Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/06/2022 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York October 6, 2022 10:13 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO- Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JOHN BURKE— Deputy Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Theodore and Carissa Stratigos#7668 3 Decision for 16125 Soundview Realty, LLC#7670 4 Patricia and Argyris Dellaportas#7676 5- 14 Debbie Socaris,Trustee of Diana Retos Family Trust#7689 14- 19 John Bernhard and Jennifer Maye#7680 .20- 21 Eileen Kasschau #7681 22- 26 Deborah L. McKeand and Shannon Goldman #7682 26-31 Daniel and Suzanne Diviney#7683 31-35 1670 Leeton Drive, LLC/Carrie Meyers#7692 35 North Fork Project, LLC#7687 36-43 North Fork Project, LLC#7688 36-43 Peter and Gretchen Lang#7663 43 -44 Cutchogue Fire District#7693 46-49 John Smyth and Margaret Smyth #7678 49 -56 October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for October 6th. Please join me and rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Liz would you like to review the ways in which those who are on Zoom can participate before we get started. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. Good morning everyone, if,anyone on Zoom wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you that you raise your hand. We will give you further instructions on how you.will be able to speak. If you are using a phone you can press *9 to raise your hand and then we will let you know what you need to do next. Thank you for your cooperation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. Before we get started on the first hearing, there's a couple of Resolutions related to SEAR. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5c including the following: Patricia and Argyris Dellaportas, Debbie Socaris, Trustee of Diana Retos Family Trust, John Bernhard and Jennifer Maye, Eileen Kasschau, Deborah L. McKean and Shannon Goldman, Daniel and Suzanne Diviney, North Fork Project, LLC 7687 and North Fork Project 7688. In addition we have a prior SEQR Statement on September 1, 2022 the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals as Lead Agency granted a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEAR for the Unlisted Action of the Cutchogue Fire District located at 260 New Suffolk Rd. in Cutchogue more particularly known as SCTM#1000-102-6-5 so moved, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have two draft decisions to deliberate before the first public hearing. The first one is for Theodore and Carrissa Stratigos # 7668. This was tabled previously because we were waiting for information an updated survey and drawings from the applicant's architect which we have received. This is a demolition and new construction of a single family dwelling with an accessory in-ground swimming pool that 3 October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting needs a side yard variance and combined side yard variance and swimming pool in other than the code permitted rear yard. The swimming pool is in a flood zone and rather than delay going through the variance standards, is there any discussion on this? Everybody has read it I take it yeah. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Just a reminder, I'm recusing myself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Nick. So they have a very large front yard, they have other options for swimming pools that are not in a flood zone which is certainly LWRP inconsistent so we have an application here rather a determination to grant the variances for the proposed habitable additions to the dwelling as applied for and that would be for side yard setbacks and to deny the variances for the proposed attached deck addition and proposed in-ground swimming pool on the seaward side of the dwelling subject to two conditions. One is an IA system which they are already proposing as sanitary and a revised survey removing the seaward deck addition and the pool. Any discussion? Pat do you want to make a.motion? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I make a motion to accept the decision that the Board granting the variance for the addition and denying the attached deck and the in-ground swimming pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll second it. All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN- : Aye, the motion carries. The next decision is SOundvieW Realty, LLC #7670. This is again a swimming pool it's an amended application, the applicant reduced the size of the proposed pool which required a bluff setback and therefore increased the bluff setback, that bluff setback is in keeping with several other prior determinations to grant similar bluff setbacks in that neighborhood. This is a determination to deny as applied for and grant relief as amended for a pool in the rear yard with a 67.3 foot setback but in addition to the usual dry well and pool pump equipment location there is an installation of a 15 foot non-turf buffer along the entire top of the bluff. The bluff is very well vegetated and a couple of other ones, you need Trustees approval as well and of course no heavy equipment within 25 feet of the top of the bluff during construction. Any discussion on this? Okay I'll make a motion to grant as just described the amended relief, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second 4 October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7676—PATRICIA and ARGYRIS DELLAPORTAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :,The first application before the Board is for Patricia and Argyris Dellaportas #7676. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's May 10, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" accessory building, 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard property line setback of 10 feet located at 7970 Main-Road in East Marion. PATRICIA MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the Dellaportas family. We start with the fact that there is a Pre-CO for the original structure which this had been a guest cottage. In 2015 my clients applied for additions and alterations of the house with renovations to the cottage just sprucing everything up, a new sanitary system was put in and they proceeded through the process. They had a contractor working on the project and they came back one day and found that the contractor had without authority demolished everything so you can imagine the surprise when my,client came back the house is gone and the cottage was gone. So that problem required my client to then have all .new drawings done, everything resubmitted to the Building Department and the house was now reconstruction and the contractor- had started the reconstruction of the accessory building. Unfortunately because once you demolish a pre-existing non-conforming structure .you lose it. The contractor didn't know what he was doing and just restarted everything. At that point the Building Department came and did their inspections said wait a second, this is a reconstruction we can't you have to go to the Zoning Board because the setback even though it's in exactly the same place had been 9.1 from the property line and the code requires 10. So then we. proceeded to go through the Zoning Board application process, I think we started unfortunately during COVID so it took a very. long time and we're finally here so the application before the Board is to allow the accessory building to remain in place. The foundation, the framing it stopped when the October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting Building Department said stop you need a variance. So you can see that the structure is substantially completed but it stopped when a couple of months in the waiting. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a copy of the plans that were originally approved Pat the one with the Building Department stamp on it? PAT MOORE : I have cause I just I anticipated you asking, I see from February 2015, Building Department, building permit for additions and alterations and it has Mark Schwartz's drawings attached and that's in the town records. I can give this to you I don't have an extra copy but maybe you can make a copy for your file. This appears to be that application that was filed and it also it has stated the accessory structure as being part of the plan and it's all connected to a sanitary system. It still showed an existing garage that was in the back and two sheds that were there. If you look at the Pre CO I think I did submit the Pre CO, it has listed all of these structures in the Pre CO. So can give this. to you and it was Health Department approval in 2015. In any case the existing structure even if it were to you know had the position been approved before it was started was.restarted, the location (inaudible)-had to be one of this neighborhood you have an area in East Marion that's I would say probably somewhat commercial because you'have the blue I call it the Blue Dolphin Motel I think now it's called the Blue Inn.That's the motel is to the east and behind this existing property. So the building is 9.1 feet from the area of the motel which is a pool area and it does the Blue Inn did get site plan approval and through various applications over its lifetime I'm sure you're familiar with it cause this Board granted some of the approvals and it has nice evergreen border and its visually I would say looks to be about thirty feet from the pool it's hard to tell when I was back there. It's really a commercial use behind them. The Dellaportas family owns . the property to the west excuse me to the east on Old Orchard. That had been I want to say a two family I think, it had gone through an approval Gerritano the prior owner he tried to add motel units to that and I don't believe that was approved that was many years ago. In any case there is no impact on anyone in the neighborhood by this relatively small variance request, 9.1 is the setback and 10 is the requirement. As you know the it can't be an accessory cottage anymore that's not the application before you. I would ask that.if the Board grants the approval that it should be allowed to be a pool house or workshop whatever ultimately right now it's just storage because the family I mean the house is just I think it just got it's C.O. so already it's been in transition for so long it's just storage right now but should they be able to put a pool they will be able to put a pool here they want and a pool is put in then potentially that the interior structure can be used for another permitted use. I just want to avoid that if it is converted to another permitted use that we don't have to come back for a variance because it certainly convenient (inaudible) the Building Department applies because the variance for the setback as a storage building you don't want to have to come back and get a variance just to convert it to another permitted use be it a pool house or a workshop. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Pat how�can we approve a pool house without a pool? PAT MOORE : No you can't, no, no, no I said if they were to build a pool maybe I was not clear. Right now the application is a storage building, if they build a pool and then they want to convert part of this structure to the pool house keep storage on a portion of the interior as a pool house I don't want the Building Department to send us back for what is otherwise a permitted use to get a variance because we came to you with a storage building with a half bathroom,in it and now we're converting the space to a pool house even though you can get a building permit if it was ten feet from the property line you can get a building permit with the pool. So that's my only point. As far as other variances granted in the area I had myself to the limited area here and I already gave the Board the Richter Zoning Board variance that is 4277 in '94 for an "as built" accessory structure with an insufficient side yard setback which was granted five feet from the property line. If you have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob Brown's drawings refer to this as a workshop not storage. PAT MOORE : Oh okay workshop thank you I don't know we went back and forth so many times I apologize, I think one of my drawings shows it as storage so it's a workshop. MEMBER DANTES : It's actually confusing cause some of the rooms all the rooms are labeled as storage except for the bathroom and the title as workshop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is confusing because workshop is only permitted if in fact based on the ZBA's prior code interpretation which I know you're familiar with various standards are met and you know PAT MOORE : I'm not talking garage studio a workshop is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do both, we did a workshop and we did an artist studio and in both instances they were kind of cross related they had various specific,conditions that had to be met in order to verify that they are appropriate as a workshop or an artist studio. PAT MOORE : Honestly I was not aware a workshop had an interpretation cause it is a specific but I didn't know because the code does list workshop as a customary accessory use whereas an art studio is not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's usually an accessory use to a garage. In other words it's an accessory use you know you're going to put a workshop in a garage. The.garage is the principle a workshop would be like an accessory to it you're right about that but this is not proposed as a garage. It's a building we don't know really what it's going to be used for.. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE Unfortunately it had a very viable important use that we lost so you know ultimately if a person again you might to see it if it came in as an accessory apartment or something down the line in the future if it met the criteria. If it met the criteria you might see it as an art studio I don't know because they haven't even been able to move into the house until recently asking for the C.O. The Building Department was not giving a C.O. until a variance application was filed for this as a you know as a carrot stick so when that application got filed that's when I believe the Building Department then felt that okay we can issue the C.O. on house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's a little confusing because,there's a proposed half bath not typical of a storage building allowed with a garage a half bath. PAT MOORE : Well I mean I guess I'm hearing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See what I'm saying PAT MOORE : I'm hearing interpretations that in the .past I've seen storage buildings or accessory buildings which is the Building Department calls it an accessory building because what you use on the inside may change;,depending on the occupant whether it's storage for you know garden equipment or it could be and I don't know workshop if we're talking workshop in fixing a car or workshop like you're a tinker and you like to do woodwork. So I've seen all of those as examples, in this case we had an existing building that is there and we it's too small to be a garage and it's too nice to be anything other than this at least at this point just making it a storage building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's kind of confusing cause,it's got cathedral ceilings. PAT MOORE : Well remember it started it was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't,really know what they're proposing. PAT MOORE : It was built as a one bedroom cottage and renovation to one bedroom cottage that's what it had.been. