his garage and my garage is no longer available for sleeping. The camper was connected to a cesspool on his property making the extension easily connected in the future. Mr. Wilke also had a large tree removed that was on March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting my property without asking for my permission because it was close to the property line and it would interfere with his extension. If the applicant has changed his thinking and the extension is actually for a garage and storage area that he is applying for and not to expand his bedroom sleeping on the second floor then it is definitely not required to relocate with a 15 foot setback but the applicant is saying I need a variance because the ordinance of a 15 foot setback is preventing me from doing what I want to do. What I am saying is I am not objecting to an extension, I am objecting to where you want to put it. It should be set back 15 feet, I see no problem with moving it back 5 feet, 15 feet to a property line no problem he doesn't need a variance for that. Again I ask the Board please do not approve this application. Thank you. JEANNETTE WILKE : I'm Jeannette Wilke. I guess I would like to maybe these are some things that I don't think are actually accurate. Our property is not 29,000 sq. ft. it's 21,511 so there's a difference there. There is an attached the area where we want to attach there is access from the house into the attached (inaudible) into the garage. (inaudible) pool structure back 5 feet and the question is obvious why we need to have that. You would then be attaching (inaudible) storage there would be an extension in that area otherwise if you move it 5 feet you now you'd be where the kitchen sink is and the stove. So from the point of the interior layout of the house those are just something to look at. EILEEN WINGATE : I've been working with the Wilke family for about a year and a half now, never once and I have asked on numerous occasions are you going to use this for sleeping, are you going to have a bathroom up there? Why don't you do it, 'I encouraged them to put up a full blown space up there and repeatedly they told me it's for storage, it's a place to get away, people will not be sleeping there, it's not that kind of space. MEMBER DANTES : I mean proposals of what they may or may not due in the future are not really part of our hearing here today. We can only review what's on the plans before us. EILEEN WINGATE : That's a surprise to me. ROBERT HERZOG : Every survey I saw said added 29,860 plus feet. EILEEN WINGATE : Th.is is very interesting to me folks, if you look at the last survey of Mr. Metzger's dated June 15th which was in your package. It's very interesting because at the top it says 29,594 and if you go to the bottom and you go to the area it's only 21,594 which puts them 1,500 sq. ft. above the next level which would have allowed them to have what they're asking for and I did the math and 1,594 sq. ft. is a little bit more than 7%. MEMBER DANTES : I understand why it's because the 29 includes some underwater land and the 21 is land that is March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The buildable area. Do you understand the difference? Part of their property is underwater. ROBERT HERZOG : I understand that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's where.the 29,594 sq. ft. that you saw is on this survey. The bottom is 21,594 because that is what the buildable lot area is. That's how lot coverage is calculated. ROBERT HERZOG : But according to the town if it was only 21,000 sq. ft. they wouldn't need a variance (inaudible) 10 feet their property line. Is that correct? MEMBER DANTES : No, you have to be below 20,000 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Below 20,000 so they're just borderline. If it was just a matter of about 1000 sq. ft. they would then be conforming with what they're proposing. So because they're about 1000 sq. ft. more than what would allow for the 10 foot setback they're required to have 15. EILEEN WINGATE : Then if you do the calculations on having a detached garage then they have to be 20 feet off the property line if it were completely detached and part of that little indent right there was really to preserve the corner window. Do you remember the corner window, it's this very cute antique little window and if we were to slide the garage 5 feet we would be looking at a very different impact on the original cottage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Okay, I think I get it. Let me see is there anybody else in the audience who wants to address the Board, anybody on Zoom? Pat if you have any questions unmute yourself otherwise just shake your head no. Eric anything else from you? Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we're ready to.close is that correct? Alright 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 March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBRE DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. We should have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#76035E—BRIDGET CLARK RYMER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for, Bridget Clark Rymer #7603SE. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner of subject property requesting-authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure located at 7825 Soundview Ave. in Southold. I'm sure you don't have this yet, you know we are required to go to the Building Department send them over the application to calculate the livable floor area of the proposed dwelling to see if it conforms to the code. As it turns out John Nesconsi calculated 452 sq. ft.; what John was calculating basically is the size of the garage just from wall to wall and that is an accurate calculation. However the Building Department based on your floor plans calculated this at 411 sq. ft. cause they remove some certain things on the back of the closet whatever that you can't live in. So in order to receive the minimum size conforming is 450 sq. ft. It certainly doesn't make any sense for us to tell you to add an addition to your garage so what we can do in this case is it will require a variance for being under the minimum by how many square feet are we looking at 39 sq. ft. we will have to take that into account when writing up this decision. So you submitted an indication that this is for your mother to reside in provided birth certificate, marriage certificate what else do we have? We have several letters from neighbors four I think in support of your application and we see that you know it's completely empty and we see that it's completely empty an unfinished garage. So I think that's it for me. I mean you either check the boxes or you don't. Let's see if the Board has any problems or questions. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually I do. Just a couple sort of points of interest. I think it's all (inaudible) but one there's no parking plan. I know you have a large parking area and it's a long driveway, do we need anything revised to illustrate the parking or I'm fine with seeing the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think if we observed that there is adequate on-site parking you only need one parking space there were two of us there at the same time and we March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : There's plenty of parking. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay footnote that, the other thing a copy of the lease perhaps you can share a copy of the lease between your mother and yourself. Just email it to Kim. And then the third thing,I just wanted to in your application since you cited that your daughter is moving out of the house there's no change in occupancy etc. actually the Building Department will require you to go the Board of Health to verify the septic installation etc. so I just wanted to footnote that. We may grant the Special Exception more than housekeeping sort of improvements. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So condition of approval is going to be approval from the Health Department for the septic. The Building Department will look at that anyway before you start construction they will have to examine the septic system so just want you to be prepared for that. It's not a burdensome it just needs the, actual approval in case there is a change (inaudible) what's already there they'll have to make that decision. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie one other thing I was thinking, the plans they submitted do we have original copies Kim? I have just copies they're not signed or stamped. BOARD SECRETARY : The originals would be in the file. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So we do have them? BOARD SECRETARY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you on this one? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. CHAIRPERON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? ROB ELLIODROMYDIS : Good afternoon, my name is Rob Eliodromytis I'm a direct neighbor across the street from the house. I received a letter regarding this application and I thought that it was my duty to come and speak about this. I recently had a project going on in the neighborhood and when I went to my neighbors for support it was overwhelmingly a yes. I got support letters from my neighbors everybody was showing up and they helped out so I thought this might it's my job to do the right thing. I'm touched for the reasons that they want to do it. Several years ago I was able, to put my parent back from overseas and care for them before unfortunately I lost both of them so I think it's very it's a blessing that they're able to do that to take care of their mom. The other thing is the structure exists, they're not making any changes to the property no site point changes and I don't see any objections. I don't see any problem March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting with it. Again I think it's overwhelmingly yes for me. You said something about the minimum square footage has to be 450 sq. ft. and they were a little underneath that, I can't tell by the plans this copy here of 8 % by 11 what the elevations are of the structure but if they're able to create a partial mezzanine like for a sleeping area would that be included in square footage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's required to all be on one floor one habitable floor and you have to do it in part by state building code what square footage is considered a dwelling and not an apartment it's 850 so am I right on that? MEMBER DANTES : 850 for a dwelling but 350 is (inaudible) for an apartment. ROB ELIODROMYTIS : So for an apartment is 350? MEMBER DANTES : Our code is 450 (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a huge difference and the livable floor area is calculated differently than the square footage the overall square footage because what John (inaudible) calculated was the square footage and not the livable square footage. So I just want to make sure that you understood that cause we just got this piece of paper what this morning maybe. BOARD SECRETARY : Yes I received it this morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we'll get you a copy just so you have it in your files. Thank you very much. ROB ELIODROMYTIS : (inaudible) the neighbors and I think they're going to be respectful to the project and to the surrounding areas. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it seems that the only thing that we'd like to get from you is just a copy of the lease just to verify the (inaudible) and of course we can easily get it even though it's not built yet we can show intent. BRIDGET RYMER : And it would just be dated as MEMBER DANTES : You can type up something just saying lease to my mother for a dollar a year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah just have her sign it and just indicate so that we have her on the application. Sometimes if it's a family member they'll be here to testify that indeed they intend to BRIDGET RYMER : I think she's on Zoom. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Your mother's name is Simon? She lives by Simon? BRIDGET RYMER : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Bridget just as a reminder also while your mom is in residency if and when you ever want to rent it, it does goes through the Government Liaison Officer to an affordable housing list you can choose from. BRIDGET RYMER : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : Or if you have another family member. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly. JOSEFA SIMON : So if I had another family member CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be fine you just have to let the Building Department know who is living in it. All rental properties have an annual inspection. BRIDGET RYMER : Hi mom. You may have heard they were asking to write up a lease agreement for a dollar a year or something so I guess I'll come by this afternoon and sign that. Did you want her to verify her intent to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. Can she just verify that she indeed is intending to live there that's all. JOSEFA SIMON : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright short and sweet. Okay mom thank you. Anything else from the Board? Is there anyone in the audience? BRIDGET RYMER : Is there anything that I need to do in terms of the variance for the square footage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we're not going to charge you for a variance application. It's one of those things (inaudible) rigmarole you have to go back to the Building Department to get a Notice of Disapproval. I use their livable floor area form as a de facto variance when they say it's not conforming. So typically as a courtesy we will roll that variance into this decision. Normally people go to the Building Department first but with Special Exception Permits you come directly to the Zoning Board so it's a little bit the opposite way. So we send it to them they send it back if okay and if it's not then we have to do something about the variance or if it's really egregious deny it. Is that alright Board? Okay hearing no further questions or March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting comments motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date subject to receipt of a lease. