Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/03/2022 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York November 3, 2022 10:18 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 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing; Page Decision for North Fork Project LLC#7687 4-5 Decision for North.Fork Project LLC#7688 4- 5 Decision for Smyth,John #7678 5-6 Vasilis and Christina Fthenakis#7559 7 - 11 Amos and Courtney Meringer#7716 11- 16 Glendon and Mindy Homer#7696 16- 18 Joseph and Daria Doorhy#7698SE 19 - 25 Sheila Stoltz#7699 25 -41 46770 Route 48, LLC/Peconic Watersports#7700SE 42 -48 46770 Route 48, LLC/Peconic Watersports#7701 42 -48 Lee and Lili Sieg elson #7702 49 -57 Charlotte Greene#7703 57-59 Jake Behan and Lindsey Behan #7702 60 - 61 Richard Martino#7694 61 - 73 Danny Vitale#7658SE 73 - 81 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for November 3, 2022. Can you all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Before we get started, as you probably know this meeting is held in person in the Town Meeting Hall and also available via the Zoom webinar platform. Liz why don't you review for everyone how they can participate if they want to make a comment or ask a question if they're on Zoom. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. Good morning everyone, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask that you raise your hand we will see it and we will give you further instructions on how you will be able to speak. If you are on Zoom and using a phone we ask you to press *9 to raise your hand and then we will let you know what you need to do next. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. A couple of matters before we get started on our first hearing this morning. We have to review the State Environmental Quality Resolutions. 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 617.5 c including the following : Amos and Courtney Meringer#7716, Glendon and Mindy Homer#7696,Joseph and Daria Doorhy#7698SE, Sheila Stoltz#7699, Lee and Lili Siegelson #7702, Charlotte Greene #7703, Jake and Lindsey Behan,;#7704 and Richard Martino #7694 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We also have a SEQR for 46770 Route 48 LLC/Peconic Watersports #7700SE & #7701. Subject Action to construct a Commercial Marine Sales and Service Facility to be Declared by the Planning Board as Lead Agency to be an Unlisted Action, so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second- November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have three decisions before us before we get to the first hearing. I'm going to discuss two of them together because they're extremely interrelated. One is for variances for North Fork Project, LLC ZBA file #7687, the other is for a non-permitted use it's for a Use Variance #7688 North Fork Project, LLC. Basically you'll all recall that there were approvals granted previously by this Board and the Trustees for renovations to the Old Mill Inn Restaurant. The same application now because they replaced an accessory storage structure that was there for more than a century in the same footprint to be used for the same purpose and the setback it was encroaching into the easement the town's easement but it's exactly where it's been for over a hundred years without any adverse impacts. The neighbors support it so this is to improve that setback. Any questions or comments, are you ready to vote. All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The other one was interesting because again it's for the garage but for storage, it's really never been used as a garage. There's those funny little adjacent you know lots across from the town road, they're essentially dead ends there and the septic system for the restaurant isn't on that little small irregular (inaudible). There's a grist mill that's been there for around a hundred and twenty years that's something also used there. That whole it's denied because it's not a principle it's on a separate lot and there's no principle use on that lot so the garage would be an accessory to it it's not permitted as a principle use. That in a nut shell summarizes it but it's decision essentially acknowledges that November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting those parcels that one strange thing is in fact an it's entirety an accessory to the principle use of the restaurant and always has been. The restaurant could not function without a sanitary system and so on that basis alone, this (inaudible) a few instances in which this is written as an approval for Use Variance. There is simply no way any of the uses permitted in a Marine ,Zone could ever, ever be constructed on an any of those parcels. They are just way too small and substandard so they simply cannot realize any value whatsoever on these parcels. So I'm going to make a motion to grant the Use Variance as applied for. Is there a second? Any discussion first and then MEBMER ACAMPORA : You want to go over the conditions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can if you want. MEMBER ACAMPORA : (inaudible)the sliding glass doors maybe CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea well okay cause as rebuilt the accessory garage was always used for storage. The intent is to use it for storage. However it was rebuilt with some sliding glass doors because the applicant indicated he occasionally want to go in there and kind of use it to make furniture and we (inaudible) that that was not an appropriate storage use and as a consequence the sliding glass doors have to be-replaced with doors that are suitable for secure storage (inaudible) wood sliding doors. Other than that it's just a standard (inaudible).. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have here a request for Waiver of Merger and Nick and Eric are recused from voting but I don't mind if you stay here and listen to this unless you want to leave it's entirely up to you. So this is a five lot subdivision John and Margaret Smyth #7678. It was owned by a couple and purchased the properties in the sixties surrounded by two other minor subdivisions owned by one individual developed by one individual also developed in the seventies, sixties, seventies. They were all held in common ownership until such time as the (inaudible) both passed away then the estate started selling off those properties and none of the subdivisions created by approval of the Planning Board at November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting that time or in any way merge. The merger law had taken into effect in '83. Some of those lots were sold in the nineties but none of them were determined at that time to be merged. So this is the last remaining lot and it's a weird L-shaped thing with a right of way to get to another property behind it and it's the only remaining lot that is not developed. It was sold in 2009 and then resold in 2011 and this is one instance it supposedly merged with two lots not just one but two. If that would to be true it would not only encumber both of those developed lots but it would certainly render that other lot completely unbuildable. It's the same size as all the other lots. So based upon these very unique circumstances and the long history and a VanTuyl survey that (inaudible) and in this instance I think the clearest way to do this rather than overturning the Notice if Disapproval is to grant the Waiver of Merger it has a greater force of law than an overturn of the Notice. Is everyone in agreement on that? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :John are you alright with that? DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then I'm going to make a motion to grant the Waiver of Merger subject to two conditions. One is the standard one that they have to file with the county, the other is that with this approval until that filing takes place it is not deemed to be legal and if they don't do it it's null and void. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a quorum even though Nick and Rob are recused, the motion passes. Let's get on with the hearings now, thank you all for your patience. 6 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7559—VASILIS and CHRISTINA FTHENAKIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is a request for variances this Js Fthenakis #7559 request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116A and the Building Inspector's July 16, 2021 amended May 24, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and cottage and to construct anew single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff and 2) the swimming pool is located in other than the code required rear yard at 6925 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. So since we've (inaudible) previously. This is very similar to what we saw previously the house is coming down, the cottage that's overhanging the bluff is coming down and a new dwelling was proposed at 28.5 feet from the top of the bluff, the code requiring a minimum of 100 feet.This will then render the existing swimming pool which is to be retained partly in the side yard by the placement of the dwelling. You now have Trustees approval permit #10156 May 18, 2022 is that correct? MIKE KIMACK : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I think that covers it. MIKE KIMACK : Thank you very much, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicants who are present in the audience today. I do understand and I will try to make it brief that you are an independent Board other than the fact that the Trustees (inaudible) opportunity to issue a permit on it do your own evaluation of the (inaudible) in terms of the of 116A gives you jurisdiction over a hundred feet but it allows houses to be closer given the conditions of that particular under the circumstances of the lot itself and the conditions. I'm going to start at the bottom which is the bulkhead. Most of Nassau Point is bulkheaded, this particular lot is and has been for some time. It's probably the reason that the slope which I'll get into has been preserved as much as the rest of the slopes along Nassau Point. The top of the bulkhead being at 9 elevation which luckily is really the VE line elevation so it's ability to flood in major storms has been the major reason why those slopes have been a major reasons why those slopes haven't been able to be maintained as such. As you had indicated the slope is well vegetated, it had been evaluated by two engineers and by (inaudible). I believe you've got the letters to that extent in the file that they found it to be well vegetated and not ,in any danger from erosion or any collapse. They did receive approval from the Trustees to be back the 28.5, the Trustees using the (inaudible) to the pure line (inaudible) I believe it's on your drawings and yes it's being demolished. The reason that we're there and actually we got (inaudible) to the existing cottage obviously you can see from the footprint was significantly closer by another 17 or 18 feet to the top of the bluff. The time basically and when this was purchased they had November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting built a pool on the backside of that cottage and that pool is subject to request for a variance because of the side yard setback. The pool really becomes an economic reason of necessity other than the fact that we I think we've shown the information indicate that we do have a stable and well vegetated slope that being the 28 feet will keep us in conformance with the a lot of the other lots. I have given you other distances from the bluff primarily you've already decided before I won't go through them totally but the key one would be the one next door 7434 which was approved 33 back from the top of the bluff. Others built a deck at 20 feet an approval of built deck at 10 feet and a demolish and reconstruct a single family dwelling located 28 feet from the top of the bluff. So there's ample evidence in the prior decisions indicate at least for Nassau Point in this area that as a result of the well vegetated, well stabilized slopes that being 28 feet from the bluff which is in conjunction with the neighbors on both sides is not going to cause any further injury or being in any danger of collapse of the house as a result of building that close. The pool also becomes an issue because although some may say well you can take it and move it back but it's an economic necessity to remove that pool primarily in its position by (inaudible) would be two hundred thousand dollar venture and there really isn't any need it's in good shape it's not going to be replaced. The house has been so designed to accommodate the requirements of the Trustees to move it back to the 28 feet it's even pushed back further and at the same time wrap around the pool itself. It's tight but it works. The other difficulty on this particular lot which is not subject to a lot of the other lots there is take a look at those contours the way they come down, where that cottage is it's sweeping down almost tangling across the property. Within about 40 feet there's about a 12 foot drop primarily and it really drops off pretty closely and like all the other owners the properties along that to be quite frank they (inaudible) and the being at that 28.5 level allows them to take advantage of being on the waterfront. Putting it back to destroy pull the pool out and move it down the 40 feet they'll lose all of that primarily. It's just the uniqueness of that one property I haven't seen too many that have that that drop off. I mean if you visited the site you probably it comes off pretty quickly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Trustees are requiring a 20 foot buffer. MIKE KIMACK : Yes they are. It was a little unusual in a sense because next door they approved a 10 foot buffer but I've always try to figure out what kind of consistency there might be but there isn't. There's a 20 foot buffer there and I think the only other thing that we would add to is since you are an independent Board we originally requested a second floor deck of 7 feet which I think is on your drawing primarily, the Trustees found that not to be acceptable but we ask this Board to consider it and if you do we would go back to the Trustees to ask for that. One of the reasons that we would like CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well is it the same setback 28 feet? November 3,2022 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : The second floor would be 7 foot, it would be 7 feet out. MEMBER DANTES : What is the setback on the second floor deck, 21 feet or 28? MIKE KIMACK : It would be 21 feet which was the original. I think one of the arguments that I've always tried to make is that if you're really trying to say 100 feet to protect the house, you protect,the foundation of the house the second floor deck extension doesn't necessarily add or contribute to any kind of danger to that 100 feet would represent in terms of the setback with the 28 feet would represent in terms of the setback. If we set the foundation at 28 feet .and extend the deck forward 7 feet it's not going to add any kind of limitation to any or add any other danger that might be occurring to the foundation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well why then do you suppose the Trustees said no? MIKE KIMACK : You know I've come to the point of trying to stop analyzing why people say yes and no on these projects. We have shown I think if you see next door, the deck was approved at 10 feet the property right to the north on this particular Board. That's I think #7138 and number two MEMBER LEHNERT : Mike in effect you're asking us to overturn the Trustees. MIKE KIMACK : No, I'm asking you to make an independent decision. You don't overturn it, if you make a decision well take it back to the Trustees and ask.for a deminimus. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But our variance says 28.5 feet from the top of the bluff, it does not say 21. MIKE KIMACK : Well you mean the variance request primarily. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah MEMBER DANTES : I don't see it on the survey here Mike. So you mean the survey is different than the building plans that you guys sent us?Are you giving us conflicting documents? MEMBER LEHNERT : You're showing a covered patio here. MIKE KIMACK : That's the'one. MEMBER DANTES : The Building Department just missed it cause it's a little bit tough to read cause of the shading MEMBER LEHNERT`.Then you're showing a deck above the covered patio. MIKE KIMACK : Correct November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : And there's also a house being demolished where it says covered patio so maybe they thought that was part of demolished house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well our Notice says 28 feet, 28.5 feet. Okay well we understand what you're asking for. MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure if you got the distance of the bluff, you got the other prior decisions, you got the Engineer's report, you got the Trustees approval from the 28.5 (inaudible) their rational reasoning under their same criteria that they assessed at as you would assess it under 116A. So we do ask that the Board consider a variance and also the pool variance which became about as a result of being a side yard setback that because of everything that was being done on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the existing garage is just staying put? MIKE KIMACK : The existing garage stays put the other house down below is going to be (inaudible). MEMBER DANTES : You know what it is Leslie, you got the plans (inaudible) 28.5 setback on their plans and it looks like they put the arrow to the house, they didn't put the arrow to the deck. So that's the kind of way that's how they did the application. MEMBER LEHNERT : And the Trustees granted this they granted the with new on-grade stone or brick patio and then with the condition of removal of the overhang on the seaward side of the patio. MIKE KIMACK : So they gave us a patio on the grade but they wouldn't consider giving us the deck above the patio for the same distance. Although in your case if it's an on-grade patio it's not that doesn't count but for Trustees it does. That was the difference between the two approaches. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah cause once you add the covering then it falls into our jurisdiction. MEMBER DANTES : The house next door that has the approved the 10 feet from the bluff, do you know what year that was built? MIKE KIMACK : I did that one, when it was built? It was very interesting I did that permit. The house was built they originally had an approval for a 19 foot deck and they basically added an extra 8 foot 2 and it came out to like 26 feet or something like that within 10 feet. We did the Trustees and we did this Board basically and you cut off a little section of it but essentially we got approval for 10 feet from the top of the bluff. If you take a look that's (inaudible). November 3,2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT :That was first floor deck? MIKE KIMACK : Yes well it was also a raised deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the house that's undergoing major renovation now? MIKE KIMACK : No that's the one on the other side. No that one you gave us 33 feet back on that particular one. That's shown here and that's the one that's going under major renovation. That does have a patio on the front of it but that's an on-grade patio. It's like 12 by 16 or 12 by 18 or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from the Board? Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Liz is there anybody on Zoom? Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING#7716—AMOS and COURTNEY.MERINGER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Amos and Courtney Meringer #7716. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 18, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single family dwelling and relocate an "as built" accessory shed at 1) dwelling is located less than the code minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) "as built" shed is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 3) construction of the dwelling will place the existing accessory garage in other than the code permitted rear yard at 210 Westview Drive in Mattituck. State your name for the record please. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting AMOS MERINGER : Good morning, Amos Meringer 210 Westview Drive in Mattituck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is to demolish and reconstruct, you're on a big bend there dwelling and a bit part of the house is supposed to be retained, is that correct? AMOS MERINGER : That is also correct. So the footprint of the house doesn't change. What I've requested is a second floor however the original house is from the '68 and I guess non- conforming so in order to retain that footprint this process is required. I would also request an easement so that I can have a small front porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : An easement?You mean a setback. AMOS MERINGER : A setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wrote three things down here, a front yard setback at 22.9 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet, a shed in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard location and then reconstruction located the existing accessory garage in a side yard. So that's legally existing but based upon what you're doing with the house it's now partially in a side yard. Is that all correct? AMOS MERINGER : That all sounds correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the current front yard setback, is it the same as you're proposing? AMOS MERINGER : 28.1 is existing, the front covered porch doesn't exist yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's adding the front porch. Let's see if the Board has anything. We all went out and saw the property, we do that with every application before we have the hearing so we've all seen the conditions in your neighborhood and what's across the street and you do have quite a bit of room in the back yard. It looks crowded but it actually could fit you could actually put a shed back there. Why do you feel that you can't do that? What is the problem doing that? AMOS MERINGER : I had the shed back there and I was told the shed couldn't stay there so I took that shed and moved it over to the office, it was quite a show. The second shed I had two sheds on the property originally. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see okay and the shed that's there now is in the location it's always been there or you're going to move it there? AMOS MERINGER : That is exactly where it is. The second shed was behind the garage just behind the deck, the shed that's there now was on the other side of the yard so I removed the November 3,2022 Regular Meeting shed from the space that the current shed exists to the other side of Mattituck then I moved the shed that was in the rear of the yard to the spot where the shed exists now. Does that make sense? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why did they tell you, you had to take it out of the rear yard, that's where it conforms? AMOS MERINGER : I thought so too, I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a new one. AMOS MERINGER : I used to ask why a lot, I stopped asking why and I do what I'm told. ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ask again next time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Amos, you moved one shed off-site, you relocated the other shed to where it's presently shown on the survey, are you adverse to putting the shed back in the rear yard where it's supposed to be? AMOS MERINGER : I'd rather have the shed in the back yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you don't want to have.the shed where it's proposed? AMOS MERINGER : No but that's where I was told it had to go so I put.it there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't know if it served a purpose for the trailer or anything. AMOS MERINGER : None at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought it had to do you know possibly with the driveway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was thinking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Tools,you would rather have it in the rear yard? AMOS MERINGER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All we have to do is deny it where it is on that survey and say you have the option to conforming to the code by locating it in the rear yard and the Building Department will have to give you a permit for it. AMOS MERINGER : I admire your optimism. MEMBER LEHNERT : We can condition it so that it can go back there so that the Building Department doesn't have the option of November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Can we have him hand draw where he wants it that way there's no MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You can suggest a location AMOS MERINGER : I'll put it right back where it was directly behind the garage adjacent to that back porch. Now the offset for that is still 5 feet yes? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah AMOS MERINGER : Okay that's no problem. MEMBER DANTES : They're going to draw some sort of line off the porch to get to the property line,you've got 89 there MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh maybe that's the problem then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh I see what happened. MEMBER DANTES : It's probably like it's a weird angle of the ruler maybe I guess. MEMBER LEHNERT : Could we have him just sketch it in, sign it and then we can approve it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The way in which front and back yards are determined has a formula. Everybody is required by law to be able to say this is our back yard. I can see what happened, they take the sides of your dwelling and continue those sides look how small I mean your septic is right there where your dry well it must be a dry well. MEMBER DANTES : Put you John Hancock on there MEMBER LEHNERT : And date it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you understand why they said it had to come out? AMOS MERINGER : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come forward here I'm going to show you something. That's what I was trying to say verbally. If they went like that see where's the back yard. The side of your house is here, the other side is here, and that looks like see it's cut it's like partially the way you drew it is partially in the side yard partially in the rear yard and if you plop it right here AMOS MERINGER : In the dead center of the rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the dead center this is where everybody wants a shed in the back yard. At least now we understand what happened. If we have to we can actually say that we can grant it in the rear yard where it's partially side yard location. That way they're not in a November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting squabble because if they say well that's the line and we say so make two feet of the shed is in the side yard that's what we'll have to do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Amos one other question, just because the same thing came up with your garage, it's an existing garage it has a C of 0 I'm still a little hard pressed you're not expanding the house obviously you're adding a porch so there is an expansion but I don't understand how you find yourself when you're in a position that you're seeking a variance for an existing garage. Having said that, are you able to attach the garage to the house and maybe that variance goes away also build a mudroom there? AMOS MERINGER : I suppose if I were to get very creative Nick I would be able to attach that garage to the house. I don't know that it would make sense to do so except so far that it would eliminate the necessity for the variance. If you say figure out a way to attach it to the house then I'll MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I'm just asking the question. AMOS MERINGER : Sure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There is a mudroom there but it's just you know on the plan or on the survey it looks like there's more space than you know physical inspection it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's tight. AMOS MERINGER : They're very tight and they're on two different elevations, the garage is on the ground and the house is three feet higher so to actually transition from one to the other in that tiny space allotted there's really no cleaner or reasonable way to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look at the different angles, I mean that's not going to be an easy attachment. That's going to be a very awkward roof formation. AMOS MERINGER : Yes very, everything about it is very awkward. MEMBER DANTES : You can't put the stairs to the garage cause then there will no room to park. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience that wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 15 1 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7696—GLENDON and MINDY HOMER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application, Nick you're recused from this, before the Board is for Glendon and Mindy Homer #7696. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 2, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize "as built" accessory structures (trellis and shed) at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) both trellis and shed located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 2740 Main Bayview Rd. in Southold. KAREN HOEG : Good morning, Karen Hoeg from Tourney, Latham on behalf of Glen and Mindy Homer. Mr. Homer is here with me this morning on behalf of the application. Mr. and Mrs. Homer purchased the property on October 1, 2013 and now their family has transitioned to living in Southold full time and working from home which had them realize that there needed to be some modifications to the house to make it function more efficiently. The subject lot is 13,469 sq. ft. and is non-conforming in the R-80 district. Adjacent properties on the north side of Main Bayview are also in the R-80 district and across the street the properties are in an R- 40. The adjacent lot to the west if farmland and the adjacent lot to the east is residential however there are no homes directly adjacent to the subject parcel. The house was built sometime prior to April 9, 1957 and there have been various improvements made over the years. All the CO's are attached to the application. The proposed additions are as follows: A 17 sq. ft. first floor addition at the front of the house which will allow for relocation of a first floor bathroom and a more efficient functioning mud room. Above the existing first floor mudroom and proposed 17 sq. ft. first floor addition, we are proposing a 70 sq. ft. addition to add a bathroom to the second floor. Currently the second floor only contains a master bathroom with no secondary bathroom for the other bedrooms. As you can imagine sharing one November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting bathroom with a teenager can be quite challenging so what we are proposing will be a vast improvement for the family. We're also proposing to extend the existing covered front porch to the south and to the, west so that it wraps around the southwest corner. The porch extension will encroach no further than the existing front porch. However due to the angle of the front house the porch extension will be set back 27.6 from the front yard property line where 35 is required. The current front of the house is 32.7 feet from the front property line and the wood (inaudible) steps which of the existing front porch is 28.4 which requires a variance of 7.4 feet. The addition will be shingled to match the existing house and the proposed windows will match the existing in style and color. The application also seeks to legalize an existing shed and trellis. Both of these structures are within the side yard setbacks. and within the side yard where they're required to be in the rear. The shed is roughly.72 sq. ft. and serves as storage for such things as bicycles and lawn equipment as there is no garage on the property. Both structures are not visible from Main Bayview and the shed is screened with vegetation including a large tree and the trellis is located behind the existing stockade fence and is screened with vegetation. These structures were all in place when the home was purchased in 2013. It should be noted that the proposed addition will comply with all lot coverage requirements. So the present application is to request variance relief from Section 280-15 and Section 280-124. According to the standards of a grant of the area variance, the project poses no threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or the town as a whole. It will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties under Town Law. It has been designed in keeping with the architectural and general character of the neighborhood. Many homes in the town have non-conforming front yard setbacks and a trellis and shed are common accessory structures throughout Southold. The neighboring adjacent property to the west is farmland and the adjacent property to the east while residential is not improved with a resident on Main Bayview. The lots across the street on Bayview are varying lot sizes. As explained, in addition to that we are proposing is needed for a bathroom on the second_floor is only a master bathroom exists in this three bedroom house. These additions are minimal'in nature and will not affect the overall character of the neighborhood. The property is well screened and fenced to preventing any adverse impact to neighbors and the as built accessory structures will simply will not have any adverse impacts. The Board has granted.similar variance relief on other applications such as this for side yard setbacks for open trellises and sheds as well as for front yard variances. The benefit cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than area variances. As noted the property is non-conforming in the R-80 district so really any development on this property or any proposed addition will also require variance relief. The variances requested are not substantial. The request for the front porch extension and a second floor addition squares off the front of the house to meet the existing covered porch. The variance that we needed is 17 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting because we are encroaching into the front yard but we will be in a line with the existing front porch that's already there. Again there's no it's not an environmentally sensitive area, there's no adverse impacts to the environment. This is (inaudible) conditions of the town and this regard we request that the Board grant the variances and we're happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to ask any questions or comments? Liz is there anybody on Zoom who has their hand up? No okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7698SE—JOSEPH and DARLA DOORHY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph and Darla Doorhy#7698SE. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-136(13). The applicant is owner of subject property requesting authorization to construct and establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure located at 1125 Ole Jule Lane in Mattituck. SCOTT DESIMONE : Good morning Members of the Board, my name is Scott DeSimone I'm an attorney representing the applicants Joseph Doorhy and Darla Doorhy and Mr. Doorhy is present. I am submitting a packet for everyone. The application is to maintain an accessory apartment in a detached accessory structure and a related variance to allow a half bath. The subject property is comprised of 1.06 acres. It's located in an R-80 zoning district. In addition to the existing accessory structure it is also improved with a single family residence. A detached three car garage and there -is a swimming pool. It is located in a residential neighborhood and all parcels adjoining the subject property are improved for residential use except for the property to the immediate rear which is not subject to any development whatsoever, it's a preserved area. Certificates of Occupancy have been issued for all improvements on the subject property that requires same and I should note that the applicant has always applied for his permits before he has done any improvements to the property. So the applicant seeks a Special Exception pursuant to 280-13B(13) of the code and also an area variance being that the code language specifically limits one bathroom to the accessory apartment. I will get to why we have an existing bath and a proposed bath and a need for that. In any event the accessory apartment is going to be occupied by their daughter and she is graduating from college and is looking to start her adult life ,and her career and they are looking to provide an affordable housing opportunity for their daughter. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued on May 26 for the accessory building. It has an unfinished basement and a half bath. There is Suffolk County Health Department approval for that and the current septic system and public water was installed in contemplation of being compliant for use as an accessory apartment. So what's 'there now will accommodate the accessory apartment as proposed. The accessory structure was constructed without the need for any variances so it's 20 feet off the rear property line and 20 feet off the side property line and there is significant vegetation and buffering that protects view and protects noise and what not that could possibly come from the accessory apartment. I did include photographs of the buffered areas it's in your packet. I also included overhead photograph which shows the location of the subject property and the adjoining properties around it. The proposed accessory apartment meets all of the standards required under Section 280-13B(13), it is less than 750 sq. ft. it's 740 exactly. The subject property accommodates more than enough parking definitely an excess of the three that are required. This will be the only proposed accessory apartment for November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting the property and the accessory apartment will meet the requirements of an apartment as defined in the Town Code. The entirety of the living floor area of the accessory apartment will be on one floor and the existing structure complies with all other requirements of the code as stated previously. Water supply and sewage disposal will comply with Suffolk County Health Department requirements. Finally, there's no intent to at any time to have any type of bed and breakfast facilities and that is specifically referenced under subsection H. Subsection K talks about impacts that this potential accessory apartment will have. Subsection A specifically references whether or not it will adversely impact the privacy and use or enjoyment of any of the adjoining parcels. Again because of its setbacks and its screenings we do not see that is an issue. Special Exception will not impact the character of the neighborhood. We did check to see what other accessory apartments have been approved in the immediate area and there's only one other accessory apartment and that is on an adjoining parcel and the owner of that property has in writing submitted to us that they have no objections to this application. Because there was only one other owner we don't see any cumulative negative affect approving this application. As far as Article XXV of the code which specifically addresses Special Exception uses I have it in my papers here, I'm not going to go over every single one but we do believe that the application as submitted complies with all of those concerns and minimum standards. As far as the variance is concerned the variance is to maintain a half bath. The proposed accessory apartment calls for a full bath and there is this existing half bath. Circumstances in which this half bath exists there's really a function of the permitting and application process is set up by the town, because the town requires an accessory apartment in an accessory structure to be in existing accessory structure it forces somebody who wants to have an accessory to actually build that accessory structure without even you know the comfort of knowing whether they would even get approved for. it. It's kind of backwards. But in any event in order to have the septic system approved to get the C.O. for the accessory structure as a storage building the bathroom had to be installed and finished in demonstrating that it was operational in order to get the C.O. So the applicant was only following what was required of him in order to get that septic system approved. So that was the reason why the half bath is there. I can tell you that the owner would have likely not installed that half bath if he wasn't compelled to do so by the Building Department in the way the code is written or enforced. Do you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll just make a comment before anything else, the reason you need to have a C.O. on a structure prior to applying for an apartment is because the original code in 2010 which I was a part of (inaudible) was an attempt to leverage more dwelling units out of existing structures and there was a date by which that structure had to have existed. Subsequent it was not to build new stuff. Later that date was lifted because it probably had the same impact except we were now adding structures instead of just converting structures. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting So the reason that C.O. had to be in place is because it had to be a legally established accessory structure before you can put an apartment into it. That's the history of it and that's why the process unfolded the way it did. The problem (inaudible) in putting in a bathroom in the structure prior to getting the apartment approved then you wonder what the Health Department is going to do. You have Health Department approval now or are you in the process? SCOTT DESIMONE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the existing sanitary. SCOTT DESIMONE : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No I mean I'm sympathetic to the half bath issue I mean try to get back and forth (inaudible) between two governments I am sympathetic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'll ask an obvious question, why right now the structure is a shell there's a half bath in it, as part of your design you're proposing an accessory apartment why can't you convert that half bath into a full bathroom? SCOTT DESIMONE : Well it could considerably be converted at a significant cost. The plan shows a full bath would be within the bedroom area of the apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The walls there's just a little bit of minor a little bit of framing in there right now a few studs here and there so it's not like it's all built out or anything. Rightly so because you need to get your approval before you go ahead and SCOTT DESIMONE : I would say the rooms are the framing is there setting out where the footprint of the rooms will be nothing has been there's no sheetrock CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no we were all there. I suppose what I'm saying is that right now mostly what it does is it exists on paper you know, the plans are there the proposal is there but I have to say that I kind of agree with Nick that the bathroom that's already there can stay where it is it would be very minimal effort to add a shower. November 3,2022 Regular Meeting SCOTT DESIMONE : Well there's no room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Move the kitchen over. SCOTT DESIMONE :There's no room in that area as it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's only because you're proposing a kitchen abutting up against it. If that slid down to where the full bath is proposed. I mean look it's very easy to redesign something that isn't built yet. That's all we're saying. SCOTT DESIMONE : Well the bathroom is built. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we saw it. SCOTT DESIMONE : At a very significant cost which my client did not want to undertake was compelled to undertake. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll confirm that with the Building Department as we must as you can appreciate and consider the fact of potentially miscommunications or the process itself had an impact on the reason why this is there but the code is absolutely clear and this is not we can grant a variance for almost anything. SCOTT DESIMONE : I'm sorry, if you read the application I've included as far as your packet CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've read it. SCOTT DESIMONE : your application the town's application CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes SCOTT DESIMONE : which the language is different than the code. The code says no more than one bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Full bath SCOTT DESIMONE : No the code says no more than one bathroom, the application says no more than one full bathroom. The language is different between the actual code and your application. Now when I read the application I read it as you seem to be interpreting as well that you can't have more than one bathroom. My client read it as meaning you can't have more than one full bath not that you can't have more than one bathroom but you can't have more than one full bath. Now I asked three or four people to read the language, half the people read it one way and half the other people read it the other way. So all I'm saying that a November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting reasonable person could. read that to mean you can't have more than one full bath but you can have more than one bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's probably why we prefer to have the design not even undertaken until you come before the Board so we can clarify those things. SCOTT DESIMONE : Well I think the language should be clarified in the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree if that's a problem then the language should be clarified; I will take a look at both the code language and I'll take a look at what our application says and make them consistent. I can't change the code the Town Board has to do that but I can certainly change our application. Nick anything more from you or Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No, no questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I guess add the applicant didn't show that they have a copy of the driver's license, there's a sample lease, electric bills, an affidavit of residency, tax bills etc. basic Star illustrating that- they work excuse me they live on site and that the proposed occupant of the accessory apartment will be their daughter. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : No I think the Board to the Board's satisfaction you and the applicant have submitted more than adequate documentation to the fact that you qualify for an accessory apartment, the question is the variance that's what we're really taking about for that bathroom situation. The apartment I believe I think I can speak on behalf of the Board is not an issue that's going to be approved we just have to figure out what to do about this situation. Is there anybody on Zoom Liz that wants to address the application? Anybody else in the audience who wants to say anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : (inaudible) conversion of that half bath to maybe a laundry room since the plumbing is there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they already have a toilet and the sink in there, it would be more costly to do that than MEMBER ACAMPORA : You have the plumbing situation where you could put a washer/dryer in there. MEMBER DANTES : Maybe it would work for your design (inaudible) you wouldn't waste all that money you spent on the plumbing. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Then just take you know (inaudible) 3 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The appliances can be removed from there and put into the full bath. SCOTT DESIMONE : The existence of the half bath has minimal impacts on the property or the proposed application and I would suggest that because of the expense to which my client was put as a result of instructions from the town that that variance be granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to bring to your attention application SE 7075 Special Exception and #7076 variance, this was a decision for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure September 21, 2017. The apartment was approved, the extra half bath was denied. SCOTT DESIMONE : Was it existing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was proposed. SCOTT DESIMONE : Okay so it's actually different than this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe it was proposed. It was an existing accessory structure as a garage but no they proposed a bathroom and a half. MEMBER DANTES : His problem isn't this is a new building and (inaudible) building without Health Department approval (inaudible). SCOTT DESIMONE : And if he was not required to do so he only did it because he was required to do so. MEMBER DANTES : He was required in order to get the C.O. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen in no way is anybody suggesting any (inaudible) behavior by the applicant or by the Building Department. Sometimes things just get caught up in the process, that's the way government works unfortunately and we will confirm with the Building Department what their point of view is on how all this all unfolded. We'll probably collaborate yours but you know the Board is open minded about this and will examine all the information in the public record and come to a decision. SCOTT DESIMONE : Much appreciated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly, anything from anybody else? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? November 3,2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Leslie I'm recused from the next two applications. HEARING#7699—SHEILA STOLTZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sheila Stoltz #7699. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 12, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling with a habitable third story at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 4) exceeds maximum permitted stories of two and one half(2 %) located at 2025 Smith Rd. in Peconic. State your name for the record please. RAY NEMSCHICK : Ray Nemschick, Nemschick Silverman Architects on behalf of the Stoltz family. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me quickly review what we're looking at in the way of variances. So this is demolishing a single family dwelling and building a new one with a front yard setback of 6.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet. A rear yard setback of 11 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet. Lot coverage at 23% where the code permits a.maximum of 20% and a habitable third story where the code permits two and a half (2 % ) maximum. We did receive a letter of concern from the President of the (inaudible) Association I'm sure they were (inaudible) some concerns. I believe you got a copy? RAY NEMSCHICK : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We want to make sure that representatives or applicants have all the same information that we have on file. Okay we'll just turn it over to you now. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting RAY NEMSCHICK : Obviously the lot is kind of the front and rear yards are really mostly side yards because of the zoning because of the way Smith Rd. comes through. Obviously we're looking at a front and rear yard that really act as side yards and then the side yards are really the front and rear yards. The next door neighbor has pretty much the same if not a little bit more of a setback than we're asking for not that that what we're trying to accomplish here but our proposed front yard setback of 6.8 really consider a side yard in truce and then proposed combination of the two at 17.8 feet. The lot coverage of 23% is really due to you know the grandiose nature of the porches and what they (inaudible) is the breezes and the bay views and everybody is (inaudible) front porch. The house (inaudible) really it takes up 2,786 sq. ft. which is about 12% lot coverage just to note that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the lot coverage? RAY NEMSCHICK : The lot coverage that we're proposing is 23% but the house proper the actual footprint of the house without the decking just to note is 2,786 sq. ft. which is 125 of the lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry I didn't hear, what percentage of the lot coverage? RAY NEMSCHICK : 12% CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 12% so the footprint of the dwelling is (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : Where does the front yard setback come to without that the porches and the decks? RAY NEMSCHICK : The front yard setback without the porches? MEMBER DANTES : Yep for the house. RAY NEMSCHICK : So the front yard setback without the porches is 12 feet and then the other MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry on the site plan it says 11.2 RAY NEMSCHICK : It says 11 you're right it does say 11.2 I'm misreading the 12 feet. The other one I believe is 15.1 but you have a bigger copy that me so you can see. You know with the porches and the like obviously we're pushing the setbacks to what we're proposing but the actual house property is closer to what normal side yard setbacks would be. The third floor is mostly a bonus room, it's because they have space and we're not just to let you know we're not adverse I know the town looks unfavorably on third floors as of recent and the client certainly is not adverse to giving up the third floor. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was wondering a bonus room, what do you do in a bonus room? I've never seen a plan that says bonus room. It's like what did they win one in the lottery? RAY NEMSCHICK : Yes it's a power ball bonus room. No you know they're planning to come here full time, they're planning to because they have kids in college and they know that they're eventually going to have grandchildren they're trying to plan you know a forever home for their family. MEMBER ACAMPORA :That's where you put your grandchildren with all their stuff. RAY NEMSCHICK : Exactly. MEMBER 'DANTES : (inaudible) character of the neighborhood, (inaudible) surrounding (inaudible) RAY NEMSCHICK : Certainly I read the letter from and I'm sympathetic tor what the side is on Smith Rd. but this is more you know toward the side of I believe the beach houses because it is right on the beach. The next door neighbor has a like and kind size wise, if you go down Indian Neck I've even done another house down Indian Neck that's (inaudible) much larger homes down Indian Neck I would say as well. We're certainly sympathetic to the idea that you know this is a larger home I'm not going to (inaudible) that it isn't but character wise it's going to be in shingle style I believe that the Stoltz wanted it to be more like it's always been there house not a modern structure by any means and aesthetically we're always trying to be very careful and be mindful of our neighbors. MEMBER DANTES : You said that this house is similar to the size of the other houses in the neighborhood? RAY NEMSCHICK : It's similar to the next door neighbor which (inaudible) in the neighborhood and then I would say that it's bigger than the house up the street for sure. I think that's a given when you drive down Smith Rd. but there are some houses, there's one when you drive down to the west kind of midway down that is it's a decent size house has a pool next to it (inaudible) but I wouldn't put this as a mega structure or me mansion if that's what we're talking about. MEMBER DANTES :That's my only questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's kind of very interesting I'm sure you're aware that we just passed legislation to limit house size because people tend to.have smaller lots we're pretty well developed out here and when people reuse lots let's call them they're often wanting to build and keeping with what is now current it's just much more grand homes that typically November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting was the case when the town was originally developed. So you get into the lot coverage area and you get into the character of the neighborhood and all those other issues and this one was submitted prior to that legislation (inaudible) cause it has to be stamped in Albany before it becomes code. It will be of course but it hasn't happened yet. RAY NEMSCHICK : Can I speak to that for a second? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure by all means. RAY NEMSCHICK : I know it's kind of (inaudible) the client and I had a conversation about that not too long ago offering up the third floor to bring the scale down, to bring the roof down in size and you know it's also you know if we can clarify what half story is I mean by town code I believe it's 7 foot 6 is the maximum height and it starts at 4 feet or 5 feet I believe. So to bring that down and then create a half story and not go through that process or variance is something that we'd like to throw out onto the table and say we've read the letter and are sympathetic so that's where we'd like to go with this. To remove that formally from our application as applying for a third floor and say we're not going to do a third floor. We'd love to bring the house roof scale down but we do still want to have setbacks and porches. I offer that up. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So actually to that point I was going to ask earlier speaking to the clients interest and perhaps removing the third floor, would you consider reducing porches at all? I noticed in the plan that there's two outdoor showers. I don't want to say excessive porches and I agree with you that people want ,to be outdoors and enjoy not just the waterfront but just whatever a summer breeze or an autumn afternoon allows. So maybe I'm mistaken but I thought those were two outdoor showers. RAY NEMSCHICK : They are. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So there's just a lot of porches both front and back and both sides. RAY NEMSCHICK : And that's kind of where we should be getting more sympathetic with the neighborhood because of the covered porches it brings the scale of the house down to more of a human scale and as far we designed it, it takes things down in height visually but I mean if we had to cut back on it you know some of the waterside I would like to leave because it's really where everybody is going to hang out but do we have to have a front porch all the way across, no. We can cut down on some of that and reduce some of the lot coverage. We're certainly reasonable more so getting the house footprint that we're (inaudible) so that they have you know when they invest the kind of money that it takes to build a home out here now that they have ample space for their family and their future grandchildren. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we does anybody on the Board have MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only think Leslie maybe just talk about the elevation in the flood zone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Go ahead you were going to ask a question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rather than me asking a question maybe Ray you want to talk about the elevation,the you know the average grade,the flood zone etc. RAY NEMSCHICK : We'd like to keep when we build these houses we like to keep them at, at least 12 feet or above so that we don't get into flooding. This house believe it or not didn't floor in Sandy. It didn't take on any water perhaps because it's so far from the actual high mark but it is a beautiful lot and there is no denying it but yeah we that's one of the things that we always will do for the homeowner. It's taken up obviously for a better view because of the angle to the water but it's also the (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And what is the flood zone, what is the FEMA rating? RAY NEMSCHICK : I'm not certain it's not in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a VE zone. RAY NEMSCHICK : No. I'd be happy to answer the question but it's not in MEMBER DANTES : Unless you're doing the topof the subfloor elevation 9 foot 4 so I mean it doesn't have a lot of wiggle room with that. Bottom of floor joist elevation AE, with AE they start at the bottom and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes MEMBER DANTES : So he's at the base at the lowest he can go by FEMA. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And there's no basement proposed? RAY NEMSCHICK : No what they use that space for is for kayak'storage or paddle board storage. We plan to have you can see not more than elevation right there with a couple of access storage that we have there but no, no basement. There's no real reason to put one because anything that's in there someday we're sure is going to get flooded but we (inaudible) so that obviously (inaudible) and the house would be fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application. Please come forward and state your name. November 3,2022 Regular Meeting DIANE SCHOCK : Good morning, I'm Diane Schock the President of the Association (inaudible). Some of our members that are year round are here, most of the residents are seasonal and it's the overwhelming size and the closest to the access to the beach which is of most concern to us and the fact that this property over the several years has been mostly a short term rental the people do not live there full time or even most of the summer time. We feel that it's just too big for our area. The gentleman has referred to the other homes down Indian Neck that are maybe considered as large as this particular proposed plan but those are on way bigger lots than this one.This one as you obviously have seen is all the non-conforming lots on our street. There isn't a single (inaudible) was subdivided in 1914 or something like that and most of the homes as I said are seasonal. There's eleven full time residents and two year round rentals on our street. So it's just that and the fact that it's a private road that the members have to maintain and the fact that the construction that it's going to take a tear a home down and then rebuild it at the very bottom of our street is going to cause considerable cost to us to repair and also assuming that most of construction takes place in the nicer part of the year it will also obstruct our access to our walkway down to the beach that runs right across or next to it. My question about the survey and proposed which (inaudible) east and west or south? What about the property directly next to our access to the beach? Is that considered wetland or not I mean that isn't even addressed in this. I assume you've all been down to see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure MEMBER DANTES : I'm confused by your question, wetlands. He doesn't have a Trustees permit to touch the wetlands. DIANE SCHOCK : I understand but I'm saying that his it says the wetlands are off what is now supposedly going to be the front of the house. On this survey the front of the house a side yard and the property owner on the that east side also a side yard and they're proposing the two side yards as front and back is that correct? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think he's proposing I think it's DIANE SCHOCK : Well that survey says side yards over towards the beach and up towards the property behind it and the front yard is on our access to the beach Smith Rd. MEMBER DANTES : Yes because the Building Department is calling Smith Rd. access walking access as his front yard. DIANE SCHOCK : As his front yard? MEMBER DANTES : That's what the Building Department November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's because the rights of way are usually called by the Building Department as a front yard. It's like another street frontage even though it could be a walking path rather than for cars. So basically they're saying Smith Rd. and your beach access are both front yards. I know it's not logical because DIANE SCHOCK : (inaudible) logical to me but this gentleman just said that they were using them now as the side yards in their variance request and the other two that were side yards are going to be front and back. Did I misunderstand that? MEMBER DANTES : He's saying architecturally the (inaudible) I guess it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Smith Rd. from a design point of view you're absolutely right he's using what are typically side yards cause let's face it Smith Rd. is the road, the other thing is a pedestrian beach access. So if you consider Smith Rd. as the primary then they are side yards but in fact because of the right of way it is also a secondary front yard. What they have decided to do was to turn the what we will call the architectural front of the house facing that right of way and the other side is being treated as a rear yard even though it's a side yard from the Smith point of view. It's very confusing to people because you figure well my front door is here and this is how I get in, my back door is where my deck is but when it comes to the way the code works it will also sometimes misrepresent in most people's mind what that means. They oriented it so that the ends of the house are the front and back let's say. The long part is typically that would be a rear yard which is almost non-existent which you can see it's really small and the elevation along Smith Rd. is also like a side yard dimension wise. So and this is the way it's been sited on the property to maximize the lot and the orientation of the house. (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You probably couldn't even build a house using the existing front and rear yards (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You couldn't put a house on there with a conforming front and rear yard if you use Smith Rd. as a front yard to make that 35 feet. DIANE SCHOCK : (inaudible) plan on taking down it is considered the front. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's oriented towards Smith yes. RAY NEMSCHICK : The house that exists right now is exactly the way we're proposing the new house the setoff. So the front door is in the same place along the same side and the beach side is the same side as what we're proposing to look at. So we're just (inaudible) saying that because of the way the zoning reads that these are really side yards but the zoning tells us that they're front and rear yards that's all. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting DIANE SCHOCK : Yes and no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ray are the property owners prepared to be are they going to be living there year round full time do you know? RAY NEMSCHICK : Yeah they're preparing I mean they've come out, they've sat down joined I think North Fork Country Club. Because they're empty nesters now for the first time this year they're going to start to come out more and more and that's this is what they call their forever home. DIANE SCHOCK : In the meantime though our concern is that since it has been mostly a short term rental that it will continue to be until they decide to retire since they're not that old and have professional careers will continue to be MEMBER DANTES : We can't by law we can't distinguish between full time residents and seasonal residents and investment properties. DIANE SCHOCK : No, no, no I'm just saying that the size of this house they have for MEMBER DANTES : That can't be part of our decision making process. DIANE SCHOCK : I understand what you're saying, it shouldn't affect your decision it affects our concerns in that there will be more people than the smaller home that exists now has been able to accommodate and what this will be able to accommodate and with its size will therefore bring larger groups of people not a single family (inaudible) the prices every rental goes for around here. So that is our concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can't blame you for your concern. The Board however can't make decisions based upon a hypothesis or theory of what might happen in the future and if there are issues and we're all seeing them all over town we all know it. I mean the rental properties are everywhere and a lot of people purchased homes that might have gone to people that had lesser incomes as investments. Change is here I mean we don't all like it but there it is and we do whatever we can to mitigate things that have adverse impacts, that the Board can do. I'm looking at this and I'm wondering we don't see any driveway, we don't see any on the site plan, I mean how are you planning to handle all on-site parking? RAY NEMSCHICK : The driveway is pretty much going to stay where it is right now. We'll cut into it a little bit, it's not going to be a huge driveway and it'll all be gravel it'll be pervious surface it's not going to be a blacktop or anything like that. DIANE SCHOCK : Thank you. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome,,is there anyone else who wants to make a comment? Please come forward and state your name. TOM SMITH : Hi my name is Tom Smith, I live at 1210 Smith Rd. I guess I might as well start by ,just saying that you know in the description of our road is that two thirds of Smith Rd. residents are seasonal and I would venture to say that most of them other,than the few here today did not even know that this was taking place. I would not even have known if I hadn't walked down to the beach and (inaudible) sign. So this may not be a direct reflection of you know the concerns of the people on the block. I know you probably have heard this a million times of what's going on in town of all the stuff that happened in New Suffolk and so on and so forth but I figured I was going to say my peace and my ten minutes or five minutes to say it and whether the build happens or not you know we're going to have to live with it afterwards so I'm just going to say it. So you know when it comes to you know Smith Rd. you know the project has a lot of problems with it. You know Smith Rd. has been in existence fora hundred years. Ir lived in Cutchogbe for twenty five years I gravitated towards Smith Rd. cause it was a reflection of what the town used to be. It's all changing around town we've seen it everywhere. You know people buying small homes and blowing them out you know it's a burden on you people too because you gotta field all this stuff that's going on and try to make everybody happy and try to allow people to do.what they want to do with their own property. At some point some of it becomes like too much even for the neighbors or you people. You know the average home on Smith Rd. are like fifteen hundred square feet. Some of them are a hundred years old okay so when we try to compare and I get you know what you know the architect is trying to do I mean_he's working for a client, they're trying to make a beautiful house you know one of his employees is part of the Board that's all part of the disclosure process that I just read and I only read a.11 this stuff like two days ago so I'm trying to get up to speed on ,what's really going on here. You know when it comes to like you know the application when it says it's like in character with our street, it's not. I don't believe it is. The house next to me was under construction for a year and that house is about 3,500-3,800 sq. ft. That's the biggest house.on the lane on the block as we call it so it's nowhere near the potential 7,000 sq. ft. that they want to build on-the beach. Now (inaudible) and some of it's like fuzzy math right so you've got this.lot that's like a half acre right, half of the half acre is beach so now you're putting a 7,000 sq. ft. house and correct me if I'm wrong with any of this stuff 7,000 sq. ft. house well that's including the attic room on a lot that's like an eighth of an acre 11 or 12,000'sq. ft. I mean that seems like excess. I don't even think you guys dealt with that with the New Suffolk house where they had a beach associated with that now I'm not really understanding what transpired in that whole bunch of craziness but this is another thing we're using the beach or a half of your lot as a beach as in your assessment of how many square feet you're building on. Another thing is like porches, porches take up about a November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting thousand square feet. You have to I mean you go in all kind of crazy directions and I don't know where this is going to end up but the house seems to be like a bit of overkill for the size of the lot maybe not for some like on the Bayfront that's down some of those lanes on Indian Neck because some of those lots are they're like ten acres and they're you know hundreds of feet on the water. That lot is 65 feet wide and the reason they flip these homes around is because they couldn't do the setbacks the way they wanted to or you know like the (inaudible) the President was mentioning she couldn't understand like the way the wetlands were. Some of them flip these houses around because they want to get out of the setback requirements for you know wetlands and that sort and I don't know if any of that really applies or it did apply to the way the houses were originally set up at least the house using the side lot as the front and so on and so forth. I do think that you know the fuzzy math on how they work you know how you're going to be able to put a 7,000 sq. ft. house on an eighth of an acre lot seems like a bit much in my mind. That's really all I have to really say about that. No matter what we say or do they're going to build the house okay and the Board will confer with the architect and you'll come up with some changes. In my experience with some of the stuff is that you know people have the means to push forward on this you know, they'll tire us all out, they'll keep coming forward, they'll keep making changes and sooner or later it's going to be built and I just hope it's built with the satisfaction of you know my fellow residents here: Thank you. FRANK HASH : Good morning Frank Hash 1550 Smith Rd. I'd like to just follow up on one of the Mrs. Schock's comments specifically with respect to the road. You've seen Smith Rd. it's a one lane road it pretty much serves strictly as a residents emergency vehicle and so forth but it's not a town road it's not built to town standards, it doesn't have the (inaudible) and depth nor the cross section of a town road and over the years we've witnessed damage to the road particularly from large trucks, heavy equipment and so on. We have the concern that should this project go forward there will be excavators, dumpsters and other construction equipment that (inaudible) and we just would like to get some satisfaction on how we can protect the road. The repairs are funded through our dues and your assessments and we would just thinking that should the project go forward and should you folks approve (inaudible) could it be conditional upon any potential damage to the road being (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Typically that's a civil matter. MEMBER DANTES : Who maintains your road now? FRANK HASH.: We do, the association. MEMBER DANTES : You do the snow plowing and the pot holes and everything else? November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting FRANK HASH : Yes sir. MEMBER.DANTES : Is there anything. in your association by laws that govern damage to the road?That's what we're (inaudible)the association guidelines. FRANK HASH As I understand I wasn't around when the association was created. As I understand one of the main purposes of the association was to provide access and to build and maintain the. road. The town road (inaudible) 'construction I'm sure you'd have to,have the Highway Superintendent (inaudible) working with the Building Department but we don't have that protection so I was just wondering there could be some sort of condition that should something happen we wouldn't get any cost to repair. MEMBER ACAMPORA : They could;this is something (inaudible)'as far as dedicating the road back to the town so then the town then FRANK HASH : It's not going to meet town standards I really don't think that the town would take it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think to Eric's point, the association has by laws that address these issues and whether they're in there or not l think that's something the association has to look.at but what.comes to mind is we saw a project I want to say it wasn't this year but I think it was last year on Rabbit Lane which something similar occurred by the owner actually owned the lot across the street but we did put conditions in place that insured right of way access to the shared beach. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A little bit different but I know where you're going with it. When you have a private road or a right of way there's always concerns, everybody would be logically. I mean nobody wants to be burdened financially from somebody else's activities. I don't know- if you can talk to your client about this and see what they have to say. They obviously live there, they're going to live there they're going to live there more often and certainly .I'm sure they want to you know be good neighbors. We can at least make that assumption until proven otherwise. RAY NEMSCHICK : We certainly will pass it-along. I'm just assuming that you know you go by you can always talk to them too,that's what being neighborly is really. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, I've heard several things that you know willingness to listen the concerns, willingness to cut back on certain elements within the design maybe we'll even get rid of the non-conforming lot coverage. I can tell you about what happened the gentleman asked about how- in the world do you build when you've got a beach. What happened in New Suffolk and I can say that it's something that I was a part of someone came November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting up to me and said, how could you let that happen? I said what happen?They said there's,this big house it's going on it's on the wetlands, it's on you know I said I never even saw it, the Zoning Board never saw it-let me find out. I went into the Building Department and discovered that I pulled the plans well guess what, their deed showed half if not more of their property was land under water. That's how it used to written, you owned under the water that was your lot size. But guess what, this is dry land so that made no sense. It made sense for me to suggest the code should be changed to 20% maximum lot coverage of the buildable area of a property that's how that happened. RAY NEMSCHICK : We don't count the so you know we are under the it's a 23,270 sq. ft. lot so it's a half acre or more. The idea is that we can't use lot coverage for what is under water so that doesn't even count in our lot coverage so we had to reduce that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So according to the application your lot is 27,215 sq. ft. but the buildable area is the 23,078. . RAY NEMSCHICK : And that's what we used the lot coverage on the 23,000 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of the buildable area. RAY NEMSCHICK : Right we wouldn't be in front of you if we used the 27,000 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you would be but not for lot coverage. RAY NEMSCHICK : Right exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean I hope this makes sense to people because one of-the things the Board wants to do is to reach out to our neighbors and make sure that to the extent that we can help you understand,the processes within government you always have the right to go to the Town Board and say you don't like this you think it should be changed. They're the legislators, the Zoning Board ironically doesn't do zoning. We grant relief from restrictions on what the zoning code allows when it's justified. By the way we are only we can only grant what we can when the applicant can make their case is the minimum variance they absolutely must have. We can't say oh go ahead take twenty percent when you can accomplish what you want with fifteen. So we are looking at all of those things,.the standards are right on our website if you want to know exactly what standards we use in making these decisions, they're part of the application and they're on the ZBA's website for the benefit of the public so you become more familiar with it. I think what we should do here is adjourn this because clearly you're going to talk to your clients, you're going to find out about their willingness to look at issues within the homeowner's maintenance agreements let's say. November 3,2.022 Regular Meeting Sometimes subdivisions have or neighborhoods have Covenants a,nd Restrictions in place. You probably don't given how old you neighborhood is. FRANK HASH : No we don't have any. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you have maybe you just have an .agreement and didn't even nobody even knows where a copy of it is at this point in time. When something is that old you may or may not even have access to your by laws I don't know'do you? FRANK HASH : We have by laws, we have an association but we don't have any there's no Covenants or(inaudible) it's strictly voluntary. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Leslie I'm in agreement I don't know how the rest of the Board feels to adjourn it however I'd like to remind Board Members we don't have LWRP comments on this application either so I would suspect that maybe CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably because it wasn't a wetland. MEMBER DANTES : He meets the wetland setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're going to adjourn it anyway so what that means is that this will remain open. Now I do want to just FRANK HASH : I'm sorry one clarification, a couple of the Board Members mentioned something about bylaws and how we enforce CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not unless you have Covenants and Restrictions. FRANK HASH : We don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you can at least look at them to say if there's anything that talks about the mutual maintenance of the road then you might have some reasonable recourse to discuss with the property owner what happens if it gets really beat up as a result of having construction equipment. RAY NEMSCHICK : I'm here, I'd be happy to talk to, everybody after.this and not take up the Board's time so if you have any questions we can just go out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. I just want to.say that here's.how it works when people get notified cause you mentioned you just found out about it. Here's what the law requires and this is what is done every single month we have a public hearing, we get Notices of Disapprovals let's say variances or something, Kim writes them up as Legal Notices and they get put in the Suffolk Times. Obviously not everyone reads the Suffolk Times particularly if November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting you're a seasonal person. The yellow card gets sent out from our office to the property owner. They are obligated to post it visually you know within easy sight of the property saying what the date is that there's a hearing and here's why. The only people that get mailings announcements in the mail are those that are directly opposite or adjacent. So the whole street doesn't get a mailing. This is just you know we have to at least let the very direct neighbors know and the applicant is required by law to send those notices of what they intend to do via return receipt requested green cards which we require they submit to our office so we know those people were notified. Sometimes they're in Florida, sometimes they get missing but basically that's the process. So don't be surprised if not everybody on the block knew about it unless you all passed it or you read it in the Suffolk Times. Not everybody sits there reading legal notices. If you have a question you have to come to the mic. DIANE SCHOCK : My question is, that yellow posting hearing notice how long is it supposed to be posted? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It needs to be posted no later than seven days prior to the hearing. DIANE SCHOCK :They just made it, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Trust me if we don't see it posted when we go out I mean honestly sometimes it's so hard to find these properties (inaudible). Trust me this can be quite a challenge just trying to find the properties prior to a hearing. I think how long do we want to adjourn it for, what time do you need to? RAY NEMSCHICK : When you say adjourn it you mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to keep the hearing open and we're going to adjourn it to another date so you can come back with amended plans. Talk to your just call our office if you'd like I think we should make a date now RAY NEMSCHICK : Let me know as soon as you can. MEMBER DANTES : Do we need a hearing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have to cause the public has to look at it and they're going to have to be able to submit comments and RAY NEMSCHICK : We're going to take out the third story we won't need a variance for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good that's one down. RAY NEMSCHICK : Right so then this becomes a 5,500 sq. ft. home total and you know we're going to reduce the roof size but you know we're going to have to obviously consult with the November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting client and make sure everything but that's pretty much all we're looking to do. If we can keep the (inaudible) and not come back here for lot coverage or even (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you can reduce the lot coverage, if you can reduce the size of some of those porches that will help with lot coverage (inaudible). RAY NEMSCHICK : I mean if we can agree that the side yards that's not going to change because you know a 40 feet wide house you know so we'd definitely'would like to go and keep that so I think that's where we'd be at but we'll.amend the plans an submit them to the Board and you know obviously-you know if we can get on the next Public Hearing that would be great to adjourn it to the meeting on December 15t so that we don't wait too long. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't anticipate that we*can talk too much more about it and be what you propose and the Board will have to,make a decision-whether to approve it or not but it will be an amended application. RAY NEMSCHICK It will be another hearing then? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well we'd have to do that. RAY NEMSCHICK : Do we have to post again and mail.or? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we adjourn it a specific date you don't have to re-mail you just have to post no mailings again because it's here it's a public record and it will also be on the Agenda. It will be posted again on our website and plus all of you here just let people know this is when we can't tell you exactly what time but we can certainly tell you the date. I think let's just try and fit it in because I'm anticipating it won't be a lengthy matter it will be you know we'll take some comments if we have any, we'll take some questions if we have any and we'll see what we get. So what's the date in December? BOARD ASSISTANT : December 1: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to give it a tentative time? BOARD ASSISTANT : Let's do it like 2 o'clock in the afternoon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz what's December look like, what's the last hearing time scheduled? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We have three the Battery Storage, three of them at 1:40 so that's going to go on for a while. Kim those packets went out already. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting BOARD ASSISTANT : That's what I was thinking. We send everything out the first week of the prior month. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have more in December actually than we have in January. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : January Stn CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's do that. Let's just put it on first thing in the morning 10 a.m. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's our organization meeting so we'll begin earlier. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll start earlier that's all. Do you have a question? TOM SMITH : I just what is the maximum square footage you can build on a 23,000 sq. ft. lot and what is the normal height restriction on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right now cause the new law hasn't taken effect, the maximum lot coverage again depends on the zone that you're in but in typical residential zone is 20% lot coverage. A forty foot height maximum and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 4,600 and change. MEMBER DANTES : That's the building coverage then you have two floors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the footprint, so it's pretty big that's one reason TOM SMITH : No I'm just trying to save you time, us time everybody time here you know and so that 35 foot requirement presently it's like at 42 is that from the ground level or is that from the top of the foundation like they now have to raise the house by 5 %feet. MEMBER DANTES : That's FEMA that doesn't apply to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That has to do with flood zone compliance it's not about the height goes from that base level the first livable floor area the silt plate TOM SMITH : Right so right now at 42 feet he's 42 feet plus 5 %feet so is it really CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no TOM SMITH : if you're standing on the ground MEMBER DANTES : The height (inaudible) goes from the ground the grade level of the ground. TOM SMITH : So on the plans when you see 42 feet, he's 42 feet from the present ground level. When he puts on whether it's stilt of 40T November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting RAY NEMSCHICK : The (inaudible) ridge though. The height is defined as the mid (inaudible) so that's 35 foot. So we're not breaking any (inaudible). One questions for you, we at this point (inaudible) the town are we grandfathered because we applied? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would think so. RAY NEMSCHICK : I just want to make sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's fair, I don't think that any I believe that we wrote it so that applicants DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : It's a given, your application is in they're not going to (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We use the standards that are available now you can't switch on people when they started a process you know in good faith with one set of rules. If the rules change and you're already in motion those old rules still apply. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : Our decisions on the current is on the denial that was given by the Building Department on X-date prior to the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes yours was prior. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : It's the Building Department denial that we're here about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay adjourn to January 5, 2023 at 10 a.m. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, see you in the New Year. I'm going to make a motion to recess for five minutes. We can hear this when we come back but I need a two second break here. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to reconvene, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7700 SE &#7701—46770 ROUTE 48, LLC/PECONIC WATERSPORTS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board, I'm going to open both of them together two fold interrelated same applicant 46770 Route 48 LLC/Peconic Watersports #7700SE Special Exception request and #7701 this is a variance request. I'm just going to read them into the record. The first one is Special Exception request pursuant to Article XI Section 280-48B(12) and the Building Inspector's June 8, 2022 revised June 10, 2022 Notice of Disapproval to construct and establish a business use in General Business Zoning District consisting of new marine sales, service and storage facility (Peconic Watersports) located at 46770 CR 48 in Southold. Application 7701 is a request for a variance from Article XI Section 280-50C and the Building Inspector's June 8, 2022 revised June 10, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish an existing building and construct a new marine sales, service and storage facility (Peconic Watersports) at 1) measuring more than the maximum permitted 60 linear feet of frontage on one street_located at the same place 46770 CR 48 in Southold. So both of those are going together. Martin do you want to go ahead? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon, Martin Finnegan on behalf of the applicant 46770 CR 48 LLC joined here today by Joe (inaudible) who is the owner of Peconic Watersports and the 4,21 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting applicant. As Leslie said this is a hybrid application for both the Special Exception to allow the construction of the boats there and service facility on a parcel that's about .85 acres in the general business zone. We.also (inaudible) for frontage. I'm actually seeking alternative relief from what was originally applied for which was to have a 95 foot (inaudible) facility. The site plan you have before you was modified to comply with landscape and parking requirements which resulted in a reduction in the proposed width of the structure to 78.1 feet so the relief requesting is 18 feet from the code requirement. The building itself is a two story building it's got 7,200 sq. ft. with marine sales and service areas.in the front part of the building and office space as well and a storage boat storage area in the back. The use as you know is permitted by Special Exception under (inaudible) General Business regulations. This facility will be operated. by a single business, Peconic Watersports which is an established business in town. Work that is contemplated to be done' in this building is being done elsewhere and the operation will be moved into this facility. The proposed design as you can see is offset to create the visual appearance of separate buildings. As you know we (inaudible) two buildings of equal width (inaudible.) as of right but we're seeking relief to have it one building because it's necessary for operations. As far as location, you know where we are up on the North Rd. between Youngs Ave. and Boisseau Ave. This is an established commercial corridor in town with numerous mixed commercial uses along the way. We would submit that the proposed boat sales and service business is consistent with the existing.mix of uses there along CR 48. There you have obviously a couple of shopping centers, you have, the fitness center, you have (inaudible) for gas, an auto repair shop, the floor store, the new gas station, a (inaudible) store that you're. familiar with and some other office and retail space. So this use would be consistent with the general business zoning (inaudible) and purpose. It's to provide for retail and commercial development and then the office. (inaudible) along major highways so (inaudible) within that and with that proposed structure will be compatible and use will be compatible and certainly will be an improvement over the existing,appearance of the property which is you know more or less been (inaudible) over the years. There's a pre-existing mixed use building there kind of setback. I note that there are five other buildings along actually six buildings along the corridor that have a frontage greater than 60 feet. You granted variance relief for the floor store and for the furniture building to be 80 feet, 103 feet others pre-existing non-conforming but obviously the (inaudible) extenders are the one to the west is 200 feet, one is 170 feet (inaudible) is 145 feet so there are you know many other buildings along the way that,seems to be part of the norm that we're exceeding the 60 feet. Those decisions by the way I attached to the back of my memo of law just for your records. Here we're in contrast to the buildings that have that 100 foot plus we're only seeking to have 78.1 feet of frontage that is going to be offset as I said. I just want to run through the standards, I mean in terms of the use I think we covered that that this is a permitted use subject to your review. We feel that the if you're looking at the matters to be considered you know overall thi's is about does this fit in or not. Is November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting it going to be a problem with this zoning district, is it going to be a problem with the ones next door? I mean this type of use you're familiar with in our town. We have a water dependent community,'boating is a way of life here. We see marine sales and service facilities throughout the town in various hamlets in Mattituck, there's on in Greenport, there's several others that are in and around the business zone but adjacent to residential uses and this is that type of use that we're looking to create here. Just reviewing in general obviously I've covered them'in detail in the memo so I'm not going to belabor it but in terms of do we fit in, will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent and we so no. It's clearly similar to the other uses in the vicinity and we think .there's no perceivable impact this is going to have on the surrounding businesses. If you look at the area you can see for yourself what's there now and how this would blend right in. The size of the building it's completely compliant with zoning other than with the frontage that we're here for. No perceivable impacts on the neighboring district. There is obviously (inaudible) and required through the site plan process ample screening on the perimeter of the property adjacent to the residentially zoned properties. Health safety and welfare issues will clearly be addressed through the site plan process to the extent that there are any perceivable impacts they have and in harmony with the Chapter (inaudible) because it's a permitted use under the zoning code and it is consistent with that stated purpose of the chapter. As far as visibility scale, overall appearance the building has been designed to be compatible with surrounding uses and scale and in appearance. This is an established (inaudible) and there are some uses of greater intensity certainly many uses that are larger in scope and so with having five other buildings with frontage of 100 feet or greater we do not believe that this would be inconsistent with the character or be visually unusual in the area. Certainly CR 48 and this area is accessible to emergency protection and storm water will certainly be controlled on site with Chapter 236. To briefly jump to the area variance criteria is it's somewhat similar in review but as noted we have several other buildings on the corridor that are greater than 60 feet in the width. The advantage (inaudible) granting of similar variance relief here for the construction of this building will be consistent with the character and no detriment to surrounding properties. To the extent that it abuts the residentially zoned properties as I said there will be a substantial vegetated buffer to protect them. We obviously can't do this without variance relief. Why, well the use is boat storage, moving you know marine watercraft (inaudible) interior to have two separate it's just not conducive to the operation. Great effort was taken to design it in a way that would respect the spirit of the law but it's just not practical here and the building was made as tight as possible to minimize the relief requested but honestly we will need the relief. The substantiality we believe is you know the offset design really mitigates that to the extent that there is mathematical substantiality to the requested relief the intent of this code which is to avoid strip shops etc. as I understand it. If you look at prior decisions and legislative intent but you know we're surrounded by those but here I think that was to not have multiple 441 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting businesses under one roof and really the intent of this regulation but we're looking at one business being under the roof here. Again we believe that it satisfies the spirit and intent of the code. As for adverse environmental physical impacts there's really none that we can speak to, there are several businesses of equal or greater intensity operating in the area. The proposed width of the structure at 70 feet that will not have any perceivable environmental physical impact in this area based on surrounding uses. So obviously (inaudible) shouldn't hold us up here so (inaudible) to believe that the project as proposed meets all the standards under Special Exception criteria as well as the area variance criteria under the town law. I understand that the record here will remain open because we're here to get a SEQRA determination from Planning. The site plan application pending, we're in the completeness review. We're hoping that that'll be done at their next meeting and we'll be working as quickly as possible to get that determination out of the Planning Department. If there are any questions I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think your comments now your memorandum of law is very, very thorough. I think you made a very demonstrable case that's very compliant with character of that business corridor that was created whether we liked it or not there it is. Thank you previous Town Board for your spot zoning. And the fact that you understood that the better way to do this is to at least break that elevation into more discernable areas instead of one. What is the side of I guess it's the easterly side of the building length I couldn't tell. MARTIN FINNEGAN : About 105 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's going to have the biggest impact frankly, however it's screened I imagine you'll probably want to put up some security fencing. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think you know look we're going to be going through site plan there's going to be buffers, there may be some modifications to that side to you know pretty it up a little bit whatever is suggested. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they're going to take whether or not any display is possible or not. MARTIN FINNEGAN : This is not contemplated to be a heavy people coming and going business. It's going to be contained to operate you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it boat sales also? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Boat sales and storage. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Boats will be displayed on the inside as far as you know at this point in your showroom? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yeah yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you'll be working on mechanically working on servicing indoors as well. JOSPEH FLOTTERSON : The point of this whole thing is for us to get to do indoors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah in the winter when you're not freezing. JOSEPH FLOTTERSON : Working outdoors for a long time and I (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The variance you know we discussed already. We also observed that the impact to the adjacent property that would (inaudible) the greatest with that longer easterly elevation the building itself is setback very differently it's way in front of what that long side is (inaudible) and it's a small you know MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah and that business is not .really on that side it's more on the easterly side. JOSEPH FLOTTERSON : Joseph Flotterson, if you look at the road on CR 48 it'sort of pulls away from the building so for that eastern side between the medical building and the natural shielding the road actually the more noticeable exposure is actually to the west.but the eastern one CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is camouflaged JOSEPH FLOTTERSON : Yeah exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know the area well we drive by it a thousand times a day. I remember the new place kayak place they used to sell pot pies from Milowski's in there and all kinds of potpourri and other stuff. It will be nice to see that property cleaned up actually it's just a kind of eye sore over there. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So at this I will submit CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Submit the amended.site plan so we can site that and also ; MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And also so you know we just this second hot off the press got an LWRP comments both of which in both applications are consistent. There's your gift for the November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting day. There isn't nobody else in the audience, is there anybody on Zoom? No hands okay I make a motion to close on both those applications. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie do we want to close it or adjourn it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh thank you, it's subject to SEQRA by the Planning Board as Lead Agency we did that resolution at the beginning of the agenda. I checked it off as done. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And there's no date. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no date it's subject to'SEQRA. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It means they need to repost and.everything. BOARD ASSISTANT : Without a date they have tore-mail. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Can we just give it a date? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, why don't I just give it a date six months from now. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Oh no, no, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you like Martin? . MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's SEQRA you don't need the whole site plan approved right? Can we do February? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can do February. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : February 2nd is the date. I know February is full, I can't remember off the top of my head. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't anticipate having another hearing.. What we have to simply do is wait till we get the SEQRA determination in order to make a decision, we can't do it they're Lead Agency. I did tell them that we did this once before already, it's much more helpful to them see here's part of the problem MARTIN FINNEGAN : Can we just close the record subject to submission of SEQRA? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just a second, I'm going to close it. Since there was no controversy I might of held this open for a little while but the Planning Board prefers not to have things left open because you can then continue to get public commentary which messes them up when it comes to them writing the SEQRA decision because they've got to incorporate every 147 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting comment,just finished it and then somebody (inaudible) something. So that's why I wanted to close it subject to SEQRA because then you don't have to post we just get the-SEQRA and that's when the clock starts on the decision. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Didn't we get an email from the Planning Board or the comments from the Planning Board requesting that we leave it open? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Subject to SEQRA because it's just less confusing to them. We do this because it helps them this hearing will help them move forward to see if this Board had any questions or concerns, to see.if the public had any questions or concerns. There appear to be none so the point is we should close it subject to SEQRA that way they don't have to do anymore work and when we get that determination' as soon as we get it, it doesn't matter when if we got it tomorrow we can then you know start writing up a decision on both of them. So I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to SEQRA determination from the Planning Board. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to recess for lunch. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMER PLANAMENTO :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 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7702 LEE and LILI SIEGELSON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before we reconvene with the next application which is Siegelson on Fishers Island, Liz I'm going to ask you to let people know who are on Zoom how they can participate. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, good afternoon everyone. If anyone wishes to comment for those on Zoom on a particular application we ask 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 press *9 to raise your hand and we will let you know what to do next. For those who are on Zoom who are the actual applicant I will move you in when it is your turn to be a panelist so just wait for your turn and we will take of you. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lee and Lili Siegelson #7702. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 23, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet (both side yards), 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 3) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 2046 Peninsula Road on Fishers Island. Sam are you there? SAM FITZGERALD : I am can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can hear you. Let me just review what we're looking at. A side yard setback of 4 feet the code requiring a minimum of 10, a combined side yard setback at 10 feet the code requiring 25, a rear yard setback of 31 the code requiring 35 foot minimum and lot coverage at 30.7% the code permitting a maximum of 20%. This is a property on Fishers Island on Peninsula Rd. on West Harbor. Thank you for bringing up the site plan. Okay Sam I'm going to turn it over to you. November 3,2022 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD : Great thank you. Good afternoon I hope you guys enjoyed your lunch my name is Sam Fitzgerald appearing on behalf of the applicants Lee and Lili Siegelson. This is a summer house built in the early nineteen hundreds that we'd like to improve and make more livable for the Siegelsons. The house hasn't fully been altered at all very much over the last century some but not much. The house and the lot are legally non-conforming in every way except for building height. It's a really charming house with ra lot of great original architectural details intact, load of character. It's really an ideal low key summer spot. However as we're thinking about making improvements we recognized there's some pretty significant hurdles here and we've had our contractors walk through and you know I hear one of them say this is a tear down right? And they're probably not too far off, it' a fair point. The house is only 1,200 sq. ft. on a prime waterfront property. The house is eight feet below the flood elevation. This is a seasonal house with no heat or central AC and to add those would require retrofitting the house to conform to the energy code which is a pretty big deal and there's no foundation the house is on blocks. So while there's the option to build a new house on the property that would be completely conforming to zoning would be built above the floor elevation, would be a larger house that would be more in line with other coastal properties, could be taller much taller and afford nice views of the harbor. There's that option but it's our intention and commitment topreserve, maintain and restore the existing house as best we can understanding all the headaches that we're taking on there. So for this mission we're asking for some relief from the Zoning Board. Keeping the house is better for the neighborhood, it's a historic house and the Siegelsons I know have a very long history there. You'll see from our submission packet that we are proposing to bump out the house in a few places while maintaining the architectural character of the house. On the south side it's a second story addition over an existing covered porch that would fall within the building footprint. On the waterside there's a corner of a covered porch that we'd like to screen in and then on the landward side of the house out that way basically extruding the shape of the house back a few feet and then adding a section of wrap around porch. The total expansion of the footprint is less than 300 sq. ft. and that's all landward of the house. Even with these additions the house will still be one of the smaller ones in the neighborhood and we feel that this is the minimum expansion that's required to make the house work and make the house viable. The other issue we're dealing with is the flood plain and I know we just moments ago got the LWRP report and it was showing that the house was inconsistent because it's in the floor plain 'and if you bear with me just a couple more minutes on this. From the FEMA map the base flood elevation at the house is 19 feet, the bottom of our-first floor structure is elevation 13 so in order to be out of the flood zone would have to raise the house 6 feet plus 2 more additional feet because it's in a velocity zone so it would be elevation 21. So we would have to raise the house 8 feet. So what's funny about that is that four parcels to the north the base flood elevation is 10 and two parcels to the south the base elevation is 14. So we're in a little small November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting wedge that is considerably higher and it just doesn't make any sense. You know a few people have looked at it and said this is kind of crazy. So what we've done and there's precedent for this for some reference on (inaudible) what we've done is hired an engineering firm to look at this and do some science to see if we can get the base flood elevation lowered and then the preliminary reports have come back and are confident to get the flood elevation down to 14 and they say maybe even 13 which is great. So they'll submit their data and the research to FEMA and hopefully get a map change. So as part of this application we'd like to raise the house 3 feet to get us 2 feet higher than the 14 foot flood elevation level and we'll be putting in a proper foundation under the house. So with that base flood elevation change I hope that that would adequately address the concerns that are in the LWRP and again I just had two minutes to look at it but I know that that's the concern was. So with that I think if you have any questions I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see Nick, questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Lots of questions. So Sam I actually had the opportunity this past August to visit the site and we walked around the property I met the homeowners who kind of who told me a little bit about the property. I'm super confused about the elevation and the flood zone. When I look at the FEMA map it shows flood zone VE elevation 19 but on the LWRP Mark has it as elevation 11. SAM FITZGERALD : I know, in the short time that I've had to review that I noticed that too and we've been dealing with the FEMA map and that's been our information and the engineer that we've been dealing with also sort of confirms that it's 19. If it's 11 that would be great because as I.said the bottom of our first floor structure is elevation 13 which would put us out of the flood zone. So that would be great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First of all thank you as always having such very clear graphics on your presentation because you know we're not able to get out there its much, much easier for us to follow what's going on based upon the way in which you color code both (inaudible) and floor plans. You did receive a letter of concern from your neighbor who felt that the proposed second story addition on the south side within the non-conforming side yard would create a really serious visual impacts to their property which has a bedroom on that side apparently and also their deck and privacy would be very breached as a result of that proposed addition. I'd like you to kind of address that if you would. SAM FITZGERALD : Sure. Yeah and I think that Betty might be on the Zoom as well but yeah I was contacted she emailed that letter to me as well and I contacted her a few days ago and we've had some really good productive conversations since. I went over to her house and looked at it from the perspective of her house and you know when we were designing the November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting house we were looking at from sort of from we were guided from three different interests. The first was making the house livable for the Siegelsons, preserving the historic character of the house as much as possible and then making sure we didn't sort of negatively impact the neighborhood or the environment. So just thinking about the thought process there behind putting the addition there we were you know the view from the water is really important. People come to Fishers Island through West Harbor, it's a really sort of well-traveled thoroughfare and the Siegelson's house is a nice landmark off the left as you're coming into the harbor and that north side you know if we put the addition on the north side say that's a view of the house that has been the same for over a hundred years and we wanted to preserve the view of the house from the water from such a popular thoroughfare going into the harbor. So that was the reason it was sort of a preservation issue mainly that we put it on the south side but we had you know there's no intention at all to cause such concern from over this. So I think that we'd be happy to sort of take a look at that and maybe even you know make a recommendation as to how we can alleviate her concerns. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, yeah because she did you received it she did certainly say (inaudible) evidence and that is always something the Board is mindful of the way the people are making additions that are going to have an impact on the neighbor with a non-conforming setback. MEMBER DANTES : When you look at the drawing section photo 5 it'll be zoning variance application packet it shows us exactly what it could be. To me it looks like that existing covered porch has a worse view of their bedroom than the addition. SAM FITZGERALD : Right and I think that and again I think that the Siegelsons and Betty have had a great relationship over the years and was never obviously never any intention to you know cause such concern with her and I think that you know given that and we've really taken a look at it we've studied it the last couple of days and I think that we can probably make it work if we put that second floor addition on the north side instead of the south side. I think we can sort of flip the second floor and put the addition off on the north side I think we can make that work if that will help Betty get to a comfort level about the project. I think what we'll probably like to do too is slide that addition back toward the road as well so flip it over to the north side of the house and then slide it back more toward the road. I think that could probably work for us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me see you had more questions Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I'm looking at maybe you can clarify the actual lot size. On the application the Notice of Disapproval indicates a lot size of (inaudible) of an acre 8,631 sq. ft. but on your survey it shows 9,148 sq. ft. .21 of an acre. • r November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD :The actual survey itself? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes (inaudible)the lot width I don't see where the 9,000 from. SAM FITZGERALD : I don't see where they get that either. On page two of my packet you know we take the surveyors drawing and we sort of we draw the metes and bounds we use that are command,in auto cad to calculate the area and that's what we get. So I don't MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) the map that I received. SAM FITZGERALD : Right so I don't know what that is frankly and I'm you know I don't check the surveyors work and I don't sort of I didn't notice that inconsistency but I can look into it. I think what we do too is we I don't know if the Suffolk County GIS site is back up and running . but we do check that as well because the lot areas are listed there as well so we check it there and then we sort of you know draw up a site ourselves and do an area calculation. So I think those were consistent so I don't know but I can check with the engineer certainly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if that would make up to a difference. I mean obviously if it's a larger lot your lot coverage would be reduced but I think it's going end up being 8,000 and not the 9,000. SAM FITZGERALD : I think that's right, I think we were pretty good about drawing it accurately with the metes and bounds but you're right I don't think that there'll be any material change in the variances asked for except you're right it'll reduce the coverage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So just one comment, I find the lot to be extremely tight;the house is (inaudible) I understand.it's an older home (inaudible) but it's very tight on both sides. The neighbor to the north obviously it's a little that house is set further back so I just want to remind you that the lot is,very tight and constrained by certain limitations it's an existing structure. Are you proposing a new sanitary system? SAM FITZGERALD : Yes we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it an IA? SAM FITZGERALD : Yes it is and that's been MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Tell me about the foundation, I understand as you said there is no foundation under the house, cinder block etc. and you will be putting a new foundation in. I don't remember seeing anything in the packet relative to CHAIRPERSON WEIS'MAN : A foundation plan November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD : There should be actually what I'm sorry page nine. So we're not really allowed to have anything down there underneath the first floor cause of the flood zone so it's going it's not even going to be a crawl space. I mean it could be I guess, it could be a (inaudible) slab down there but there's going to be nothing. I.mean it's essentially just a freeze wall a foundation wall to give us the structural stability for the house and then that's it there's going to be nothing.else.down there. We're not going to exca'vate out anymore for a crawl space or for a basement certainly we're going to keep natural grade. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) raised etc. but I think you answered it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have to raise it up in order to put this underneath it. SAM FITZGERALD : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But(inaudible) 15 feet to put equipment under there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no. SAM FITZGERALD : Right, right, right it's going to be raised hopefully three feet and then yes so the house will be jacked up, we'll put the foundation in and the house will be lowered back down on the new foundation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from Pat or MEMBER ACAMPORA; No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience here? Okay let's see if there's anybody on Zoom who has any questions. BETTY EDWARDS JOHNSON : Thank you madam Chair there. Good afternoon, I'm Elizabeth Edwards Johnson I'm the co-owner of 1990 Peninsula Rd. abutting the Siegelson 2046 property and I'm speaking on behalf of myself and my co-owner cousin Cynthia Scott Oliveri. Our family has owned 1990 Peninsula Rd. since it was built. I appreciate the opportunity to submit the written comments and also to speak at this hearing. To summarize, Ms. Scott and I are very sympathetic to the various challenges of the Siegelson property and we conditionally support the plans to expand the 2046 house and to preserve it's architectural character, I fully agree with Sam on that. Our sole objection is to the proposed second story 181 sq. ft. gable addition that extends into their southern side setback directly across from our house thus creating an adverse impact on our property as you discussed and the details were submitted in my written comments. I want to thank Sam for working with me and explaining the project to me and also indicating willingness to come up with alternatives. After I submitted my November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting written comments Sam informed me about the Siegelson's plan to raise their house by three feet and I completely understand the need for that and in fact I hope this map improvement includes my lot as well cause I have that same concern on my lot but that plan to raise the house with the gable in the proposed location further negatively impedes on our property and privacy. While the plan is within the existing footprint of the house the second story gable addition is a considerable volume that would sit within that setback and if,the house is raised it's even more volume within that setback. So I understand that because I've been listening that the recent large building code does not affect this application but the concept of the sky plain really explains what my objections are here and if they I don't have any objection to their plans to extend the house toward the road because that does not have a visual impact f on our house and our privacy and Ms. Scott and I respectfully request that Sam work with the Siegelsons to explore alternatives that are less intrusive into the setback space between our two homes. I believe it's possible that they can come up with a plan that we will fully support. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay it sounds like you two are on the right track. SAM FITZGERALD : Well if we I thanks for that Betty I appreciate that. I think that if we were to just take our second floor plan and mirror it so flip it so that 181 sq. ft. addition would be on the north side rather than the south side. I think,that you know just after a good study of that I think that we can try to make that work. It's going to take a little bit more of interior work to make that happen but I think that we might-be willing to do that, not just flip it to the north .side but also slide it back towards the road a little bit more. Would that be acceptable to you Betty or something that would help to alleviate your concerns? BETTY EDWARDS JOHNSON : Yes it would although I did not put it in my written comments and I didn't mention it because it's not on the plans with a further condition that the mechanicals be on the north side of the house because there such a small space between our two dwellings on the south side. SAM FITZGERALD : Sure that's absolutely fine absolutely there won't yep we can do that certainly. What we'd like to do I know that you know the docket for the ZBA is so full I don't know if there's a way that we could I mean submit that as a condition of any possible decision that the Board would make even today or I guess what I'm saying is I'm trying to alleviate a resubmission and getting back in the queue and that stuff I guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Board can discuss closing this subject to receipt of an amended plan showing the gable on the north side and the southerly 181 sq. ft. proposed addition moved to the north side and then you know we can just I don't believe we need another hearing on this particularly and if I adjourn it then you're going to have to keep posting it and all of that so if we close it subject to receipt we can grant alternative relief and November 3,2022 Regular Meeting then require that you prior to getting a C.O. or, building permit that you submit the amended plans. MEMBER DANTES : It's the (inaudible)for alternative relief we have to see the plans. , CHAIRPERSON 'WEISMAN Yeah so I mean you know I would rather see an amended application that you submit to us but if we agree that the amendments are to do what we just said put the remove the proposed small southerly addition and located it on the northerly side of the property right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They would then be maintaining the 6 foot side yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah MEMBER PALANMENTO : That's still part of the problem Sam even brought forward the sky plain legislation or excuse me-Ms. Johnson did you know I think it's a tough one. It's such a narrow lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well first of all the sky plain is going to be going into effect not right now, it will be applied MEMBER DANTES : We can close subject to receipt and if there's any issue with what he submits then we can reopen it but as long as it's kind-of what we're discussing today then it shouldn't be an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ms. Johnson that would give you an opportunity to submit well if we close it subject to receipt then that's the end of the comments. BETTY EDWARDS JOHNSON : Yes I would like to be able to review the revised plans in some way. I don't know that there needs to be a hearing to do that and so far the Siegelsons have been quite cooperative but I just to protect our interest in our home I would like to be able to review those plans to make sure they're consistent with my understanding of what changes we've discussed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what we can then do is just simply adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks, that should give you some time that way it's still open. Sam do you think you can do what you have to do within two weeks? SAM FITZGERALD : Oh sure absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then that solves it because you can then have two weeks to amend the plans, show it to Betty and get her comments. We can receive both of them and then we'll close it in two weeks and then we'll have a decision shortly after that. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD :That sounds fine that's great I really appreciate that. BETTY EDWARDS JOHNSON :That's acceptable to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, is there anybody else on Zoom that wants to address the application? No, and nobody in the audience. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this application to the Special Meeting on November 17th with the possibility of closing at that time. SAM FITZGERALD :That's great thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7703—CHARLOTTE GREENE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Charlotte Greene #7703. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's June 10, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to reconstruct an existing deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 500 Stephensons Rd. in Orient. Is somebody here to represent the application? Please come to the mic. CHARLOTTE GREENE : Charlotte Greene. This is a very small project, we basically have the house is an 1886 (inaudible) that was built by my great, great grandmother and the left hand portion that was converted in the forties into a residence and this is one of the (inaudible) as a November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting deck. It was built by my grandmother in the eighties and it's (inaudible) needs to be reconstructed and I was talking with my builder Steve Schroeder and he wants to slightly change the supports to go from the corners rather than as it now cantilevered in he feels it will be stronger since it's a very high deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Other than the structural frame the supporting beams the deck stairs are to remain in place and in kind. CHARLOTTE GREENE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all been out there to see the property. Did you receive the letter from Martha Reichert that we've received? This is an attorney on behalf of Susan Magreno about the right of way? CHARLOTTE GREENE : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just recently got it. I just want you to be aware of it. I don't believe it's particularly concerning but we'll have to hear I think she might be on. Is Martha Reichert on Zoom? This is dated November 2nd so this is clearly very recent and it's just a brief letter with a bit of a survey showing the right of way to get your property, crosses the other property it's been there for God knows how long. Martha do you want to explain what your client's concern was? It's a little bit unclear to me actually from the letter, it just says we request that any relief granted in the application and any future application be cognizant on the rights of others in the right of way. Are you just talking about keeping the right of way unobstructed during construction? MARTHA REICHERT : My name is Martha Reichert of the law firm Twoumey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin and Quartararo 33 West Second St. Riverhead, New York on behalf of the adjoining neighbors Susan Magreno Dunning. So this survey was not in the Laserfiche file when we reviewed it so we were unclear where the setbacks were needed where setback relief was needed from so now I see the deck is 22 feet and so our main concern was the wooden steps and landing because I believe they're exactly at 15 feet. I think all we wanted to do here is my client has no objection per say to reconstructing what had already been existing but just to keep in mind that there is a 15 foot right of way that runs along that's south westerly property boundary and just that we want to make sure that if in the future if there is any variance relief that you know the structures tried to maintain that 15 foot side yard setback but also because there is a right of way that goes through there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What the Notice of Disapproval says is that the front yard setback is at 22.4 feet which is where it exists now and that the side yard setback is 13 feet the code requiring 15 but it is exactly where it has always been and the intent was to replace in kind November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting and they wouldn't even really be before us if they were replacing the structural columns underneath it in exactly the same place. MARTHA REICHERT : And vire appreciate that,.given the unusual shape of this particular piece of property it wasn't easy for us to discern which particular yard was being considered the front yard versus the side yard. So now that we see this updated survey again wedon't have any objections to any kind,of replacement of the pre-existing structures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good. All they're trying to do is rebuild 'what is there now safely. They're not expanding it, they're not changing the setbacks, as I said in order to do it safely the engineer or architect is proposing that you simply change the location of the support columns underneath the deck which makes certainly makes good sense. It will last a' lot longer and be a lot safer and that's basically in a nut shell. Alright everybody good_ with that? MEMBER DANTES : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anybody else on Zoom who wants to say anything on this application?Anything else from any of you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN 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 RANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. We should have a decision in two weeks. 591 l November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7704—JAKE BEHAN and LINDSEY BEHAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jake Behan and Lindsey Behan #7704. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 10, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory shed (100 sq. ft.) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 260 Horton Rd. in Cutchogue. Is there someone here? JAKE BEHAN : Yes hi this is Jake Behan talking. I would have liked to join,via video but I don't see an option to do that so I guess I'll just be essentially voice only here. If you look at our survey you can see very clearly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You should be able to. JAKE BEHAN : I've been on the meeting since 10 am or so, I'm in Zoom I was only able to unmute not join by video. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll pretend you're there. So we've all been out to the property as I'm sure you know. JAKE BEHAN : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Horton Rd. is really.a dirt one lane road, very wooded rustic area. Shed is going to be setback way far from the Horton Rd. and from Lilac Lane as well which is just a curb. MEMBER LEHNERT : The house is setback so far there's no rear CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah if you look at it you'd have to put a shed in your shower. You don't really have much of a rear yard at all. It's all side yard or front yard depending,on which way you're looking. JAKE BEHAN : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very small shed, it's got a conforming setback from the property line and anything from the Board on this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope MEMBER DANTES : I have no questions. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a gift. Well this is the fastest hearing on record. Liz is there anybody on Zoom who wants to address this? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? . MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7694—RICHARD MARTINO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard Martino #7694. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280- 116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the. Building Inspector's May 6, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" accessory gazebo with attached deck/patio and an "as built" shed at 1) "as built" shed located in other than the code .permitted arear yard, 2) "as built" gazebo located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) "as built" gazebo located less than the code required minimum side yard property line of 25 feet located at 3875 Hallock Lane in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent this application? -. RACHEL DAVIE : Good afternoon, Rachel Davie for the applicant. I don't know if you need my physical address I can give that to the Board if required. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have an accessory gazebo with attached deck and patio with a side yard setback at 1.8 feet the code requiring 25 feet, a 1.4 foot bluff setback where the code requires 100 feet and a shed partially in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard. As you probably know we've all been out there to inspect the property. We did receive a letter from a neighbor objecting to the variances, also making reference to other problems along the shared road which is really a very small road Hallock Lane and we (inaudible) 6 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting entered into other public records and very cognizant of everything that that letter contains. We also have a letter from the Trustees indicating that the gazebo was illegally built with the stone bluff stairs without a permit around 2008 or in 2009. At that time Trustees and D.E.C. required removal of the structures. The same is true of the steps but the steps are not before us that's the Trustees jurisdiction. The Trustees inspected what the D.E.C. required, the D.E.C. required the removal of the structures. The Trustees inspected in December I'm sorry in August of 2022 and again said the structures should be removed and had not been removed. I think our application notes a former owner actually not Martino installed those structures. Nevertheless that is when a buyer buys a property they are assumed to know what the legally permitted uses on the property (inaudible). Okay I'm going to turn it over to the attorney now representing the applicant. RACHEL DAVIE : Good afternoon. I think first I'd like to address the shed, I think that's the easiest of the three things on the agenda. The shed as you can see if you scroll just a tiny bit down is considered partially in the side yard because we have these two bay windows that stick out off the house and it's not (inaudible) extending beyond those two turrets so to speak or pillars. So we're asking for relief because technically the shed is considered partially in the side yard not fully in the rear yard as required by code. I do not believe that neighbor who submitted the letter had any objection to that relief being granted. So that's the first thing that I'd like to address. I think that hopefully that one would be fairly simple although I'll defer to the Board for that matter. Where we go to the gazebo and the attached deck or patio this matter becomes a bit more complicated. Just to correct the record a touch, I believe that Mr. Martino who is now deceased, he passed in November of 2021 was the person who installed the stairs and the gazebo and I was in communication with Mr. Burke as well as the Town Trustees regarding the D.E.C. division because I understand the Trustees records indicate that the D.E.C. said to remove them however I have a D.E.C. decision subsequent to the 2008, 2009 period that actually indicated otherwise and we have sent that over via email just prior to our meeting and I understand it's last minute but unfortunately we had FOILED this quite a few months ago from the D.E.C. and due to the data breach and everything going on we did not until very, very recently we were not able to obtain it. So this decision is from 2009 October 2009 and there's a schedule attached to the decision by the D.E.C. which I can screen share I might be able to screen share. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We need to make you co-host in order to screen share. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : We can do that just give me a second. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON W.EISMAN Let'me ask you while she's trying to do that, does the-D.E.C. decision say was it the bluff stairs should not be removed or the bluff stairs and gazebo should not be RACHEL DAVIE : They did not specifically reference the gazebo but if you did see that in person you will see that they are all intricately connected. So they're all Belgian block, the stairs lead up to this patio which leads up to the gazebo and they're all inter-connected, nothing is a separate structure and so we're taking a conservative view that D.E.C. came out in 2009 and looked at the structure and the stairs. They said no removal or restoration is required pursuant to this order. We're taking that the gazebo and the stairs were all in one although they do speak more about the.stairs because that's more within the D.E.C.'s concern and jurisdiction for the erosion of the bluff more than the gazebo but if we remove the gazebo you know they are all interconnected and at some point it will disturb the stairs. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : You can screen share now by the way. RACHEL DAVIE : Okay thank you. Do you see it says removal restoration- requirements or you're not seeing that you're seeing something else? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just a black screen. RACHEL DAVIE : So the D.E.C. decision you can see this is the schedule A, it's an eleven page decision some execution pages and I've sent the entire over emailed this morning. But you can see here part two removal restoration requirements that no removal or restoration is required. There's some discussion about replacing some of the handrails back in 2009 in compliance with the D.E.C.'s required approved plan. They did come' out and see the structures as they existed, everything was in place implemented fully completed at that point and time and so that was their ruling in this order that nothing was to be removed or restored. We are obviously challenged with the D.E.C.'s decision and the Trustees counter position but there's also an interesting backlog that further goes .through the history of this matter wherein the town issued a violation against Mr. Martino and the Appellate Division which if I can pull up the Appellate Division found that the violation was insufficient pursuant to the enforcement and the code and that the violation fee that Mr. Martino had paid was to be returned to him and so it was. Then there's an additional litigation that's 'currently pending regarding I guess the malicious prosecution of this which we're not privy to and we are not part of that law firms we were never involved with that litigation. I'm in the middle of trying to get additional information and how that switched over to our firm so we can speak intelligently with the Board and with the Town Attorney and hopefully get a meaningful resolution in regards to that. So I think that the gazebo issue and the stair issue which is not before this Board are issues that require further discussions perhaps we've been asking for a November 3,2022 Regular Meeting sit down with the Town Attorney and with the Board to flush out exactly what needs to be done to have this gazebo and we'll likely appreciate to get the stairs legalized as well in consideration of the fact that they were built and the Appellate division has stated that the code was insufficient to prosecute for violation at that time and since the code has been modified and changed because I believe it was unconstitutionally vague at the time that these structures were constructed into the bluff and within the parameter of the 100 feet. Lastly I just pulled up the engineer's report, this engineer's report is from 2012 where my client had an engineer go out and assess the structure and whether'or not the structure was sound and in addition he speaks of no visual signs of deterioration or stress of the structure but also no erosion which I believe is the main concern here to the bluff. The surrounding areas are fully vegetated and if anything was impacted it's regrown and that the structure has not impacted the bluff. I think a large consideration by the D.E.C. and by my client and hopefully by the Trustees and this Board is that removing these structures although not permitted when they were installed removing them would cause more harm than good to the bluff as it would be a significant challenge to now take them out considering of the materials and the construction of them to ensure that they were structurally sound. So I guess all of those things together we would like a sit down meeting if that's at all possible and defer this to a further date but I'll leave that to the Board to make those decisions and leave it at their discretion. I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as I'm sure you know, the Board of Appeals cannot be meeting in a you now a pre-conference or post conference when there's an application before the Board we can only meet in a publicly noticed meeting where we discuss an application. You can meet with the Trustees certainly and try to sort it out further. We can make a determination on the shed that's way landward of the top of the bluff and it's just really a partially non-conforming side yard location. I think since the D.E.C. and Trustees have differing perspectives on this and they are the environmental stewards and experts I'd like to find a way to legally defer this to their determination and jurisdiction. Certainly the stairs and gazebo are egregious violations of the code but they're there and we can certainly see, that removal would have great land disturbance, both of those are (inaudible) but having said that I don't know how I think I'd like to see the Trustees and D.E.C. sort out the gazebo and the stairs. If they then determine that for whatever reason the way to proceed is to leave them and to legalize them then this Board would have to grant a side yard setback for the gazebo. Oh the shed is a side yard setback. RACHEL DAVIE : The gazebo setback is 1.8 feet so there is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm right it's two setbacks from the gazebo, one for the top of the bluff which is 1.4 feet, the other is the side yard for the gazebo at 1.8 feet where the code November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting required 25 for side yard. The shed itself is not a setback it's a partially in the side yard. The patio wrapping around the gazebo is considered a structure over there. MEMBER DANTES : So the patio is part of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep alright so counselor how would you like us to do with this? RACHEL DAVIE : So if we're able to make a determination on the shed and table the gazebo and existing patio to the Trustees and the D.E.C. and the Town Attorney for further discussion then perhaps direction. I had been trying to achieve that but like I said the D.E.C. decision was- not available to me in full until I could not give that to the Trustees at the time that we were speaking with them but now I have it and I have the information that they hopefully would need to utilize I have the engineers report I can get a further engineer report on the-bluff if that's helpful whatever it is that they need to make their determination. I think that is the more relevant course of action to take because yes this is a very large ask but it is also existing but I think at the forefront of everybody's concerns is to preserve our beautiful island and the bluffs and my greatest concern is that taking these you know concrete and Belgian block stairs and patio and gazebo which are now and still into the side of the bluff out is going to create a very large.-issue for destruction and erosion of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear so but as you suggest I was trying to figure out a legal way to do this so that we can separate you know I don't want to be considered fragmentation. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) RACHEL DAVIE : The Trustees we made an application to the Trustees, they declined to accept it because at the time as I mentioned they I believe their perspective was that the D.E.C. said to take it down whereas I advised that we had a decision saying otherwise but I couldn'tr provide it to them cause I only had it in part and the FOIL had not been returned to us at the time we were speaking with the Trustees even though it was expected at that time. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : I believe we can adjourn the entire application as a whole. MEMBER DANTES : What about that other litigation does that have anything to do with that? DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : The (inaudible) you're talking about? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : (inaudible) November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you please stop screen sharing now because there's a hand up, someone who wants to speak on Zoom and we need to take that down. You can stay there as a panelist but alright so we have a hand up. THERESA DILWORTH : Hello my name is Theresa Dilworth, I'm the neighbor next door to the east of 3875 Hallock Lane. I'm at 3755 Hallock Lane, I'm immediately to the east. So I'm the neighbor who is most impacted by the gazebo and I'll get to the gazebo in a minute but I want to address the shed first. I did write a letter and I think people have my letter and I do object to the shed as well. I think the Martino's attorney said that the neighbor did not object but I do object and the reason I didn't object with a lot of detail is I didn't have a lot of details the materials that were sent to me you know it was a survey very tiny I couldn't read how many feet you know of setback you know there was or I didn't know about the side yard or rear yard. I didn't know the codes but I was just relying on the material that said that it was out of compliance. The Building Inspector's report had disapproved it so I just kind of said well if it's out of compliance it's out of compliance. I didn't know how many feet, I didn't know details. I'm seeing a little bit more on the screen today cause the font is a little bit bigger and the pictures are a little bit bigger but I did object to that okay. I just think people should adhere to the codes. As far as the gazebo again I couldn't really see on the survey exactly how egregious the violation was I didn't know cause I couldn't see cause the font was too small. I'm hearing in today's meeting that not only is it only 1.4 feet from the bluff it's 1.8 feet from my property line when there's supposed to be a 25 foot setback. I didn't know the exact distances and I never have it's just all of a sudden out of nowhere this big stone gazebo just appeared and we were kind of in shock and you know it was years ago I don't even remember when it happened but I just remember that all of a sudden there was a big stone ugly gazebo right on the bluff and I kind of knew it was wrong but I didn't know what to do about it or anything like that and it blocks my view. I'm actually sitting in my home office right now looking out the window and the gazebo totally blocks my view of Long Island Sound and if you live on the Sound you want to be able to see the Sound. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're shared property line the side yard is the side yard where the gazebo is not where the shed is but where the gazebo is. THERESA DILWORTH : Exactly I'm on the east, I'm exactly to the east. So the shed doesn't bother me as much because it's over on the other side and I don't see it. I didn't know the details, I didn't know really you know what the issue was there but the gazebo is extremely prominent I can see it, it blocks the view of sunsets in the evening. It's blocking my view right now as I look out the window and it's less than 25 feet. I find rather unbelievable someone was saying 1.8 feet I guess that's the patio the gazebo itself is 9.4 feet but there's a 25 foot setback and this was really an egregious it's like beyond comprehension and egregious it is. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting When I bought. my property so there were three properties up here Charles Simmons had subdivided and there were three lots up here. I chose the middle lot which was to the east of this and the Martino's chose the lot on the west and then another neighbor had the lot to the east of me and so I had the middle of the three lots. I was the first to build a residence on my lot and of course I mean it was so obvious that there are setback rules for buildings. I thought it was 75 feet but I guess it's 100 feet they might have changed it but you know it's just a rule it's the law and for somebody to come in and build something 1.4 feet away is to me it just bothers my mind that people would even do that. I think that it's just not right, it's just not right. Other people have to abide by the rules and I don't see a reason for a variance. It would be one thing if somebody built it 99 feet from the bluff or 24 % feet from the side yard you know maybe the surveyor made a mistake or the contractor made a mistake and it was 24 feet away rather than 25 you know that I can see as a grounds to grant a variance but to be that close it's like flagrant disregard for the law and I don't really you know as far as the D.E.C. so let's just get to the D.E.C. I don't know any of the history, I don't know anything about anything that happened in the past with appellate decisions or anything like that but I'm just hearing about it today for the first time. I was hearing that to remove the gazebo would cause more damage to the bluff. Now I completely disagree with that and the reason I disagree is because my neighbor to my east my bluff is vegetated and the Martino's bluff is vegetated. My neighbor to the east was originally unvegetated, she had just a sandy bluff, there was a lot of erosion issues etc. but over the years I throw all of my brush and branches from gardening and stuff I kind of throw them all onto the bluff and over the years her bluff has become vegetated too because you know the brush and the debris that I've thrown overthe bluff deliberately over to her side kind of caught and plants were able to grow and now her bluff is vegetated. I've been here thirty years on this property, my belief is that if you take out this gazebo yes there will be disturbance because there's probably concrete foundations made out of Belgian block and things like that. The stairs made out of Belgian block you know I don't know how that was allowed I mean everybody else had wooden staircases who need them but the bluff will revegetate. I can guarantee you that. My neighbor who has her bluff angle was probably like it was like a cliff it was about I don't know an eighty degree angle I mean it was almost a vertical bluff and that has become revegetated and there's coyotes you know that have been seen there, there's deer etc., etc. If my neighbor's bluff and she had a bare naked sandy bluff very wide and as I said an eighty degree angle steep bluff, if that can get revegetated then I think taking out this gazebo and you know I don't know how many feet it is but you know whatever twenty feet, thirty feet whatever or taking out a staircase believe me I've seen it, I've seen it the bluff will revegetate. So I don't think that's a good argument as to not to take it out. 7 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bluffs not only bluffs also can be required to be planted with vegetation automatically necessarily revegetated but (inaudible). The point we're trying to make is that the removal of that gazebo is not what's before us, it's the setback. What's before the Trustees and the D.E.C. is whether to remove the gazebo and or the stairs entirely as though they are far more their jurisdiction over naturally regulated features is greater than ours particularly anything that's seaward of the top of a bluff and very close to the top of the bluff. What we're trying to do is figure out that the shed, look the reason that people come here is because when zoning was put in place in 1957 many things were made non- conforming that existed. Boards of Appeals was established over the country anywhere where zoning code was put into effect as a relief valve from things that were made non-conforming or that would become non-conforming for justifiable reasons. So you're not off base in saying it's a small we do look at is it a big variance, is it a little variance but the shed itself is only partially in a side yard. There's no setback issue with the shed, the shed is just simply by virtue of an attached what is it the patio to the house or the bay window on the house, it's basically in the back yard where it's supposed to be but it is partly in the side yard. That's why we were saying this is not a very big deal. However the other things are far more complicated and we've taken all your comments they're all part of the public record, we record and transcribe these hearings and they will become written documents in Laserfiche in our public record. Your comments will be carefully considered. I think the only way to proceed at this point is probably because we don't know what power if we have to rule on the gazebo is to just adjourn it. Let the applicant's attorney deal with this with Trustees and D.E.C., let them make the decision and then we will know what decision we have to make because I don't see how we can like if we deny the gazebo and the stairs that's putting a kind of decision in place that's a priori and then just so that we can approve a shed let's say. So I'd rather just leave the whole thing intact and adjourn it to resolve the bigger issue, does that make sense? RACHEL DAVIE : Yes that makes sense. THERESA DILWORTH : Can I just make one more comment I'm sorry. I mean I think you seem to be saying that it's possible that the D.E.C. or the Trustees could say that it's pre-existing and let it stay but what does that do for me where it reduces the value of my property to have a structure that is not allowed and it's 1.8 feet from my property when there's a 25 foot setback requirement? It reduces the value of my property so where is my say in that? MEMBER DANTES : What we're saying is that we're not going to legalize the gazebo at this time, we're deferring to the D.E.C. and the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they require the removal your problem goes away. If they don't November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting THERESA DILWORTH : But they didn't require the removal and the D.E.C. is taking away my property rights by allowing a stone structure to be 1.8 feet from my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don't it's a complicated choreography we don't have the right to preserve people's views unless it is a declared scenic byway. If it's a scenic view shed then this Board can overturn anything because we can say you're disturbing a scenic view shed. THERESA DILWORTH : It's not the view it's the fact that there's a stone structure 1.8 feet from my property and there's a 25 foot setback rule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. THERESA DILWORTH : Even if it wasn't obstructing my view I wouldn't want it there it devalues my property. DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : Ms. Dilworth this is John Burke Deputy Town Attorney, under your scenario these structures were not required to be removed or were in fact permitted by either the ZBA or the Trustees. You would have a private right of action to bring an Article 78 against the town to protect your own position in this matter. So I would advise that you speak to an attorney about that. You do have your own right of action to (inaudible) of this. THERESA DILWORTH : Okay RACHEL DAVIE : I would just to clarify quickly for the record that the gazebo is 9.4 feet and I understand Ms. Dilworth's concern with the view although she's saying you know that's not the primary piece of her argument. I'm not quite you know convinced that if we moved it to be in compliance with the 25 feet that her view would still not be obstructed. THERESA DILWORTH : Well it would have to be 25 feet away and 100 feet back and then it would not obstruct my view. RACHEL DAVIE : Correct, well you were speaking about the 25 side yard setback as opposed to the bluff. THERESA DILWORTH : I guess they both violations both the 100 feet and the 25 feet which places the gazebo right in I mean both of them devalue my property, I mean 25 feet RACHEL DAVIE : If they were legalized they would increase the value of the property because they would increase the value of this property which would be a conflict I understand what you're saying. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting THERESA DILWORTH : Nobody wants to look at the ugly thing believe me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, I'm saying this to both of you. You cannot conduct a conversation between the two of you. You have to talk to the Board alright. We've heard you, we've heard everything there is to say about this. I don't think there's any more we can take in in the way of information at the moment. I think we need to put this back in the hands of the Trustees and D.E.C., see what they decide and then we will be able to make a more informed decision. We will make our own independent decision but we need to direct in a way that is orderly. If we make one kind of ruling where the D.E.C. says no you gotta rip it out what's the point. So we need to let them take their course of action and inform us as to what their decision is and then we will resume our work. So is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would like to ask a question of Ms. Davie, earlier you had during screen sharing a letter up, that was from the D.E.C. you said? RACHEL DAVIE : The Schedule A with the removal and restoration requirements the first document that I shared is an Order of Consent with the D.E.C. and that order is dated I can give you the index numbers if necessary I'm not the attorney on that file. The Order is dated October 7, 2009 and there's two D.E.C. file numbers, they are R1-20070815-215 and then R1- 20070815-216. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And what was the other letter?You said there was two letters. RACHEL DAVIE : There was the decision with the restoration removal requirements that was the D.E.C. decision, there was a document that was shared which was the People of the State of New York vs Richard Martino at the Appellate level regarding a violation that was imposed by the Town of Southold I believe the Trustees Department for violation without first obtaining a written permit for the I believe it was the stairs specifically and that was an Appellate decision which essentially said that the violation was not enforceable against our client pursuant to the terms of that specific case and that was Docket No. 2013-2134SCR and that was before the Supreme Court State of New York Appellate Term Ninth and Tenth Judicial District and that decision was from September 18, 2015. Then the other document I shared was a letter from LK McClean Associates P.C. who are consulting engineers and that was dated January 12, 2012 and that spoke about the integrity of the bluff and the structure as of a physical inspection back in 2011 and that everything was structurally sound as it exists with the gazebo and the stairs. Those are all of the D.E.C. decision and engineer's report have been forwarded via email earlier this afternoon. I can also supply them. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sure Kim will share them but I just wanted to point out that two of these letters were before Super Storm Sandy. So the consulting engineer from my site inspection I can't speak of other Members of the Board I notice substantial cracking in the gazebo, in the pathway, the stairs etc. that you know I would wonder what the structure where the underpinning is that I can only imagine God forbid somebody sitting in the gazebo and there's a storm or who knows what enjoying the lightning strikes over the sound and then suddenly the thing is sliding into the water. So I just wanted to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well exactly, we all noticed that so would you please make sure that you submit to our office all of this information so that Trustees and ZBA have the same documentation in both files? RACHEL DAVIE : Absolutely and I also have if the Board if it helps the Board and the Trustees I have "as built" plans from July of 2022 that shows the existing footings, how deep they are and things of that nature and I also have a 2022 engineer's report which was forwarded to Kim to share with the Board which I did not screen share because it talks more about the integrity of the gazebo more so than the integrity of the bluff because the bluff I don't believe was as criticized with scrutiny by the engineer although there was a verbal that everything was intact and it gave some suggestions as for if the Board was inclined to approve the legalization they would do a further structural analysis and make sure everything is up to code and sufficient Board's purposed and if any remedial work needs to be done what that remedial work would be and things of that nature. So that's a sixteen page report and that speaks specifically to the structure of the gazebo and maybe some of those concerns that the Board may have at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because we have a letter from Trustees indicating they re- inspected as recently as August of this year and still maintain that the structures should be removed. Now if there's evidence that D.E.C. changed its mind because in 2008 they wanted those structures removed. If they subsequently changed their mind (inaudible) that's a matter for the Trustees and D.E.C. to resolve. RACHEL DAVIE : Correct and we advised the Trustees of that but as mentioned unfortunately due to the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You didn't have the documentation. RACHEL DAVIE : Yeah we had part of it but not all of it and I want to supply them the entire thing so they we had an unsigned copy I felt they needed really what was signed by the D.E.C. to make an accurate determination. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : Ms. Davie could you send over a copy of that alternative decision also please? RACHEL DAVIE : I'm sorry which decision? DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : The Appellate decision. RACHEL DAVIE : The Appellate decision, yes absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don't have that we're going to get it, we have something but not that. RACHEL DAVIE : I believe the Appellate decision was sent over as well according to my associate but if not I will make sure it does. THERESA DILWORTH : Can I make one more comment? Only from the point of view just to give some more facts about this property, like I said I've been on this property for thirty years I was the first of the three lots to be purchased I'm the middle lot and the Martino's are to my west and I'm very familiar with the bluff okay I'm very familiar with my bluff, the Martino's bluff and my neighbor to the east which is Nancy Nicholas. Like I said Nancy Nicholas had a bare naked sandy bluff, my bluff is vegetated and the Martino's bluff is vegetated. So I have a kind of a windy path that goes through the woods I don't need a staircase cause I have a windy path going through the woods. I'm completely vegetated with trees and brush and the Martino's are the same, they have a completely vegetated bluff so there is no need for a staircase, you just walk down you know the path. Other people along this bluff who have just bare sand and there are some people, some people are vegetated and some people have just naked fair sand. They are the ones that tend to build staircases because there's no other way for them to get down to their beach but the Martino's and myself we don't need a staircase because we can walk down. So there is really no reason for them to build a staircase, all they have to do is cut a path through the vines and walk down. So again it's maybe not relevant to this maybe more relevant to the D.E.C. but I'm you know the staircase was completely unnecessary it was an unnecessary to get to their beach, they could have gotten to their beach without it. The gazebo like I said egregious an egregious affront. It's an affront to you know your sensibility to see it, it's like a slap in the face to see it there and it doesn't belong there and it's against the law. If the I mean I haven't seen any of the papers I don't know what the D.E.C. wrote but you know I totally disagree with it and I would continue to you know disagree through other channels if I have to because it's just not right. The setbacks are 100 feet from the bluff, 25 feet from the side yard and these CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're aware of that. I'll tell you what, all the materials that you just discussed we're going to be adding to our file. All of them will be scanned into Laserfiche November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting and they will be available for you to access and take a good close look at just want to let you know. It's public information, once it becomes part of our record it's public information and if you need help you know from accessing that on line on Laserfice file you can call our office they're all very helpful all three of them in the office will be able to assist you in how to find it in case you want to look at it. THERESA DILWORTH : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing without a date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye RACHEL DAVIE : Thank you very much, I'll be in touch with Mr. Burke and the Trustees office and I guess they'll report back to you when it's time to be put back before the Board. Is that accurate? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes HEARING#7658 SE—DANNY VITALE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Danny Vitale #7658SE, this was adjourned from August of this year and it's a Special Exception request for under Article III Section 280-13B(13) to create an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 7125 Main Bayview Rd. in Southold. 731 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Thank you Board. So after our last meeting there is a suggestion for to update the plan and also we determined from the Building Department that the stair would be counted towards the floor area CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Livable floor area. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah the more and more I spoke to Danny about it Mr. Vitale he just felt like it just made sense to have an apartment on that floor plus we were having a little bit of kick back of having a pool house the two uses so we decided to rethink the plan and basically just use the middle section as the accessory apartment and then he would just have storage on that top floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're talking about the garage underneath because it was (inaudible)? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The third story? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The third story was going to be the apartment it's just going to be storage. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Storage CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll call if floor because below is the garage then the apartment at grade at one side of the structure and then above that would be storage. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right so the access into the accessory apartment the proposed accessory apartment there's an exterior staircase that goes up to a patio so you'd walk in through patio doors that are currently there, twelve foot patio doors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what the livable floor area have you amended the plans and everything? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am we've provided you with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : The proposed floor area would be 513 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what Anthony they come up so little you can't see squat. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's a quarter inch scale. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but not when you scan and email it. It's fine when you send us printed on a proper printer but November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : 8/31/22 is the most updated. MEMBER LEHNERT : Are you leaving the stairs to the third storage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah it will be a door at the top an insulated door at the top of the stair, the stair is already existing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) in an accessory apartment? MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't believe we have that's why I asked the question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it possible to access the stairs for storage in that attic.space from the loft space in the garage? ANTHONY PORTILLO Possibly so there's under it's where we're proposing the accessory building as a storage area and then the garage is next to it and there is like a loft space in the garage kind of like a finished loft space but I guess I didn't think about it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you look right here on the plan you right up the stairs and into the attic storage. ANTHONY PORTILLO :.I don't know if that I have to check I'm not sure it's exact the same level. I don't know if the loft are at the same plane that's all it might be a little lower I'm not a hundred percent sure. MEMBER LEHNERT : I was trying to get across I don't believe we've ever granted an accessory apartment with full sized stairs to another space above. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure understood. I think we can figure out a way to possibly switch that stair again its existing now that's why we left it but possibly through the loft area even if I need a couple more risers. I feel that the loft is a little lower than that for cause it's not really like a (inaudible) structure the loft it's just like a post and beam storage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) keep it all as storage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right so I'm just saying MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) risers extra you would have access from the garage to the storage loft and the storage loft to the ANTHONY PORTILLO.: Yeah maybe we can add a couple more risers for the (inaudible) loft to get to that landing (inaudible) and then just a sheer wall that close it off the staircase from the November 3,2022 Regular Meeting accessory apartment. I don't think that's a problem, I just have to investigate the height of the wall. MEMBER LEHNERT : Switch the landing going the other ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah and then I'll just run the wall down MEMBER LEHNERT : Wall it off so you can't access (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't see a problem with that. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, where's the bedroom? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's a studio, the bed will probably go like on that far wall and then we have a kitchen you can set up like a table there and a small couch. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Who is living there? ANTHONY PORTILLO : His mother. MEMBER ACAMPORA : He's putting his mother in a studio apartment with all that space? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know if it's going to be full time but the plan is it's for his parents. He does occupy the main house. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I don't believe we have the paperwork for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don't have any indication at one point ANTHONY PORTILLO : We provided CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There was a brother or something? ANTHONY PORTILLO :The mother signed the lease MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We have limited information but I don't know if this is a primary residence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's the thing, I mean we do have information that he owns the property and resides there but he owns lots of properties. ANTHONY PORTILLO : He has rental properties in Greenport, on Shelter Island he also rents other people's properties. He does live and I'm sure if you guys need further you know I know he lives there I just he has another property in Southold he rents (inaudible). November 3,2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The lease that we have is not signed, this is a copy of signed lease. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because that was the other thing, we did have a lease but it wasn't signed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Shouldn't it also be a full time resident? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's what the original law was for, originally you had to have an existing accessory structure now that date was lifted, you can build an accessory structure then propose to put an apartment in there. The idea was to create affordable smaller dwelling units out of existing structures not to build from scratch. In that sense this is an old barn this is doing that but it was meant to be small, it was meant to be either affordable someone who would qualify it could be relative, it could be someone who lived in town it could be anyone who is eligible income wise or a family member. Primarily it was like so that aging.parents could move in there, the kids could take the house or the other way around and it's becoming increasingly (inaudible) because people really you know are trying to build new structures and then essentially I'm not saying this is the case here but we have to become very, very careful because we want to uphold the intent of the code and sometimes people are really guest houses and you know they're saying my daughter is there. Yeah she's there three weeks a year during spring break and ANTHONY PORTILLO I think that the parents go elsewhere in the winter. I think they (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's only rented to them there's no law that says you must be there all the time. You have to have a year lease, you can go on vacation, you can have places to ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah the parents are elderly and they, don't work so I don't have any exact (inaudible) well they're obviously going to use the main house.I think it's just a place for them to reside and then they have the ability that patio connects to the main house and you walk into the living area of the main house. All the bedrooms are on the second floor of the main house. So I think I understand what he's what the plan is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the plans are getting clearer let's put it that way based on where we started. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think you know I think it was more sensible to propose it this way after I spoke with him and they decided to make more sense to him. Also just like his parents have cause he started talking to me about putting in an elevator to the first floor for his parents and November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting I said it's starting to get complicated and you know having to do the sprinklers up there and the sprinkler system it just didn't make any sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it would be something nice to be at grade anybody ending up living in the attic type ANTHONY PORTILLO : He bought the property there was another architect involved another owner basically whatever happened it stopped and he finished the property. He did put in the according to him he did put in those dormers on the barn he said maybe he was planning on he wanted to do something. He had an idea of connecting the buildings at one point but it all kind of just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would have made a lot of problems go away. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well it also just ruins the aesthetics of the property and the two buildings and I think what it is it doesn't matter what's I kind of pushed him away from that. We were thinking about it but it's just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does he now have a permit for the pool? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm not involved with that, I believe everything was permitted. I know there's an open permit on the house we actually provided like an as built drawing cause there were some changes from the original architect's plans. I can verify that, I'm pretty sure that there is an open permit on everything. He did put the dormers on the (inaudible) permit which I'm going to write to (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want us to adjourn this to the Special Meeting so you can come back in with a finalized drawing, you're talking about changing the stairs? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah (inaudible) and if you want I can have for Mr. Vitale to come in and give testimony of what his plans are for the property if MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we approve this with open permits and no C.O's? MEMBER DANTES : There's a C.O. for the structure for the barn structure. The open permits are for the house and the pool. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Which the final inspection did happen on the house and John asked for as built drawings so he which have been provided CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're probably close to it. November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah I think they're pretty close to getting a C.O. on the house. I think he's doing it (inaudible). I was involved a little bit more on the tail end of the project and then you know we were part of this. We do plan on putting in a separate septic system that will attach to the accessory apartment. MEMER PLANAMENTO : Is it attached to anything now? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No there's no plumbing in there now. MEMBER DANTES : Is he putting in an IA system? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Actually I think it's going to be a traditional septic system for an accessory apartment we're allowed to go with a traditional system. MEMBER DANTES : What about the house? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think there's a traditional system for that house as well because it was applied MEMBER ACAMPORA : There was some kind of plumbing in that barn by the garage whatever you would call that. There was some kind of plumbing. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't recall, I don't think there was MEMBER ACAMPORA : It looked like it was a room that was going to be a toilet and then there was a sink on the outside so there is plumbing there. That's why we were so confused when we wandered around that property because you go into that garage in which the garage door doesn't even come close to fitting in properly. Then there was the stairs going to nowhere on that bottom level so that lead to a lot of confusing to what was going on there. ANTHONY PORTILLO : 1 went back and these drawings represent the conditions of what's there now with the proposed space. There's a stair that goes to like a loft in the garage and I mean it's a garage that's just meant for a garage. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What's he going to do with that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It was a loft MEMBER ACAMPORA :That was a loft? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The structure was existing it's already been there. MEMBER ACAMPORA : (inaudible) sheet rocked and everything else. 791 November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : You're talking about where the proposed accessory apartment is? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no below it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah that's the storage area. He's going to have like wine and you know like cases of wine down there. He's doing a wine cellar in the entry way like a humidor he's planning on storing his liquor, wine underneath that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a lot going on. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie, the pool does have a permit. It was the enclosure that you observed on your inspection, there was no fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The gate was not installed which he did install the gate now in the front. The fence goes around the property and there was no gate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I could make the changes if you guys want to make that part of your ruling I don't know I don't see a problem with switching what's there. MEMBER LEHNERT : Close it subject to receipt of those drawings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is everybody alright with that, subject to receipt of amended drawings? Did you want to address the application? PAMELA THOMPSON : Pamela Thompson I was here earlier. I only want to say (inaudible) revise the plans. I just wanted to say that my concerns today were that that wall to that stairway should be solid so (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we want storage to really be storage and not to become you know another bedroom or another part of habitable space cause the idea is to have limits on this. It's not part of habitable space cause the idea what to have limits on this. It's not meant to be anything you want it to be you know you have to comply with that list of standards. Thank you for coming. There is nobody left on Zoom, anything else from any Board Member? Okay motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of amended plans. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye November 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : November 17, 2022