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but that's gone. PAT MOORE : Oh yea that's gone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know what we need to do now is look at what is really being proposed and it seems to be that what's being"proposed is a setback variance without a particular use PAT MOORE : Whatever was submitted October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN,: cause it's a workshop and it's storage and it might be a pool house PAT MOORE : No, no, no, no (inaudible) is just asking that because the structure is there, whatever permitted uses that the Building Department would recognize of the use of that building is if it was at 10 feet from the property line the Building Department would only let you use the building whatever in their mind is a permitted use that's what we're limiting our application to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand what you're saying and it makes sense cause if we grant the variance it'should run with the land. PAT MOORE : Yes but I've gotten interpretations that don't follow that so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well a setback is a setback and if the use if permitted that should be something the Building Department should be able to handle you're right. PAT MOORE : I mean I thought it would be important to put it on the record because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean (inaudible) setback for that building if it's a permitted use but then we would be we have to put in the decision what the use is, it's an accessory building setback but what's it being used for? PAT MOORE : So you're saying a workshop has certain parameters and we don't have we don't know we have them let's just call it storage building and approve it as a storage building and I'll give you drawings from Rob Brown that say storage building. MEMBER LEHNERT : My question, if it's storage building then why do we have closets laid out as if its living space and a half bath you call it half bath PAT MOORE : It hasn't been built yet. MEMBER LEHNERT : I know but 5 x 9 is not a half bath. MEMBER DANTES : I mean tell us what you want and we'll make a decision. We can't say we can't make a decision based on maybe I want this maybe I want that in the future. PAT MOORE : No it was proposed as a storage or my understanding was it's a storage building with a half bath because a toilet and a sink is a half bath you know that's it. MEMBER DANTES : If you want a pool house proposed a pool and a pool house I mean we can't just make up things based on what,might happen in the,future. -October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : No you-misunderstood, my point of the pool house was all I was saying is that in . the past the Building Department has said to me, you've,discussed it at the Zoning Board that it's okay to make this building into another permitted use they'll recognize that the variance runs with the land and allows the uses that would be permitted. Clearly if they said if we ask. for something that either requires a Special Exception or another variance we would be here because that's the process but what I don't want to happen is that we say listen because we don't really we just need a storage building right now to legalize its existence we'll get we'll just call it a storage building: If down the road as I said if the family goes in there and starts to say no geez we would like to add a pool can we convert some of this space to a pool house? My answer would be generally, yes if it meets the criteria of a pool house and you put in an application to the Building Department with alterations to the interior or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN See part of the problem Pat when we did the code interpretation for workshop and for artist studio as you know, the Building Department and Zoning Board realize that the Building Department was not in a position to evaluate whether or not you had one of those applications whether the applicant met the standards that would allow us to determine that indeed it is for personal use only and it's not retail. PAT MOORE : Are you saying the workshop interpretation is part of the art studio interpretation? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.No they were,done at the same time. PAT MOORE : Oh okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For two uses both we-believed that should be permitted based on certain circumstances, a personal use non-retail and so on and they're easily accessible on Laser Fiche. So we can't since you're not really applying.for workshop you're saying it's a storage building titled workshop we can't even begin to evaluate what a workshop is permitted based upon the applicant's use of that building. PAT MOORE :' So why don't I suggest something, I understand what you're saying, what I would suggest is why don't we adjourn so I can pin down the family and say what do you want to use this building for? Now that you have a C.O. what's the family what's the plan? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That makes sense. PAT MOORE : I'll come back to you with whatever and I'll have Rob give us accurate I mean we've that happened I apologize, if' it's going to be storage, storage, if it's going to be a workshop then let me look at the criteria for a workshop cause I don't know it off the top of my head. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine because I mean right now most storage buildings do not have patio glass doors, sliding patio doors for a storage;building.That would be more like for a pool house it would be more like personal workshop.of some sort but it's not typical for storage building. You know what I'm saying? PAT MOORE : They might be ready for their pool because this was done twelve months ago and no C.O. on the house so it would make sense let me pause pin them down and say okay if you're planning on putting a pool here let's do it now that we're CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I'm okay with that does the Board PAT MOORE : Does-that make sense? MEMBER PLANAMENTO :'Just a couple of questions Pat, the packet you just gave us that Donna gave us copies of was for the alterations to the house PAT MOORE : It has a shot over the accessory building that's what MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but there's no plans for whatever the accessory was to be renovated or not while this may be moved and like what we were just talking about I'm still confused, if they weren't there and the'structure-was demolished how did the structure get built cause between the foundation going in and the framing and everything I would think that they would have been aware and spoken to the Building Department. PAT MOORE : No what happened is they were out of the country at the time, the contractor was hired he started and they came back from a trip and found everything was gone. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So they were gone for an extremely long period? PAT MOORE : I think probably Greece. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Whatever, and the other thing within the packet you provided a survey that shows the Board of Health stamp for the sanitary or a seven bedroom house and workshop 'but it. shows that the sanitary for the structure is now being omitted'it's like all crossed out so I'm confused PAT MOORE : No I think that that may have that(inaudible) the Building Department in 2015 1 just pulled out what I had so that may not be what happened after 2015. 1 know that the I have an existing condition.survey for the Building Department and it has. the new sanitary system that was put in when the house.was I think they were getting they got a new system or were in the process of getting a new system for the renovated house additions because of additional bedrooms of the existing house so the system was being upgraded. The Health October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting Department would have required the cottage to be connected to that system so it was all done in 2015 with existing structures in place. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah but they're just showing it connected then it has a big NO for revision to omit it and it's got a picture of a structure that's different than what's before us. PAT MOORE : You asked me what was given in 2015. I'll look and see what other more updated permits are in the plan. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Please and then two other things you mentioned that there's a C of 0 on the house and maybe I can't understand how a C of 0 could be issued where you've got what in theory is a violation so maybe verify that there's a C of 0 on the house. PAT MOORE : I will check that is was issues yeah. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the last thing that I wanted to ask is the Dellaportas and I think your clients are here PAT MOORE : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh I'm sorry I thought that you were speaking to people PAT MOORE : No, no that's another MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I'm a little confused cause you mentioned that the Dellaportas own the property next door, are these the same people that we issued are they PAT MOORE : Yeah the parents are across the street in the B&B. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you just said that the parents or the Dellaportas move into this house that it's not PAT MOORE : No, no, no, not for them for the kids. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So who is going to live in this house, that applicant or someone else? PAT MOORE : Well the applicant owns it but I think they bought the property for their kids. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the applicant isn't going to be living in this house? PAT MOORE : No they run the B&B and that's where their house is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well that's what I was getting after, I was confused when you were talking about multi families and October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : No I mean I've always considered them their address and everything, they're still in their house but they sold the business and they invested in properties in the immediate area so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Alright is there anyone on Zoom that wants to address the application, anyone in the audience? PAT MOORE So I will answer these but are they relevant at this point since the building is demolished it was demolished and reconstructed? MEMBER DANTES : Answer what? PAT MOORE : Well you want all the Building Department records of the accessory building right? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I think it's just helpful to make a determination cause one of the questions we normally ask is, can you know make the property more conforming and here you've got this poured concrete foundation, I just don't understand the history (inaudible). I can't speak for the entire Board but I'd like to understand (inaudible) pictures. PAT MOORE : Okay I'll get that. MEMBER DANTES : Right and that's what I was looking for was the structural which is what I didn't see in the building permit. I mean if the Building Department approved the poured concrete foundation it would be a stronger argument than (inaudible) especially even if they were in Greece I figured they would have gotten an invoice for an-extra poured concrete foundation. PAT MOORE : I mean they were getting tons of bills from the contractor and they were quite upset when they came back and hadn't approved it. I mean you can the plans you can see the plans are clearly for the house in 2015,that was supposed to be addition/alteration and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well in any case MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) sort of for you like the art studio does a workshop need an owner occupied residency? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Typically yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that then presents a problem that the owner lives across the street. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I suspect what this needs to become is a storage building probably without anything other than open rafters, open studs, no half bath just a storage building. Then we can look at a setback variance for.an accessory storage building okay. If the applicant decides to do otherwise then let us know and apply for a specific use and we'll deal with it that way. Does that make sense to everybody? Okay so I'm going to make a motion Kim can we get them on for January, I think November and December are totally full. BOARD ASSISTANT : Adjourn to January yes we can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the date? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : It's the 5th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Motion to adjourn this hearing to January 5, 2023 is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING#7689—DEBBIE SOCARIS,TRUSTEE OF DIANA RETOS FAMILY TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Debbie Socaris,Trustee of Diana Retos Family Trust #7689.