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBRE DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING # 7606— DONYA KAUFER O'BRIEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Donya Kaufer O'Brien #7606.This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-13C and a request to overturn the Building Inspector's October 15, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize an "as built" conversion of an existing accessory garage to an artist studio at 1) the proposed use in the accessory garage to an artist studio at 1) the proposed use in the accessory building is not a permitted accessory use located at 2500 Grand Ave. in Mattituck. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of Donya O'Brien. I have Ms. O'Brien here with me, she's the artist. I also have family and friends with her to support her. Most of this is already in written format to the Board but I will just point out this is an existing 16 by 22 accessory structure. It was built in 1987 with a set of plans and got a building permit and a C of 0. The building permit was for an accessory structure this C.O. says garage but the house has a two bay garage. It appeared from its inception that it's been used as an accessory building more than a garage. It had a garage door previously and it had been the ex-husbands call it a workshop or man cave whatever. We think that when he was the owner he may have added the heat source, it could have been there before we just really don't know she really didn't pay attention to identify when it went in but it clearly looks like it's been there at least twenty years. So Donya is actually the owner of Metal Monk. Some of you may recognize her from the store in Greenport, she's owned that store for the last twenty years. If you've been in the store you know most of it is jewelry, beautiful jewelry arts and crafts. Donya is actually wearing one March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting of her pieces on her neck. I said to her put something that she's done before. So this space think mostly during the pandemic is when she found she needed the quiet space and you know everything being shut down this became a work space for her to just be creative. It has no water, it has no sanitary, it's just an open space and this has a big table with a lot of beading on it. I don't know if you got a chance to look inside or not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We looked through the windows because somehow our wires got crossed and we all showed up and we crossed paths. PAT MOORE : But you would have been welcomed but I'm glad you looked in the window. It is what it is, it's an open space with tables and lights and just clearly just a work space. With regard to all of the criteria that you've established through previous decisions as far as converting the use of an accessory building to an artist studio the Board has said in prior decisions. As you know it is it has to be customary accessory as a work space to your creative not as a retail space and that is in fact what has been the case. She has a retail facility so there is no need to do retail here nor any intention to do retail here. I outlined the whole list of criteria that the Board has used as part of your application process. There's no display of any artwork, there's nothing as I said a work space. She can state for herself what she does in it but what Donya has told me it's she can do a little bit of drawing, she can do it's mostly a lot of bead work. I did ask for her to give me some examples of things that she's done in the shop recently and they're items that she's been able to donate. It's just you know little projects here, apologize I don't have multiples of this but you can see it it's not very there's beading on boards. Here's something a little more elaborate, these are things that have just been done more recently and I'll just put it into your file. You have everything from us in writing so I think it would be good for us to respond to any questions you have rather than elaborate on what is already in written format for the Board. Let me also give you we do have a letter of support from the neighbor on the (inaudible) on the left so if you're facing the house on the right from a Nicole Mercurio. I remind the Board that this is on a one acre parcel on Grand Ave. and you can see the property is a very lovely landscaped she's been working on fixing up the house so the house would be painted and it looks lovely and this building the reason it drew some attention is because the garage door needed replacing and rather than put another garage door in she replaced the garage door with two windows, all non-structural and when the Building Department originally went Code Enforcement went over there they noted that it wasn't structural but here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think there was an issue with the wood burning stove. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes we needed to get a permit for the wood burning stove cause that didn't show up on the original permit, we don't know if it was part of the original permit but (inaudible) people work in the eighties for permits that were not the most elaborate so MEMBER DANTES : You're not here for any of that I mean the wood burning stove the electric that's all you can do that as of right. PAT MOORE : Yes correct, well the electric was the building already had electrical certificate when it was built and they never changed the electric so the electric is in place. The window as you point out the only windows were the ones that replaced the garage the other windows were there and then there was trim work and paint pretty much white washing everything and that's about the extent of the work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well actually Arthur the Code Enforcement Official was the one who put a violation in on the wood burning stove so it can't be done as of right. MEMBER DANTES : No? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No MEMBER DANTES : Why not? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a violation on it. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : It might not need a variance but it needs a permit. MEMBER LEHNERT : Just looking through the windows it's not far enough away the walls it doesn't have a masonry PAT MOORE : It actually was done properly because it does have the fire board. (inaudible) it was just a matter of putting in the building permit application with the specs and because it's old you have to find the specs and so we did ultimately put in an application CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : an application? PAT MOORE : Oh yea we put it in but that's when the use became an issue and it was all around January, February when the Building Department wasn't quite sure if the art studio was allowed, not allowed we were still on that issue of a workshop/art studio are permitted and then the Board starting coming out with decisions so it took a little bit of time before it was kind of pathway was provided that allowed us then to put in the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You indicated here that occasionally some clients might visit to see how she creates her work, have there ever been any demonstrations done. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I'll have you speak to that Donya, and this is her piece. DONYA KAUFER : Hi, I'm Donya. To be honest I did not know what I could and couldn't do as far as having clients come visit a work in progress I thought it would be fun, many of them are my friends and you know and I'll show a picture of what I'm working on on a big piece (inaudible). It's new a new way of engaging people with (inaudible). Then when you told me I didn't know stuff and then you were like no you can't do that I was fine I don't want to mess this up. So whatever guidance I was given and through you what you guys said I'm happy to comply. Now as far as the stove that's going to mess these things up I don't care about the stove. I mean it's cold out there but I want my space. PAT MOORE : We're getting a permit so that's I mean it has no water so and I think the Board in the past has allowed a toilet and sink which is in an accessory building you're allowed to have that. You don't have it (inaudible) close enough to the house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No classes are permitted, no demonstrations are permitted. DONYA KAUFER : I like to be alone ma'am and I don't I'm not a good teacher. I prefer to work my name is Metal Monk it's my little (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's interesting because you say Metal Monk but you're mostly working in beads. Do you do any welding or DONYA KAUFER : I was trained in I have a BFA from the Bronx School of Design and there trained as a goldsmith and (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you (inaudible) soldering you know (inaudible) DONYA KAUFER : I haven't done it in a while, I know how my first line of jewelry in 1998 was chunky sterling silver with Keltic patterns and like (inaudible)jewelry and there's another brand called (inaudible) Parts (inaudible) play on words so I came up with Metal Monk it's supposed to be kind of like (inaudible) and that's the name but ironically in Greenport they all see the metal sculptures I have and stuff and you know how they're made they come in and they think I made them and I told them about my friends USA (inaudible) and let them do these shows and it's just kind of a funny thing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's not your work that's the (inaudible) sell at the store. DONYA KAUFER : Yea I find that metal art is one of my biggest most popular artist that I have there but I know how to do it that's what people are surprised about cause like I'll get a guy oh do you have a this and a that you know I can do that myself and I'm like really you go buy this and this and this and I can speak to it. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because although you know small jewelry where you're just using flux to put a clasp on that's not welding but because it's in a residential zone (inaudible) permitted. I know the process that you use. DONYA KAUFER : (inaudible) jointed, I haven't done any production soldering I frankly stink at it, it's just (inaudible) work and (inaudible) pieces. After COVID I sorted I spent a whole year sorting my inventory and trying not to freak out and panic as the (inaudible) and I organized my inventory not knowing if I have (inaudible). So then I organized and I was this is what I have to do this is what I have to work with right so then I started the mosaicking and it's an organic process (inaudible) it's a creative process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's okay I have a BFA also among other things, University of Michigan, Wayne State University all in Detroit. Let's see if there's any questions from the Board, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Please come forward and state your name. WAYNE SAILOR : Hi good afternoon, my name is Wayne Sailor. I own and occupy the property at 2730 Grand Ave. immediately contiguous to the applicant Donya O'Brien Kaufer. Please note my objection to the application and my request that relief requested by the applicant be denied. I have reviewed the application and have a few comments thereof. Please note that the application seeks relief under the wrong section of the town code. Counsel sites 280.13 which regulates usage in R80, R120, R200 and R400 districts. The applicant's property is in an R40 zone which is regulated under 280.17 of the code. Section 280.17 is silent as to the intended proposed and I submit the actual unlawful use outline in the application. Furthermore, applicant avers that no one else will use the art studio. She further avers that's in paragraph two which I submitted she further avers, there is no employees, this space is a private studio for Donya Kaufer O'Brien to create. Paragraph four, she further avers, there is no discernib.le difference to amongst other things traffic. Paragraph five. She also avers that this is a private home with no display of artwork. Paragraph six, in response to the above I submitted based on 4.51 March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting my observation of the unlawful use of the structure over the past two years that number one, many people use the structure. There are frequently other people entering and remaining in the structure for extended periods of times sometimes into the evening. Number two, I submit that the structure is a place of employment where products are manufactured for sale online and elsewhere. A person known to me as Rachael or as Donya calls her (inaudible) is usually present and I further submit is likely an employee of the applicant. Number three, there is daily traffic of delivery service vehicles in and out of the applicant's driveway suggesting to me that the applicant is running a commercial operation from that structure. The applicant does display artwork in the windows of the structure facing my property which is also visible to the public roadway. I will provide photos to support this. It should be noted that the applicant has editorialized on the internet categorizing this structure as a workshop. Evidence of such will be provided to the Board. In conclusion I respectfully submit that the use outlined in the applicant's pleading is a pretense and if granted the relief requested will continue to be used as a workplace for the manufacture and sale of goods and a place of employment for persons other than the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. Would you like to respond? PAT MOORE : Oh yea sure. Is he done? