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