•This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM #1000-43-4-12 which has merged with SCTM #1000-43-4-13 based on the Building Inspector's May 24, 2022 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or .non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 Residential Zoning District) October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting located at 15 Landing Lane in Greenport. Two lots, .undeveloped both wooded waiver as requested it's a corner lot the corner of Manhansett and Landing Lane and I think you said that both lots were owned by the same family,since 1966. Can you just review that ownership history and single and separate and the title search and all that stuff. PAT MOORE : Well I'm going to go through my outline and we can if you need anything further. So lot 12 and lot 13 are the two applicable lots and they are two lots on the map of Sterling Homes which is a filed map approved in 1966 and I attached the subdivision map to my outline. Oh by the way my client is on Zoom so they can be here if they're available. The original developers I listed Stratakis, Steve, Moriatis and' Emanuel Moriatis they developed the subdivision in 1966. This subdivision was actually an exempt subdivision on a list of former 112 so if the technical merger would have occurred after 1997. This subdivision contains seventeen lots, the subdivision required extension of the public water so there's public water in the street and all the lots have to connect to the public water. At the time the subdivision was approved the lot sizes exceeded the surrounding area, they are non-conforming but they were certainly larger than what would be the surrounding community,you can see on the map on the subdivision map to the east the lots are half to a third in size. This subdivision is somewhat isolated, it's its own community and so I've looked at other variances or waivers of mergers area variances in this community. John Retos and Diana Retos they own both parcels since 1966.7here's not much to say about the single and separate because they both they bought them together as husband and wife both lots. Mr. Retos passed away in 1979 so Mrs. Retos became the sole owner. Thereafter. for estate planning they created a family trust and the daughter Diana Socaris is the Trustee of the Trust. So the application was made by the Trustee of the Trust. All throughout since 1966 these two lots have received separate tax bills, they have paid taxes for all the public services, they've paid looking at the tax bill, Greenport School, Greenport Library, town roads, town services never having any indication that this lot was other than two separate lots on the filed map. The lots are wooded and undeveloped so they've been holding on to these properties for family since for many, many years. As you know development of these:lots one would connect to public water which is again in the street and-also require construction of the nitrogen IA systems. Now any sanitary system built for any house is actually going to be a higher grade than the surrounding community. There are no environmental constraints affecting the development on each of these lots, there's,no- wetlands, there's nothing other than the standard construction on a single family residence. I. did do a search of waiver of mergers within the 500 feet of the surrounding community. I found specific and l had already given this to you but I'm restating it that a waiver of merger was granted for tax.lot 38 and 33 .for.Tober in Appeal No. 4432. The basis of the waiver of merger even at that-time the lots continue to receive separate tax bills. The neighborhood consists of many lots similarly sized or even smaller. The land would not require any change. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting alterations contours or slopes or substantial filling of the land which (inaudible) that we do it just generic environmental issues. The other variances that were granted were for area variances I list the two, one the area variance 3827 in 1989 before the waiver of merger was adopted was for two very small lots and a third so 29. 30 and 35 were split and then also Appeal No. 2163 in 1976 for a lot to divide it, one lot had a house on it and the other one was vacant. So that's the history of the properties in this area. I would just emphasize the fact that we don't have any constraints on development of these two parcels and building a house even though it's on the corner we have no impediment that it's adequate room for a modest sized home which is similar to the homes in this community. Oftentimes putting lots together creates non-conformity when they're trying to build a house so you start putting these two lots together you end up with needing variances for rear yards or side not side yards but probably rear yards because now the setbacks have increased and you end up with more variances. In addition the. Health Department is a problem because the Health Department recognizes the subdivision you start going to the Health Department on an application with two lots combined the Health Department considers it to be a subdivision because now you're modifying the original property line. So we do create other issues when we're combining lots. In this instance it certainly doesn't make sense to combine these two lots and the family again since 1966 anticipated that they or believed that they had two viable parcels and were quite surprised and upset by the facts.in the application that was necessary. My client is on Zoom and if you have any questions I think they wanted to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if they want to say anything. GEORGE SOCARIS :.My wife had a doctor's appointment this morning, she apologizes. I am her husband, I have been. in the family.for fifty .years and the purpose of my in-laws when they bought the property in the.sixties was to perpetuate to the family it was a Greek area where they lived in Manhattan and they moved out there and as the years went on they moved to Albany and my mother in-laws wishes all along were to have her.two grandchildren move out there and possibly build a house together, that was the whole thing. The point of contention was my wife and my sister in-law were paying bills for all these years on separate and they assumed that that was the they were separate properties. There was two bills every year, two checks, two whatever and we were never notified not that we were down there to see it in the paper or (inaudible) but that was the gist of it. I mean that's all I can add I don't want to add anymore I think that's probably they had it,for sixty years or so possibly more than that but that was the whole that',s all I can add and your decision will be anticipated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you for your comments. I have to say though you know when this whole merger law took effect as a consequence of the town deciding'to up zone no one was informed and that has continued to cause dismay to many families many property 1 October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting owners who continue to pay separate tax bills but the town did not consider that to be sufficient evidence that they had not merged, they merged by force.of law if they were held in common ownership and the only thing and I'm just doing this for educational sake, finally because what often happened was merger by death took place. Sometimes a husband owned one lot and the wife owned another lot and then one of them died and then it wound up of course being inherited by the survivor and then it became common ownership and it was merged by force of law. So finally because that was so completely unfair after having checker boarded this for so long the Town Board created an exemption so that merger by death is no longer the basis upon which merger will take place but this continues to be an issue. Waiver of merger used to be easier because there were many, many more properties available, the density the number of sanitary systems and so on was a lot less in the sixties and in the seventies than what we have now in town. However you know the standards still say if you can verify it was held in the-family and the lots are similar size without environmental constraints then it bears on the side of the benefit to the applicant. So you know we'll see, does the Board have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : So had you maintained by'putting the property in the trust it's still having the same ownership that's been since 1966? PAT MOORE : Yes; 'the trust is still in the Trustee is the daughter which family the trust is actually was the same family trust. So it's the Assessor's Office for example if you put your house in a trust.still gives you all of the Star exemptions, senior income all the same exemptions because it's just it's an ownership tool that's not a change in ownership that at least the Assessor's Office have recognized it's still the same family.,". . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ":,That's correct I just did it myself, I had to bring in a copy of the trust. PAT MOORE : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the'same people but just changed the legal basis. PAT MOORE : ('inaudible) really the same thing because some people are putting their houses in LLC's for liability protection or whatever but the principals, the managers, the members of the LLC still remain to be the,same people so,.so far you give proof of who the family is who the members are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience? PAT MOORE : This is a lovely nice family that just needed to understand and when I explained what we were doing I think that they're in support so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They're a neighbor? PAT MOORE : They're a neighbor to the on Manhanssett next door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay very good. Liz did you say SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We have a Mr. Richard Ruble, you can go ahead now. RICHARD RUBEL : Yes I'm just concerned if this waiver is granted does the future developer have any recourse to come back to seek further relief from this Board? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes the answer is yes. While we would hope that they would propose to build a dwelling that it would be conforming to the code to the bulk schedule. The Board can't condition this kind of approval on that basis. We cannot deny you know an applicant's future rights to come before this Board. We can deny the application if we get it or approve it but you know it's an open slate. The assumption is they build a conforming house because it's cheaper you just get a building permit but if somebody wants to build something the code doesn't allow they do have the right to get a Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department and appear before this Board seeking relief which does not guarantee approval or a denial one way or the other. We have to look at the merits. PAT MOORE : Was he asking about subdivision? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no he's asking about you know what a builder can do on his property. Would they allow it to seek additional relief? The answer is yes, that's within their right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat shared that the applicant seeking the waiver will be building a conforming house. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE :I would anticipate so. Out it this way; a conforming house.would fit so. . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN All., she's saying is a conforming house is possible on these properties. PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That doesn't guarantee that it will be proposed that way cause how-do-you know? MEMBER DANTES : But to grant for us to grant a variance without there being a hardship on the properties is,incredibly rare-. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah if something is brand. new and they're starting with a blank slate the standards for granting a variance is extremely high because they have options. It's not like they're building onto a house that's -been there for thirty years and have non- conforming built into it so does that answer your question? RICHARD RUBEL : Yes thankyou very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :-You're"very.welcome. Okay anything:else from anybody? If there are no further questions or comments" I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date.-.Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Aye. 191 ,October 6;2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7680—JOHN BERNHARD and JENNIFER MAYE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Bernhard and Jennifer Maye #7680. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's May 5, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for.a,permit to legalize an "as built" 4.5 ft. by 5.7 ft. addition to an existing single family dwelling, 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 2285 Little Neck Rd. (adj. to Baldwin's Creek) in Cutchogue. Is there someone here' to represent the application?Would you state your name please. JAMES MAYE : Hi good morning, thank you for your time my name is James Maye and I'm here as an agent for my wife Jen Maye who is the owner of the property along with her father John Bernhard. The property was recently inherited by Jen's aunt that purchased the property in 1971 and the property consists of two dwellings and we're-seeking a setback variance'for an "as built" closet on the northern dwelling. The discovery of the "as'built" closet came about when we were applying for a rental permits for the two dwellings'and we don't have any records of when this work was completed but we do know the work has existed for several years. So we feel that there would be minimal impact granting relief since Jen and John also own the property abutting the closet. The closet has existed for many years without complaint and is not visible from the road. There is also a pre-existing shed that you can'see on the survey that does not need setback requirements so we feel like this doesn't impact the overall character of the dwelling. Lastly for clarification to the public we're not seeking to add or modify the property in any way, we're just trying to get approval for work that was done under previous ownership and try to be in good standing as property owners that we can move forward in getting the proper rental permits. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Is there a C.O: on that shed? JAMES MAYE : The shed is I don't think there's a Pre-C.O. on the properties when we applied for the rental permit we had also tried to get new Pre-C.0's. If'there were any issued we don't we were never able to find a record of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because although it's in a conforming front yard because it's a waterfront parcel it's one foot one inch setback from the property line so I'm just wondering you know what the-history is on that thing. This. is one lot with two dwellings legally established on this one lot correct? JAMES MAYE : Yes two dwellings. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so this is for this new closet that we saw. Just so that you're aware all the Board Members have been out to the property and inspected it prior to this hearing so we've seen the property, we've seen the--neighborhood. JAMES MAYS : Right . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. ' 'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you've covered everything that 'l had observed. It's a very small bump out you know on an addition. There's a very small Window on the other side of it where the AC unit in it.'Anything from you Nick?' MEMBER-P.LANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT ::,No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay ready to close it, yes Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING #7681—EILEEN KASSCHAU CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Eileen Kasschau #7681. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's May 6, 2022 Amended June 22, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" accessory decks and shed located seaward of the top of the bluff and to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling 1) dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) three (3) "as built" decks located less than the code required 100 feet landward of the top of the bluff, 3)"as built" frame shed located less than the code required 100 feet landward of the top of the bluff located at 5800 Vanston Rd. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning, Michael Kimack on.behalf of the applicant who are present in the audience today. I'd like to begin with the house itself with the request for a variance. That house basically exists roughly sixty six sixty seven feet from the top of the bluff therein lies the jurisdiction of the applicant's propose a second floor addition to the exiting perimeter of a first floor garage in that one corner which is roughly 13 feet by 24 feet single floor to attached existing grandchildren's room to add an additional play room for the grandchildren which they just had their fourteenth so we assume it's a necessity for the additional room. There are no bathrooms, there are not it's just a big open recreation room attached to it. Construction being within the perimeter of the existing first floor or ground floor garage. MEMBER DANTES : You're not changing the footprint? MIKE KIMACK : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just going up. MIKE KIMACK : Just going up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike can you tell us okay you know that looks quite benign frankly to me but I don't speak for the whole Board but it's an interior room connected to the inside so I don't see there's no increase in the degree of non-conformity other than the verticality of the Walz decision (inaudible). MIKE KIMACK : The vertical aspect is less than the actual existing roofline so it doesn't come into play. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I can see that. Can you tell me when we inspected the property it looks like all those the decking and all the steps going down to the bluff and the shed, the bulkhead it all looks very new. It's like a TREX or composite materials. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I was working down the hill, I wanted to start at the top. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's go downhill. MIKE KIMACK : The next would be the upper deck and shed which you have just alluded to. That was issued a permit along with replacement of the bulkhead in 1999 to replace the existing deck and shed at that particular time. This was under the Trustees permit No. 4958. The existing deck as it's in the permit primarily had a 7 by 8 shed and they said a 6 by 20 wood deck. The shed basically and I think you've got I've got showing exactly what it looked like would be helpful to the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah MEMBER DANTES : So you're saying that the bulkhead, the.shed and the deck all were built subject to a Trustees permit? MIKE KIMACK : Yes MEMBER DANTES : And then this is basically they were doing maintenance on it? MIKE KIMACK : No it was built'a little bit larger in scale. This is what it looked like in 1998 before the change. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When was this rebuilt? MIKE KIMACK : 1999 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the one that's there now. The current existing deck and shed when was that built? MIKE KIMACK : 1999 MEMBER DANTES : When was the most recent work done on it? MIKE KIMACK : That's the lower deck primarily. The lower deck was in two components, the one off the bulkhead the flat one,at the bottom, when the bulkhead was replaced. The 10 by 37-foot flat deck was put into place at that time. They didn't realize at most that they needed a permit for it and that was in has been in for twenty three years. After twenty years about three years ago because.weather began to close the decking to begin to deteriorate. When changing the boards they basically extended the deck about 17 feet to the secondary staircase. The reasoning for that was because they had such a tick infestation with the grandchildren that they just wanted to be able to have a separation there and not have to deal with the ticks and that was extended. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What year was that? MIKE KIMACK : Well the original construction for the upper deck was 1999 when the bulkhead was done and that's when the 10 by 37 foot first section of the lower deck was put into place. Then when they went to repair that lower deck about three years ago they added and they extended it to the second staircase in order to deal with the tick infestation. The upper deck was permitted and the shed was permitted. If you look at the permit it says 6 by 20 and 7 by 8 but you'll see that the shed is sitting on the deck. The overall length is 28 feet, the width is 6 feet, the deck is then that original shed extended over in the backside another foot. The new construction based upon the recommendation of the contractor which we all agree should have come back and got an amendment at the time but did not constructed a 10.5 by 8 foot shed and then with a 8 foot by 17 foot section of the deck in front of it which accounts for about 209 sq. ft. The original shed and deck was about 177 sq. ft. which would have been permitted had they stayed within those guidelines but it was enhanced at the recommendation of the contractor unbeknownst to my client that he should have gone back and gotten an amended. The overall footprint the overall length stays the same it's a little bit wider, it adds about 32 sq. ft. to what had originally been approved as an overall plan, that's the upper deck. The lower deck the 10 by 37 which sits flat on the ground attached to the bulkhead was put in place when the bulkhead is replaced under the Trustees permit in 1999 that 10 by 37 section. That was the one that was in place twenty years hence in 2019 when it became deteriorating top boards that they went to replace to replace the top boards and because of the dealing with the grandkids and with the tick infestation injected all the way to the second staircase. That's the background history. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what I'm getting at is it looks to me like all material is exactly the same and in exactly the same condition. So it would appear that let's say if this was done you're guessing about three years ago it looks like everything was removed about three years ago. Is that correct? JAMES KASSCHAU : Yes, yes all of the I'm James Kasschau I'm the owner. Three years ago the treads and the risers in the staircase going up along with the planting at the lower deck it was just totally splintered, parts of it were you know had all sorts of rotten stuff. We had no choice we believe we had no choice we believe but to cover those. None of the structural members, none of the footings, none of the members that support the staircase none of that was touched. It was just only the handrails and the actual stairs and risers. We needed to do that just for our own safety. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this was about three years ago-and because it:was enlarged rather than replaced in kind from the 1999 Trustees permit that is why you are here before this Board. JAMES KASSCHAU : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :'I understand _you came for the house but the greater concern is what's going on on that bluff which is quite well vegetated although the bluff farther down is not it's eroded, it's quite nude. If you stand on your property and you look that way. JAMES KASSCHAU : Look to the north? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah JAMES KASSCHAU : 'Yeah that isn't as well vegetated as it is south of that I agree with that. That's never been touched, that's just mother nature right there. MEMBER DANTES : So the one deck is 32 sq.,ft. larger;how much is the other deck largerT MIKE KIMACK : 10 by 17 MEMBER DANTES : So 170? MIKE KLMACK : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No you addressed it all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything else? MEMBER DANTES : No not at'this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, anyone in .the audience who wants to address the application:? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay I'm going, to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? October 6i 2022 Regular Meeting :MEMBER PLANAMENTO-: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. HEARING#7682-DEBORAH L..MCKEAND and SHANNON GOLDMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next,application before the Board is for Deborah L. McKeand and Shannon Goldman #7682. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280- 116A(1) and the Building Inspector's May 6, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff-located at 100 Salt March Lane (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Peconic. Good morning Rob,just to let you know that we may be getting an arraignment in here we might have to vacate right in the middle of whatever you have to tell us. So it's additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 6.5 feet to the top of the bluff and 41 feet from the top of the bank. I'm sorry the bank at 6.5 and bluff at 41 is that correct? ROB HERRMANN : Read that again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Additions to a single family dwelling with a 6.5 foot setback to the ,top of a bank and a 41 foot top of bluff setback. ROB HERRMANN : Those setbacks are correct but the only'variance relief that's required is the setback from the bluff, there,is no bank setback under the zoning code. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah the denial,only says bluff. ROB HERRMANN Correct just so that's clear and I'll talk about that a little bit. Are you ready for me? October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I am. ROB HERRMANN : Any questions or are you ready to approve? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just do your thing. ROB HERRMANN .: So this is it's a reasonably straightforward application for bluff setback relief for the in place replacement of a Pre 1957 so pre-existing non-conforming waterside deck which is located 41 feet from the top,of the bluff. What makes the application a little unusual is what Leslie just mentioned.The property is located at the most easterly terminus of the geologic tide bluff to the west which tapers down an elevation and literally ends on the applicant's property. So you can see by the contours I don't have to go up there and point to them you can see the way just imagine the bluff is running west to east and then the hump if you will,ends at this property and then the communities to the east of it basically those low lying sound front community which traces the beach rather than a bluff. So this property actually sits at the border of those two different sound front communities with high bluffs to the west and the low lying houses to the east. According to the town's definition of a bluff which speaks to the conversations that we were starting to have which as you know is based on vertical height and slope, the bluff defined for.zoning purposes ends on the west side of the property which is highlighted there on the survey in pink or red 'in the upper left hand corner to the west of the house. So this is worth noting because you may notice and I didn't realize that Leslie would even read that the deck appears to be and is located closer to the top of the slope,top of the bank that 41 feet but directly north of the house the slope is lower and is thus defined by code as a bank. Regardless of the semantics or definitions the application is proposing only to replace the existing deck and it's more than sixty five year old footprint with no expansion or further encroachment on the bluff or the bank which I think is noted in the LWRP Coordinator's recommendation of consistency for the application. Historically this deck did have a roof over it but it had become so badly aged and water damaged about a year or so ago that it was starting to impact the roof over the main house and had to be removed. So if you've been out to the site recently you notice there's no roof on the existing deck,there is no proposal to put a traditional roof back over the deck but instead an open pergola. As the deck is being maintained in the same location and it's located far from substantially out of view from the neighboring parcels, there are no potential adverse impacts on the surrounding parcels and no changing conditions that affect the character of the community. Most similar pre-existing non-conforming houses to the west were also built much closer to the bluff than 100 feet prior to the current bluff codes, under zoning wetlands_and a couple of those have been a little more recently benefitted from bluff setback relief. These are older comparables but they are the ones that exist between the pre-existing non-conforming construction and now the immediately adjacent parcel to the west in 1990 which is 160 Salt Marsh was granted October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting relief for construction on a new dwelling with a waterside deck 5 feet from the top of the bluff and in 1992 the parcel four to the west which is 880 Salt Marsh was granted relief to build a waterside deck addition 26 feet from the top of the bluff. So while the relief request is mathematically substantial it is less substantial than the nearby priors and again there's no change to (inaudible) existing setbacks here. Nevertheless there is some mitigation that's incorporated into the plan for the deck reconstruction, there's a 5 to 10 foot wide non-turf buffer proposed along both the top of bluff and top of bank. There is also an existing 210 sq. ft. slate patio which has sat for a long time within the coastal erosion hazard area that is proposed to be removed (inaudible) right now. It's also worth noting that although unrelated to the deck reconstruction and our variance request, there are various other renovations proposed on the property primarily interior renovations to the existing house. There's a garage down on the south side of the property closer to but still more than 100 feet from freshwater wetlands associated with (inaudible) Lake and associated with those renovations it is the installation of a new IA Low WTS Sanitary System and new storm water draining system. So those are really substantial improvements to the property that wouldn't necessarily normally come along with an in place deck replacement but they do come along with this application due to the renovations. Again the only non-compliant part of any of this is the deck replacement but you can still see the full scope of the project in front of you. The owners are also here if you have any questions hopefully I can answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No you answered my question. My confusion was just the plans, I didn't know what was new what was ROB HERRMANN : Deck MEMBER LEHNERT : It was only the deck, all I need to know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No,just making sure you're not going to be anywhere near the demo code being triggered on this one that's the only thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean the renovations? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah Z October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : In-terms of the interior renovations? I believe that's correct the architect is- not here but MEMBER LEHNERT : That's where the plans were confusing me.'The plans are showing it all new that was my biggest point. ROB HERRMANN :-What do you mean when you say it's all new? MEMBER LEHNERT : Well if you look at.the plans.he's got everything hatched out as basically new construction. MEMBER DANTES : That's my only I'mean this isn't a big variance request but if you triggered, the demolition code during the construction phase that that would be an issue. ROB HERRMANN : I believe that's been discussed with the architect and that is not the case. MEMBER DANTES : Okay ROB HERRMANN : If it will turn out that that is the case we would have to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here comes the deminimus and you.know very well this demolition is not a deminimus. ROB HERRMANN : We would have to come back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You would have to come back. ROB HERRMANN : Well what the question is I'm repeating the question for the owners is that if enough of the existing structure is taken down there is a threshold what is it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fifty percent of the value of the existing ROB HERRMANN : Fifty percent of the value then it's technically a demolition. Now we know and let me just make this clear, they're not demolishing the house (inaudible) in fact there's no demolition but I know you're question that you're asking is more of a regulatory one than a physical one so that's just something that Meryll will have to confirm with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause Meryll Kramer is the architect? ROB HERRMANN :Yeah. MEMBER DANTES : I would talk to the builder about the deck too cause it would we're tired of hearing Z October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just don't want you to have to come back with a problem that can be avoided because the town here's the thing, if something is a demolition and the existing Certificate of Occupancy is extinguished and what this Board tries to do is to figure out whether or not it's justifiable to leave a dwelling that close to a bluff if it's a demolition. Now most people try and keep as much of the house as they can cause they want it to stay where it is so the town put into place when you think of demolition you think it's gone you know you've taken it all down but the town code defines demolition on appraised value, assessed value of a structure that was changed several years ago. So the Building Department will say demolition per town code and reconstruction or demolition period, there's a whole bunch of nuances and we just want to make sure that you are aware since you're doing these renovations that you talk to Meryll and you talk to the Building Department to avoid any unnecessary problems. We're just dealing with your deck setback basically that you're proposing to replace. We have plans for the house because everything comes before us alright. Does that work everybody? Is there anybody on Zoom? No I don't think so. Is there anybody in the audience? Okay motion to ROB HERRMANN : Before you do, if we're able to just verify that ahead of your next meeting I mean does it make sense for me to see Meryll? MEMBER DANTES : You don't even have to do that I'm just worrying about when you're in construction. ROB HERRMANN : So you're just saying we're all going to presume we're not and if we are we need to deal with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Otherwise they would have determined that I would assume they would have looked at that. ROB HERRMANN : I would think so and I mean it's you know it's we've been at this a while but I'm pretty sure this was discussed. MEMBER DANTES : Believe me Rob you have no idea how many people come out here and say the builder gave no indication and no one told me and we want to avoid the whole situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's more of a courtesy than it is a concern on our part but it should be a concern on your part. ROB HERRMANN : If it turns out that that was the case do you anticipate that it would be something that the Board would consider addressing through a deminimus request. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't that's the point.: If it's a demolition it can never be considered a minor change from here's the house. ROB HERRMANN : I just wanted to check. MEMBER LEHNERT : You'd end up coming back for another hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you would need a hearing on the house. MEMBER DANTES : And then there would be a Stop Work Order and probably several months away. It would be pain in the rear end for you. ROB HERRMANN : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We try to help you avoid that situation. If you feel there's something else going on there, I'm sure this has been reviewed with the Building Department they review a lot of things. ROB HERRMANN : I'm sure of it too but I've learned to be (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't want anything to fall between the cracks for the applicants. Anything from anybody else, 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 MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye, motion carries. HEARING#7683- DANIEL and SUZANNE DIVINEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before,the Board is for Daniel and Suzanne Diviney #7683. This is a request for a variance from. Article XXIII Section 280-124_and the Building Inspector's May 9, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application.for a permit to October 6, 202'2 Regular Meeting demolish existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling, 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 400 Bay Rd. (adj. to Gull Pond Inlet) in Greenport. So here we are this one is determined to be a demo. ROB HERRMANN :This one is definitely'a demo. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is new single family dwelling with a front yard setback at 16.5 feet where the code requires 35 feet. It is LWRP exempt and an IA system is proposed in the front yard. You need Trustees on this right Rob? ROB HERRMANN : We will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's the same front yard setback as the existing. ROB HERRMANN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're increasing the wetland setback of 4 feet? ROB HERRMANN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't want to steal your thunder here you'll get mad at me if I say too much. ROB HERRMANN : You provided a great Segway on the last one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have an existing attached garage and shed to be removed. ROB HERRMANN : You said attached, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a 10 foot vegetated buffer proposed? ROB HERRMANN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On Gull Pond Inlet tidal wetlands. I see the architect is here. So what did I miss, it's a narrow lot depth. ROB HERRMANN :)Nothing really, 1 mean we're looking to maintain so it is a demo it's a new house that will maintain the existing 16 % foot front yard setback. The existing house pre- dates 1957 but the 16 % foot setback was actually established later in 1967 pursuant to a building permit for the attached garage addition which is now being removed with the rest of the house and we don't really have a practical opportunity to increase the setback due to the very narrow lot width which lot depth which you just mentioned between the front lot line along Bay Rd. and the adjacent tidal wetland boundary. The applicant's lot and the adjacent lot to the south which is at the south end of Bay Rd. are really uniquely constrained with October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting respect to this limited buildable lot depth because of the way the wetlands associated with Gull Pond Inlet encroach farther landward toward Bay Rd. from north to south and a picture is kind of worth a thousand words so I'm just I'll hand this up but you can see the way Gull Pond Inlet keeps getting closer and closer and closer to Bay Rd. So you've got these two lots down here where there's still surface waters and more extensive wetlands compared to farther south and farther north. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You submitted this didn't you? ROB HERRMANN : I did well it's a small version of that but the photos but I wanted to add that there. So that house to the south is only 13 feet from the front lot line and it was granted a building permit in 1998 to construct a two story addition 16 % feet from the lot line which is the same as the applicant's existing and requested setback so while the relief is unavoidable and unavoidably substantial mathematically (inaudible) argue application is not substantial in fact cause it maintains the same setback that was established with the Building Department fifty four years ago and has a greater setback than a similarly constrained lot to the south. The relief will not create an undesirable impacts on the neighbors or changes to the community character and with respect to the adjacent neighbor to the north, I do need to mention if I can do it before they come in here. I think I may have somehow failed to highlight in the application is that we are removing an existing side yard non-conformity. The existing attached garage is 13 feet I think 13.3 feet on the survey from the side lot line I don't know if that was on purpose or by accident but that side yard setback will be corrected with this new construction. So the existing non-conforming side yard setback will be removed as the new house will have a 15 foot side yard setback. I think there may have been a couple letters of support, I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we have two of them from neighbors. ROB HERRMANN : Which is. good so that would support my claim here. I don't think I have time to go through it but there are various and substantial environmental mitigation measures that are listed in our narrative that includes the increase the wetlands setback by 4 feet. The house will be raised to a FEMA compliant elevation, existing conventional septic system will be removed and replaced with an IA OWTS septic system, 10 foot wide vegetated buffer adjacent to the wetlands, new storm water drainage system and of course.project (inaudible) fence will be installed to contain site disturbance and runoff during construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you just have the one variance for front yard. ROB HERRMANN : That's correct. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :' Other properties seem to have greater front yard setbacks so averaging wouldn't help in this case. ROB HERRMANN : Because of the configuration the wetland the lots to the north the lot adjacent on the north is 35 or 16, the next one is 13 so the setbacks go they decrease to the south as the wetlands get closer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The last thing we.would want or.the Trustees would approve is an increase getting closer to that tidal wetland. ROB HERRMANN : That's correct and the depth of the house has been designed to be the same. So we're not you know it's not like we're trying to squeeze a bigger house you know from the road to the water in the same space. It's the same depth and Rob cleverly created a footprint so that we actually got some increase in wetland setback out of it which hopefully the Trustees will like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well okay as long as you're doing a non-turf buffer you know and the fact that you're improving the setback I don't anticipate a problem but that's a different Board. Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : What about the shed; what are you doing with the shed? ROB HERRMANN :The shed'is being removed. MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I just wanted to talk briefly about the third floor the unfinished attic. There's a rear dormer it's substantial, I know it has nothing to do with the setback relief required but maybe you can talk a little about the 'proposed use. It seems like it might be some sort of living space. ROB HERRMANN : I'll defer to the architect. ROB BROWN : Rob Brown architect. No the dormer is currently an architectural feature, there's no intention of using the third floor except for storage, the attic floor I should say. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're defining the storage cause you have a partition wall in one space where there's like a lower ceiling height so it's just all completely ROB BROWN : It's all completely unfinished. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Unfinished, exposed rafters thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application, nobody's on Zoom. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a request from the applicant to adjourn 1670 Leeton Drive, LLC/Carrie Meyers #7692 without a date. So I'm going to make a motion to approve that request. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to recess for lunch. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING#7687 &#7688- NORTH FORK PROJECT, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon. So the first application this afternoon before the Board I'm going to open up both at the same time, North Fork Project, LLC#7687 this is a Use Variance from Article XIII Section 280-55A and the Building Inspector's May 22, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize the Use of "as built" construction of a new garage used for storage at 1) accessory structure does not constitute a permitted principle use or specially permitted use located at 5775 West Mill Rd. (aka 5550 W. Mill Rd.) (adj. to Mattituck Creek) in Mattituck and in the same instance North Fork Project, LLC#7688. This is a request for a variance from Article XIII Section 280-55A and the Building Inspector's May 24, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize "as built" construction of a new garage used for storage at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet at the same address. So one has to do with permitted use and the other has to do with basically a setback. As you know we were out there inspecting the property and we can see that its built, it's not finished in the interior. I was covered in thistle needles it was like I'm attacked by the weeds. So it is unfinished proposed to be used as storage it's really not a 36 October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting garage. It's because it doesn't have a principle use on the property so subsequently it's not a permitted use as an accessory structure. It has a front yard setback it is basically encroaching into the town's easement or road by slight degree. The code requires generally a 35 foot front yard setback for structures. I think that's basically it in terms of what's before the Board. Would you like to take it from here please. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, good afternoon everybody Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant who joins me here today Anthony Martinetti he's the owner of the Old Mill property. As Leslie stated we're here for Area and Use variance relief to allow the frame storage building to remain where a similar structure has been for decades. I know you have a copy of the survey, I just want to just give you the brief context here. We're dealing with this CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's up there too just so you know. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Alright so you guys can all see it. Obviously we're talking about the framed building that is on the bottom of your screen there. If you zoom back out a little bit you can tell this is obviously an incredibly constrained parcel that does not have room as we'll discuss for a principle structure. As you know the Old Mill has been invariable and a cherished institution in Mattituck in our town for over two centuries. The applicant was before the Board not too long ago, it was granted relief necessary to renovate the restaurant across the street so it can once again be enjoyed by residents and guest of our town for decades to come. I'm pleased to report that the applicant has received Health Department approval and approval from the State Historic Preservation Office, not easy to do for the renovation so the project is well on its way. We're on deck with the Trustees hopefully is our last stop. So as the Board is aware, the Old Mill itself encompasses pretty much all of lot three oh the Trustees have already approved it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Forward us a copy of the approval. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yep will do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What did they approve? MARTIN FINNEGAN : They approved the project that you approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the actual renovation of the restaurant. MARTIN FINNEGAN : There was two applications, one for the renovation one for the bulk heading the shoreline structures that are there and those were both approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The renovation of the restaurant and then the bulk heading. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Can you just send us a copy when you get a chance? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Absolutely. So as I was saying there's no room for accessory structures on the Old Mill parcel three itself. Historically lot 4.1 which is the L-shaped lot has been intrinsically connected to the Old Mill parcel. Lot 4.1 houses the sanitary system for the Old Mill and accessory structures including the town building and the storage building that is the subject of this application. Since there's no basement in the Old Mill as you know the garage has always provided storage space which is essential for the restaurant operations. The structure that was there was damaged beyond repair in the storm last year, was falling into there's a fence right next to it, it was falling into the Strong's fence and on top of the well head that services the property.-It was also obstructing access to the Strong's property. The applicant rebuilt it in place and in kind to avoid any further damage and to restore the storage space that is vitally needed for the Old Mill. The subsequent application for a building permit where the "as built" structure resulted in the Disapproval that brings us here today. Obviously based on the constraints of lot 4.1 there's no way that a principle structure can be constructed on the parcel. Records have been provided in support of our application established that the existing tower building and the garage 'were previously blessed by the ZBA back in 1967 and permitted to remain in the absence of a principle structure in their non- conforming locations. Based on the finding that and I quote strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce unnecessary hardship, the hardship created is unique and it would -not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district and the permission granted herein does observe the spirit of the ordinance and will not change the character of the district which obviously is the use variance criteria.The applicant submits that a similar finding is warranted here. I have submitted a memorandum of law which I know you all have addressing both the Use and Area Variance criteria under Town Law 267. 1 will briefly address them here and again I ask you that you to keep the context in mind here the uniqueness of this parcel and its historic connection to the Old Mill Inn. So just as quickly as I can I'll address the Use Variance criteria and the applicant realize a reasonable return the bulk schedule for the MII zoning district as you know requires 80,000 sq. ft. for each use, a lot depth of 150 feet, a 35 foot front yard setback for each use. There's simply no room for a marina, a club, a boatyard, Mari culture, a boat repair shop, a retail store even a single family residence which are the permitted uses in that district. Financial evidence is not required here to reach the conclusion that the applicant cannot realize a return from any of the uses that are permitted and quite honestly cannot exist on this property. Is the hardship related to this property unique, as we had suggested this is probably one of the most unique parcels in our town and the hardship is unique as the Old Mill is. There are no other parcels in the M'II zone district or in Mattituck that are comparable in configuration, size or use to lot 4.1 that I've been able to identify. This parcel for all intense and purposes accessory to the Old October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting Mill parcel that is across the street from the restaurant in(inaudible) as the principle structure really for lot 4.1. As the ZBA determined in 1967 with respect to the (inaudible) structure the hardship created is unique to this.constrained parcel and would not be shared by any other properties in.the vicinity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Martin what was the file number on that determination? MARTIN FINNEGAN 1018 it's in our application. I also attached it to the memorandum of law as exhibit. Will the granting of relief alter the essential-character of the neighborhood- is the next criteria. The parcel is and always has been an extension of the Old Mill parcel and the structures there have served as =accessory to the principle restaurant use for decades. Allowing them to remain I would suggest sustains the character of the neighborhood and does not alter it. Has the hardship been self-created? The evidence presented establishes that an accessory garage structure was in existence- for decades providing storage space that is essential to the Old Mill operations. Based on the building permit for the garage issued in 1967 that is' attached to our materials I grant permission to quote build new accessory building for Old Mill Inn the applicant was (inaudible) to conclude that these structures were legally existing accessory structures based on the prior approvals granted. It's a deminimus relief, we're just asking for relief that will simply allow the structure like size and purpose to remain in the exact footprint where the storage structure sat for decades with no impact on the character of the neighborhood, to the health, safety and ,welfare of the surrounding community. Yes and we would suggest that spirit of the ordinance would be observed, public safety and welfare will be secured and substantial justice will be done if the variance is granted. Again this is a very unique parcel in the neighborhood and in the town (inaudible) on accessory structures in the code should not apply or is not applicable to a parcel that can't sustain a principle structure. So we respectfully submit that substantial justice is served by allowing the status quo to remain on this parcel as it.has for decades. Just briefly on the area variance standards, you know again asking to allow the structure to remain on its historic footprint will not impact the character or be.a detriment.The Old Mill is an integral part of the character of the surrounding community in which it lays beloved by residents of Mattituck and the entire town. The subject parcel and structures have been interconnected with the Old Mill operations for over a century. We submit that the granting of the variance relief will have no impact on the surrounding properties and we have a letter from Jeff Strong is in the record attesting to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we do have that. MARTIN,FINNEGAN : You do have it okay. Can we do this without a variance? No, as the Board is aware the Old Mill parcel is extremely in a constraining there's no conceivable way to allow October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting a pre-existing non-conforming footprint of the storage structure to remain without the requested variance relief. Substantiality, again just asking the Board to bless the existing footprint of this (inaudible) structure as the ZBA did back in 1967. Adverse impacts, variance relief to allow the proposed accessory structure to remain will facilitate the old operations which will have an undeniably positive impact on the physical conditions on the surrounding community. We've already addressed self-creation with the Use Variance but I submit that the Old Mill has been in existence at this very location since 1821 long before the adoption of zoning laws in our town to the extent that the subject property is constrained by its lot size and it's pre-existing non-conforming setbacks the difficulty is not self-created. So with all that we again are simply asking for the Board to adhere to the findings of your predecessors and grant the relief necessary to allow the storage facility to remain in its place. I'd be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Am I correct you mentioned the sanitary for the restaurant is also on that lot? MARTIN FINNEGAN : It is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course waiver of merger for that very constrained lot what is it 4.1 is not possible because there's a road there. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they're technically not adjacent although they are not literally but virtually adjacent. MARTIN FINNEGAN : And as you're aware the town has granted an easement that has allowed a greater connection of the parcels really in perpetuity so we're getting there but we're not totally connected yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's almost safe to say that the lot itself is an accessory to the principle use of the restaurant. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly that's what we're arguing which it always has. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is a very unique situation but since that lot has in perpetuity practically always used in association with MARTIN FINNEGAN : And the Old Mill can't exist without it. I mean there's no way for it to operate without the parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do they plan to use that storage, storage of what in there? October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting ANTHONY MARTINETTI : Hi I'm Anthony-Martinetti I'm the sole member of North Fork LLC, everything from my windows which will be delivered shortly the storm windows in the summer, outdoor furniture, (inaudible) private events, and anything you can imagine'that we keep outside on the deck would move in there in the fall and winter when the Old Mill is only operating inside so all the outdoor seating, heaters, tables etc. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will not require any kind of conditioned space for that it's simply dry storage? ANTHONY MARTINETTI : Yes there's no plumbing, there is no water, there is nothing it's not going to be insulated. It really can't be used for anything else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was the only question I had. Martin did you want to say some more before I open it up to the Board? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No I'm all set. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you want to start down there then, do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 111 ask one question, relative to the sort of waterside doors, it sort of feels or looks like a pavilion than a storage shed what is the purpose of them if it's just for storage of these picnic like items that you listed? ANTHONY MARTINETTI : When I open those doors up I have barn doors that you'll see inside that I found on an old barn but actually I make all my own furniture I'm a furniture maker and I was planning on making everything in that as we get the Old Mill ready over the next few years so I thought by opening the barn doors would make personally making my furniture making experience painting, staining all the tables just first (inaudible) not necessarily has anything to do with that but I built it so that (inaudible) working on any of the furniture that we need in the Old Mill. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well then this is proposing to use that storage shed for a different use which would be called a workshop. If you're going to be fabricating furniture in there MEMBER DANTES : He's doing it while he's got an open building permit so.technically it's part of the construction I don't know. 4: October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting ANTHONY MARTINETTI :Storage shed I thought I'm sorry if that goes against I just assumed that each year we'd be painting and staining and fixing up everything. I can try to'find another place to do that if you do not like that to be a MEMBER DANTES : It's a marine zone? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yeah MEMBER DATNES : It's still commercial. Is that a permitted use in that zoning district? CHAIRPERSON'WEISMAN : No MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's not on the list of principle uses but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I wanted to bring it up because I want to make statements about it in the record. I don't want somebody to come by later on and hit you with a Stop Work Order because you're in there not storing stuff but rather fabricating things, making things. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean it would just be a temporary convenience obviously once the restaurant is up and running it's just going to be a storage usage there's going to be a lot of construction going on down there obviously for a year or so, so that would be it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) by bringing it up was also it seemed to me like it could be potentially a private dining room or something or like a waterside terrace I wasn't sure where you're going with this. ANTHONY MARTINETTI : That's something that wouldn't be allowed I would certainly be more than happy to say to have permission to have it a storage unit and negate it's ability in the future use and any dining aspects. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It has no heat, plumbing, electric it's not really equipped to use for anything other than a place to store stuff and I mean I guess paint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, questions? MEMBER DANTES : No pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat Z October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see anybody on Zoom and would you like to make a comment or anybody else in the audience who wants to speak? It's not a big audience not yet they're coming later. Alright having heard no further questions or comments I'II make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye that's on both of those hearings. Martin you will be pleased to discover that at my request the Town Board has added to the Zoning applications something called a Reversal of the Notice of Disapproval. Do you know how many times we have gotten applications that they say it's not a permitted use and then people have to address use variance standards which certainly had nothing to do with what they're really trying to accomplish, we invariably wind up reversing the Notice of Disapproval when we want to approve it so that is now going to be a specific application that you can MARTIN FINNEGAN : Great HEARING#7663— PETER and GRETCHEN LANG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lang is adjourned, I'm just going to make a motion to adjourn as requested Peter and Gretchen Lang without a date. Is that correct Kim? BOARD ASSISTANT : We're adjourning it to February. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh to February, alright the applicant didn't request that the office is just putting it on February? BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'm going to make a motion to adjourn Peter and Gretchen Lang#7663 to February 2"d MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Let me just do these quick, Resolution for the next Public Meeting to be held Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9 a.m. so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held Thursday, September 15, 2022, so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant an extension to #6897 Peter Cocolaras 1095 Hyatt Rd. in Southold for one year to expire October 6, 2023. We added some language that Kim you took some notes. I think it was failure to obtain a C of 0 within that time frame. BOARD ASSISTANT : Failure to obtain a C 0 within the time frame will require another public hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Another application with public hearing okay. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant an extension to #7295 Rachel Murphy 21695 Soundview Ave. Southold for a one year period beginning July 18, 2022 expiring on July 18, 2023 so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7693—CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Cutchogue Fire District #7693. This is a request for variances from Article X Section 280-46 and the Building Inspector's May 11, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code Definition) and reconstruct a firehouse, 1) located less than-the code required minimum front yard setback of 25 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 40%, 4) less than the code required minimum landscape area of 25%located at 260 New Suffolk Rd. in Cutchogue. MEMBER LEHNERT : Leslie I'm going to recuse from this. MEMBER DANTES : I'm also going to recuse myself from this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anybody left? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I was going to ask Kim and I forgot to ask you but within my packet and I don't know if everyone has the same problem or maybe it was just me, the survey that was offered is for.(inaudible) one of two which is the site across the street from the subject property. Did we get two or I can look at Rob.or Eric's packet. I have the wrong survey. PAUL GARTELMANN : Sorry there was two submitted, I have a spare copy of that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have two of two? I'd appreciate that thank you. PAUL GARTELMANN : It's only on 11 by 17. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't matter we always use magnifying glasses to read we have to. Please state your name for the record. PARUL GARTELMANN : My name is Paul Gartelmann I'm a registered architect in the State of New York since 1989. I'm with the firm of Nemschick, Silverman Architects P.C.. located at 66 East Main Street Patchogue, New York 11772. _ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let's review what we're looking at here, this is a demolition per the Town Code and a reconstruction of an existing firehouse, 1) is a front yard setback at 8.5 feet where the code requires 15, 2) a side yard setback of 8.63 feet where the code requires 40 feet minimum, 3) a total side,yard setback at 22.63 feet the code requiring 25 foot minimum, 4) rear yard setback at 9.6 feet the code requires a minimum of 25 feet and 5) lot coverage at 55.3% where the code permits a maximum of 40% and landscape area of 14.4% October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting where the code requires a minimum of 25%. Did I get them all? So you're aware we've all inspected the property, we've all been there personally and we're aware of the surrounding area. As you know we said earlier in the day within our resolutions for SEAR that we have already declared a Negative Declaration on this property. So what else would you like us to know about this application? PAUL GARTELMANN : Just a couple of things about the existing building in general. We are tearing down the wood frame part of the building. Part of it is two story part of it is single story, it's not adaptable to the modern standards of firehouses. If you were to try and save the existing wood frame structure and reinforce it to be the second floor you'd be rebuilding it anyway so we're going with a new non-combustible steel frame building. We are eliminating the existing cellar area and constructing the entire building as a two story structure giving them more space right-now. I don't know if you've been inside-there, they're working out of the conference room, they're really tight for space so we're giving them modern office space and a meeting room for the community. As far as the footprint of the reconstructed portion of the building we are a maintaining ar front wall building on the same exact line with the exception of the walkout bay window which provides better visibility for the dispatch office to the truck approach line up. Right now they can't really look down the line very well when (inaudible) with the building. So that is the.reduction of the front yard to the 8.5 feet but it's only a small portion of the front of the building-Again affording more safety for the vehicles being dispatched and coming back to the firehouse. The expansion of the floor area is other than that Iwalkout bay window is in the rear of the building to create deeper truck base to allow for more modern and larger firefighting vehicles to be stored in the building. So that results in the reduction of the rear yard setback, the bay window is front yard setback, the sides of the building are going to be well the southerly portion as existing to remain and the northerly portion the existing exterior wall the'new wall will be built on the same line. It's not exacerbating the issue. So that results in the lot coverage increase. As far as landscaping we're actually restoring some landscaping, it was as low as 8.8% of the property area we're going to be at 14.4%. So we are improving that, it still won't comply but (inaudible) existing conditions don't comply. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This requires site plan approval? PAUL GARTELMANN : It does not require. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause they usually handle those kind of landscape buffers. PAUL GARTELMANN : I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you was it offered as part of the packet a landscape plan? October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting PAUL GARTELMANN : We have not prepared an actual planting plan but on our drawing PP1 which is part of your packet we show the area that is going to be landscaped. So we haven't selected plantings as of yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mostly what it's surrounded by with small exception are other commercial parking lot areas. PAUL GARTELMANN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like there's a contractor's yard on one side, an office and some storage buildings. PAUL GARTELMANN : That's correct yeah the Daniel Gale Agency is immediately to the north, directly across the street is the other Cutchogue Fire Department property where they I think they have practice run and some storage buildings. Behind is parking for some businesses along the Main Rd. I believe and the only residential property near it is immediately to the south and as I mentioned we're not doing anything with the Circa 1990 steel frame edition other than you know maybe re-facing it with brick as well cause a little bit of the brick needs a little help. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm assuming nothing is required from this Board other than variance relief because the Special Exception Permit that allowed it to be there in the first place and since it's the same use then that would run with the land. Is that correct? PAUL GARTELMANN : That's my understanding, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So just for the record, as you recall we actually prior to a vote is required you know for a bond from the people of the district we went ahead and issued a Negative Declaration to assist the Fire Department ensuring the public that this was not going to have enormous adverse impacts and so on, has that vote taken place and if so what happened? PAUL GARTELMANN : The bond yes that's taken place and it was approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did that happen? PAUL GARTELMANN : A couple of weeks ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions on this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No further questions. October 6,2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's nobody on Zoom and there's nobody else in the audience. So it looks like we can close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We should have a decision. PAUL GARTELMANN : I appreciate the help from your office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We appreciate the help the Fire Department gives. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I'm going to recuse myself from the next application. HEARING#7678—JOHN SMYTH and MARGARET SMYTH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We had an adjournment on this, this is a re-hearing on John Smyth and Margaret Smyth #7678 and this is basically a waiver of merger application and I think Bill last time you were trying to find out a little bit more of the history which property merged with which and so on and so forth so we were clear about exactly what the terms were. Both Nick and Eric are recused from this application, we still have a quorum so we're okay. So I'm going to ask them to say goodbye. Okay so bring us up to date if you could please Bill. BILL GOGGINS : William C. Goggins, 13235 Main Rd. Mattituck, New York for the applicant John.Smyth and Margaret Smyth #7678 good afternoon. The property that we're talking about that we're seeking to unmerge was part of a minor subdivision that was approved by the Southold Planning Board on October 5, 1971. The subdivided names were a married couple (inaudible) and Theresa Estelta and they kept all these properties and ended up passing and the estate took-over ownership and started selling the properties. So 13.3 which is the lot in question was sold on May 24, 1990. The lot to the west of 13.3 is 13.4, that's got a pre- existing farm house on it,and that was sold on September 14, 1994 and the property to the north which is designated as 13.6 was sold on July 22, 1995. So all these properties were sold prior to 1997 and since the dates of their transfers they've remained single and separate to October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting this date. The reason why I bring that up is because there is a there are two subdivisions on either side of this minor subdivision. There's a subdivision to the west and north which is Crown Lane which is the subdivision that was approved by the Planning Board on August 27, 1975 and I took the liberty of making a copy of the map of it and it abuts the property at 13.4. Then three years after that a subdivision to the east of this property was approved by the Southold Town Planning Board on April 28, 1977 called Highland Rd. and I have a copy of that subdivision map as well. So all three subdivisions were approved in the seventies by the Planning Board and subsequent to that the merger law came into effect on July 1, 1983 and I want to give you a third map which is the section 109 of the tax map and I've highlighted in red the part that starts Crown Land Estates and marked in blue the area that starts Highlands Lane and I marked in yellow the subject subdivision. So all three subdivisions have been recognized as subdivisions approved by the Planning Board. I've got personal knowledge of this, I grew up in the town. The house on 13.4 was the old farmhouse, at lot 4 there's a barn that was part of the barn for the farm and the back was a potato field and that was the original property as it was then. So after that once the subdivisions went through the sub divider of Crown Land and also Highland was a man named Lou Edson and he had developed these two properties and I know I graduated from college and I was working in the area and I wanted to buy one of the lots. It was 1984, 1985 and in Highland they were selling for thirty thousand dollars. At the time you needed one third of the down payment to get a loan. So I almost had the one third saved up and then I went to go buy it and it jumped up to sixty thousand so I couldn't buy it but all the lots in Highland were not sold yet. So pursuant to this law July 1, 1983 all those lots in Highland should have merged but they didn't. I mean they're all sold to separate people and I'm assuming I don't know if Crown Land was subdivided earlier I don't remember seeing any lots for sale there. So if the merger law didn't apply to those two subdivisions then it makes sense that it wouldn't apply to this minor subdivision which is sandwiched in between the other two. That's the main point and too there is a right of way just to the west of 3.4 that provides access to 3.6 and the last time we were here the owners of 3.6 spoke and was concerned about the right of way cause he was afraid that if the property merged there would be no right of way. If the subdivision wasn't recognized then you'd have no access to his property. I'm not sure what that concern is but that was his concern but when we informed him that the right of way would continue he was satisfied. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Bill that's very interesting background but what exactly merged Donna can you go back. So this is a very odd shaped lot you know parallelograms so what was the original did it merge, did 13.3 merge with a part of 13.6 or what? BILL GOGGINS : That's the interesting issue here and I don't think it was contemplated when they passed this merger law. We have a situation where 3.3 merges with 3.4 and also merges with 3.6 so this Board it's put in a position to decide which property to merge with and I don't October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting think that was the intent of this to have the Zoning Board or anyone else to determine where this thing is merging to. It's one of those (inaudible) situations where you have a double merger and if it's going to merge where is it going to go? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that is the current boundary in yellow of the subject property? BILL GOGGINS : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to figure out so it's I guess because of adjacency but it wasn't it's not owned by the same people. You mean it originally was owned by the same people but then they were sold to all different people. . BILL GOGGINS : It was sold by the estate to all different people and 3.3 was.sold to our client in 2011. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Assuming it was a separate lot. BILL GOGGINS : Assuming it was a separate lot and I'm not sure with due diligence the attorney did I think it was the Town Attorney that handled that closing so you know you can tell by the deed and also the Assessor cards that the applicant paid $170,000 for this property with the presumption that it was going to be their retirement place_so they could build their house and retire and,I took the liberty of having the- property appraised to show you the adverse impact it has on the applicant. I have one copy but the appraisal has the value of the property at$15,000. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much? BILL GOGGINS : $15,000 if it was merged. So they go from buying it for $170,000 to having a value of$15,000 and further the Tax Assessor's Office has continued to tax this property as a buildable lot. They paid over $13,000 in taxes, the average yearly 'tax is about,$1,400 a year which indicates that it's being taxed as a buildable lot recognized by the Assessors. I have a copy of the tax bill. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a vacant lot. BILL GOGGINS : A buildable vacant,lot. I'll give you a copy of the taxes paid. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did they purchase this? BILL GOGGINS : They purchased this in 2011. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that the only lot that doesn't have something built_on it? All the others have been built on. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting BILL GOGGINS : Correct and 3.4 was the original farmhouse and 3.6 there's a barn on it and the purchaser of that property wanted to build a house and leave the barn so they decided to merge them together so they could build a single family house and have the accessory barn on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are those two merged? BILL GOGGINS : They merged them together because they wanted to have a bigger piece of property. They had to go through a process CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Principle use for that BILL GOGGINS : Right and there was a fifty-year old barn at the time they didn't want to let go of it. I remember the transactions I represented the estate it turns out in the sale as I was going through my records. I'm trying to see when the purchase was. The applicant purchased on April 18, 2011. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The subject lot is the only undeveloped parcel left of that original subdivision. BILL GOGGINS : Correct and to give a little bit more background, in 1983, '83, '84 they were doing this master plan in town which they're calling it something else they're calling it The Comprehensive Plan now and that plan was it came up with that new idea of transfer of development rights at the time it was a big deal. There was an article in the New York Times on it and as you know the theory was to have populate around the hamlets around the Post Offices and then have everything else be open space and I think that was also the intent of this merger law was to help-that to happen. This property is within the HALO district in Cutchogue so it was part of the area that the intent of the master plan and now the new plan is to have residences. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that clarifies a lot of stuff. I'm laughing about when you look at this map you look at that and if you have to apply the standard criteria for waiver of merger the lots are supposed to be similar in size to all the other lots which here are absolutely throw it out the window cause there is no regularity here. I mean the other two that on Main Rd. have a slightly and maybe the two that merged in the back but the subject lot appears to be kind of residual you know like the tail end of what was left of those other lots. I wonder what the original shape of that lot was prior to it merging or is that the original because of the easement maybe? BILL GOGGINS : I don't know. It's probably cause of access cause you can't access it from the east. Also and probably while this is probably going on Lou Edson might have had his October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting subdivision applications before the Planning Board at the same time and he might have put this right of way in in case they wanted to connect to it. i CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN : He probably wanted to get to his barn knowing Lou. BILL GOGGINS : Miss him. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well you can't make a decision until you,understand how to define the problems. BILL GOGGINS : Right and I think the waiver recognition would not create an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in this area. It's consistent with everything's that there. I think across the street just to the west is the North Fork Country Club which is a wide open area and again it's been historically treated since 1971 as a single and separate parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 1971? BILL GOGGINS : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to have to get creative with this one. BILL GOGGINS : One of those things that I found I'm sure you know about it there's a case (inaudible) Town of Southold where the (inaudible) it was a waiver of merger that somebody didn't like that you had approved and it states the waiver of merger recognizing and reconstituting lot lines from the original subdivision map (inaudible) arbitrary nor contrary to the law so in that case it was probably something similar to this where there was'a subdivision and you had approved, the un merger and then the neighbor didn't like it and they went to court. I have copies of.that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In this instance the way that our determinations of waiver of merger work.the very first section looks at whether or not the applicant the owners actually even qualify for waiver of merger. If we were to apply that standard here the answer would likely be no even though, these were treated as separate lots. So in order for us to move forward with this you're going to have to write a rather very unique kind of decision. You're following what I'm saying because this simply does not it's one of these anomalous-unique situations with you know recognized subdivision. Too bad it doesn't fall under the exempt subdivision. BILL GOGGINS : Well that's the other issue, they create_these exempt subdivisions 100-12 which they repealed in 1997 who came up with that list and why wasn't this on the list? So October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting that's to me (inaudible) forthcoming. I thought that's arbitrary that they would decide which are exempt and which ones aren't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That even pre-dates me so I don't know. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Would the Assessor's be doing that who was the people who this? BILL GOGGINS : Whoever passed the law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would probably have to be the Town Board cause that's codified so MEMBER ACAMPORA : So how do they know which ones? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually the only way to find out is to see if we can trace the public hearing, it would have to do be a public hearing. You know something I'm not even sure if that would have required a public hearing as I think about it. I don't Know. BILL GOGGINS : I also have another case that was Appeal No. 6418 dated October 2, 2010 decision stated the proposed waiver recognition will not create an adverse impact on (inaudible) environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because this subdivision is approximately ninety five percent built out, in fact the attorney for the applicant indicated that only four remaining lots out of the twenty five are unimproved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I recall that. BILL GOGGINS : Yes so there must have been a similar situation (inaudible) subdivision and probably was not on that improved list. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you've done your homework thoroughly, now at least we understand the problems. No wonder it was complicated trying to figure it out. BILL GOGGINS : Yeah it took me a while but definitely I think equity and fairness to the applicant I think (inaudible) allow the Board to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got an appraisal on the value sort of an economic hardship situation, do you know what he value of that property would be today the market value if not merged? BILL GOGGINS : I do, The value I only have one copy is $265,000. BOARD ASSISTANT : I'll scan both of them and sent it to everybody. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting BILL GOGGINS : One last thing, all the Assessor's card list that all these properties were subdivided pursuant to minor subdivision so anyone who is looking to see if this was a viable lot would go to the Assessor's card (inaudible) say oh okay it's a minor subdivision and they don't even think about the possibility of merger. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea,h because in a subdivision they're all separate lots usually sold to,separate people and it's not BILL GOGGINS : Right but it's just so interesting two subdivisions on either side and I know they would have all had to have merged but they weren't enforcing it because it was a recent subdivision as this one was. MEMBER ACAMPORA :There's some strange parcels there in Mattituck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah there's another L-shaped parcel right there with a very, very narrow back yard let's call it. BILL GOGGINS : Yeah it's like the state of Florida. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah poor Florida. Yeah the only regular ones are the Highland Rd. . ones and they seem different sizes. MEMBER ACAMPORA :They are different. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who was on the Planning Board then? BILL GOGGINS : Maybe Rainer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well too late now. I don't have any other questions, I think I'm clear on what's going on here. Rob are you okay with this, Pat? Oh there is somebody on Zoom. Do they'want to say anything? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I don't have a hand up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to just explain if they want to say anything what they should do Liz just in case. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Mr. Salerno if you would like to say something can you please raise your hand so that I can move you in as a panelist. If you don't raise your hand then we'll just proceed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll just assume that you were listening that's all which is fine. No hand raised, okay that's fine I just want to make sure everybody gets their chance to say October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting whatever they wanted to. Alright I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. I'm going to make a motion to close the meeting. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. October 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. / &D-o4c naSig torWj4L Signature : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : October 17, 2022