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so. PAT MOORE : So let's start with Rachael who he avers is her employee. This is Rachel, Donya has a nine year old daughter. I have a picture of her, lovely little girl and Rachel is her mother's helper, babysitter, laundry, dishes and friend. So the fact that she's in the space with her nine year old all in the same space does not constitute employee or anything to do with what is I believe the intention behind the code which is you hire people to manufacture or produce products on site. It's her home, it's her residence and Mr. Sailor is very vigilant, in fact we and I'll provide for the Board a record, he has place video cameras facing my client's property the back yard which is a civil rights violation. We served him personally notifying him of this and the camera is still up. So inside the space you had seen there's a little desk there that's where the daughter is, that's her little like homework desk and the camera is on his property facing directly where the window and her desk it. It's been very difficult, very unfortunately you can't choose your neighbors and we've asked MEMBER DANTES : Can you please stick with the variance please. PAT MOORE : We're just addressing so there are no employees there that are creating, this is her private creation space. It's her home so you might have people come to do housecleaning, you may have typical it's her house. If you count who comes to your house you know nobody March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting knows whose visiting who is .there visiting and it's nobody's business. It has nothing to do with the proposed art studio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you address the idea of regular deliveries? DONYA KAUFER : I don't like going shopping, I order everything on Amazon, (inaudible) underwear, toilet paper I mean that's about I mean who doesn't order from Amazon? MEMBER DANTES : Daily delivery at my house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to distinguish between personal delivery is an occurrence that all of us are inclined to order online and delivery of products that are used in (inaudible) if you are in business. DONYA KAUFER : All that is sent to Greenport. I don't my manage Kerry there does all that stuff. I'm not good at it, I don't even quite (inaudible) right labels on things. MEMBER DANTES : So there's no tracker trailers dropping off goods at your house or dropping off DONYA KAUFER : No just UPS guys and Amazon things. He orders tons of stuff. It's fishing stuff too but it doesn't come on tracker trailers. There was a giant cement truck there for a couple of weeks or so but that wasn't mine it was my neighbors and I said nothing. It looks good whatever they did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me see if the Board has any questions, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else? WAYNE SAILOR : Yes please. I'd like to just interject a few things. They talk about regular deliveries, I understand that people get regular deliveries. This is a constant flow of Fed Ex, Amazon, UPS constantly delivering packages back and forth and constantly having packages going out three, four, five times a day. I live directly next door I have witnessed this. They stop in the middle of the street they put on their hazards, they go back and forth to the property it's creating it's merchandise being there's something leaving that residence quite a bit more than getting socks and underwear deliveries. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, that's speculation sir, I mean we don't really know I asked them to respond. Anyone is free to have as many deliveries personal deliveries to their home as they want. It has nothing to do with the Zoning Board and by the way just so you're aware that the section that deals with the permitted or non-permitted use in the accessory structure what March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting counsel over here was citing was a prior determination that this Board made that overturned a Notice of Disapproval saying it wasn't a permitted use in a residential zone because we listed I think almost twenty four conditions under which we would then say it 'is incidental to the principle dwelling. It is a personal use only, it is not a business use and that's it in a nut shell. So the Building.Department continues to turn.,this down because they are in no position without a public hearing to decide whether that individual meets all those standards. We have to inspect the property, we have to question them, they have to provide information saying yes I'm a qualified artist, yes I make a living at it, no I don't sell anything directly out of the property and so on. There's a long list, it's not coming from the code it's coming from a decision that's been made how long ago now what like two years ago now? Yea like two years ago. Once the Board makes a decision it becomes de facto code, it becomes something the Building Department upholds but in this case they asked us what to do and I said you need to send that to us because they are in no position, what are they going to do ask you to come in an grill you at the counter? So that's why we have the public hearing to make sure that they're conforming to all those things that we said and if the following is true then it is accessory and for personal use. the owner of the dwelling. WAYNE SAILOR : My question would be also if the Board would refer to the report of the investigator Arthur Bloom where Ms. O'Brien states that this is her secret studio where she brings her high end clients to view her work and to see her manufacturing the product. It clearly states no one comes to the studio. MEMBER DANTES :That would be a condition of approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This may be something that the applicant was not familiar with. It may have been a (inaudible). WAYNE SAILOR : I could only(inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yes, what we're going to do is make sure that she's aware that there are significant limits under what can happen go ahead please. DONYA KAUFER : What Mr. Bloom you know he was here all the time and I was like how I am with you, what can I do, can I have clients here. I was asking him questions CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And he doesn't necessarily know the answers to that. DONYA KAUFER : No but he would suggest he's like well I don't see a register in here I said okay am I allowed to have you know if I have a client who wants to see a work in progress which I hadn't even done yet it was just like you know what can I do, what can't I do and then counseled to you about it. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : and my suggestion was not to have anyone DONYA KAUFER : She tells me now and Arthur tells me now I'm not rather than exist in ignorance I asked you know not doing anything sneaky there (inaudible) calling it a secret studio it's not that secret. It's just my little it's my workspace it's my hide out. WAYNE SAILOR : Leslie I'd like to ask the Board also when this work was done if you refer back to the architectural plans that are drawn up you'll see that a garage door was removed, structural work was done, windows were put in, outlets were added, insulation was done. It clearly states in there if you look at the architectural that was the work was done a year before the architecturals (inaudible). If you note on the architectural report it says unknown (inaudible) if you look at the report it says 2 by 10 stud header assuming (inaudible) because the work was done. Lastly which no one seems to mention in her counsel as well, Ms. O'Brien received some of this for everything that was wrong in that building (inaudible) removal of that garage door the wood burning stove. That's all been summoned by the town and I find it concerning that it's being used constantly in violation of the wood burning stove she was issued summonses for she was issued a summons to (inaudible) postponing the court date up on your decision what I was told. It shouldn't be used, that structure should have been had a non-work should have had a Stop Work Order and there's no C.O. for what it's being used for. It's in direct contrast of what these rules are in place for. Lastly, being someone who is involved with Fire Department, emergency service if you saw and let people do alterations and changing structures without permits somebody is going to end up maybe having a loss of life or not being able to navigate the house because there's been walls moved or changed. This is not everything was done and now they're coming to the Board saying we didn't know, they knew. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. DONYA KAUFER : I don't know how Mr. Sailor knows that I put insulation in there cause that's news to me. The drywall was there, it was taped, painted the trim was painted no big header thingy whatever he's talking about no structural changes were made. Just those windows got replaced the garage door nothing was structurally done there. WAYNE SAILOR : It should have been structural CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on this is really between them and the Building Department. This is not about WAYNE SAILOR : I just want it to be transparent cause CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in our file. We're aware of all the paperwork, we're aware of what's C.O.'d and what isn't. We see what code violations that were issued, that's going to have March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting to all be cleared up and legalized and properly permitted going forward and that's something they'll have to do with the Building Department. Our determination is based upon a set of standards as to (inaudible) someone has an accessory structure that qualifies to be used as an artist or workshop space based on a whole series of standards which are easily available and are part of our files and you're certainly entitled to see everything in our file it's all on Laserfiche. So all of those standards are filled out and our job at the hearing is to verify that in fact all the conditions of approval are in place and to make sure that the applicant is aware of the limitations of the use of that property. Anything else from anybody? PAT MOORE : I'm just going to put on the record so that it's in your files what I did was I have a copy of the letter that was sent to Mr. Sailor back in March of '21 with regard to the videotaping of our property of my client's property. I went through all of the complaints because it ended up in Justice Court I through discovery I have all the various the numerous complaints that were received by Code Enforcement which started in 10/2020 and they were daily requests and complaints that poor Lester Bloom CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Arthur PAT MOORE : I keep calling him Lester. There is a Lester that's why it's in my head, Mr. Bloom would be the one that kept having to come respond, they talked would leave I mean he understood that they are reasonable Code Enforcement is reasonable, they do understand there has to be a (inaudible) of putting in applications it doesn't happen instantaneously. We obviously needed surveys because we tried with since the building already had a C of 0 it had plans on record the plans were just very, very basic and we ended up starting with Eileen Santora and then Eileen couldn't stamp them so they went to John Condon, Condon finally has to draw it and he couldn't understand why he was being asked to draw construction drawings when it's non-structural but we said just do it anyway please and we submitted everything to the Board. I put attached to my outline I have all of the dates of the complaints that date order and you can see that just the incisive perseverance on getting this to this Board which we have no problem we're here, we made the application but as I said Mr. Sailor doesn't understand the process that it doesn't happen instantaneously and here we are. He's been harassing the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's not dwell on that. That's a civil matter that you're well aware that they'll be taking care of that and you know what give it I'm going to give you PAT MOORE : Here's the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion at this point to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBRE DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING#7579—JAY P. MANDELBAUM and LAUREN MANDELBAUM CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is an application for Jay and Lauren Mandelbaum. This application was reopened from a hearing that took place on January 6th, we reopened it on January 20th so I'm not going to read the Notice of Disapproval on all that again. We'll go into it in a moment but the it was reopened by unanimous vote of the Board to accept and discuss information that counsel Mr. Finnegan submitted after the hearing had been closed and we were not able to contemplate it because the hearing had been closed. So the only thing we could do in order to consider it was to reopen the hearing, accept the information one was a variance the prior variance and the other was amended plans which then were submitted into our record. It would appear that the amended plans had reduced the proposed lot coverage from 31% which was the original application to 26.35%. We also have C&R's on the property that had run out of the time frame that the applicant agreed to in order to put a single family dwelling on this property that was benefitted from an accessory tennis court and that can be adjusted by basically a vote of the Board plus one majority plus one in order to extend the C&R's to enable them to build a house that now apparently (inaudible). So where are we Martin? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Let me just address the point just made Leslie, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. in Mattituck for the applicants Jay Mandelbaum and Lauren Gordon. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Board again on this matter. I might read the Covenant I just wanted to make a point that I believe the language by the simple majority vote for a modification of speaks to a subsequent owner and not to the actual the current owner so I believe the Board could approve a modification of that just by whatever road (inaudible) plus one. Anyway, I'm pleased to report that I've had some conversations with the Town Attorney's March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Office since my last submission and I have I believe you should have received a further revision of the plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nope. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Alright may I approach the bench? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure MARTIN FINNEGAN : So I have copied for everybody. I (inaudible) actual building plans that's upgraded from the site plan portion so (inaudible). So what I just gave it let me just try and summarize for you, we have revised the plans based on sections that I couldn't add to reduce the lot coverage by over 7% down to 23.88%. What was done as you can see on the plans was that the bedrooms three of the four bedrooms on the first floor were actually taken out to the second floor. I think you recall the original proposal was for a one story living the applicants had preferred to have one story living for aging in place. Based on the Board's apparent concerns about the size of the structure they tried to find a way to make this work. So the tennis court footprint which is obviously the existing structure on the property now was reduced by over 1,500 sq. ft. The house was reduced by 1,328 sq. ft. and the garage also was reduced in size. So the original plan and these modifications obviously had been intended to achieve construction of a home that is in character with the surrounding community on Kimberly Lane whereas the Board is aware there are very large houses. I had submitted a decision there's a question about that at the last hearing and it is apparent that just across the street there is a property that not only does it have a tennis court but we see a significant lot coverage relief to allow many structures on the property. I have submitted an aerial photo of the (inaudible) property across the street and we reference the decisions of the Zoning Board in our submissions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Martin let me just are we talking about the variances ZBA #5078 in 2002? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well there's actually three, there's 5077, 5078 is kind of an odd history with that property cause there's two parcels that the owner has the single and separate but it appears that they were kind of evaluated as one and there was a 38% lot coverage you granted collectively but I think the decisions were split just because of the fact that the parcels were single and separate so there were two what appears to be (inaudible) determination that was issued by the Board back then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it's really for a side yard single and combined side yard setback the variance that, that's odd because there's a roof overhang hanging a property line because the owner of both parcels and the Board twenty years ago decided the best way to handle it was to create variances. I don't know about the lot coverage relative to tennis court. 1 March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting mean I think they're not quite comparable variances or relief but. Let me ask you something, what is the lot coverage I don't have the site plan I mean I want to know what is the lot coverage of the house now not the tennis court? MEMBER LEHNERT : It's on the handout he just gave us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't get it. What I want to know is what the we have to calculate this, I want to know what the percentage of lot coverage the main house is. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Let me explain, the house okay the garage the areas that you see as porch which are essential they're slightly elevated patios only to meet with the foundation of the house and the Jacuzzi 8.23% lot coverage. The remaining lot coverage is 15.5% is basically I'm sorry I misspoke, the house the garage the Jacuzzi are 8.3%, the tennis court as modified and the porch area okay is 15.5% lot coverage. Now as I said previously the tennis court is essentially you know a driveway it's considered a structure because it's surrounded by a fence and it has a net but now arguably in terms of the structures that lot coverage limitations were intended to limit it think we have 8.3 lot coverage here and even these porch areas which are 675 sq. ft. not a whole lot but it's only 1.6% lot coverage for those but again they are not it's not a big elevated patio, it's just above grade. So the net of that is that we're talking really about 22% lot coverage, 22.2% of which would consist of the house and the garage and the Jacuzzi everything else is arguably ground cover. So that is the revised plan. I do believe that the extra relief that was granted directly across the street has set precedent here. It's a confusing decision to read of the relief so if you look at the Notice of Disapproval it was for 38% the survey says 38% lot coverage that was in (inaudible) and the relief was granted and if you look at the aerial photo that I provided you can see there's a whole lot of stuff on that property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think those were for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling not a new house. MARTIN FINNEGAN : They rebuilt the house and the whole point of this was that they wanted to maintain a large home consistent with all of the other homes in the neighborhood. That's the wording that the ZBA used. So here that was what we sought out to do is to find some obviously not something as massive as that house but a home that was on the size that was consistent with the character of the homes on Kimberly Lane. So I think the applicants have in good faith come back here with I think a plan that is extremely reasonable under the circumstances. If you look at the big picture here you know in terms of what is comprised of that lot coverage the house and the garage is using 8.3% lot coverage, it's reasonable the house is entirely in character with the neighborhood. As you know we had no opposition to this application when it was at 31% and what is proposed here is substantially less than that. So if there's any more questions about what's proposed here I'd be happy to address them but we March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting are renewing our request for variance relief but now alternative relief for 23.88% lot coverage variance and we address the side yard variance earlier you know I think based on the code change with the variance secondary front yard I don't even know you need a variance anymore for that but it's just that one little the Jacuzzi to arguably be in the side yard because of the corner lot configuration of the property. I would obviously incorporate my prior memorandum of law and (inaudible) comments and to reiterate for you here today and I did want to just renew our request for an extension of the construction deadline in the applicable Covenant to allow the construction to proceed should the relief be granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes just one comment which is more about design which has nothing to do with the purview of the application before us but you repeatedly discussed that the applicant's need to age in place yet it's interesting that in the floor plan you've altered it and reduced the number of bedrooms, the primary bedrooms are still on the second floor. MARTIN FINNEGAN : There is a bedroom on the first floor. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's similar in size to the two other guest rooms. I'm just offering commentary I think it's strange for somebody that is stating that they want to age in a particular home and they're specifically designing this house to meet their needs that they would have what is clearly the owner's suite located on the second floor but this is my opinion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Nick it's possible that people could in fact age in place and be perfectly fit to live upstairs for quite a while and then go downstairs when they can no longer make the stairs. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's to me a little unusual, we discussed the you know character of the community, the zoning and while the discussion has often been that Kimberly Lane has large homes on it these are homes that also are beneficiary of (inaudible) relief (inaudible) there's a blank slate here and there's a home that somebody wants to have and would like to see developed it's just I still think it's a big request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wish you'd come in for a front yard setback that's all I can tell you. With three front yards that would have been a slam dunk. I think it's safe to say and I will speak on behalf of the Board, the goal has always been to put a house on that property and I don't think we're going to have any trouble extending the C&R deadlines. I'm going to ask this of you John, do we need to have them if we're going to extend those deadlines do we need to amend the C&R's and have them refiled? DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : We should. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm thinking. I mean just to be legal and proper I think we'll in the record vote on that extension and vote on the deadline with a new timeframe but I think we'll have to (inaudible) tell the Mandelbaum's that they're going to have to sign and file new C&R's for their benefit so they have a timeframe. Then we'll just grapple with what you presented relative to the new plans and lot coverage. I don't think the side yard is an issue at all with the front yard MARTIN FINNEGAN : Honestly it doesn't seem CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I mean you've got three front yards and it's a small Jacuzzi so nobody is going to be concerned about that. I think it's just a matter of MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't want to get sidetracked with the effort here was to try to present something reasonable and we decided that 31.4 whatever it was and I believe the applicants have made a really good effort here to present something very reasonable and to have a house I mean the (inaudible) is entirely screened. There's no opposition to this application. If we came in fresh I know this is sort of strange because it's a tennis court (inaudible) but if we came in for a lot coverage variance for an accessory structure (inaudible) and now I don't know I mean I feel like it's a very reasonable request and I would ask the Board to really consider it and we would request it to be granted. If you need any further information, if you need any further plans you know please reach out I'd be happy to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have what we need now thank you right Board? BOARD SECRETARY : We will need updated building plans. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea we will submit that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to need well one of these also you know and then I'll take this one and we're going to need one for John. Pat the office is going to email you the stuff that was just submitted by Martin okay. Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBRE DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting 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 was adjourned from February 3rd. In a nut shell it is a request to reverse the Stop Work Order issued by the Building Department. Come forward please. ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Board my name is Eric Bressler, Wickham, Bressler and Geasa Attorneys in Mattituck representing Vincent Bertault the applicant. We are here today on this adjourned hearing pursuant to the Board's directive at the last hearing that it was to receive materials and we have submitted those materials. If I could just summarize where this proceeding is I think it would be helpful in moving this to what we hope to be the conclusion of a public hearing and moving this thing forward. This matter has come before the Board on an appeal from the determination of the Building Inspector issued Stop Work Order. The clear and simple question first put before the Board is the validity of that Stop Work Order and it raises a very serious constitutional question as to whether you can issue a Stop Work Order without telling the applicant what it is that gone wrong and what it is that he has to do (inaudible). I'll address looking under the hood later but let's stick to the first point. How is it that a representative of government can issue a notice like the one that was issued here and doesn't even tell the owner what it is that the problem is? Now this is compounded in this case by the fact that having received this (inaudible) Stop Work Order. Mr. Bertault reached out to the Building Department, he didn't have to but he did. He reached out through his architect and asked the Building Inspector what is it exactly that we're talking about here? He's saying that we have to go to you and do what? He said we exceeded the plans in what way? He said we have to go to the Zoning Board and presumably make some application but you didn't tell us what it is. So he wrote a letter, very nice probably nicer than the one that I would have written and said please tell us what is it you're talking about so maybe we can understand and do something about it and of course the answer was nothing. It is impermissible for government to treat it's citizens in this way, it's unconstitutional and more fundamentally it's wrong and it's rude. So as a result we brought on this application. We far would have preferred speaking to the Building Department getting some sort of a response from them maybe obviating the need to come before this Board but that just didn't happen. So now the question before you front and center is whether that purported Stop Work Order March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting satisfies the dictates of the code and indeed constitutional requirements. I submit to you the answer is no and that's the end of the inquiry. However since it has been the practice of this Board at least of my experience that it likes to look under the hood and get all the information about what's going on here. We have provided the Board with every scrap of information that we have. What does that information show? It shows that Mr. Bertault went to every applicable agency and he got permission to move the barn and elevate .it to comply with FEMA and to renovate it, that's what he got. He then moved the barn to a new foundation, the foundation was inspected twice and was found to be compliant, everything was approved. He then went to the Building'Department and said the roof is collapsing, I need to do something about it. Upon inspection it was determined that the roof as was the custom then was constructed of 2 by 4's, 24 inches on center and was falling apart. The answer was to reconstruct it using 2 by 8, 16 inches on center to code and hurricane strapping so that it wouldn't fall down. That was inspected twice and approved twice. After that the building permit was expiring and the Building Department renewed it and everything was going along fine until months later this purported Stop Work Order came. Every free scrap of work that Mr. Bertault did on that barn was inspected and approved, it was put where he said it was going to be put, it was-elevated to comply with FEMA and it was reconstructed in