Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/05/2023 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York January 5, 2023 10:09 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Via Zoom) ERIC DANTES—Member (Absent in A.M. present in P.M.) ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member(Vice Chair) KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant DAMON HAGAN —Acting Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Fritze Fishers, LLC#7725 (ADJOURNMENT) 6 Richard Martino#7694(ADJOURNMENT) 6 Sheila Stoltz#7699 7- 13 KEKJS Headquarters, LLC#7718 13 - 19 KEKJS Headquarters, LLC# 7719SE 13 - 19 Sam Orlofsky#7720 20 - 31 460 Oyster Ponds Lane LLC; Ann G. Ffolliott#7721 31- 33 Patricia and Argyris Dellaportas#7676 33 -43 Nicholas Tzoumas#7717 43 -45 The Gaines Gwathmey Family 2012 Trust#7695 46-47 Nicole Eckstrom and Carlos Saavedra #7722 48- 56 Jeanne and Jose Castano#7724 56- 61 Cinthia Thorp#7733 62- 64 Timothy MacDonald #7734 64- 65 Julia Kiely (Broder) #7726 66- 68 January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational.Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've concluded Executive Session and we're now on the Organizational Meeting on the Agenda. As is typically what we do, we look to readopt the three documents. Has everybody reread our ZBA Procedural Guidelines, Code of Conduct and Guidelines to Open Meetings on ethical issues? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes MEMBER LEHNERT: Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay are there any suggested changes to any of those? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have none. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Hearing none I'm going to make a motion to adopt all three of these as written without amendment. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously as written. You've all reviewed the variance templates for writing draft decisions that I sent you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You notice we now have one that overturns a Notice of Disapproval separate from 'a Use Variance. There. was just some textural change on a condition that we've already discussed. I sent you a summary email on every one of them, most of them remain unchanged. Are there any questions on that or comments or suggested changes or revisions? Okay that's not something we have to vote on I just want to make sure that you're all okay with it. Has everybody looked at the meeting dates? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you're all aware of that. I have asked Nick Planamento to once again serve as Vice Chair of the Board of Appeals for this year and I just wanted to inform all of you he has graciously accepted. I also want to welcome Rob Lehnert back for another term on the Board, he has been reappointed by the Town Board. Now we can go into Work Session, anything anybody wants to put on the Agenda? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, we have a request from Pat Moore on application #7674, 465 Brown St. to amend a decision that required the removal of one dwelling from Greenport sewer system and apparently the Health Department according to the memo we received will not do that and so I think it's a perfectly reasonable request. Does anyone have any comments or questions or is there any discussion on it? MEMBER LEHNERT : Sounds reasonable. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to prepare an amended decision. Let's vote on that please. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. We have a request from Mike Kimack to remove a condition of approval from Savarese #7707 the condition was to remove retaining walls that were on the adjacent property owned by the Homeowners Beach Association and he's requesting that we remove that. Is there any discussion on that or you want to vote on it. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'm ready to vote. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to make a motion Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I make a motion to vote on the request on #7707 to deny the request for Richard Savarese. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. Tom Samuels #7457 Nardolillo, this was a workshop that was insulated when one of the conditions the second floor attic storage was insulated when a condition specifically prohibited doing so. How do you want to handle that? I mean I think the condition should be upheld and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but we have to amend it so that he can put some sense of insulation between the workshop space and the attic storage. MEMBER LEHNERT : We can amend it so that the floor ceiling can be insulated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you want to make that motion Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT: I'll make the motion to amend it so the ceiling floor can be insulated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. You all have received an Agenda for the Interdepartmental Meeting you know what Kim why don't you make a note, send it to everybody even though because it may possibly be that in future somebody has a specific interest in a particular'thing we're talking about and we can have at least one person at that meeting as long as we're not in a quorum. I already talked to you about the training schedule for Land Use. There are requests for two Public Hearing'adjournments on the Agenda but when we get to them we will you .know what is there anybody on Zoom? You know what I'm going to do, I'm going to January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting let the public know in the unlikely event that anybody is on Zoom or here in this audience is here for two applications that the applicant has requested or their agent adjournments, I just want to let you know about it. The eight application that was scheduled for one o'clock Fritze Fishers, LLC #7725 from the applicant's representative to adjourn the hearing to April 6, 2023 at 10 a.m. I'm going to make that motion now rather than later on, on the Agenda. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. Then we have the final one which is the last on the Agenda Richard Martino, this is a request from the applicant's representative to adjourn the hearing to May 4, 2023 at 10:10 a.m., is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye, so those are adjourned we will not be hearing them today. That concludes the Organizational Meeting and the Work Session, we're now about to open up the Public Hearings. I'll start with the resolution and then I'm going to ask Liz to review with anybody on Zoom how they can participate if they want to be heard. Let me just do the resolutions first. This is declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5c including the following : KEKJS Headquarters, LLC two applications 7718 and 7719SE, Sam Orlofsky, 460 Oyster Ponds Lane, LLC, Ann G. Ffolliott, Nicholas Tzoumas, Fritze Fishers, LLC, The Gaines Gwathmey Family 2012 Trust #7695, Nicole Eckstrom and Carlos Saaveedra c January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting #7722,Jeanne and Jose Castano#7724, Cinthia Thorp#7733,Timothy MacDonald #7734,Julia Kiely (Border)#7726 so moved. Is there a second.on that resolution? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :"All in favor? - MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye HEARING#7699—SHEILA STOLTZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Sheila Stoltz #7699. Rob I believe you are recused from this one. This was adjourned from November 3, 2022. 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. Would you state your name for the record please. RAY NEMSCHICK : Ray Nemschick on behalf of Sheila Stoltz. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we adjourned after you heard questions and comments from the neighbors, the neighborhood association and you submitted amended plans, have you received the most recent correspondence from the,neighbors? RAY NEMSCHICK : We have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just want to make sure you have everything we have. RAY NEMSCHICK : I can give you a brief description, two of the four variances we're not requesting it. One is the lot coverage was reduced to under 20% on the new drawings and the fourth we're not exceeding two and half (2 %) stories. The two variances we're asking for are 7 January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting the first one, the minimum required front yard setback which is staying the same as the existing but we're increasing the level of non-conformity. The second, we're asking for an increase of a little over five feet on the rear yard setback from the existing and that's pretty much it. We've reduced the overall height of the building not that it was required but because trying to be more sensitive to the community. Thus the overall square footage has been reduced, the two and half story (2 %) now means that we're looking at an attic rather than a third story. It reduced softened some of the rooflines and feel that we're being more sensitive to what the request of the community is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the livable floor area at the moment? I think I calculated based I only had the little tiny copies so I had my magnifying glass out. I calculate approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of livable floor area without the attic. RAY NEMSCHICK : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the I think the property is 23 J RAY NEMSCHICK : The buildable area is 23,000 and then the property itself is (inaudible) at 29,000 but because we're not allowed to use obviously the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, yeah I have a"lot area in the R40 Zone of 27,214 where the buildable is 23,278. Let's see if the Board has any questions about this, Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A statement, I think just we discussed the scale of the house there's. substantial opposition I think to.the project. We previously asked you to reduce things to make it more conforming obviously you just stated what you've done but is there any possibility to further make it more conforming to achieve a better front yard setback to reduce the overall massing? The number of porches we've discussed in earlier meeting, the two outdoor showers and you know it's a substantial house or a corner rotation. I can't say enough about the opposition by the neighbors. RAY NEMSCHICK : So what we did was, we did reduce the porches that's how we got down to under 20% so we're not exceeding the lot coverage so we're not I mean by code there's no we're not in excess of 20%. We reduced the overall height of the building by close to three feet which doesn't sound like a lot but truthfully from a ridge standpoint and calculating livable area it amounts. The front yard setback which we all know is essentially a side yard setback with the right of way and the walkway that's not changing, that's the existing setback that was approved back in 2013 by the Trustees. So there's pre-existing approvals on that setback so we don't feel that that should be in play as far as having to reduce it further or further cause them to limit their property.The only setback that we've increased is what's call January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting the rear yard setback from that 15.2 right now to 9.8 so over five feet and to give them more of some floor.area and some surface area but we don't really feel at this point that after the last go around that the clients have been more than not they've been asked me to present this as what they're asking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know although this wasn't you are aware that recently the Town Board approved legislation to limit house size based upon the size of the lot. RAY NEMSCHICK : We are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This lot it says on lots up to 20,000 sq. ft. then it jumps to 30,000 so you're somewhere in between, 23,000. The maximum size it has a percentage a sliding scale of you know plus 12.5% of the lot area in excess of 10,000 but it says up to a total of maximum of 3,350 sq. ft. on a lot that's about your size. There are certainly lots of other houses being planned that are very large and I think that's what predicated this new legislation because people are realizing it is having an impact on the character of neighborhoods and so on an the use of water and I want to give you an opportunity to make some comments about that if you want to. RAY NEMSCHICK : Last time at the November 3rd Hearing I requested and asked if we were going to be held to a new code or if we were still under the code that we filed under and we were told that we under the code we filed under. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.That is correct. RAY NEMSCHICK : So I just want to make that statement just for the record but we understand that the town is moving towards this but this has been in planning for the better part of a year for the Stoltz family. Again as their agent I'm asked to come up to the Board and ask what your position would be and you know if you take the stance that you want to ask me to reduce or ask the Stoltz to reduce I'd rather discuss that now and make a motion so that we can move forward with the project rather than coming back in another month or two months and go through this. I completely understand what you're saying and I'm sensitive and more than apt to make.the house beautiful and smaller because that's what I think the community wants and I think that's what the community deserves. I've grown up here and seeing it change from the nineteen seventies to now and it has changed quite a bit but what hasn't changed that the waterfront is always where the big houses have been built and you know I don't know that this is it's certainly,not less in size than the neighbors. If you've seen the neighbors I don't know if you've been down that road CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course we've all inspected the property and driven around the neighborhood. 9 January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting RAY NEMSCHICK : So it's in like in kind with what I believe what the neighbor's scale is. Now being said that I'm still happy to appease both the Board and the client and try and find the middle ground and understand that we're sensitive to (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Would you prefer to adjourn the meeting then and work on reducing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think he needs some guidelines. RAY NEMSCHICK : No I'd rather have something to come away from this for the client. I've been asked to provide them a service and we filed under a different code so I think'as far as the Zoning Board if this was last year we wouldn't.be having this discussion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not about big house legislation and maximum permitted by code cause that code is not currently applying to this application but we certainly would be' about the setbacks and character of the neighborhood and impact on the neighborhood because that's standard. RAY NEMSCHICK : Right so can we establish that an existing setback right now in the front yard can stay at what we're not proposing any further,setback we're increasing the level of non-conformity we understand so these are the things I'd like to discuss is that you know having some parameters like we talk about so that when we come back cause it sounds like we're going to come back but I'm not certain yet but we'd like to (inaudible) as expeditious for the client as possible so this doesn't move forward into (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's reasonable. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing that I would add though where we've discussed this we've discussed this about other applications consistently because it's a demolition it's sort of a blank canvas. I understand the lot is very narrow and I understand what's the perceived front yard versus the side yard it's just there's a lot of opposition I think on this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe it would be useful to hear from the public now or anybody on Zoom unless I don't have any further questions at the moment. .) do appreciate the fact that two variances are now extinguished that's certainly steps in the right direction. Pat do you have any questions right now or should be just go to the public? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Let's go to the,public.. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz why don't you review please for everybody how they can participate on Zoom and we'll start with anybody in the audience. to January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, good morning. For those on Zoom if anyone wishes to make a comment on a this application or another application I ask that you raise your hand. I will give you further instructions on how you will be able to speak. If you are on Zoom and using a phone please press *9 to raise your hand and I'll let you know what you need to do next. Thank you. Leslie I don't have any hands up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. Is there anybody who wants to address the Board? Please come forward to the podium and state your name for us. DIANE SCHOT : Good morning, I'm Diane Schot President of the Indian Neck Property Association. I have been here before. You have all received the letter we have submitted and I am sure you have read it. I want to start with the fact that you all have visited the site so you know obviously what we're talking about. The size of the house although you can say it's somewhat comparable to its immediate neighbor to the east it does not fit in with the rest of our neighborhood. Many of the houses on our road, the square footage of them would fit on one of the floors in this new proposed house. Again it is a demolition and therefore new construction so in my estimation different guidelines apply as opposed to a renovation which is what the house next to it had done which is massive I will agree but the fact that it is going to be so high and so huge next to I mean it's going to be obviously because it's going to be in a three hundred year flood plan I believe is the right way to put that it's going to be almost ten feet above grade level which is when you're walking past it unlike is the ceiling even ten feet here. It's just doesn't fit into the neighborhood, there's nothing else around that is similar to it. I'm listening to front yards, back yards, side yards which I know you tried to explain to me last time it seemed to me that they could be switched around so that forty and fifty for the front and back which are next to impossible according to the survey to meet if you switch that around and make the front of the house facing the southeast and the back of the house the northwest then the southwest and northeast sides become side yards and what are the town setbacks for new dwellings or builds on non-conforming lots I have no idea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's usually 10 foot, combined 15 feet minimum. On a lot that size it's generally 10 foot side yard setback and a 25 combined side yard setback is that right? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Approximately DIANE SCHOT : Approximately? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah for a lot that size. DIANE SCHOT : Then they almost meet those if we consider those side yard that (inaudible). Is that correct? January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting RAY NEMSCHICK : Do you want me to answer or DIANE SCHOT : I'm asking you Mr. RAY NEMSCHICK : Well I can't really answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's gotta address the Board. Well look you know I don't think the Board here is in a position or wants to design a dwelling for an applicant.There's a very skilled architect that's been hired to do that. We certainly do consider you know it is weird because houses generally face the road and in this case to flip the house would probably make it very squat this way and very deep that way. So you know it's six to one half dozen the other you're going to have a footprint one way or the other and I think in fairness to property owners all property owners we have to permit them to have some say in how they want their properties developed. We do have to consider the percentage of relief for what is basically typically a front yard and a rear yard but in this case are considered side yard so it's kind of it really limits what you can do on that lot cause it's so narrow. So all those things will be things we will certainly be considering and discussing. DIANE SCHOT : And again I just wanted to bring out the fact about our road which you have also been down and you know it's a very narrow, very small and it is maintained by the members of our association. It includes the repairing the road, the plowing of the road everything else'that the town usually handles the members of our association have to handle. It is very costly, we have continuously tried to fix the minimal amount of damages that happen but with this construction and the demolition and a number of big heavy equipment and the number of cars of the people who are going to be coming down to do all of this work there is really no place on our street for them to go. So I don't know how they're going to try and handle that, they can't park on the road, they have minimal space on the piece of property itself so I feel that that is also you know going to cause an issue for the neighborhood. RAY NEMSCHICK : I'd like to address the Board. Two points of clarification, last time here we said that we would certainly whatever damage that's incurred from the road be made part of the construction purposed and we will maintain the road. The other thing is that any staging of the construction project goes on obviously we can't park in the public ways, we can't park and use the public roads for that. There's more than enough room in our experience on this lot to do the construction and keep those construction vehicles on the lot.The other thing too to note is that to the north of this property the Stoltz also own the adjacent property with a full garage and apartment above it that's legal so they actually have another staging area just to the north that they can use. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address the application? There was nobody on Zoom right? Okay, are we ready to close on this? I don't think we're going to get much more information,. I think we've heard everything that's relevant and the Board needs to just decide you know what kind of approval and what conditions of approval should approval be forthcoming. Bear in mind we can condition approvals we do it all the time with some of the things that the architect is already offered which is the maintenance of any damage to the road and all construction to be carried out on site regardless of how big it is. That's going to be an issue that a responsible homeowner would want to do for their neighbors and damage can take place with heavy equipment so that and protecting the water and all that silt fencing. Okay anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, I think as you stated we've heard it nothing more to add to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision at the earliest in two weeks at our next meeting. HEARING#7718 &7719SE— KEKJS HEADQUARTERS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for KEKJS Headquarters, LLC #7718 and there's also #7719SE I'm going to read them both and open them both at the same time. The first is for a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's August 18, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a deck addition and an accessory apartment on the second floor of a pre- existing accessory garage with a room above at 1) a non-conforming building containing a January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting non-conforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use. The other is a request for a reversal of the Building Inspector's August 18, 2022 Notice of Disapproval relating to Town Code Article X Section 280-45B(1), Article III, Section 280-13B(13) based on an application for a permit to construct a deck addition to an accessory apartment on the second floor of a pre-existing accessory garage with a room above and to request a Special Exception pursuant to Article X Sectiori 280-45B(11) for a conversion of an existing building to apartments as set forth in and regulated by Article VII Section 280-38B(6) of the Residential Office District located at 28495 Main Rd. in Cutchogue. PAT MOORE : Good morning, with me I have Mark Schwartz, his wife both of them work in the architecture so in this case two professionals myself and an architect read the code and we interpreted the code to allow this use and we're somewhat surprised by the Building Department's response and Notice of Disapproval. I would I think right from the beginning calling it an accessory apartment maybe the (inaudible) problem because an accessory apartment in an accessory building is the residential definition of an accessory apartment. Whereas in the HB zoning in the code when it was adopted as local law 2022-475 1 pulled it I pulled the law out, the Board actually had revised the code to encourage and allow for apartments but they don't call it accessory apartment even though size wise and use there's really no difference between the two but I believe when the Board had legislated in the code accessory apartment everybody was thinking accessory to residential use and that's where it appears throughout the residential zoning districts. In a commercial zoning district it's just merely called apartment and that is a use that's allowed in particularly in the commercial zoning district particularly in the HALO zone and in this case we satisfy both of those conditions and criteria. I went back to the Town Board's Local Law adoption to try to figure out was there any guidance the Board gave when they adopted it because it's a relatively new revision. All I found was a summary of the local law, I looked even for a transcript it went through so simply there was no opposition to it really there were no comments cause I went looking through the Minutes of the hearing and I happen to be there on other matters and when this came up I was like okay it makes sense, kind of what we all think is needed and the hamlet studies encouraged it, it's been a long standing agreement that yes we need apartments- in particularly in the business and in the hamlet in the HALO zone. So what I found was that (inaudible) provided for the record says, the proposed local law for which a public hearing is being held this evening proposes to amend several sections of Chapter 280 of the Town Code to amend the zoning code to allow for further development of affordable housing units. The purpose of the local law is to allow for the construction of affordable rental apartments in existing structures that's the relevant section. This will be accomplished by amending one section of the Town Code to amend the zoning code the full text of the January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting proposed local law is available for review in the Town Clerk's office and on the town's website. So that was the-press release of this particular law and: in the hamlet of business zoning it says under town code 280-45B(11) it's the sixth number, conversion of an existing building to apartment is regulated by 280-38B(6) of the residential office district and that's when it refers you to RO and the Special Permit criteria and that's why again that Special Permit application was submitted simultaneously. When you go through all of the'criteria we meet them all. So we seem to fit the language of the code and we all kind of scratched our head and said we don't understand why it's being why we're being told it's nota permitted use. So I think that is why it needed a reversal of the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval. Practically we needed that little deck with a staircase for egress that's why we're here on the variance for the side yard. This is a pre-existing structure which doesn't meet side yard setbacks it's where it was built and it has a C.O. it's part of your Pre-CO if I remember. So the little deck is put on (inaudible). The project is somewhat you know reasonable innocuous and if not here where? Part of my application is of course it belongs where it's proposed and it belongs in the hamlet business and we should continue to encourage and not make us go through and hopefully this decision will give guidance to the Building Department so that the next applicant won't be.put through this. Certainly any variance as Special Exceptions of course but additional interpretation for reversals really shouldn't be required but let me give that to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat I can tell you where that came from having been very centrally involved in (inaudible) it had to do with the fact that the law as the code is written allowed for conversion of an existing building for affordable apartments but it did not allow for expansion on an existing building and this code was developed in order to do that when a proposal was in a zone that was logically the proper place for greater density which we assumed was' HB and B zone. So that's where it came from. So yeah there are now series of codes out there all of which the Building Department I guess has to navigate through and make a determination on. You're right our Board can agree or disagree with it. Is this being proposed as a rental for someone eligible on the affordable housing list or a market rate rental or some other purpose? PAT MOORE : They'll have to abide by whatever the code says. Right now-it potentially could be for family cause their kids that are right at that stage where they're in transition moving back not moving you know starting a career. The way I read the code I think you have to make it affordable as a condition of the R0. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you're using that section.of the.code yes. 1 January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting PAT MOORE : Yea so I don't know that we have another option so it's either family which you're given dispensation you know you're family is not going to pay you anyway or if they are it's going to be very marginal or it's for affordable and then it's through the housing registry program. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because it is apples and oranges the accessory apartment in a residential zone was meant for either a family.member on a yearly lease not transient or for someone on the registry. In this case the law was changed to permit expansion and conversion of existing building for affordable rentals. So if that's the section of the code that we're looking at that's the condition that will . PAT MOORE : Unless you see another provision that's applicable it says apartments, it's a little confusing I would say to say the'least because in HB it says apartment it doesn't say affordable non-affordable. But then it refers you to RO which has the condition of affordable so I don't know if that was the intention or not the intention. Well I'm reading it to send you back to RO and RO says it's one of the conditions so if you're following the direction the pathway that the code is indicating then I would say yes it has to be affordable. It might need some cleanup ultimately if that's not the Town Board's intent to allow for apartments for a teacher or somebody who may not necessarily qualify for affordable but needs housing anyway. There's a dire need of apartments and I can tell you from my own experience that I was representing both sides on evictions and things like that there's a whole community that may not qualify for affordable because of the government regulations, a whole Hispanic . community that you know they don't fall in the registry but they need housing and we need them here for employment so I just don't that's a policy decision the Board has to make and I don't know if this you know what pathway this is giving me cause this is giving me two different provisions in the code. If you.can figure it out I would welcome the clarification but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll try. PAT MOORE : In any case I think it belongs here and it should be permitted regardless. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the variance is simply a consequence of where it's already located has been located (inaudible). PAT MOORE : Exactly and quite frankly it does need an exterior egress and there's an interior so it does need a secondary egress no matter what. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat anything from you on either of these? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No not really. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just trying to understand the history of the building, I remember in my mind's eye it was always like an abandoned site so it looks beautiful it's wonderful that you cleaned it up but in my packet there was a Pre C of 0 it reminded me that there was in fact a beauty parlor there but I'm trying to understand like part of the parking plan did you have site plan approval for the conversion, do we need to address the parking also? PAT MOORE : Well I think you have to park (inaudible) a little unclear whether it's exempt from site plan review or not but I want you to let them cause he did his own site plan for the parking and there's certainly. MARK SCHWARTZ : Mark Schwartz Architect. I did show on the site plan two spots for (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You have two parking areas where it's existing parking or partially out to the road I'm just saying this cause another application we've requested the applicant to ensure that parking is on site. I don't know what the dimensions are of the parking spaces or if it's sufficient for two, two bedroom apartments plus the office use. MARK SCHWARTZ : Well right now we're allowed to have the parking we have a tenant on the second floor and we have our office downstairs and she has one car we park on the road. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the shoulder of the road. MARK SCWHARTZ : Yes which is allowed by town code and everyone parks on both sides, there's also parking behind them you know in the Post Office and in that area as well. So right now we're proposing just the two spots adjacent to the existing garage as additional spots for the apartment. There's two (inaudible) shed and right adjacent to the existing garage there are two more proposed spots. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly and I know that the dotted line is I guess the road side but just another application we've ensured that the parking is on site so are those spaces (inaudible). MARK SCHWARTZ : Like I said we can push it another ten feet as long as it's not over the property line. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. Then it's sufficient between the I guess street parking for the office use or whatever is pre-existing along with the residential use you'd have two spaces for the proposed apartment, you have two spaces for the existing upstairs apartment and then I guess overflow is on the street. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MARK SCHWARTZ : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. I want to ask two different questions relative to the garage, there is a proposed bay window in the plan in the garage space but it wasn't shown on the elevations and the other question was relative to the half bath there's this rather narrow storage area accessed from the garage workshop which is 2 feet by 9 % feet which sort of screams bathtub. So if you look at the plan of the proposed conditions rather the proposed first floor. MARK SCHWARTZ : Yeah we were just going to put a half bath in there just for general use. If we did something like a pool or a pool house something like that in the future it would be just utilized for MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Would you be comfortable maybe pushing the bathroom to the corner just cause it would be a sort of storage area is screaming shower and I think you understand where I'm going with this just that we've tried to avoid the possibility of adding a full bath. I think the code allows the half bath not a full bathroom. PAT MOORE : Oh for the garage you're talking about. I'm sorry I was like why are we MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The garage, and not that it really matters but in my mind's eye it's just that the bay window is proposed but it wasn't shown on the elevations so I didn't know what the purpose was just it looked like potentially that the half bath could become a full bath which becomes an apartment in theory with a nice bay window. MARK SCHWARTZ : We can eliminate the bay window that was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I can care less about the bay window. MARK SCHWARTZ : We also had to take we took out the trellis we had a little decorative trellis in the front that we were asked to remove. It was purely decorative but we removed it as per Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's considered a structure. So if you can adjust that plan as per discussion and also the parking just increase the depth of the parking clean it up a little bit. Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Are you guys proposing new septic for this? MARK SCHWARTZ : We are, we are in the process yep absolutely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that's going to be an IA system? January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MARK SCHWARTZ : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that'll service this one building or MARK SCHWARTZ :The whole site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay very good. Anything from anybody in the audience? Pat anything more? PAT MOORE : No thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom? Motion to close both applications, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, go look some code up. I should have said closed subject to receipt of amended plans. PAT MOORE : Right I figured that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm just going to amend what I just said close subject to receipt of amended plans. Is there a second on that again? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting HEARING#7720—SAM ORLOFSKY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Sam Orlofsky#7720. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 12, 2022 amended August 25, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct deck additions to an existing family dwelling at 1) located less than the minimum code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) more than,the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 18575 Soundview Ave. in Southold. So this is a deck addition on a single family dwelling with a bluff setback at 43.9 feet, the code requiring 100 foot minimum, lot coverage of 22.78% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. PAT MOORE : My client should be on Zoom do you see him there? Okay thank you. What I just submitted to the Board I gave for the record just not for each of you but in case you needed I sited some decisions in the outline and I provided a copy of the decisions in your file just for information sake. I have to laugh every time because I put these applications together six months before the hearing I go back to my original submission and I you know work off of that for my outline and then incorporate any other issues and things that might have come up in the interim so that's what I'm giving you today. I've gone back to my original submission so some of this will be repetitive and it's already in writing and it's part of the packet. I'm just going to add a little more additional information for the record. I want to emphasize here that we have an existing house, we had gotten permits for everything and everything is done with permits. The course of the construction is a little it's kind of a rough period of time remember we went through COVID so we kind of have forgotten about COVID but this started before COVID, went through COVID and all of this was occurring at the same time. So this is an original house, you can see it's very well done personally I thought it was a very well done renovation retaining the original structure. It has not been expanded outwardly it's all interior alterations and then just nicely done siding and windows upgrade on this property. The renovation began in 2019 and it was what was submitted at the time was a pre-construction survey and I attached it to this packet just so we can show you that in fact the deck that's in the back that we're proposing today is what was there. It was a poured cement raised patio that was behind the house extended had that long extension in front of one of the pop out of the house as you can see there. Then there was also concrete that was going from the (inaudible) raised patio down to a lower raised patio but because the property braids were all very different, it started from a high above grade patio and then went down to grade in front of the bilco. So that whole area was poured cement from the original sixties construction. What happened is the plans originally submitted anticipated keeping the poured concrete patio. However during the construction phase the architect they were having problems getting certifications of the footings on the existing structure and there was obvious.[ want to January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting say deterioration but certainly wear and tear on the cement structure and during the time the building permit was open there''s actually correspondence in the Building Department records that originally the plan showed the cement-patio remaining then it -was noted that it was actually going to be replaced with wood and that was okayed.by the Building Department that was in 2019 or so or early.-So all of this was (inaudible) through the Building Department process. We now get to the Trustees period, the property the owner realized you know,we're investing so much in the house and we want to maintain the house we should invest in the preservation and the bluff and there were some pockets of just vegetation that had been storm damaged and the property owner to the east had gone through to get a•revetment a stone revetment at the base of the bluff and this property as well similarly went for that application; It got the approval Jeff Patango_was the agent on that, he got the approval in 2019 everything was fine, they gave it to the contractor, the contractor didn't read the permit very well. He missed.where the Trustees,.said and the material for the toe of the bluff is supposed to come from the water not from land, the material delivery. Well somehow or another the contractor-found it difficult didn't have the right equipment and so he what is common in the business.is you have to sometimes cut a path in the bluff to bring the material in for these large boulders to come in and that's what he did. At that point he got a Stop Work Order and a I think it resulted in a violation but certainly- a Stop Work Order cause the Trustees sent the Bay Constable out and said hey you've exceeded the scope of the permit because you didn't follow the permit requirements. This is all certainly a surprise for my client because you get the contractor you expect them to know what they're doing but these things happen. That's when [.got called in so I started working with the client and we got through the process, we had to put in an .amendment to the Trustees permit to restore the cut that the marine contractor had done to the bluff in order to bring the material and everything got restored. Part of the Trustees permit also included regrading of the back of the property to bring the grade of the top of the bluff up with the berm. So they actually the Trustees,had us regrade increase the height at the top of the bluff, create a berm and create a sloping elevation to the drywells that are put on the property. I point this out because the LWRP came back and said you know makes a determination of inconsistency and he makes a point of the leaching pools that are on the waterfront side of.the house. Yes that was intentionally designed that way and in fact when I was.doing the research of the other variances along Soundview Ave. one or two of the homes had gone these were new construction because the houses had been demolished and they were new homes, there had gone`out to Soil and Water from this Board as you routinely do ask for comments from Soil and Water and Soil and, Water recommendations are oftentimes, put dry wells, do the berming, do the regrading, change the slope and bring all of the drainage into a dry well in the area that is on the north side of the house and landward of the top of the bluff. So it's collecting the water runoff and it's a very intentional mans of draining that area. So that was all done. In my amendment to January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting the original Trustees permit as part of the process I included the deck because I realized the Trustees code says you don't need a permit to do exterior windows renovations even second floors on an existing structure all of that is permissible but the deck was being replaced the cement with wood so I included it in the Trustees permit. So the Trustees actually saw the proposed structure as it was originally proposed and the only thing that I would have to go ask the Trustees for approval is the little deck on the west side of the property that one yes that I don't think it had been part of the Trustees permit cause it was very early in the process. So anyway we are now what happened is, during the course of the construction of the regrading of the property it was the opportunity at that time to change the footings for the cement to wood and the footings were put in. The back of the property was a complete I don't want to say disaster a complete construction site because of the marine construction you can imagine all of these boulders all in the back of the property and the regrading. So the time to do the footings was logically at that time so that the grading and the footings can all be done in such a way that it would all match the regrading of the property. So what you see today are those footings that were poured that it took from the time the Trustees issued their amended permit in February 2020 to the point where we had the drawings in place and ready for this application and of course the timeline waiting for this hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat let me interrupt for just one second. Would you clarify there is on site now a deck that has a gravel surface on top of it with wood retaining walls around it. That's where the footings are but I'm not sure. PAT MOORE : No they are well I have to tell you the footings are sticking out. I mean what happened is the house was finished in I want to say February of this year and in order to close the C.O. for the house they had to put temporary access for all the doors that are in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I got it, but I'm wondering about the isn't that that's where the gravel thing is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, yeah, yeah there's the footings but as I was correct in that what is there now I don't know if you've visited lately PAT MOORE : I didn't get in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Over those footings PAT MOORE : Oh they put gravel? January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : they put wood retaining wall and it's still with gravel so,that there is you know a direct connection. I mean if it's an existing what do we call it, you can't really call it a deck I don't know what it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a platform, it's a plinth. PAT MOORE : I'm sorry what is it called? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : PLINTH it's an architectural term for a platform. This is the photo from previous. PAT MOORE : The architect she said that they had put some the plan was to put gravel for drainage so maybe that in anticipation of the deck it's supposed to be a pervious surface so they put gravel underneath. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible)that's what I was trying to figure out. PAT MOORE : I don't think it's a retaining wall, is it more like a curb to keep the gravel in place? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's elevated. It's got three sides. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 2 x 9's stacked on top of one another. PAT MOORE : I honestly don't know the answer to that because I don't know. I think it's an interim step. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's kind of confusing is the way is it's written up it's like which deck are we talking about and where exactly?There's stuff that's already there SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT : Leslie I have the owner on Zoom with me. I am moving him in, his hand is raised. PAT MOORE :This is when I need him. SAM ORLOFSKY : That was a short term temporary safety solution because the concrete footings were exposed and we have little kids. It was just a way of us as temporarily as possible covering over this exposed area that was dangerous. That's not meant to represent anything long term whatsoever, it was what the gardeners and landscapers came up with as a way of just you know covering it up something that we can easily remove if and when this is resolved that wouldn't have secondary negative effects on the rest of the landscaping and the drainage and all the other things we did. It's a soft scaping that is contained. January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much-for the clarification. So you're proposing to remove that to expose the footings and then to build a wood deck. PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're proposing to cover that?The pergola under (inaudible) PAT MOORE : The roofed over is the exact same dimensions as the original cement raised I want to call it patio cause it's poured cement but it's really a raised patio/deck area. I apologize have I gone to the back I've been there many of times so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright that's clarified. Let's see if I don't want to interrupt you Pat if you have more to tell us. PAT MOORE : I wanted to go over in particular the Trustees part of it and the LWRP comments. I attached to my written submission the LWRP review of the Trustees application which included these decks which was found consistent so it was a little disconcerting to get an inconsistent determination when we had gotten a consistent determination on the same project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think part of the confusion was both the Building Department cause we looked at this a little bit further and both LWRP and Building now considers this "as built". In other words they didn't find a permit for the footings and they are now considering it as an "as built" structure. PAT MOORE : Interestingly if you look at the original plans that said okay there's actually an okay by the Building Department. It shows the wood (inaudible) use and the footings the detail of the footings so that was all in the original drawing. Now what may not have been caught or missed you know reinterpretedwas when one removes the cement is that in fact a demolition that causes the variance? I think ultimately it ended up that way, it didn't start .that way. But everything did have a permit that's why I'm emphasizing that I very carefully went through the Building Department records and I actually found that what was there had gotten a building permit. I think what happened is during the Trustee review process we had a very active easterly neighbor who was coming to the Building Department and very concerned about the activity that was occurring and over several months the activity in the back the Building Department reviewed the plans more carefully and said, hey if you for whatever reason you removed the cement we're going to consider it as a demo and go back and get a permit. So eventually we go here but not initially. I will answer any questions, everything else is in writing but those were the main issues I wanted to address. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there's anybody on Zoom or in the audience who wants to ask questions. Please come forward and state your name for the record. DAVID STEINBUCK : My name is David Steinbuck, I am the neighbor to the west of the property. The other neighbor to the east of the property is also here Beatrice DuPont she would also like to speak. I'd just like to start by saying I really don't have any opposition to anybody improving their home and making a nice vacation home for their family and I think as Ms. Moore stated, the exterior improvements to the house were done very tastefully, the siding the windows, roofing it looks very, very good. So I got the package about this hearing and I went through and I tried to look at the drawings to understand what was going on what was being done with these decks and they were so small that I couldn't see it so I put my reading glasses on still couldn't see it. I got a magnifying glass I still couldn't see it. I somehow managed I got on to the town's website and somehow managed to maneuver around and find the file so I can blow it up and see it on the computer and when I did I saw some things that were not it was a little bit more than what was stated in you know in this about the deck. There is also mention of elevated walkways and I don't know what the elevated walkways were, I couldn't see them on the plans but I'd like to get a few things that I can get clarified and that is what (inaudible). I printed it out and highlighted it if you'd like to see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure PAT MOORE : I think the elevated walkway may be that our middle deck. DAVID STEINBUCK : I couldn't find it on the plans at all so I don't know if CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With an overall width of 49 feet 31 % inches located 43.9 feet from the easterly top of the bluff. Pat this is actually yours, this is in your reasons for approval reasons for appeal. This has to do with character of the neighborhood, it says this application does not extend toward the bluff any closer than the original structures and then goes.on to talk about elevated walkway. Are you meaning that that's a deck? PAT MOORE : Yeah I mean at some point so we have the roofed over and right to the west of the roofed over is an elevated walk it's really not wide enough to be considered a deck it's more of a walkway that takes you in front of the existing. It's where the cement going back to the original survey the original poured cement had the same extension that went in front of the house the back of the house and that's being replicated but in wood. So it's you know I apologize for the confusion of the walkway I think that's you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You also go down to under lot coverage it says the only new the proposed deck number two which is an elevated walkway. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting PAT MOORE : Yeah that was actually in my submission now I corrected that. It was in fact there, I didn't realize that that walkway was part of the original poured cement and in my resubmission I corrected that and said no the only new is the deck that is on the west side in front of the bedroom. We've identified them as separate lot coverage deck one, deck two, deck three. Deck one is the roofed over, deck two is the what I called them elevated walkway and deck three is the small deck that's in front of the bedroom. DAVID STEINBUCK : Do they connect? PAT MOORE : Well yeah they are all connected. I don't know if you have a (inaudible). It was all a connection with railings and iron railings and there was a lot of shrubbery so you can see the brick work but it was all there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This deck three which is the new one that's a 16 foot by 6 foot adjacent to the bedroom. PAT MOORE : It's a 191 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The new proposed deck two which is an elevated walkway and the 16 by 6 foot deck adjacent to the bedroom. PAT MOORE : Yeah that would be you know what I think I mislabeled it was not that center point is not the bedroom. My mistake in reading the plans when I first presented this so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what's going to be most helpful, let's just clarify for everybody's sake, what exactly is being proposed? It's all wood right, that's what everything's wood? PAT MOORE : Everything's wood you got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it's going to be all that dark area that's kind of T-shaped and then a new one over there on the west side. PAT MOORE : Exactly, that's what it on the plans as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, the deck number three is illustrated as being 21 by 9 not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I know it's not consistent. PAT MOORE : Yeah at the time (inaudible) it was mislabeled I thought it was the bedroom (inaudible) a dining room. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Pat you have to go to a mic. January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting PAT MOORE : This is the bedroom over here, that's deck number three. It's identified by the second page of the plans has it all decorated. This is.the elevated walkway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're calling that deck two? PAT MOORE : Deck number two and this is the roofed over original deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN What about the expansion.it would appear that that fireplace barbeque was expanded during the house renovation. PAT MOORE : I think it was, it was extended out a little bit I didn't really concentrate on that but my understanding is the masonry extended out, I think it's an interior indoor kitchen fireplace. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay but that's part of the Building Department (inaudible) PAT MOORE : That's all C.O.'d. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My understanding is Kim. researched that with the Building Department that wasn't covered which goes back to the Notice of Disapproval. They said it was an "as built" application now not proposedconstruction but they're calling it a footing? PAT MOORE : I think we're talking two different things there. So the footings are the "as built", the fireplace I was just asked about is next to the original fireplace that the masonry got MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but that needed a footing also so the Building Department is now saying that the.expansion of the chimney PAT MOORE : We have a C 0 for the whole house and it includes it. I mean if we have to clean it up we will it's not an issue but that's new. They.didn't tell us that so I mean it was done oof in early'20 so it's been there for a while. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's go back to this gentleman, do you have any other questions or comments that you DAVID STEINBUCK : Just a few comments, I want a good. neighbor I.want to be a good neighbor I just have some issues with as you heard right there's been a lot of inconsistencies with construction-over time. I've just seen the inconsistencies with the proposal, there's inconsistencies with what happened with the bluff and all of that. If you look at just look at that plan there the "as.built" plan stairs are different than what was proposed in a different location than what was proposed. They now go right up against the property line they did they come back and then where it lands on the beach is right on the property line. You step January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting off that'stairs and you're on my beach, yes exactly that's how it lands. It used to land right in the middle of their beach so that's just an illustration. The grading the regrading that was done with that berm I saw that on the plans if you look at the original plans you'll see a log was there and then it shows graded back over the log but the grading was significantly more. On the property line you'll see where it'll say monuments found those monuments are no longer to be found because they're buried by the grading. The grading was probably raised to about three feet. So there's just a lot of inconsistencies that's one of my concerns that if construction does take place that there's not going to be more inconsistencies and there's proper oversight while it's being done. The other concern I have is the all this went on years of construction it was a huge mess very disruptive and when I just this summer I was out with my wife in front of the house painting my fence along the road and Mr. Orlofsky came out and greeted us and there was a large truck there and he said this is the last of the large trucks there's not going to more coming in I know it's been difficult. I said okay that's fine, now here we go now we have more construction going on and where does it end right? Is this house going to be in a perpetual state of construction, after these decks are done is there more decks, is there a bigger pool, is there what happens after this? Those are my concerns as a neighbor. Like I said I want to be a good neighbor and I want a good'neighbor but I do have these types of concerns and I just wanted to get that out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. I think there was another neighbor who wants to speak. BEATRICE DUPONT : Yes good morning, I am Beatrice DuPont I'm the easterly neighbor and I've been active because my house.overlooks the (inaudible) of Orlofsky. We have been at first stage to see everything that was happening and whereas before we used to have nice shrubbery and greenery covering the deck we could only see the top railing now we have this huge barbeque fireplace that we stare out which was extended somewhere in 2020. 1 have to disagree with Pat Moore about the size of the former deck because I've lived there for thirty years I know exactly where the former deck was. I have plenty of pictures including earlier pictures of the house showing where the deck was. What is proposed is far beyond what was there before. I think (inaudible) she said we should go back to the plans the original building plan in 1966 or whenever that house was planned and look at what was wood and deck and concrete walkway. I want to be a good neighbor, I'm absolutely fine with the Orlofsky constructing on the same footprint I am not okay with them extending another big room where there was just smaller deck in the middle of the house and the deck was not covered. There was a small awning and I have plenty of pictures to show what it looked like because we're friendly with the neighbors before, we've been there many times for dinner I have plenty of pictures and I have plenty of pictures of when the house was listed in 2018 showing all the shrubbery that was destroyed. For me there is a great concern about aesthetics January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting because from my window and I took a picture from my window this morning from my deck if anybody wants to look at it. All that is see is a huge fireplace when before I had shrubberies and (inaudible) and I don't think the deck should go (inaudible) footings are way beyond the former deck. If you care to see a picture of what 1 see from my window. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to email it to us? ACTING TOWN ATTORNEY HAGAN : Ms. If you can please just email that to the ZBA so that's it's part of the permanent record cause it is being looked at by the whole Board,thank your BEATRICE DUPONT : They did a good job with the front I mean and this renovation is tasteful and nice people but I don't want any more aesthetic issue and not more building on the bluff side because it impacts us (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If additional evergreen landscaping was planted along your shared property line. BEATRICE DUPONT : That would be very nice because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would help you preserve your privacy? BEATRICE DUPONT : Yes and I think the decks they put now is pretty much the same size as what at least at my side the middle side it's pretty much what was there at the time of (inaudible) so I have no objection to the current deck. I have an objection to them extending it beyond. On the west side I cannot complain because I don't see it from my window but Mr. Steinbuck addressed that issue but on my side it's really (inaudible) cause the two houses are so close together. I don't need to see more construction there and certainly not a covered roof and whatever. I could barely see the plan too and.was not able I'm not very computer savvy to go to the site and (inaudible) like Mr. Steinbuck did. But anyway these are my objections. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we did receive your letter and also some photographs that you sent to us. BEATRICE DUPONT : Thank you and I will send you the picture from this morning from my bedroom from my living room window.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from anybody else in the audience? Anybody on Zoom? If he's hand is not up he's probably fine with whatever was said. PAT MOORE : Just some very simple comments. I'm sure that for the benefit of both neighbors privacy is always welcomed. So some evergreens along the property would not be a January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting problem. I think ultimately they're waiting to finish the landscaping once this work is done. You saw the front is well done because there's no more activity over there but the side and the rear is still (inaudible) more vegetation that'll (inaudible). So certainly no problem with evergreens that would block the view of the roofed over deck. It is a one story, she will not see in fact she won't see the masonry fireplaces because that's all part of the interior of the proposed roofed over structure. I asked my client if there was a possibility that maybe because the issue is not side yards we're conforming with side yards so as far as impacting our adjacent owner she has a very lovely home with a comparable home and with a very large structure down at the beach that's just secondary pre-existing and everybody is living very friendly and we're going to keep it that way we want to keep it that way. My thought was to the client and I spoke to the architect about this, we have the stairs on the east side if you bring up the drawing again, on the east side of the roofed over there are just cause there's a doorway there it's a door to a landing a couple of steps down to grade, we could move I thought you'd be concerned setbacks to the bluff that's really what our issue is so I asked if we could move the staircase closer to the bilco door to keep that distance the 43.9 would be I want to say eliminated we'd have the 44 of the existing setback of the roofed over. I would acknowledge and she is correct the original cement block this was let me call is squared off a bit so there is a small portion that and you can see the concrete patio on grade to be removed there's a line that shows almost the same size as the landing and steps that squares off the proposed roofed over but that's it's a how do I say it? It's a beautiful house, it's certainly three bedrooms there's nothing to complain about but it's four bedroom well anyway four bedrooms, three bedroom whatever the code says it's prioritizing everything we've asked for this roofed over deck is really the most important thing to this family. So please honor the you know the preservation of it. I didn't know what you wanted from us so I came with lots of numbers just in case you had any issues anticipating any comments. I don't know that I can satisfy the neighbor other than by putting evergreens and that's fine we would do that and that's certainly not a problem. As far as a westerly neighbor there was a lot of activity this is the.end because my client he'll tell you he started this when one child was one and half and the other one was five and now one child is seven and three and a half or something like that. So they have little children, they want to enjoy the house, they want to end this construction and certainly the timeline for all of the Trustee work is really what threw everything off. Otherwise you know the house has just been progressing and again through COVID it goes as fast as it can go. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else from the Board that you want to ask? Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I'm good. 3Q I January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO Not really. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, 1=m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye . MEMBER PLANAMENTO.: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7721—460 OYSTER PONDS LANE, LLC; ANN G. FFOLLIOTT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 460 Oyster Ponds Lane, LLC; Ann G. Ffolliott#7721. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's July 15, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for a lot line change to create two non-conforming lots, 1) lots #1 & #2 proposed less than the_code required minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. in area, 2) lot #1 proposed at less than the code required minimum lot width of 150 feet, 3) lot #2 proposed at less than the code required minimum lot depth of 175 feet located at 510 and 390 Oyster Ponds Lane in Orient. So we're looking at one parcel #1 which is 14,180 sq. ft. and then there's a lot width at 76.92 1 think and then parcel 2 is 19,998 sq. ft. and the lot depth there is 172.49 feet and it needs approval from the Planning Board cause it's a lot line change. Did you get a copy of the memo from the Planning Board? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I did, I'll speak to that in a second. Good morning and Happy New Year everybody. Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant. I just want to hand up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got it. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning again, I'm joined here by my client Ann Ffolliott who is the owner of both of the parcels. We do have an application pending before the Planning Board for resub division of these parcels. The intent is pretty straightforward and simple here. If you look at the resub division map you can see that there's sort of an imbalance between the size of the parcels and the size of the structures on each. So really we are here just to seek your blessing of the movement of the existing lot line between the parcels to the west approximately 23 feet. Both parcels are currently non-conforming as to lot area. The variance relief we're seeking is for lot area for the resulting parcels, lot width for parcel 1 as proposed and then essentially de minimus relief because it turns out that the length of parcel 2 is just a little shy of what is required. So the net result here is that one parcel becomes a little less non-conforming and one becomes a little more non-conforming but it's kind of a wash.Just to briefly address the Planning Board we were before them for the resub division, I know they did send you a memo with their support for the application and I think that their findings are helpful here in terms of your analysis under the 267 criteria. As to character this is a change that will be essentially invisible to the outside world to the neighbors. I think that Mark put that in his memo that the proposed change would not conflict with the communities character considering the existing conditions compared to the proposed and it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood so that would check off the first criteria. As to the need for variance relief again we're just simply seeking to make an adjustment of the lot line so that the parcels can be more proportionate and we obviously need the variance relief to make that happen. The Planning Board also noted as to substantiality that while there's some mathematical significance here the net effect of the transfer is not substantial because the existing condition is one where a very small lot already exists. As to impacts, there's no new construction this is just simply a movement of the lot line that is going to make the parcels more symmetrical with respect to existing improvements. Very straightforward if there's any questions I'd be happy to address them but we're just simply asking for the required relief here so that we can move on with the Planning Board for the resub division. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anybody on Zoom for this? No hand up. Anybody on this Board have any questions?This is extremely straightforward. Anything from anybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? Alright I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye HEARING#7676— PATRICIA and ARGYRIS DELLAPORTAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing is Patricia and Argyris.Dellaportas#7676.This was adjourned from October 6, 2022 so I don't really need to read this back into the record. It's a variance for a setback for an existing accessory structure and the goal here is to legalize .it as . an "as built" accessory building/workshop proposed use as a workshop. We did get a recent memorandum from you. PAT MOORE : Yea you had questions at the last hearing and actually it made it now the Town Board allows access to the Building Department records so it makes things a lot easier because when you're getting documents through the Building Department'it kind of loses it's you know the way the process had worked. When I went back and I clarified cause you were asking about whether this structure had a permit and yes it got a building permit, it was described as a workshop, it has everything that was there. It was arguable issued in error because they didn't realize the setback was violated at 9.1 instead of 10 so that when they discovered that that's when it went into the Board for a variance. The building itself it had a building permit which obviously we had to it was stopped to come get a variance and then hopefully go back and finish the building cause it was pretty much done when that was discovered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did it get a building permit for a workshop? PAT MOORE : Yea it was actually,a building permit,for a workshop. That's what I was just having trouble when I went back to the -permit I actually attached it to the written so the plans that went along with the building permit calls it a workshop and the interior layout all shows it as a workshop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is this one, we have an inspection here dated 8/2/2019 site inspection from John Jarski structure is new, permit is void. Must be amended if ZBA approval is granted new application requiring ZBA approval for location will be required. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting PAT MOORE : That's what caused the confusion. So what happened is this building had its own permit okay and at the same time the alterations additions to the existing residence was also issued. When the house was supposed to be renovated there was also an old garage there that got demolished. I think the contractor got confused and when they told them,to demolish the garage in his brain he heard demolish and demolish not only the garage but the house and what happened is that the permit that had been issued for the house for additions alterations that got pulled and then a whole new application with new sanitary everything had to be submitted. So it was the house that got pulled, the workshop was always a new structure it was never a I mean there was originally a garage and a pre-existing accessory cottage there they both were demolished. This was a new structure and the plans show it as a new structure. That's why I gave you the outline I did because it was so confusing. Sometimes the Building Department records you know refer back to other the other file and there's comments going back and forth between demolition of what was demolished what was not demolished. As you pointed out you had an interpretation on a workshop but that came in was it two or three years later after the building permits for this as a workshop. In part the interpretation acknowledged that the Building Department was never really consistent whether they called something a workshop or not a workshop in this case it was a workshop and that's where it went. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You argue then that the according to the Nardollilo code interpretation that we made your property owner meets the standards. PAT MOORE : When you learn something new from your client when you ask those kind of questions because I you know she actually she and her family they do crafting and I asked show me pictures of what you do and I attached the pictures. They do I mean Patty you can explain it but they do party favors. PATRICIA DELLAPORTAS : Patricia Dellaportas. We own a diner in the city, we do a lot of catering and my daughter we like doing crafting. So we make centerpieces, balloon stuff with the catering we get a lot of parties and we do like the candy bar you know when go to like a wedding and stuff and candies. So I have a lot of glassware in storage, printers like it's a called a cricket so we do printing like you know we do arches with people's names on it like sweet sixteens and stuff like that so I have no place to store it you know. My house in the city is not so big and I have more storage out here and it's easier to work out here cause she just bought the house across the street actually so we go back and forth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So your proposal is to at one point if it's going to be a pool house if you put in a swimming pool now you're saying you're proposing this use for your own personal not selling anything out of there. 341 January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting PATRICIA DELLAPORTAS : No, no, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to be storing and using as a productive place in which you can produce these various accessories for catering business. Okay so this can now be I guess considered a permitted use and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Baking is a permitted use as a workshop? PAT MOORE : They don't bake there. It's decorating, it's crafting and you know it's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought normally it was like listed artists, glass work. PAT MOORE : No that's a different that's an artist studio. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good point. PAT MOORE : Well because you threw it and I didn't know there was an interpretation of workshop. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Clarify who lives in which house because I believe the applicant had the Bed and Breakfast application previously. PAT MOORE : She owns the house there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the applicant owns the Bed and Breakfast and operates the Bed and Breakfast? PAT MOORE : The operate the Bed and Breakfast which is still in the process the Health Department is driving us crazy but they haven't gotten a C.O. on this house. They haven't been able to get a C.O. because of this building the Building Department would not issue a C. 0. so nobody lives here yet but the entire she has and I cited how many kids. She has three or four, three adult kids, grandkids and it's a family compound across the street!yeah. Actually title is the family is everybody is in title on this one. Is there a problem? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no just trying to sort out if there are any questions at this point. Well at least we got some clarification because we weren't sure exactly what was being proposed. PAT MOORE : You know at the time I didn't realize she had this crafting so as I said you learn something new and it was not I didn't realize you had this interpretation. Unfortunately we don't have access to these when these are done and somebody has to know about it so.. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So we're discussing January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting PAT MOORE : Just giving us a variance for the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For the "as built" building PAT MOORE : That's it right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : so in my mind's eye it's unclear whether it was a demolition that had a Stop Work Order on it. PAT MOORE : No it had a building permit to be built. The Stop Work CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, there was a demolition but that was not this building. PAT MOORE : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was a demolition they had a permit for a new building which is what is there now but they didn't realize when the permit was issued that the setback was not 10 feet. PAT MOORE : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but the existing building didn't have a basement and this one has a basement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They built a new one with a basement. PAT MOORE : But it was all under it was a building permit application so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When you built it was it was applied for as a workshop? PAT MOORE : The plans my memory I mean I have plans here that say CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have so many permits and so many inspections and so many Stop Work Orders and so many voided ones I'm just trying to make sure we have the facts correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat do you have the stamped plan? PAT MOORE : It's attached to your let me make it clear, Mark Schwartz did the original plan. Rob Brown gave me the most current the current plan that I needed for because you needed originals. So I had to go to Rob Brown to give me sealed originals but Mark Schwartz has the and I have the stamped plans attached to this as an exhibit. It's Mark Schwarz' plans Al, A2 the survey the Health Department survey but the plans are Al and A2. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's under C what December 12th January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In the memo. PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah there's the stamp on it by Metzger. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I'm asking about the Town of Southold the Building Department. PAT MOORE : Well it came from the Building Department files so yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look we'll just have to review all this stuff. PAT MOORE : I mean I gave you (inaudible) in December to make it really clear and you can have your questions answered but exhibit let me go over what I_gave you in December. First, the first page there's three pages, I, give you the actual permit numbers and I identify which exhibit. So addition to single family dwelling is the original house that's A. Building permit 39749 March 15, 2015 exhibit B for the workshop. When I copied the Building Department files it had a survey MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is was you're speaking of is the Mark Schwartz S1, S2? PAT MOORE : Yea they're sealed drawings from the Building Department records correct. That was issued a building permit 39749. The workshop was not part of this new house permit because permit 39749 issued March 15th exhibit B was still valid as it was a separate permit for new accessory structure. So what happened is the demo of the house pulled that permit because now that original additions 'alterations permit was void and it's new construction but the accessory building was a separate permit,and it was still valid. There was no pulling of that permit that was still good. Only after they couldn't give us a C 0 because the variance was needed so the building was built, we got a Stop Work Order don't finish it until we got the variance so that's why we're here is to get the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I got it. PAT MOORE : Unfortunately there was a lot going on here so CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN :There sure was. PAT MOORE : There was confusion in the Building Department as well but I think ultimately that got resolved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions on this? January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'll tell you it's all very fuzzy. I remember the last time that we had the public hearing we were asking at that time if it's still going to be a workshop why it needed to have the sliding glass doors in the back and you know all these various windows. PAT MOORE : That's the way it was designed. I mean I don't know what to tell you. As a workshop it doesn't have to be an unpleasant space. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well you know we were first talking about a pool house, then we were talking about a workshop I mean it's hard to keep track of all of this. PAT MOORE : Well okay that's why I gave you the December permit so that I think in part there was some confusion on my part there was confusion on what the Building Department did to be honest because I was getting copies of things from the Building Department that made no sense. When I finally went to the Building Department records directly and I was able to piece through the various permits and understand what was pulled what was not pulled what was new then it started to make sense and I hoped that my outline would help clarify things. Also you know again looking at everything very carefully it was described as a workshop, issued a permit, it was constructed with a permit cause that was something that wasn't clear at the last meeting because there was such a mess from the Building Department records but I was able to clarify in my mind and through documentation that the structure had a permit, it had plans everything that was built it was the plans indicated. And I learned that my client actually meets the definition of workshop which I was certainly not aware of the interpretation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We brought that to your attention at the last meeting. PAT MOORE : Exactly, I knew of your interpretation of artist studio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're trying to be fair with all property owners and you know full disclosure of any pertinent information. PAT MOORE : No I appreciate it greatly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can understand that sometimes things are very ambiguous particularly design wise. We're always looking we have to take people through full and we do but there are many times where we have seen somebody propose one use and then it turns into a cottage you know habitable space of some sort, it wound up insulated when it wasn't supposed to be and the bottom line is we want to get things right in the beginning and make sure that people are happy with and that they're conforming with what they're allowed to do. When you see something with sliding doors we just had this actually over in Mill Creek for the restaurant, The Old Mill Inn. There was a garage and it was rebuilt because it was destroyed in January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting the storm and it had sliding glass doors on it and we said why in the world does dry storage need sliding glass doors? Well I might want to do a little work in there and it would be nice to see the view and no you're going to put solid wood doors it's a shed it's for storage okay. So we're trying to say this is fine if this is what you want to do and that's permitted but make sure that this functions for what you're talking about. We don't want to see somebody you know selling their house and then assuming they just bought a cottage from you the prior owner. PAT MOORE : Well I think in fairness when you know there'll be a proper C 0, there'll be a Zoning Board record so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's why I'm telling you PAT MOORE : Believe me I see that every day and I see people that convert things that they shouldn't and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're here to fix it sometimes. PAT MOORE : Yes and I'm not happy. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not to be•,repetitive but the underlying factors we're looking for a rear yard setback PAT MOORE : That's it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is still where I'm a little lost, cause there's an existing structure I think I said this before but for whatever reason I didn't retain the response, there,was an existing structure that was demolished. PAT MOORE : So let me clarify, yes there was an existing well there were three structures on this property that were demolished ultimately. There was a garage that was demolished and intended to be demolished, there was an old pre-existing cottage. The Pre CO refers to a one bedroom cottage, that was intentionally demolished because they wanted this workshop they weren't applying for an apartment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In prior testimony that that structure the applicant' went on vacation and home to find out that the PAT MOORE : Wrong the house when they went on vacation the house was not supposed to be demolished and the house now it could have been I could have been unclear so I don't remember the details. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was the accessory cottage that was demolished accidentally. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting PAT MOORE : Oh both, oh. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All I'm confused about is we're looking for it's a relatively small request PATRICIA DELLAPORTAS The house was supposed to be renovated and instead the contractor decided to bulldoze the house because it was a better idea for him. So he bulldozed the house, in the back there was a cottage like some other little storage shed and the garage. He was supposed to take down the garage and again redo the cottage make it a. bigger workspace in the back. He took everything down and if there was not an issue I think with the 9.1 instead of it being 10 feet we wouldn't be here. Everything else was fine except for the 9 inches 10 inches. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right so that's what I'm trying to understand. So when it was knocked down why wasn't it built in a conforming location?And that's where John Jarski PATRICIA DELLAPORTAS : Hmm everything else was done to code. I'll do anything that doesn't if I don't go through here first or go through her or whatever. I bought a B&B I wasn't aware that you needed a license whatever then I was told and I went through that I went through her. I'm trying to do everything I can by the book out here because I do have so many properties out here and I have family that comes out here also. So all this, this whole mess seven years I can't get a CO I'm going to cry is because of 10 inches. If the 10 inches was there I wouldn't be here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We want conformity to the code too. PATRICIA DELLAPORTAS : I understand that, you want me to take the glass doors off I like glass doors. I have every light in my house open, you want me to take the glass doors off and put a regular door? If that's going to make it you know seem like I'm that's what I'm using it for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's okay. We're not going to try and redesign it for you but there was so many confusing permits and voided and everything and then there was some discussion rightly or wrongly I'm not sure they want to use it a workshop they might what happens if they PAT MOORE : I'm sorry about all the confusion because I was asked what are you going to use if for and I was like I'm trying to remember from and that's why I was like let's and everybody agreed, let's postpone this. I was able to go back, I was able to go talk to the client about your specific questions. I don't think I think your husband was on Zoom but January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational,Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think you were on vacation in Greece. So we just wanted to be clear what was being asked for and how this structure came to be built and we can't make a decision on something we don't understand. We need to know it's history and it's proposed use and what the code allows and so on. It's a setback issue but we can't grant something on a structure that could be illegal. So now we're getting clear that this was done in a certain way and the record is now clear about how it was done but it wasn't until just now. That's all you know and I appreciate you trying to do things properly. You are aware that there is still an outstanding issue with the B&B across the street and that's gotta be done it was a condition of approval. PAT MOORE : We've been and I don't I mean if you don't mind CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN (inaudible) to.this I know but since you brought it up. PAT MOORE : Absolutely and I'm the one who's been doing the Health Department so I can tell you for a fact it's been I'm pulling my hair. Jimmy Trent is the reviewer, we're at the point where they needed covenants filed because the parking lot is over the sanitary.So whenever you have a sanitary that's covered by its drivable covers they require covenant. Okay we did the covenants, you have to do the title all that we did it. The covenants when there's a mortgage require consent of the mortgage holder. We had the name of the bank. It took us forever to get somebody at the bank to finally sign off. When they finally signed off it turns out that bank that signed off was the wrong bank because they had assigned it to another bank. So we now had to start over with a different bank to say okay we need your signed off for the covenants and that's been the and just some of you know maybe more I don't know if you've ever done covenants with the Health Department. The covenants have to be dated, the title certification can't be more.than they want fifteen days maybe thirty if you push it but it sits on a pile that they're reviewing and it usually takes thirty to forty five days for it come up to the pile and by the time it comes up to the pile our title certification which was we've FEDEX'd it because it's so time sensitive. They reject it because now it's too old. So this has been I mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : An enormously long process because there's a lot of bureaucracy and department (inaudible) what I'm referring to is the fact that the existing accessory structure which had been used a as habitable cottage is supposed to be used for storage. PAT MOORE : Wait, wait, wait, no, no, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, yes,yes. Am I getting that right Nick? PAT,MOORE : No you have 41 January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a building in the back. PAT MOORE : Okay I may (inaudible) there was an original pre-existing accessory well cottage that was attached to another part of the building. There was a shed portion it was a shed and then an apartment attached to it. That had a Pre CO and what she's telling is that the contractor was supposed to spruce it up make the storage part bigger but what ultimately happened is and I didn't realize this when you told me he ended up demolishing the whole thing.The storage as well as the apartment and so the building permit that was issued was for a new structure but when the builder was doing it he just used part of the original footprint I don't know what he was thinking but instead of just building it at 10 feet he used the original 9.1 as the'setback and that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are we back across the street again?The Bed and Breakfast Pat. PAT MOORE : I'm sorry I didn't know what you were talking about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no I know cause Mrs. Dellaportas brought it up saying that she owns the B&B and that she's working on getting that stuff all sorted out. I know Code Enforcement I know Arthur has been out there and Code Enforcement has informed you that the approval for the B&B required that that building be used for storage., PAT MOORE : No it's another pool house, it's a pool house yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think they were going to convert it to a pool house. PAT MOORE : Well we have applied we have a building permit to convert. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know, you said you would convert it to a pool house PAT MOORE : We're in the process of doing that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However there's no pool. PAT MOORE : Yes there's a pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a.pool? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The pool is across the parking lot it's not like contiguous. PAT MOORE : It's in the back. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It doesn't make logical sense for a pool house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where it's located is not in close proximity to the pool. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting PAT MOORE : Because the pool house is an original the original structure it's converted so its proximity to the pool is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen we're getting way off track here anyway and I understand that's what's before the Board now and I don't think there's anything else anybody can think of to say at this point so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye HEARING#7717—NICHOLAS TZOUMAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Nicholas Tzoumas #7717. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 21, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 35 Clark Rd. in Southold. This is a second floor addition to an existing small single family dwelling on a corner lot that's on both Clark and CR48 with a front yard setback at 22.3 feet and a rear yard setback of 17.4 feet both requiring 35 feet. So you have two front yards and what else would you like us to know about this one? This is for two bedrooms and two bathrooms upstairs and a family room? MEMBER LEHNERT : The only thing new is the porch in the front? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea and it's the same it's in line with the existing front stoop, we're just making it a porch and honestly it's aesthetics cause of the second floor that brings it down a scale. I made it as minimal as possible, it's only four feet and I think that's the rear yard is existing that setback we're just removing it cause there's not a good footing on it there so 1 January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting need to put a footing there but it's going back to the same exact distance from the rear property line. Just commonly on that road it's a lot of the homes a lot of small lots, a lot of small homes and there is one home that I wanted to mention that's two houses down on Clark that based on I don't have a survey but based on the tax maps it looks like the house is about 16 feet off the front yard setback. I have an image here that I can provide you with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's actually two quite large homes you know on the other side of Clark, one is on the other corner of 48 then one down a little bit farther. This would not be out of character with either it would still be smaller than either one of those. There's also a large tall row of arborvitaes screening the house from 48, there's a stockade fence there, Actually the house existing setback is 26.2 feet and 32.1 on Clark. No, no that's it's 25 foot on Clark for the house and 22.3 to the porch. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That is correct. MEMBER LEHNERT : Basically other than the porch it's the second floor addition. ANTHONY PORTILLO : And it's an open porch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony question, in your proposed elevation in the rear there's a sliding glass door from the kitchen dining area, how do you propose a transition is it just going to be a stair or do you expect to come back for a deck or something? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No it's just going to be if you look at the front MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea I saw the front porch it's (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : (inaudible) risers so it's just going to step down. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right from the sliding glass door? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea I'm step down he might do a patio on grade but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No deck. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No deck (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom at all? Pat do you have any questions on this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? 441 January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions this is pretty simple. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN There isn't anyone else in the audience. I have no questions, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. Okay motion to recess for lunch. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. Good afternoon everybody, Liz is there anybody on Zoom that you need to review the directions? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have two people. 45 January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay why don't you explain how they can participate if they want to. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good afternoon, if those on Zoom would like to comment on a particular application we ask that you raise your hand and I will give you further instruction on how you will be able to speak. If you are using a phone please press *9 to raise your hand and then I will tell you what to do next.Thank you. HEARING#7695—THE GAINES GWATHMEY FAMILY 2012 TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for The Gaines Gwathmey Family 2012 Trust#7695. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's May 24, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for a lot.line change at 1) Lot 1 & 2 measuring less than the minimum code required lot size of 120,000 sq. ft., 2) Lot 1 measuring less than the code required minimum lot width of 200 feet, 3) Lot 1 & 2 measuring less than the minimum lot depth of 300 feet located at East End Rd. and 137 Pheasant Drive (adj. to East Harbor) on Fishers Island. Is someone here to represent the application? Happy New Year Steve. STEVE HAM : Happy New Year to all. Sorry I couldn't come up there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's okay we're glad we have the other option available. So this. is in an R120 zone, it's a lot line change. I just. read into the record the proposed non- conformities. Proposed Lot 1 is going to be non-conforming 29,335 sq. ft., the second is the lot width is going to be 53 feet .97 inches and the code requires 200 feet and the third is the lot depth is going to be 151.02 feet where the code requires a depth of 300. Proposed Lot 2 will be 64,712 sq. ft. again the code requires 120,000 in that zone district and the depth is going to be 162 feet. Finally the third item is that it will require Planning Board approval. Did you get the memo from the Planning Board? STEVE HAM : I did and incorporated it into a memorandum which I emailed to Kim two or three weeks ago which hopefully you have in your file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right we have that. STEVE HAM : I quoted from that report that the Planning Board had no objection and in fact supported this application because it was consistent with the build out and the existing build out of the property. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Both are developed with go ahead. STEVE HAM : Both are developed already developed and neither one will change in lot area so there's really no.alternative to changing the lot line. There'll always,be non-conformities with these two parcels which are approved by the Planning Board on the map of Fishers Island Development Corporation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How in the world those lots got originally configured that way defies logic that's all I can say.This will be a big improvement all the way around. STEVE HAM : We hope so yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any questions let's see if the Board does, anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA :.No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience want to address this? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to another 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 WEISAMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We'll have a decision at the earliest in two weeks. 471 January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting HEARING#7722—NICOLE ECKSTROM and CARLOS SAAVEDRA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Nicole Eckstrom and Carlos Saavedra #7722. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's July 6, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing accessory garage at 1) a non- conforming building containing a non-conforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use located at 590 Haywaters Drive in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to-represent the application? NIALL CARROLL : Good afternoon my name is Niall Carroll I work at the Valley Stream Architects I'm representing Carlos Saavedra and Nicole Eckstrom. So Carlos and Nicole and their two young children live at 590 Haywaters Drive. They renovated in 2018, there's an existing house they renovated in 2018. There's also an existing detached garage with a loft and this garage has an existing sunroom attached sunroom on the waterside and the existing garage is in the side yard. I have a model here if you'd like to see just to show the proposal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea come forward. NIALL CARROLL : So (inaudible) renovated and existing garage with a sunroom on the waterside. So our proposal is to create some outdoor space for the enjoyment of the lot and in order to do so we want to avoid building anything in addition to what's already on the lot closer to the wetlands and also within the AE flood zones. So we're proposing that we can remove part of the existing structure off the garage to create roof deck space and then to replace the existing sunroom with a screen porch. So all of this would happen on the same footprint, it would be the same heights the building and we will in fact reduce the overall volume. So as I said the 75 foot setback from the wetlands is coming through the existing house and garage so we're conscious of building any additional (inaudible) or decks within this area would create some difficulties. So the idea is to create some safer space for their children to play in an outdoor area in a contained kind of space rather than in the wetland adjacent yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in effect did you get a copy of the letter from the neighbor? NIALL CARROLL : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me see if I can find it here. MEMBER DANTES : We're here for the garage change (inaudible) unless you change to a conforming use. 4-31 January 5, 2023 Regular'Meeting.&Organizational-Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's considered non-conforming cause it's in a side yard. It's really the use is not really the issue it's that.side yard. They quoted that section of the code really it's a roofline modification with an outdoor deck which will require stairs of course exterior stairs. LL NIALL CARROLL : The stairs will actually be interior within this area here: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh they're going to bring it up through there? NIALL CARROLL : We do show that in the elevation.drawings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I saw that. So let me just summarize so you'll have a chance to address this. Basically the neighbor it must be the neighbor closest to the garage is concerned about the not so much the renovation of the garage or even the sunroom for that matter which you're now proposing as a screened porch it's the roof deck that they have problems with which would certainly impact the privacy looking over into their yard. Since the screened porch already does provide water- view the question is, is that really necessary? That's what they're objecting to. It does certainly reduce the overall massing of the (inaudible) but it does create an issue of privacy for the neighbor. NIALL CARROLL : One thing I would say about that is just what I have (inaudible) the neighbor's privacy is actually setback slightly from the existing garage and in a way our stair portion coming up there blocks the view from (inaudible) towards their house. I mean in addition there could be additional screening added on that waterside I'm sorry on that neighbor's side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see, what is the setback. it's very close to the property bine you don't really have room for MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's like 5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : evergreen screening. NIALL CARROLL : 5 feet yep. MEMBER LEHNERT : According to the survey it shows the neighbors have arborvitaes. NIALL CARROLL : Yea there's,plantings there already. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But I don't think it would necessarily go all the way.up to the.it's not going to go up that high. NIALL CARROLL : Right January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're saying the use will require demolition of the existing structure to create support for the second floor (inaudible). NIALL CARROLL : So it would be partial demolition and restructure of that floor to make it stronger as well for that sunroom to make it structurally sound. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it because of the view up that that they want this? NAILL CARROLL : That's part of it, I mean just to be able to enjoy the site on a beautiful lot to look at the water so that is it but then also to have this contained and controlled outdoor space for their children to play in which you know I mean would have very safe railings which would not be climbable but would create a space that's not in the buggy sort of wetland area below. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have questions on this one? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea one question, have you thought about connecting the garage to the house that might make this variance go away?You knew I was going to ask you. NIALL CARROLL : Yea I mean I think that they just wanted to create it be a separate structure on the side yea they weren't interested in connecting it. I think they just want to be able to see the view through between the house and the garage and not have additional buildings. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I would just ask the plans illustrate the conversion of a two car garage to a one car garage, are there any proposed plumbing features or(inaudible) or any NIALL CARROLL : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nothing, going to remain a garage? NIALL CARROLL : A garage and storage. MEMBER DANTES : I think if they attach it then you have non-conforming side yard setbacks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to say that too, either way they need a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're going to need a variance no matter what. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea but that would just be an area variance. MEMBER DANTES : That's true yea. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting NIALL CARROLL : With that as well, there is the issue of building they would still be within the 75 foot setback from the wetlands. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's a Trustee issue. NIALL CARROLL : Yea, yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My notes from the site inspection indicates there are evergreens along that property line. MEMBER DANTES : What are the permitted uses of accessory structures (inaudible)? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to figure out or maybe Damon you can figure out what the I think it's because it was in a side yard otherwise it's certainly an accessory to a single family dwelling. It's got a C 0 as a garage. ACTING TOWN ATTORNEY HAGAN : So the basis of the Building Department is the fact that it's already non-conforming so any sort of alteration is supposed to pursuant to our code come into conformity so really you're taking the position that we're trying to lessen non- conformity. Only you can (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not it doesn't fall cleanly into that non-conforming typically that would be you know a cottage or something that they want to enlarge it has a Pre C 0. This is really not that. I do understand the logic behind it but we're going to have to figure out how to deal with the wording on this. MEMBER LEHNERT : How do they propose to lessen non-conformity when there's no change in the use and in the building. We're talking about a roofline. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know right on the footprint. So I think we just write it that way. Actually if they remove some of that roof they will be less conforming. A pyramid they will be mitigating it however there is some concern about privacy and how high is that it's gotta be at least 3 feet. NIALL CARROLL : Yea it's 3 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The parapet? NIALL CARROLL : Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which I presume is going to wind up all the way around. NIALL CARROLL : Yes January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well certainly will work well with the massing of'the renovation you've done.Anything from you Pat on this? MEMBER -ACAMPORA : NO Rob asked the question I was going to ask about making some type of a connection between the garage and the residence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You know I'm wondering actually a thought here, I'm not sure it changes much you could connect it with a breezeway and it doesn't have to be conditioned unless it's beyond a certain size. Then it's considered attached and that's just simply could be done it doesn't even have to be done with something totally roofed over it can almost be a you know a pergola kind of connection which could be a very attractive landscape element. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Wouldn't they still need aside yard variance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They'll still need a side yard variance. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? PAT MOORE : I got a phone call from the adjacent property owner Anthony DeLorenzo and his wife. I think they're I suggested that they participate on Zoom as well so they might be there. MEMBER LEHNERT : Pat are they the property owners which side are they on? PAT MOORE : The most affected the contiguous MEMBER LEHNERT :To the north. PAT MOORE : They submitted a letter. So a couple of things that you asked I ask. the same questions of the client. I said well I see arborvitae doesn't that provide some privacy cause privacy is really the central issue here. He said well he planted those they're not really high enough but because of there's a lot of flooding that occurs in this area and they're constantly being burned by flooding so it's not a very vegetation doesn't do well there and that just doesn't provide sufficient privacy. I think the model turn it around and see it has the staircase internal staircase with the parapet for the external door but that's only a small portion and most of the deck is going to be visible, accessible and you know looking over to the adjacent owner. So again his privacy the family privacy is significant. I kind of I mean I've had little kids, I have grandchildren I understand the argument oh we want to create like a protected play pen an outdoor play pen. That's probably going to become very hot and uncomfortable for the kids I mean I know you need to somewhat shield them from a lot of direct sun so I think that ultimately what they're going to find is that it doesn't work quite as well and the next step will be well we really need some kind of pergola or awning or rooftop or something to protect from the sun so while in theory it sounds like a great idea maybe for a month or two 5Z January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting spring and fall but I think when it's hottest out it might be very uncomfortable and not work as well as maybe you're thinking. As a grandparent I'm thinking it's up to them. I had the same question that was asked about the non-conforming use and I thought maybe it was because it was in the side yard but typically an accessory structure isn't permitted to have like a screened in porch or the sun porch and I'm wondering if that was added and I didn't see a permit for it, I don't think it's part of the Pre but I couldn't really,I didn't have enough time to -research it sufficiently. It maybe that the Building Department is looking at all this and saying you know again is it going to next step into a livable space and you know it does have a little window upstairs and curtains and so on at least from pictures. When you take'the top off it clearly is not going to have that anymore but MEMBER DANTES : Part of the Pre Pat is part of building permit 43338 glass enclosed addition. PAT MOORE : Oh so it did get a permit good so it is legal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is there legally.. PAT MOORE : It's fine it's legal. When I looked at the plans that my client and I both looked at and we weren't sure if they were extending the deck over the screened in. NIALL CARROLL : The intention was to stop at the railing. . PAT MOORE : Stop at the okay that was something we just questioned. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask a question do you know off hand what the height of that elevation is? NIALL CARROLL : It's maybe 10 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so let's guess 10 feet so take off 3 for the railing, so the decking itself is maybe 8 feet, 7 feet. MEMBER LEHNERT : Leslie a typical garage door is 7 foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's gotta be 8 or 9 feet. MEMBER DANTES : You put it on the top of the deck CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN What I'm trying to get at is okay let's say it's 10 feet that's where all the activity will be taking place off the ground, so the question is how high are those. evergreens? Because if this was a second story it's a no brainer I mean you're just looking right over them. They were pretty big, I mean I'd be if there's damage they're usually January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting damaged at the base you know at the bottom where deer eat them but that's not where the issue is. The issue is up here not down there. So I'm trying to figure out how we split the difference. MEMBER LEHNERT : Would your client be adverse to some sort of privacy screening on the north side? PAT MOORE : That was exactly what I was going to suggest. NIALL CARROLL : I think that they would be open to that yea. PAT MOORE : Certainly I mean they're not happy with this, they would prefer that they come up with a different design option than what's proposed but if you're going to approve this then my suggestion is why don't we suggest some screening so that you know noise view scape whatever is blocked you know we're not blocking the water view but we're blocking the .visuals (inaudible) I know you've done that in the past on other applications. NIALL CARROLL : The north side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have. ANTHONY DELORENZO : Hello can you hear me? Anthony DeLorenzo I own the property next door. The arborvitaes of the Cypress that are there they're away from the garage and not near the garage. Nothing will grow next to the garage so we don't have any privacy screening there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait isn't it along that property line? ANTHONY DELORENZO : It's on the property line but it's next to my neighbor's,parking lot basically in front of the garage is where I have the Cypress. We planted Junipers next to the garage but they're only five feet. Nothing will grow there because it floods, it's saltwater and if they put this deck there I mean they're basically from the 10 feet elevation that they have they're looking right into my house and over my yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the question is how then do we protect your privacy but allow the property owner to have some outdoor space? ANTHONY DELORENZO : There was a deck on the house itself. I submitted some pictures with this.There was a deck on the house on the main house that had railings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have those photos sir that you submitted, they're in our record.The deck I believe was on the front elevation of the house. January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting ANTHONY DELORENZO : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought those were ornamental. ANTHONY DELORENZO : Yes MEMBER LEHNERT : If this was attached to the house and it did have a legal second floor you can putwindows all across that and there's nothing to stop you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true. What kind of let's just say MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) privacy argument tends to go away not all of it but some of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sure they would still be here concerned about their privacy if it was (inaudible) NIALL CARROLL : In a way it benefits the privacy of both parties so I think it's reasonable to request you know that we put a screen on that north side I think we can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why don't we do this, let's adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks to give you some time to talk to your client and think through a modified elevation that provides additional screening. Mr. DeLorenzo as soon as we receive that we will scan that okay Kim and Donna will scan that into our file so that it'll be made available for you to have a look at and then and if the Board is satisfied the hearing is still going to be open. If you want to write some comments submit them to the Board between now and that date, you're perfectly free to do that you can have a look at it and see what you think. If we've got everything we need we'll close it. Depending on what it is we may even be able to have a decision also. If not it will certainly be a month from now at our next Regular Meeting. Does that make sense to everybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sure but the only thing I would add is that perhaps the applicant can coordinate either with Pat or the neighbor directly just to sort of work out any neighborly issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you're willing to do that that's always a good way to MEMBER LEHNERT :Just keep it open to the Special and submit CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so if you're willing to confer and just make a proposal and then see how they respond that may just solve all the problems right there. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting PAT MOORE : Can we just keep I mean two weeks is a good time frame but I just want to make sure that my client has the opportunity to look at it and if (inaudible) a week and half or whatever it might need to be extended. Can we just make sure that there has been communication before you close before the two weeks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what we would do is we won't close it unless we receive something from you that we have seen whatever, if we don't get that we'll just adjourn it to the Regular Meeting and conclude it there. PAT MOORE : Very good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That makes sense everybody? Okay so at this point I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the January 19th Special Meeting in anticipation of receiving some amended elevations and see what we get between now and then. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye, thank you for the model. HEARING #7724—JEANNE and JOSE CASTANO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN The next application before the Board is for Jeanne and Jose Castano #7724. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 11, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 1700 Grathwohl Rd. in New Suffolk. Would you state your name for the record please. January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting DREW DUNLEAVY : Good afternoon, my name is Drew Dunleavy and I'm with (inaudible) Expediting Services and I'm representing the Castano family property at 1700 Grathwhohl Rd. New Suffolk. I also have Ian Gonzales the Project Manager (inaudible) the architects who can help if you have any design questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is requiring a rear yard setback at 26.4 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet and the lot is fan shaped a very unusually shaped lot. Just so you know, we've all visited the site the property we do that before a public hearing for every project so we can see what the neighborhood looks like and adjacent properties and such. So it's only 46.91 feet wide at the street and it flares up to a 115 wide at the rear correct? DREW DUNLEAVY : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are leaving the existing foundation and adding some additional foundation, is that also correct? DREW DUNLEAVY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So attached garage and addition on the rear of the house that's what's being added? DREW DUNLEAVY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a really, really little rear yard that's for sure. Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat I'm going to start with you if you have any questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No right now no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : Is that the third floor that you have on elevation A4? DREW DUNLEAVY : It's attic space, it's not going to be a living space. MEMBER DANTES : This is like a massive why don't you just take the whole thing down and conform;I mean why are you trying to save a little piece of the foundation for a project of this size? DREW DUNLEAVY.:The owner wanted to do it this way it's what he requested. MEMBER DANTES :That was my only question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask the same question, I mean it's classified as a demolition so why wouldn't you start with a blank slate? January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting DREW DUNLEAVY : Originally they wanted to keep some of the house there. I have a Certificate of Occupancy of 1981, 1 also have the property record (inaudible) I think way back (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house is old. IAN GONZALES : Well he was worried about he wanted to keep the utilities which are in the existing basement so he wanted to keep that in tact so he can just work from there because we're so close to the water we can't have a basement. He's using the existing basement with the utilities (inaudible). MEMBER DANTES : Are you in a FEMA flood zone? DREW DUNLEAVY : No MEMBER LEHNERT : No it goes up the hill there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's actually the front of the parcel on Grathwohl is AE zone. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's under water a good high tide. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got all of the septic in the front yard closer to the water actually, you wouldn't have room for it anywhere else. Is that going to wind up being upgraded? DREW DUNLEAVY : Absolutely, we're (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : You're going to put a new IA system? MEMBER DANTES : It's on the plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just getting it into the record. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Dunleavy can you introduce to us the other gentleman to share his name just for the record. IAN GONZALES : Ian Gonzales project manager for the Zack Clanahan Architects Southampton. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you certainly skillfully snuck that attached garage in let me tell you cranking it this way, that was no small job. It's a very odd lot, welcome to Southold you know how many odd lots are out here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think with a demolition like this they can build a more conforming house than what's there. January.5; 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER DANTES : What's your lot coverage at right now? DREW DUNLEAVY : 16.02 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I.mean it's going to have a big visual change to it no doubt about it but it's not going to necessarily be keeping with other properties that have been renovated into two story homes all along there throughout New Suffolk. DREW DUNLEAVY : The neighboring property (inaudible) elevation on a very similar piece property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we noticed. DREW DUNLEAVY :.Even a conforming house would have a big massing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would. I understand why they want to keep that foundation. I mean it's a tricky place to build, there's a lot the soil is very wet over there, the water table is very, very high and if they've already got one that they can use rather than trying to dig again from a construction point of view that's certainly a practical way to go about it. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I see in the packet they have a letter of non-jurisdiction from the D.E.C. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right MEMBER LEHNERT :That's because they're across the street from the high water mark. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea 100 feet away. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well no the road actually comes into play there for those. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea'that's what saves them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN .: It's not the setback it's the MEMBER LEHNERT : It's the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're looking at here really one variance a rear yard setback of 26.4 feet the code requiring a minimum of 35 feet, is that setback the same as what's there now? DREW DUNLEAVY : Yea its existing but you can address the setback (inaudible). Any new construction is going to fall into the new requirements. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting IAN GONZALES : The existing house is staying the same, the second floor is conforming to the setback. You can see that on the site plan, Sheet S-1 and you can see that also on the elevations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the second story is setback 35 feet. DREW DUNLEAVY : The new construction is going (inaudible). IAN GONZALES : We even kept it back of the existing (inaudible) and then the new stuff started (inaudible)to the setback. MEMBER LEHNERT : So really the only reason they're here is a technicality. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but because it's classified as a demolition it's a blank building lot again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you preserving any of the walls at all or is it all just down to the foundation? IAN GONZALES : All the perimeter walls are staying the same we're just demolishing the inside the interior walls. The foundation, the perimeter exterior walls are staying the same we're just putting in new windows. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Speak into the mic I can't hear you. IAN GONZALES : The first floor everything is staying the same perimeter exterior walls are staying concrete foundation walls are staying the same. There's no demolition around the perimeter just interior demolition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the code defines it now based on the appraised value of how much you're taking away so when you have a lot of interior renovations it's a lot of money so that's why it's per Town Code. Alright I have what I need, Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything else from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No more questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I. have no more questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone on Zoom? Anyone in the audience? Please come forward and state your name. MARIE DICKERSON : Good afternoon my name is Marie Dickerson. I have the property behind where the new housing is going. I'm confused on it, is this going to be two story or one story? Then with being that I'm in the back yard the 35 foot setback. MEMBER DANTES : What he's saying is the area that's not conforming that's there now will remain at 26 and when they a second story the second story part will be at 35. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will be conforming. So they're stepping it back it will be farther away from your property, it will conform to the code. MARIE DICKERSON : Right but I just wasn't sure whether this was a one story dwelling or two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's two. MARIE DICKERSON : It is two okay but the base of it will remain the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The same the way it-is. MARIE DICKERSON : Okay that was my question because it just I'm not an architect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : People always have questions that once you know how to look at these it's very confusing. Your question was very welcomed. Anything from anybody else? Ready to close? I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later'date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN': All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. We'Il.have a decision in two weeks. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting HEARING#7733- CINTHIA THORP CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Cinthia Thorp #7733. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 12, 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, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 120 South Lane (adj. to Gardiners Bay) in East Marion. Mike Happy New Year. MIKE KIMACK : Happy New Year everybody. Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. This is Thorp 2.0, it was initially issued under your permit 7218 and unfortunately had never been acted upon so it just simply expired after the three years. However I think I need to address the LWRP concern because they apparently the original one I think they found it to be exempt and then this particular one they found to be inconsistent as a result of the fact that the CEHA is in fact in front of the property. I so noted the fact that the survey did not have the CEHA line on it so what I did was may I come forward. I made copies for you with the CEHA with that area and then also exactly where the house is (inaudible) reverse engineered (inaudible). MEMBER DANTES : Is this the same application we reviewed in when was this, MEMBER LEHNERT : Two, three years ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A while ago. MEMBER DANTES : The same exact proposed house? MIKE KIMACK : Same exact except the LWRP is different. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, the reason is that it doesn't permit the general policy adequate air flow but this subject dwelling is so far away from any other structure that there's nothing but air flow and it makes me wonder whether Mark Google Earthed this thing or not. MIKE KIMACK : I'll keep it very simple then, the CEHA line is along the shoreline you can see from the photo there, the house is set way back. I ran the calculation from the house, it's 29 to 30 foot wide at piece of strip property that goes all the way back to the house and then it widens out at that particular point. You would actually in order to still have the 20%you could the 20%would be up against the CEHA line would have to be up against the house in order for and it's not I just wanted to point that out to you. There's 12,365 sq. ft. in the lot, you need 4,820 sq. ft. at 20% it's only 964 sq. ft. for the existing house plus that and I can take off 29 January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting feet by 260 feet from the shoreline all the way back and still have that 20% left. So I.mean other than the fact that the CEHA line is not specifically on the survey I just wanted to kind of prove the negative to you. MEMBER DANTES : When are they going to start building it Mike? MIKE KIMACK : It better be less•than three years. Also for the fact that there's going to be an IA system in there as you had indicated and I think there might have been some comment about putting a silt fence in but that was a condition you had the last time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was to protect the sprinkler system on the adjacent they don't object to the work they just want their sprinkler system MIKE KIMACK : They're family. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I know. MIKE KIMACK : I did understand that I did get a call on that particular one and I did look back and I did recognize that you had put that in the last CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was this prior relief for exactly the same thing the side yard? MIKE KIMACK : Yes MEMBER LEHNERT : You're here because this expired. MIKE KIMACK : Yes sir and plus the fact that I wanted to point out the fact that they did look at the fact the inconsistent rather than the exempt and I thought it would behoove me to give you some information on why that particular CEHA line does not affect the 20%. I'm done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So am I how about that. I don't have any further questions, Pat do you have anything?. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you submit the prior in here in the packet? MIKE KIMACK : Yes, thank goodness I kept the file. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you can always get it from you know our files. This shows you they could have gotten this done without it if they hadn't asked for the extension or was this prior to the three year. MIKE KIMACK : No this was a three year one. We didn't need Trustees which I think now is going to three years also. I had made that recommendation to them and see if they're (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alrighty, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. So Eric you're recused on the next one, Macdonald. HEARING#7734—TIMOTHY MACDONALD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me read this into the record, Eric is leaving the Meeting Hall, he is recusing himself from this application. It's an application for Timothy MacDonald #7734. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 4, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an accessory garage at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 5 feet located at 405 Mayflower Rd. in Mattituck. This is a two car accessory garage with a side yard setback at 4.1 feet and the code requires 5 feet. What else sir would you just state your name for the record and tell us what you'd like us to know about the application. RYAN GRIFFIN : My name is Ryan Griffin I work for Captain Permit Expediting Company and I'm representing Timothy MacDonald and you know we're going for the maintaining of the garage. Just one thing to note here is that this was built prior to his ownership and the January 5,2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting previous owner before him as stated in the survey. It was dated August 2, 2001 and it was showing that the framed garage was under construction so something was there from 2001. We are going for a variance for the side yard setback and it's less than one foot that we're asking for of the side yard and it's a completely unfinished garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's just electric in it and that's it? RYAN GRIFFIN-: Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I also noticed that it's screened by a six foot high fence and a lot of evergreens. RYAN GRIFFIN : Yes it does have evergreens on the side of it yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then I have no questions it's very straightforward, it's a small variance. So I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye RYAN GRIFFIN : I appreciate it Board thank you very much. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting HEARING#7726—JULIA KIELY(BRODER) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Julia Kiely (Broder) #7726. 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 construct a second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize an "as built" pergola on an existing accessory structure at 1) dwelling is located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) pergola is located less than the code required minimum side yard property line setback of 10 feet located at 16045 Main Rd. in Mattituck. So what do we have here, a second floor addition has a 13.57 foot side yard setback where the code requires 15 minimum and a pergola on the accessory apartment has a 4 foot 4 inch side yard setback the code requiring 10. If you recall we granted approvals for the accessory apartment and the side yard setback for that apartment but that was without the pergola. So when did the pergola get built? STEPHEN KIELY : The pergola predated the accessory apartment, it was there over the patio. There is a patio off the garage before we converted to an accessory apartment that just went over the patio so it was there before the accessory apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So how is it that it's back before us? Why wouldn't the side yard setback that we gave you for the accessory apartment apply to the pergola? STEPHEN KIELY : Yea the Building Department didn't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that a too complicated question? Alright we have three lawyers here that are going like this what is that supposed to mean? STEPHEN KIELY : That's my go to move. MEMBER ACAMPORA : We all saw the pergola when we went for the apartment. STEPHEN KIELY : Again the pergola is not connected to the garage for the accessory apartment it was just covering the patio and the purpose of the pergola is to shade we're going to have Wisteria going up or grapes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea so you don't fry. MEMBER DANTES : So I guess technically if you (inaudible) paperwork the pergola is not covered by the apartment C.O. because it's a separate structure. If you really want to get into the dotting is and crossing Vs. January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well was this brought to our attention and your attention when it came up because of the house? The work has begun on the house, do you have a building permit for that? STEPHEN KIELY : Yes I have a building permit for the house. Basically what we wanted to do was this house is from 1905-1915 it's a Dutch Colonial, it had a sun porch off the back that was C.O'd legal. All we wanted to do is build a second story master suite over that existing footprint. So Walz kicks us in front of you. MEMBER DANTES : So then what's the existing building permit for? STEPHEN KIELY :,It's for the first floor cause we're doing an interior renovation and a lot of other work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So the building permit is for the first floor and you need the variance to get it for the second? STEPHEN KIELY : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now that's clear. Amazing how these facts have to unfold. MEMBER DANTES : If you're (inaudible) the actual wall then is outside is conforming it's just that overhang detail that makes it non-conforming? STEPHEN KIELY : Yea cause it's the Dutch Colonial gambrel roof so it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That soffit is way over a very deep soffit. STEPHEN KIELY : But the soffit is consistent with the front of the house so there's no further encroaching. MEMBER DANTES : I'm saying you could take the soffit off I'm not saying do it and then the whole second floor would then be conforming. STEPHEN KIELY : I don't want I'm not positive to that, I want to say yes but it may be that he took the measurement from the wall the exterior wall not the soffit. So I'm proceeding like it's from the wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got an IA system going in here right? STEPHEN KIELY : Yep we already installed it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything from you Rob? January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, anybody on Zoom? No hand okay got any questions Steve. STEPHEN KIELY : No questions but in my almost twenty years of practicing land use this is the first application in the history of applications that. I've (inaudible) that I have a letter of support from each adjoining neighbor. So the apparently the most impacted would be the neighbor to the east Janet Stuart. I have a letter of support for not only the second story addition but also the pergola. I have Mr. Kirmisch who is the house to the west adjoining again a letter of support for both applications and then Mr. Frankle the owner of Rose Hill who has the vineyard directly behind my house and across Mill both those entities have also generated a letter of support for my applications. So I'd like to submit those into the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision in two weeks if all goes well. We have a couple of resolutions. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. So moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held December 15, 2022 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye. I'm going to make a motion to see if the Board is willing to reopen the Fthenakis hearing that's decision #7559. I'm going to make a motion to deny that request. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to do a voice call on this, Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes deny it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : Deny CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay motion carries. Resolution to amend decision Appeal, #7674, 465 Brown St. Greenport, LLC to remove/amend condition No. 4 & 5 relating to septic systems. We discussed the fact that we got this letter from D.E.C. and they are not going to January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting permit the detaching one dwelling from using an easement into the sewer system so I think it's a perfectly reasonable request so I'm going to make a motion to grant that amendment and then Kim you and I can work on an amended draft. I'll review it and then we'll send it around to everybody. Is that okay, everybody alright with that? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Sounds good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion is before the Board, 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 WEISAMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant the third and final extension for three months condition #2 regarding 7479 Kevin Meyers 1995 Peconic Lane, Peconic. 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 WEISAMAN : Aye. I think there's nothing else the Board has that you wanted to talk about I'm going to make a motion to close the meeting. Is that okay with everybody? Motion to close the meeting, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? January 5,2,023 Regular Meeting&Organizational Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Aye 71 January 5, 2023 Regular Meeting&Organizational 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. �1 Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :January 17, 2023 Z