such a way using appropriate materials such that it would not blow down in a hurricane. That is where we stand today. Everything else is simply noise and should be disregarded by the Board cause I'm sure the. Board is aware the fact that neighbors may not like it' or they may object is of no moment when the Board makes its decision whether it be a variance or a reversal. That does not constitute grounds for the Board's decision. In all fairness to the Board I have never seen the Board actually rely on those types of things and I know the Board has been very patient to allow everybody to have their say. The simple question before this Board is can government do what it did and I think the answer is'no. Like I said, if the Board wants to look under the hood everything he did has been approved to date. Now the Board asked for "as builts", I understand that I think (inaudible) everybody has seen it, everybody knows what's there. The barn is out there and it's wrapped in Tyvek. He didn't shingle it, he can't move forward with the project, can't put the chimney back where it belongs because it needed to be separated in the roof but the Tyvek"is rotting. That means that we have to rip it off and he's going to have to replace it. There are no shingles. The Board has seen a rendering of what it's going to look like, it's going to look almost identical to what it looked like before except for the fact that it's 2 by 6 rafters and the rooflines are joined in a matter that's consistent with current engineering standards so the barn won't fall down. Is a 2 by 8 a little bit bigger than a 2 by 4 yeah it is. Does that material in any way no it's not material and in fact it was required. So I'm at a loss to understand really what the problem here is. Mr. Bertault wants to finish the barn. It's in the right place, the foundation is right, the framing is right. He wants to shingle it; he wants to put the chimney back, he wants to put the windows back, he wants to put the doors back and then he wants to complete the rest of the project in March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting accordance with the plans. Let me say one thing about these so called walls around the septic area. I don't really need to say it but I'm going to say it for the record cause I know this Board is familiar,with it,, l know Mr. Bertault weighed in on an earlier case here today. Everyone in this town is aware of the fact that the lay of the land means that the water table in many cases is extremely high and close to the surface. In order to put in septic systems you have to create an area for that to be put in and that's what Mr. Bertault did. You have to put in the dirt, you have to put in retaining walls and that's how it was designed by John Condon the Engineer and that's how it's going in front of the Health Department. I know that that's not within this Board's jurisdiction to rule on sanitary systems but I do point out for the record and I'm sure the Board is aware of it that's what's going on here and these limits and proceedings before the Health Department to get approval for the system put that in. As the Board further knows once it's put in its landscaped over planted and that's that. What's the upshot of this thing going to be if you close the hearing and then reverse the Stop Work Order? This is what the upshot is going to be, number one he's going to re-Tyvek the barn. Number two, he's going to shingle the barn. Number three, the chimney is going to go back. Number four, the gutters and leaders are going back and number.five, the landscaping is going to be completed consistent with the plan and consistent with Board of Health requirements, that's what's going to happen. No more eyesores, no more buildings that are unprotected from the floods since they're now upped the elevation that's safe according to FEMA and on the same type of foundation that he's going to put under his house as required by FEMA. I just wish and I.hope for those neighbors who are in a situation unlike Mr. Bertault who have houses and other structures that are not FEMA compliant I hope two things. I hope number one that they will take the necessary steps to protect their properties and number two, I hope against (inaudible) although I know it's useless to hope that the waters are not going to come and that they are not going to be damaged by hurricanes and floor tides. So that's what this is all about, it's really very simple. We want to finish the barn on the approved foundation with the approved framing and get this thing done and make it,nice. If anybody thinks that Mr. Bertault is going out in his back yard every day and looking at this sitting there looking like a derelict cause he can't do anything they are most assuredly wrong. So I implore this Board to take the necessary steps to let him move forward, move the thing along complete it and move on to the next phase. There is no reason why not. If the Board has any question I'll entertain them now or at anytime the Board wants to ask. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, I think maybe what we should probably do is just listen to what everyone whatever they want to say first and foremost. FREDDIE WACHSBURGER : Freddie Wachsburger, Orient. I think the thing that is overlooked in the recent presentation is that this in the historic district. There's a lot of area in Orient where people have in fact raised their houses to create a proper environment to protect themselves from the rising waters but we're discussing a property that's in a significant position in a small March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting area called the historic district a very small part of Orient. The Stop Work Order I don't think can be addressed without addressing the removal of the work which has already begun to be developed (inaudible) appropriate permission. I'm referring particularly to the cement wall which is intended to contain an elevated ground level entirely alien to the district and to the historic properties in the district. The only work that should be permitted now if the Stop Work Order is lifted should be the removal of the wall and the lowering of the barn to the appropriate height that it was designated to be. Should this work be permitted to continue this intrusion an intrusion like this would not only destroy the integrity of the district as it exists now but it would create a terrible precedent for the future. It would open the district to further degradation until we would wind up without a historic district at all. Our district would just was certified by the (inaudible) and the state of almost fifty years and the people of Orient would consider that a great tragedy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone else? MARTHA REICHERT : Good afternoon, my name is Martha Reichert of Twomey, Lathan, Shea and Quartararo 33 West 2nd St. Riverhead, New York. I represent a group of neighbors known as the friends of Historic Orient. Thank you to the Board for this hearing and for your time to let us make our comments regarding this particular application. I'm in receipt• of Mr. Bressler's submission which is dated March 1St although you know at the last public hearing we asked the Board for sufficient time to review any "as builts" that were submitted. In our first reviewing of it today we noticed several things that we think are important for the Board to take note of. Just going through the materials that have been received we note that the engineering plan that was prepared by Condon is unsigned and unsealed. We still don't have any actual approval from the Town Engineer of this plan. We have an email that (inaudible) preference but this Board has (inaudible) prior decision that in conversation with the Town Engineer and he stated that he had not reviewed the plan or approved it. So I think. MEMBER DANTES : We can answer that one. The Town Engineer officially reviews commercial plans they don't review residential plans. MARTHA REICHERT : So who would be the approving authority for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department is typically the he did take a look at the property at our request, Michael Collins the Town Engineer. However he said he had not approved it, the Building Department didn't send it to him for an engineer's approval. However the Building Department did not have on record anything stamped marked approved and with the date of approval in their records either. The Condon Engineering survey does not have the stamp of approval from the Building Department, it's just the email those are (inaudible). March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MARTHA REICHERT : And the plan itself does not bear the engineer's signed and sealed stamp. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it doesn't. MARTHA REICHERT : The other thing that we didn't notice, in the "as builts" and this is going to be a product of the Stop Work Order I'm just really drawing the attention to the Board is that the retaining walls do not match the configuration that is shown on the Condon Engineering plan, there's no wall adjacent to the septic system doesn't appear. I think the other thing that would like to point out though is Mr. Bressler is correct in terms of (inaudible) walls that are required for the septic system they are sort of in general beyond the Zoning Board's purview because they relate to a sanitary system as required (inaudible) that the new IA system require a different level of engineering and (inaudible) because of the lower water tables do require it whether its mounding or retaining walls. If you look at the plans whether it's the Condon Engineering plan or the "as built" you'll see that the (inaudible) retaining walls are the minimum necessary for a sanitary system and in an attempt to raise the overall grade of this property relates to the management of storm water, drainage, surface waters (inaudible) other properties and that's a real concern especially to adjoining neighbors in terms of how surface waters will flow onto their properties through this engineered plan. Finally, I would also like to point out that the "as built's" elevations by Gary O'Connor the architect which are also not stamped and sealed there appear to be perhaps it's a typo but at any rate it would be an inaccurate measurement where it says that the height of the barn is 118 feet and 3 inches and 3 quarters. So you know I'm just here to draw attention to the Board that these plans (inaudible) seem to have some measurements that are worth finding out whether or not it's scribblers errors or whatever the case is but it's not accurate. We know that it's not 118 feet tall. Those are my comments for now. I want to thank the Board for this opportunity to address you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. I will say that you know we only just received these plans and this Board has not had time. We got them this morning and we haven't had time to look at them ourselves nor have we had time to submit them to the Building Department nor was the Building Department available today at the last minute because John Jarski is busy training somebody all day and he hasn't had a chance to look at it. So in appreciation for the submission and in appreciation for the process as review required as a result so certainly we're going to need more time to make a (inaudible). We promise they'll be on Laserfiche available to the public for comment and you know I think that's just what we're going to have to do in this instance so we can really look at them. A cursory look just this morning showed that there's considerable reframing of that barn and we need to have the Building Department determine what percentage of the market value that constitutes what measurements if any are missing on the drawings or unclear. So we just need a little bit not a lot but we need some more time to March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting just simply come to grips with what it is that's now before us. Why don't you just state your name for the record please. TIM FROST : Hi, Tim Frost I live at 1995 Village Lane in Orient. You've covered a lot of the points that I was going to make madam Chairperson. We really have not had time to review this. As our attorney pointed out there are many errors in the "as built" drawings that have been submitted. I understand they may have had to be done very quickly but I would draw your attention to them. I also really go back to what I consider sort of one of the more egregious errors and that is that as you point out the engineering plan is not signed, professionally stamped or approved by the town. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Frost sorry to interrupt, Kim pointed out (inaudible) the plans myself yet but the Board received signed copies that are not stamped. MEMBER LEHNERT : The architecturals TIM FROST : And when did you receive them? MEMBER LEHNERT :This morning. TIM FROST : Okay I really hope that we have a chance to take a look at those. MEMBER LEHNERT : You're correct about the engineering plans, this is what we got. TIM FROST : I also would point out that as the attorney did once again, what is actually shown as the "as built" plan that were submitted by the architect is different from the engineering plans in terms of septic and retaining walls. I don't want to try your patience any further of you or the public here but I do ask that you consider the submissions carefully, that you have time to review them, that the public have time to review them any comments so that all that is in the record.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : No raised hands. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) are we back here at square one or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we will cross that bridge when we come to it. The first thing that has to happen is for us to give due diligence to what it is that has been received, to allow the public to do the same thing which we had promised last time. Our goal is to see this project through and make some forward motion somehow or another because nobody benefits when it just sits there stalled in the water as it were no pun intended. I do want to say speaking of surface water however that FEMA compliance is a problem all over the place particularly the March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting problem in a historic district however there is no requirement that an accessory structure be raised to FEMA compliance. Houses yes but there is nothing in FEMA that requires an accessory structure to be elevated to comply with the footprint. I can find you the section of FEMA that so states it. ERIC BRESSLER : This was approved with FEMA elevation. That's the point, whether or not there's anything in the code is irrelevant to the issue that it was approved with FEMA elevations. We also note as we've said before, the septic is not the issue for the Board, the septic wall is not the issue for the Board, and in terms of the Condon survey that's just not true it was signed and stamped I don't know if the Board has a signed and stamped copy I know the Building Department does and if the Board wants another signed and stamped copy they can have it. I know that the Building Department would not have approved without a signed and stamped copy. So I think that's a (inaudible) the walls are (inaudible) the issue for the Board. In the first instance (inaudible) is what the Building Inspector did acceptable in the Town of Southold is that the way business is going to be done and if it's not I don't believe it is then this Board should say so and put a stop to that and make sure that government is responsible for the needs of the people. Now in terms of the historic district that is exactly what we are trying to do, we want to get the barn finished. We want it to be shingled (inaudible), it's where it belongs, the foundation is right and the framing is right. How do we know, because the Building Inspector inspected the framing. You'll recall the last time he was here the only thing he said was well I didn't have the drawing of that. We all know as things go along as this Board I'm sure is aware, at the end of building projects you submit an "as built" okay the Building Inspector says (inaudible) did he put that in the Stop Work but no he didn't put it in the Stop Work we showed you on the plans sixteen inch on center. If the Board truly believes that there's an issue about fifty percent of value for some roof rafters then that can be addressed but I don't believe that that is a serious consideration in this case. The walls haven't been replaced (inaudible). ROBERT HARPER : My name is Robert Harper. The last time I was here I asked permission from the ZBA and any of the attorneys here if I can speak as a former member of the HPC. I was there in 2014, this particular client has been with me the whole entire time of my tenure on the HPC. First of all from what Mr. Bressler said it sounds like it would be better instead of making an accessory apartment to build (inaudible). The original purpose of this from according to what you were presented with in 2014 was to provide a path for a car so it wouldn't be going over their septic tanks. It seemed to me at the time it would of have been easy to move the driveway than to move the barn. However when we did approve it we approved it to be restored as is I read that section of the resolution and there was nothing about raising the height of the barn because as you stated FEMA regulations are only applied to dwellings habitable dwellings rather than accessory buildings. Since we required it to be moved as a barn and restored. We never gave permission for it to be raised. So if that's the case and the applicant is not sure how March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting they are not in compliance with what the original resolution was it seems pretty obvious if you pass!the place by take a look at it, it's raised. Also with reference to the roof structure, in order to get through (inaudible) sixteen years old I worked as a laborer for a bricklayer and I worked at that job for four years and I've been involved with construction even though I'm not an architect or a licensed builder I can tell you that the changing of the roofline there was no need to do something like that for structural reasons. You can put a cross beam, you can put supports internally there was really no need to change the roof. I understand about the upgrading the structure of the roof. MEMBER DANTES : What do you mean change the roofline? ROBERT HARPER : There's a part of on the back of the barn that had I gave you a picture of it last time, the ridge intercepted with the main structure well below the ridge of the barn itself that had gotten raised. Actually I was there with Mr. Jarski several times because the roof framing was not being done in accordance to what the barn used to look like. Last time Mr. Bressler stated that that was done for structural reasons. As I said there's really and you guys know about the (inaudible) there's no structural reason for having to raise the ridge line on that you just support it properly. Again the HPC never gave permission to raise the barn we assumed that,it was an accessory structure FEMA doesn't require accessory structures to be raised and so there's one reason why (inaudible) compliance. I thank you for your time. MEMBER DANTES : The height above grade is out of compliance and the change to the roofline are the two things that are out of HPC compliance? ROBERT HARPER : As far as I know. Again it's covered in Tyvek, I think on the framing types of changes where it was open MEMBER DANTES : You said the few changes that you know of are the changes to the roofline and the change to the elevation of the structure.Those two are out of the HPC compliance. ROBERT HARPER : Right, yes but also what I have a problem with when the structure was open you could see that the framing inside did not conform with the original fenestration of the building it was it had been changed. Now that it's covered up I can't comment whether or not it's going to be put back to what the original window placements were but I can tell you that the framing was changed also. MEMBER DANTES : Right but the framing doesn't affect the HPC approval that's just they can put when they finish it they can put it back (inaudible). ROBERT HARPER : The framing would indicate that it was going to be put in a different way. When you frame out a window and you frame it to the correct opening with a little bit of i March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting leeway so you can slip a window in there but the framing did not look like what the original barn looked like. So I'm assuming that the intention was to put in windows that were not the same as what was there but again I can't say that that's going to be done until the window openings are cut. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to confirm the 2014 ZBA decision was for the same purpose, it was to move it from one front yard so as not to have to drive over a septic system to another front yard and we increased the setback that they were originally proposing. The purpose was to preserve the structure as an accessory barn. Now they have a legal right to apply for change of use of the accessory structure. I'm not suggesting otherwise but that was the intent and there was nothing about raising it in any way other than just moving it and restoring as a barn as a historic barn that's the exact quote. ] GARY O'CONNOR : Good afternoon, just to dispute a couple of the items here which I want to correct for the record. Chairwoman Weisman just said that the drawings that were approved were not a raised barn, that is incorrect. If you look at the letter that I wrote in response to the attorney that was opposing the project, when we pushed it back to 25 feet the barn was set at 8 feet for flood purposes. It's written in the documentation letter that was accepted by the Board and the drawings reflect that. The same elevation drawings were approved by the HPC at the same elevation so this is not something new. With regard to the earlier attorney for the Friends of the Orient the surface waters are not going to flow from this property to the adjacent properties or affect adjacent properties. The design Mr. Condon has created is to collect the water that falls on this property and drain it properly in to dry well systems. We are not going to be taking water from adjacent properties it's the other properties that were flowing onto Mr. Bertault's property that was causing him flooding problems in the middle of his yard. So that's part of what the landscape walls are purposely doing. With regard to the comment about the building not being 118 feet, yes of course it is not 118 feet but if you look at the floor elevation there is a datum of 100 and that 118 is relative to that 100 datum. So therefore the building is 18 feet and change not 118 feet so you take that from the MEMBER LEHNERT : Gary, you know you have the datum based on the floor but you have nothing based on grade so the 18 feet is based on the finished floor height. There's nothing on these elevations to reference that back to grade. GARY O'CONNOR : These were the same the same datum was used on the approved drawings. We had the you know this was the same barn that was placed at that elevation in parenthesis it talks about the actual grade that is the actual grade above on the site eight feet and change. MEMBER LEHNERT : You're showing 8 %feet as finished floor. i March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting GARY O'CONNOR That's right. MEMBER LEHNERT : Not grade. GARY O'CONNOR : That's right. MEMBER LEHNERT : So what here references grade? GARY O'CONNOR : That 8.6 is the relative grade at the site. MEMBER LEHNERT : It can't cause you're calling 8 foot 6 as finished floor. GARY O'CONNOR : That is the grade relative to the actual site grade. If you look at the corner the northeast corner it is at I don't have the drawing open in front of me I'm doing this from memory let me open this up. The existing grade is 5.2 so the first floor is 8.6 relative to that 5.2 and then the other corner the northwest corner is 4.3 feet that's the actual site grade. MEMBER LEHNERT : Nowhere on the plan you submitted to us references that. MEMBER DANTES : Would that make the height 22 feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the grade. GARY O'CONNOR : And that is how it was presented on the ZBA drawings that were approved as well as the HPC drawings that were approved. Please look at the records. There is a letter to the Board in 2014 that stated we were going to be placing this building above the flood plain. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a copy of that Gary? GARY O'CONNOR : Yes I do. MEMBER DANTES : Letter or a drawing? GARY O'CONNOR : It's in the records ERIC;BRESSLER : There are numerous documents before the Board that reflect the elevation of approximately 8 feet in the area most recent submission to the Board shows those elevations that is Gary's submission. So that is you know that is in the record. I'd also like to echo what Gary said about the 8 feet, that was part of everybody's approval and quite frankly I'm surprised that people are saying otherwise but the Board can (inaudible) on thin ice, look through your own records it's there. Everybody knew what it was at the time. This Board approved it, HPC approved it nobody can be heard to come in here now and say you did something that we didn't know about or you did something that we didn't approve or that the elevations were not as shown on the drawings. They're virtually identical to the 8 foot and March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting change foundation. The Board (inaudible) to look at the drawings and look at these things. They're there, nobody is pulling a fast one, it was as approved and quite frankly I take (inaudible) of the fact that people would lead this Board to believe that it was anything other than that. This Board knows what it did, this Board has the file, the HPC knows what it did and the Building Inspector approved the foundation twice. The whole purpose of the move in addition to opening up the property was to put it on a higher elevation and that's exactly what happened. There's no secrets here, nobody is violating any approvals. Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : So you're saying there are no changes to the roofline? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No he's talking about the elevation. GARY O'CONNOR : I found the letter. TIM FROST : This was a plan that was submitted in actually it's stamped by the Board of Appeals in January 28, 2014. What it shows is that the ramp to Navy St. is not of a very high slope which all of the subsequent plans which had the elevation of 8 feet indeed have. So I don't know what the Board has, what the town has, it references all these things have been stamped and approved. I've been through the file numerous times and frankly I haven't seen a lot of those plans. They've been stamped as approved by the town but frankly a lot of the plans aren't even professionally signed or stamped by the applicant's agents. Now I've been before the ZBA, I've been before the Building Department and as I consider property they basically the town will not look at those plans until they are professionally signed and stamped. So I have trouble understanding this irregularity, I'll be frank but if this would be of use to the town I'm willing to submit it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We probably we should have it in our file. It should be on Laserfiche. TIM FROST : I agree but there are (inaudible) so many filings that have been done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true. TIM FROST : This one is signed I mean this one is not signed actually this one is signed and stamped and it is actually stamped by the town so if this would be useful. BOARD SECRETARY : What agency? TIM FROST : It is a proposed building relocation with a revision date BOARD SECRETARY : What agency stamped it? TIM FROST : Board of Appeals. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then it's part of our file. TIM FROST : I don't know whether it's part of what is part of the file now or not because frankly having looked at the documents over about a six month period there are things that have gone missing. If you would like this CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let Kim take it, we'll see if we have it and if we don't we'll make copies and we'll return it to you we'll make sure Eric you get a copy, Martha you get a copy whoever wants it it's going to be part of our record. MARTHA REICHERT : Just so that it's on the record, that plan that is being submitted right now is the one that there is a ZBA approval stamp it's the one that is referenced in 2014 ZBA decision and it is in your file. So whether or not I need to keep it but I just figured I best identify it,. I believe the plan date is October 2013 and like I said it is the one that is referenced in the ZBA's decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why I'm sure that we have it in our file but we're just going to double check. It is part of our public record and I want to make sure that it's there. It will be attached to that 2014 ZBA decision which we have in Laserfiche. ERIC BRESSLER : If it's part of your file I have no objection. If it's not part of your file my objection and now I don't know where it came from but the ZBA knows what's in its own files. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to check. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : At any level it would be marked as an Exhibit submitted today. We couldn't represent it that that document is what it purports to be from back in time. I agree with you on that. ERIC BRESSLER : That's what I said. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : We can accept this document as a document submitted today and review it and determine what it is but it stands as a document submitted in 2022 not the date of the document. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, we'll cross reference it just to make sure we have DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : It's not an authenticated town record is what I'm trying to say. It is a record it is only a record of today's hearing. ERIC BRESSLER : I think (inaudible) note my objection, I don't think that you should be taking in absent and explanation I don't know what that document is doing if it's an original in somebody's private (inaudible). March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : That's a legitimate question, I don't know that it's an original I haven't seen it. ERIC BRESSLER Yeah I got some serious issue DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : If that is in fact an original document that would explain why it is not in the ZBA file if it's not there. That's a separate and (inaudible) issue from what we're talking about.That document itself cannot (inaudible). ERIC BRESSLER : No it's not. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : It only stands for the fact that it is a document submitted today and whatever it purports to be. ERIC BRESSLER : It's evidence of nothing till the Board makes its determination. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : That's true. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay this is a copy you can tell by looking at the imprint that this is a definitely a copy and it's actually stamped received #6729 received January 28, 2014 Board of Appeals and it's signed and stamped by Gary O'Connor. GARY O'CONNOR : Is there a revision date? TIM FROST : Yes there is. GARY O'CO,NNOR : Which is? ERIC BRESSLER : That still doesn't answer my question. There's some questions that need to be answered about where this came from. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : That is not a document that I consider it in the record as being a town document other than the fact that it is a town document to the extent that it was submitted today. I cannot verify that that is a document from 2014. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The original date on this was October 18, 2013 with a revision date 1/12/14 received by the ZBA 1/28/14. You want to come look? ERIC BRESSLER : May I see the document? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Sure. In order for us to know we have to have that in order to compare it that's all. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting GARY O'CONNOR : That would not have been the final approved drawing. Madam Chairwoman, that would not be the final approved drawing because the letter that I referred to, March 13, 2014 in response to commentary made by an objectors attorney if I can read the question then I can read the response to you or I can send this letter to you for you to review. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : Before we go any further, for purposes of authenticating evidence I just want to speak with Mr. Bressler about this stuff. Mr. Bressler I suggest that the ZBA (inaudible) this actual document so that there is no confusion between this piece of paper and the authenticated document that may be in our file. ERIC BRESSLER : I think it would be wise to put an identifier on it. I also note it refers to drawing (inaudible) DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : Regardless to what it refers to I'm just talking about authentication of a document. BOARD SECRETARY : It was received by the ZBA it wasn't approved. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : It's immaterial what is on this piece of paper, it's just simply establishing that this piece of paper for purposes of this hearing that was accepted today. With your permission could you mark this as received by the ZBA today? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When Kim gets back to the office we'll take out the ZBA stamp and we'll stamp it. That's appropriate, we're just trying to track down the files. This file has been in such an abundant a plethora of drawings with different dates over a long period of time and we're just trying to see what it is we're actually looking at today and how it compares to what was approved because remember the Stop Work Order was issued because it appeared to exceed the scope of prior approval. Unless we know exactly what was previously approved and exactly what we have today we can't make that decision we won't know. That's why we're asking you to submit new drawings so that we all look at the same thing. ERIC BRESSLER : That madam Chairwoman is the second question that I have for you to get to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is what? ERIC BRESSLER : You have to check your files to see if anything is exceeded, I don't think you need to do that. Assuming that you do get there then that would be an appropriate inquiry but you don't need to do that because the document on its face is defective. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're talking about the Stop Work Order. ERIC BRESSLER : Right. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not sufficiently detailed for ERIC BRESSLER : It's not detailed at all. Now this document, this does nothing except generate confusion. What is in the ZBA files is in the ZBA files. I have a file full of documents, I'm not going to keep submitting them if they're in the ZBA files because that is going to perpetuate the problem. Correctly pointed out we're getting this stuff coming in and now you have yet another document and now you have to go back and compare that with what may or may not be in your file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, it would be up to us what to decide what to do with this but it is perfectly permissible for anyone to submit anything they wish in a public hearing to this Board and that is why DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : Identify this and that is why this particular document so as avoid that confusion. ERIC BRESSLER : I respectfully disagree with your analysis (inaudible) my objection. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Gary can you send us that letter that you wanted us to have a look at or that you were referring to? GARY O'CONNOR : Yes. It's actually coming to you to Eric's office right now. MEMBER DANTES : That would have the same problem (inaudible) Mr. Bressler's records on this document. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and that's why I want it. I don't agree, I agree that the more information that we have DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : This is recorded and we can always (inaudible) mark that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2014 was a while ago and I was on the Board and I remember it, I am not that old and I don't remember 2014 and you know but it is always instructive to review relevant documents and files and what the records were and that's all we're trying to do here. The fact that we got new information submitted, updated plans and so on the first step is for us to take a close look a hard look at them. Then have the Building Department do the same because they are central in the (inaudible) of this and John was not available today. It's way too you know late submission for us to have been able to do anything other than ask you to please present it here and then we will follow up with an evaluation, we'll have to have a look at it. We really don't have time to scrutinize it, it's just been a very cursory look. We certainly thought we were going to get information sooner than this but we got it, it's in the record now and we'll you know we'll provide some time to take a look at it. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting TIM FROST : Just one more point and I don't mean to add to the confusion. I would just reference on that document the elevation looking down from the front of the barn where the barn doors are towards what is Vincent St. that the slope of the elevation of that ramp will clearly show that the barn in that document is not elevated. Subsequent ones were showing the ramp being significantly steeper and an 8 foot elevation of the 8 foot plus elevation of the barn floor. That is the point and that is the relevance of that document: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now what I am going to check based on what Gary said and what Eric said, I'm going to check to see what's on our Laserfiche file from 2014. In the event cause that was not stamped approved by the ZBA, it was stamped received. It might be that there is something that came after that that showed a different elevation. That's what we need to find out cause this is all just (inaudible) because what is really in front of us is whether at least what Mr. Bressler was arguing was, was the Stop Work Order issued properly, is it deficient or is it sufficient and that is what this request or this reversal is about. MARTHA REICHERT : Not to belabor the point, I just wanted to add a little bit further I just wanted to add a little bit further clarification and this is based on my review of what's available on Laserfiche, the approval from 2014 the ZBA's approval that sheet that was just submitted by Mr. Frost is Sheet A-3. When you look at the approval files that are on Laserfiche the ZBA final map stamp is part of that same set and it only appears on the cover sheet which is the site plan sheet A-1. So that may help you as you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we stamped the entirety of the plans and it's on the first sheet but not each sheet. MARTHA REICHERT : Correct each sheet has a received-stamp but only the final approval appears only on the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for that, that's a good reminder. However they will be referenced in the decision. What we always do for that very reason is in a decision we'll say as shown on Sheet A-1 through 3. So it will reference the totality of all those submissions and we'll check it with the decision. MEMBER DANTES : The date everything that's submitted is stamped received and part of the Laserfiche file.and as they change things then that's MARTHA REICHERT : Right but not everything there is a stamped received a stamp but this one doesn't because it goes with part of the decision. In reviewing the decision I just brought it up on my phone a plan is referenced and in the grant approval clause of the ZBA's decision it actually just references the site plan page. Again, things just to draw to your attention it's up to March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting the Board to decide what the value of that information is but it's something that I noticed in reading the decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Did you want to say.something, please come to the podium. BARBARA COHEN : I'm Barbara Cohen. A couple of things, the 2014 decision as you know was to simply relocate the barn and restore as is. What's "as built" is presumed approval of the change of use and it was said in the prior hearing that the roofline was changed to add the extra height because the original submission for the variance not variance sorry Special Exception proposed habitable space on that second floor which doesn't meet the criteria. So it was raised with the presumption that that use of what should be storage to be habitable. Second, I think that as far as FEMA I think it would be useful for the Board to request the actual application for FEMA not just accept the applicant saying that it's been approved but rather to see the application to see whether the application reflects the presumed approval of a residential use and FEMA reaction to that versus the 2014 approval which says that it's an accessory barn and continues to be an accessory barn because the change of use has been denied at this point. The other issue is as far as HPC is concerned is that the application there the recent application that was approved only reflects the enlargement of the house. The original submission included the barn, it was amended they removed it. So it seems to me that when you get to the point of dealing with the continued you know whatever the decision is in terms of completing the barn whether it's reconfiguring it, taking things down whatever it has to be to conform to the accessory use that it is that shingles and windows and all those things are HPC issues and I would think that a new application for the barn which has never been before the HPC in terms of those exterior materials would be required. So I think the presumption that a Special Exemption would go swimmingly and it hasn't is what's reflected in the "as built". Thank you. VINCENT BERTAULT : I just want to get back to the question which was raised about the file which was applied in 2014 reference number 6729 so everybody can enjoy and have fun with these files and there is appeal Letter which Mr. O'Connor just sent you related to this application which was submitted to you Board in 2014. 1 have to say also that during the process of moving that barn we had a lot of exchange with HPC and with you guys as well the ZBA Board and that's probably the confusion as why there are documents in one and indication of some dimension and why others are obviously with different information. I believe and its clearly stated in your decision on that specific application in 2014 that the moving of the barn and the elevation of the barn was approved according to certain pieces of documents and plans which were documents of Mr. O'Connor's just wanted to clarify that. Now to know that I have so much passion about this project and you can ask Mr. Harper if I have a problem in the future for the historical district and restoration of building as well as Mr. Frost (inaudible) documents March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting you actually file for pool with documents which were not accurate and you were told by the Building Department and the ZBA MEMBER DANTES : Please keep your comments to the Board thank you. VINCENT BERTAULT : Yes. So I just wanted to make this point which are as you all know very, very (inaudible) years of problems with this specific problem. I appreciate your time, I appreciate your patience but I would (inaudible) one thing is to get that thing resolved and done. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. CHARLES DANE : Hello I'm Charles Dane I live in Orient on Village Lane. It's a really short statement (inaudible). I can't really speak to all these plans and stamps and architectural plans and things cause I don't understand all the technical issues but my point is that this is a construction project in the middle of the historic district of Orient which is a protected district in the federal government and in the state of New York. One thing (inaudible) construction in this area is the HPC I know that's (inaudible) but they have sent a letter to you saying that this project is not in compliance with the HPC and they have specifically asked you not to lift the Stop Work Order until this project is brought into compliance. Both the wall has not been approved I mean if you know if Mr. Bertault has to raise some of the property for his septic system that's fine but does he have to raise so much of the property? It's an enormous amount of area that he's raising but a very high concrete wall very unsightly and I just think that this wall should be brought before the HPC for their approval or disapproval. Maybe there's another way that they can do a berm or they can do he can have it somewhat camouflaged so it's not such a brutal intrusion into the middle of the historic district. I don't know what the answer is but the HPC should be involved in that and the I mean they did agree to let him move the barn but it was supposed to stay as is as a barn which I don't think that was the actual plan. I think the idea was they were going to raise it up, make an apartment in it which has (inaudible) but now do we put the barn back down on what it was supposed to be get rid of the walls and just have the property looking like it did before this construction was done that was not approved by the HPC. I think before we lift the Stop Work Order we need a plan approved by the Building Department, the HPC and the ZBA that everyone agrees that this is the way this plan should go forward (inaudible) that should'be done. To just lift the Stop Work Order and they start working but no way knowing what they're going to be doing I think is really dangerous. Thank you. ROBERT HARPER : Mr. O'Connor said he had the plans that the HPC approved, if they show that there was an elevation in height of the barn I'd like to see them because I have a very good memory and I really don't think we would have done something like that. It would be very easy to check though if the date of Mr. O'Connor's plans and when the approval came for raising the March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting structure. I would contend that that's a major change in the character of the building and the neighborhood and if that was proposed to the ZBA it should have been tossed also back to the HPC because that's what we review whether it's in conformity to the neighborhood, whether it affects the structures around it. So if there was not a second HPC approval and I'm almost a hundred percent sure that there was not. That's a reason enough to maintain the Stop Work Order because that shouldn't have happened without HPC approval. I also have three photographs I gave you one last time but I think I went back to my computer and printed out a few more. These show a little bit better the roofline in contention. It seems like both of these changes were in anticipation of it being an accessory apartment because FEMA wouldn't require it to be raised and the rooflines really didn't have a structural reason for being raised and as was pointed out the resolution says that the structure being restored and preserved as is. Raising the roofline would certainly not be something that would be as is. So I'm submitting these three drawings. I apologize these were taken in 2014 after a snow storm so it's a little hard to see but I think you pretty much can make out the back of the barn. So if it approved by the ZBA can I submit these photographs? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. I'm going to give Mr. Bressler the last word and then I'm going to make a motion to close this. ERIC BRESSLER : Thank you madam Chairwoman having the last word is a pleasant relief for a change just kidding. Before I have the last word I have a question, it's a rhetorical question and was taught that you're not supposed to ask those rhetorical questions but I'm overcome with the need to ask this question. Let's assume for the sake of argument only that there's a need to look behind the improper Stop Work Order I don't concede that there is but for the sake of this question let's assume that you need to go there. The Stop Work Order references going to places to do something that we don't know what it is and those two places are the Building Department and the ZBA, so my question is, whence the HPC we shouldn't even be talking about the HPC because the Building Inspector had no problem with the HPC. I don't even know why we're talking about it so let me sum up (inaudible) for consideration. The issues again area very simple. This Building Inspector did something that the Zoning Board is going to (inaudible) consistent with the statutory obligations of the Building Inspector and the constitutional requirements both the state and the federal level that require notice and due process. Is that something that we're going to put up with and in fact the Building Inspector said that's the way we do it. Well maybe it's time this Board said, no that's not the way you do it. You have to tell somebody what the problem is so they have a reasonable opportunity to respond. While it isn't strictly the job of this Board to do so it might not be a bad idea to tell the Building Department that when someone asks a question about a document like that that it's incumbent upon them to answer that question aside from the matter of courtesy. Now assuming that the Board wants to look further and I know the Board is going to go back and look at its files and I think we've March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting had a lot of discussion about altitudes and elevations and (inaudible) and all kinds of things but all the numbers are shown on the documents and I'm hearing from the Board that they're going to adjourn this thing. I hope that's not true but if it is the case I will take the opportunity to answer the question put by Members of the Board (inaudible) those elevations (inaudible) those questions. I think they're there, I think if you look you can find them but we're going to answer that question for you so you don't have to take the time and the effort to suss it out yourself we'll do that for you and everybody else I don't mean to pick you out but you're the one that put the question. So you have the approvals in 2014, you have the movement of a barn nobody objected nobody had a problem. They put up a foundation and nobody objected, nobody had a problem the Building Inspector inspected twice. We had the framing, the Building Inspector liked it, inspected twice hurricane strapped everything is fine and now all of a sudden out of nowhere comes a problem, to do what?To tear off the roof of the barn and replace it by 2 by 4's? No, that's unreasonable and I don't think that's proper. To tear out the foundation and the elevation that were just closed and approved, no. I can't believe that's the result and quite frankly on those two issues I don't think any court would agree with that. So what is it that we want to see done here? Do we have to go back to the HPC to put shingles back on? No that's completely absurd, restoration means restoration. If we put back the same doors we have to go back to the HPC for that, of course not. If we put back the same windows, do we have to go to the HPC or indeed to anybody for that? No of course we don't have to do that. The same with the chimney, none of that requires any further approvals. The barn is where it's supposed to be, the barn is in the process of being restored, the barn has structural integrity to make it last another hundred years.The barn is in a relatively safe position. I think it's time that Mr. Bertault be allowed to proceed with his project complete the barn and make it nice is all he ever wanted to do. Thank you. MARTHA REICHERT : Question, I merely want to request that if the Board intends on closing the public hearing today that we be granted an opportunity to make a submission to the written record so perhaps you can leave it open for a period of time so we can prepare a response. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was intending to actually make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting so that the record is held open to receive written comments from both the public who will have this information available on Laserfiche I don't know we can get it on tomorrow we just got these plans. We'll get them on Laserfiche tomorrow, anyone can have a look at them if you know how to use Laserfiche call the office and they can send you a link right to that file so that you can easily access it. We need to get comments from this Board and we have to look at it ourselves, we have to get comments from the Building Department and we're going to have to get comments from HPC. They may not have (inaudible) they are an involved agency they are the ones that in fact commented to the Building Department that they believe that the Stop Work Order should have been issued because they believe they were not in March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting compliance with approvals. So we will get comments from HPC. I'm not talking about what process has to happen afterwards, I'm not talking about whether you have to go back there to put shingles on or any such thing. I'm simply saying that we are going to send this to them what you gave to us and to the Building Department for their comments and leave this open for the public to do the same. You may submit-anything else that you wish to submit. ERIC BRESSLER : We will be making further submission note our objection on the record any participation by us, by HPC issues are not before this Board. The Building Inspector didn't (inaudible) they're not before this Board. At the Special Meeting I take it is going to be a Special Meeting in the style that this Board traditionally conducts Special Meetings that is to say the public portion of this meeting except for submissions is now concluded and there will be no further input argument(inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct. I don't anticipate another hearing. I think we have all that we I don't know what else we can hear. We have more than enough information but it is appropriate to leave this record open, we just got his material this morning. I'm going to close the hearing but we're going'to leave the record open to the Special Meeting for written commentary and that's going to be on March 17tH ERIC BRESSLER : If we can ask madam Chairwoman since you override our objection you are going to take comment from the HPC? We would like the timing of this matter to be such that we have a reasonable opportunity to respond to anything that they may say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what we'll do is put a time limit on when things can be received and if necessary we will simply extend that period for written commentary to the next meeting. There won't be a hearing, there'll just be an extension of the time frame. It depends on if all this stuff comes in quickly there's probably going to be enough time for everybody to respond but we don't know that yet. So I think it's a reasonable request ERIC BRESSLER : What meeting do you think you'd be putting it on for madam Chairwoman? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to say that we need to have all written submissions in by the Special Meeting on March 17tH, that's two weeks at which time the record would be closed. However if you don't have time to respond to what has come in I think it's not unreasonable for you to have an opportunity to do so and if that is the case you will let us know at that Special Meeting and we can extend the time frame for written comments. ERIC BRESSLER : That's twice in one day madam Chairwoman I'm going to get the last word in, thank you. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are we ready? I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing and adjourn to the Special Meeting for the receipt of written commentary, written comments of any kind documents whatever anyone wishes to submit and we will then evaluate the submissions on the 17th and we will either end it right there we won't have a decision obviously because we're going to be getting things in but we will either end that right there and Eric if you think you need more time you will let us know by then and then we will extend that written commentary so that you can have a chance to respond. ERIC BRESSLER : We appreciate that thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Is there a second on that very long motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBRE DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. We will be receiving things between now and our next meeting on March 17th. By the way that is of course an open meeting on both Zoom and in person in the Town Hall Annex Board Room upstairs. As I said no testimony from the public but you're certainly welcomed to listen. March 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CERTIFICA► T10N I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature d Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : March 15, 2022