The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-02/02/2023 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 February 2, 2023 10:08 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (via Zoom) ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant PAUL DECHANCE—Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearings -Page Patricia and Argyris Dellaportas #7676 (Decision) 3 - 4 12425 Sound LLC, Andrew Fohrkolb#7735 4- 12 12425 Sound LLC, Andrew Fohrkolb#7736SE 4- 12 Peter and Gretchen Lang#7663 12 - 14 Mary and Kenneth Marissael #7729 14- 17 CVJB LLC/Jaqueline Schnabel#7730 17 - 21 Judith Spates#7744 21 -24 Gil Ben-Ami and Tracy Ben-Ami#7731 24- 26 Andreas Serpanos#7732 26 -31 Paul and Lisa Holobigian#7728 31 -34 Diane Mulvaney#7739SE 34-39 Chris and Mary Stratakis#7723 39 -47 Thomas E. Barnard #7727 47-54 Rosemarie J. Wagner and Robert H. Wagner Jr. #7742SE 54- 57 February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the February 2, 2023 Meeting of the Board of Appeals. I'm going to begin with the SEAR reviews. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type 11 Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)6 NYCRR Part 617.5 © including the following 12425 Sound LLC, Andrew Fohrkolb 7735, 12425 Sound LLC, Andrew Fohrkolb 7736SE, Mary and Kenneth Marissael 7729, CVJB, LLC/Jacqueline Schnabel 7730, Judith Spates 7744, Gil Ben-Ami and Tracy Ben-Ami 7731, Andreas Serpanos 7732, Paul and Lisa Holobigian 7728, Diane Mulvaney 7739SE, Chris and Mary Stratakis 7723, Thomas E. Barnard 7727, Rosemarie J. Wagner and Robert H. Wagner 7742SSE so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Before we get Martin to your two applications we do have a draft that we need to vote on. This is for Patricia and Argyris Dellaportas #7676. This is for an accessory structure it's got a lot of information in it and it's two parts, one requires a variance for setback from a rear property line. The variance is quite small what is it Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't have the draft in front of me but I believe it was just a matter of 9 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :'Nine inches it's less than a foot. So it's almost deminimus and the other is to use it as a workshop. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually 11 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eleven inches-So the first part was based on a code interpretation as to who and what and under what circumstances someone would qualify to use an accessory structure as an accessory to their principle dwelling on their property and based upon the documentation we've received the Board is not satisfied that this is applicant's principle residence. Secondly, the variance is very small so this is a draft to grant the variances r February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting as applied for with conditions that the accessory structure not be used' as a workshop and only contain the half bath, no additional plumbing-or cooking. There's also a requirement to file Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and a number of other conditions. You've all read it right? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you ready to vote? Is there any discussion or suggestions or changes or are you ready to vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm ready to vote.- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Alright, I'm going to make a motion to grant the .variance as applied for with five conditions. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :.Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7735 &#7736SE—12425 SOUND LLC,ANDREW FOHRKOLB CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to open these two applications together it makes sense. They're both for 12425 Sound LLC, Andrew Fohrkolb-and on is#7735 and # 7736SE. One is for variances and the other is for a Special Exception Permit to establish six (6) apartments in an HB Zoned District in single family dwelling or I guess it's now two family. Request for,variances from Article XV Section 280-63 and the Building Inspector's October 4, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a'permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing dwelling to be converted to affordable housing apartments at 1) located less than the - 41 J February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting c code required minimum rear yard setback of 70 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 12425 Sound Ave. in Mattituck. The other one is #7736SE request for Special Exception pursuant to Article XV Section'280-62B(11) and Article XXVI Section 280-138B(6) the applicant is requesting a conversion and expansion of an existing two story residential dwelling to six (6) units of affordable rental housing located at 12425 Old Sound Ave. in Mattituck. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant. I am pleased to finally be back here before you representing Drew and Sharon Fohrkolb to finally get this project off the ground. As you recall we were here in I guess late 2020 or early '21 with the identical project and it was denied without prejudice in light of code language which you correctly interpret it as not allowing what was proposed which was the expansion of the existing dwelling. The project is simply that, to expand the residential dwelling there now to create six (6) units of affordable housing. That is being done to the amended code which the Town Board has now amended to allow for conversion and expansion not just conversion of existing space. The property itself is a .44 acre parcel in the LI Zone not HB it's an LI industrial zone. It's squarely within the Mattituck HALO center within walking distance to Mattituck Shopping Center and Love Lane. It is surrounded by industrial properties, we have a lumber yard here, there's a commercial industrial property here, the lumber yard kind of wraps around the property. It's both mixed use across the street here but essentially it's a residential property within an LI industrial area commercial zone here. As mentioned we're proposing to demolish the existing sheds, rear deck, outside shower and a portion of the rear of the existing house and enlarge the remaining portion with a 3,815 sq. ft. addition. The applicant is proposing to upgrade the sanitary system to an IA System and there is ample room on the property for the six (6) required parking spots, as a matter of fact eight (8) are proposed. We do need unlike last time I'm not really sure why that happened but we actually also need variance relief to make this happen. As Leslie mentioned there's a 70 rear yard setback and we're at 49.5 and there's a 20 foot side yard setback and the existing footprint of the house that is going to be renovated sits at 15.2 feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Inaudible (mic off) I'm sorry I turned my speaker off there's some feedback. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Actually no I'm sorry the 15.2 we're seeking is actually for the rear of the new addition-but it's-pretty much you know MEMBER LEHNERT: 15.9 is existing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're looking for a side yard variance for the 15.9? February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : No 15.2 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 15.21 misread that then. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you look 15.2 is proposed, 15.9'exists: MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think I confused you because I said 15.2 is for the I was incorrect. The 15.2 is for the rear corner, the front corner sits at 15.9 to the edge of the porch there. We're at 15,it's pretty much 15 feet 5 feet along the side there is the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well .we just obviously make sure that -we site the correct -information because I do not want to write a,deminimus letter. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Thanks for pointing that out Nick. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want.us to grant 15.2? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes MEMBER LEHNERT : 15.2 is what the survey'says. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yeah I think the Notice of Disapproval does say 15.9 it does. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It says 15.9 that's where I was confused. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I had the:same questions actually. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I actually have another request for amending the Notice of Disapproval, I'll get to it at the end so maybe in your (inaudible) you'll be able.to deal with Notices of Disapproval I believe so MEMBER PLANAMENTO So we're just going to I don't want to say overturn the Notice of Disapproval but the application is for 15.2 not 15.9? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll just grant 15.2 per survey we don't have to overturn it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I actually-presented it that way I think inmy application and my memo at 15.2 so,.anyway with.respect to the use as you know with the code amendment and these apartments are allowed by Special Exception pursuant to the RO regs. for apartments and would submit to you that the proposed project is entirely consistent with and can meet all of the conditions for apartments set forth in the RO regs. The applicants .hope.to offer these apartments as workforce housing, as you know Kolb Mechanical is -one -of the largest February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting employers in town and they really are in desperate need of housing for their employees to keep, their business going. We are proposing the IA System .and we just believe that the project would fall squarely within all of those criteria. With respect to the Special Exception criteria the matters to be considered and the general standards in 280-142 and 143, you've already gone through them in your prior determination. I think the only thing that you were hung up on really was the criteria with harmony with the code which you couldn't achieve in your last review. With that amendment I believe that we would satisfy all the criteria under 280-142. You again have support from the Planning Board for this application, they have pointed out again that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The location of this property and proximity to the Mattituck Hamlet center it's basically in walking distance to everything, train, shopping center everything and the project was also found to be consistent with the LWRP. So we would just submit that this is the perfect location for it, it's exactly what our town needs. We need about twenty more of these just to scratch the surface of what's needed. So no adverse impact on health, safety and welfare for the neighborhood. I should point out that we have submitted I believe five or six letters of support pretty much from every contiguous neighbor. There's unanimous support in the neighborhood here'for the project which the applicants were greatly appreciative of. Just touching on the area variance criteria briefly, I've obviously addressed it all in more detail in my memo, as far as character of the neighborhood this is not be a detriment but a vast improvement to the condition of this current property. I think it's going to be a standout in the neighborhood with the communities support. We have the neighborhood support, I don't believe there would be any negative impacts there but we do need the variance relief because of the LI setbacks being what they are. I mean essentially we have R0, we have HB, we.have R-40 and,if we looked at those setbacks we're pretty much conforming there but this happens to be an LI zoned parcel which is a residential use there. Clearly the 70 foot setback was intended to buffer an industrial use from a neighboring residential use. Well we have a residential use that I don't believe we really need to have 70 feet away from the surrounding neighbors who have supported the application and that is the same argument with respect to substantiality. Yes we need 25 and 30 percent relief from the code but on balance these setbacks are going to.be entirely consistent with the residential homes that are in that corridor there. There's no discernable or perceivable adverse impact from that. Again the applicant is doing everything that they can do to upgrade the sanitary to be mindful of any environmental issues. It's a Type II Action, self-created (inaudible) to say about that. So that is in short we believe that we've satisfied all the criteria for both the granting of a Special Exception and the requested variance relief. I would ask if the Board is able to overturn or amend the Notice of Disapproval for two things, number one the 15.2 setback for the side yard and, also the Notice of Disapproval says that site, plan is required however under the final version of the law as amended site plan is not required for this application it's just your Special Exception approval February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting and that is- it. So if you can address that, I don't know that it matters as far as your determination but I just didn't want you to have that as a condition in your determination because it's not required under the current code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we need to talk about the parking yield on the property because typically Planning would take,care of that. In the site plan review they would determine the number of parking spaces required and where they would go. So can you address that? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, so six spots would be required one per unit. On the plans I believe we've proposed eight so there will be ample parking and it is now currently proposed on the side. There would actually be room in the rear of the property as well if there were a need for additional parking but the plan was rather than have a bunch of cars up on the front to actually have them park along the side of the structure once it's built so that they can be off the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on I have the floor plan here. I want to look at the survey, did you say you have the parking spaces indicated on a survey? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yeah there's a it might be the one the one we there is a sheet that says CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a survey here that shows the addition but it doesn't mention anything about parking,on it, that's why I bring it up. This is the one that I've got that shows the setbacks. That's why I brought up the parking cause Planning would normally take care of that and if we're not going to require site plan approval then we need to know where that parking is going. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we just condition a site plan for a parking plan be sent to us? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie it's on page A-0.01. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of what you just submitted? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : These are the ones I have the old one but is should be the same page. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh there it is. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : It says new parking, new parking, new parking. MEMBER LEHNERT : It says site plan, eight spots four on either side of the island. There's a dimension through one of them so there's four an island and another four. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and that's all tucked along the side instead of anything on the front. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's two, two bedroom apartment so that would be four cars there plus CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no it's per unit. MEMBER-PLANAMENTO : One required per unit so I'm just counting the realistic use of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there's two extras plus if somebody had to there's ton of room up here that they could MEMBER LEHNERT: Also in the back. MARTIN FINNEGAN : That was really my last thing, if we could I don't know if you need anything else. i CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll put in additional information that's all that although the Notice of Disapproval indicates site plan approval that is not based upon current code that's all. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin the Planning Board also discussed the need for sidewalks, do you want to MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think Mark Terry decided that he thought that it would be nice to have sidewalks but I don't really look I think that that's an issue along that whole street. I mean I walk that all the time with my wife and I just walk down the road but I don't believe that it's not part of the plan right now to install a sidewalk cause honestly it would just go in front of this property and that would be it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sadly there's several of those type of situations throughout town we hope that they connected as some point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically sidewalks are essentially a public amenity that often are required or expected of commercial projects rarely is it done with residential projects. MARTIN FINNEGAN : And with this being surrounded on both sides by industrial and train tracks I don't know that they're going to connect the sidewalk there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we can handle it that way then that's the simplest way, anything else from anybody? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz do you know if there's anybody on Zoom that wants to address this? Okay she's saying no, okay. Anyone in the audience? Please come forward, stand at the mic please and state your name for the record. KATHY SIMICICH :,My name is Kathy Sirriicich I live on 500 Rosewood Drive in Mattituck. I just happened to look at the Legal Notices.last week my eye came to that cause I always go by there. I have a question on it, it's a two story residential dwelling you're going to'do six units of affordable rental housing correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what they're proposing yes. KATHY SIMICICH : I'd like to know what's the square footage on each affordable housing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean each apartment? KATHY SIMICICH : Yeah CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The attorney can address that perhaps. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It varies, I don't know I have to look at the plans.There are both one and two bedroom units. To be an apartment legally they have to be at least 450 sq. ft. I believe they range in size between about 600 sq. ft. and 800 sq. ft. depending on one .or two bedroom. KATHY SIMICICH Now are these all apartments going to be with a kitchen and a,bathroom and everything. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes they have to be to be an apartment by code. KATHY SIMICICH : The second one, what's the size of the land that the house is on? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on you have to address the Board. KATHY SIMICICH : I'd like to know what the size of the land that the house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean the lot size? KATHY SIMICICH : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What they're doing is just adding in the back of the existing house. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : It' almost a half-acre. KATHY SIMICICH : Are they adding only what was that 15 feet or what? I don't understand because I looked at where the house is located on and it's 0.44 on the acre, correct? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes KATHY SIMICICH : Okay so what are they adding to the 0.44? , MARTIN FINNEGAN : We're not adding to the acreage of the lot we're adding to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is the plan up there for you to have a look at. Where it's dark is KATHY SIMICICH : So in other words 0.44 is going to be what it's going to be on and you're talking about six units. What the requirement for affordable housing to be on do you have a legal notice that now you're talking about six units so you're talking about at least two people for each unit okay. Now is that the real thing to do or is this above and beyond with (inaudible) with 0.44. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's perfectly legal. KATHY SIMICICH : It is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, the code permits it. KATHY SIMICICH : Okay, so that's it there's nothing else you can do it's going to be there. Is that part of the code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is part of the code and it is supported by the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Southold and by the Planning Board Town of Southold. KATHY SIMICICH : Alright, so there's a way that somebody is going to come in and make sure that there's always kitchen, bathroom and everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course, there will be no, no, no absolutely we have a complete set of plans and they have to follow the plans that we approve as submitted all of which is properly plumbed and proper electric. They'll have to go through Building Department will do aninspection, they won't get a Certificate of Occupancy until all of the building codes are complied with. KATHY SIMICICH : Okay so this is the public hearing today for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For this project. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting KATHY SIM ICICH : For the project, okay thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome, have a good day. Okay anything else from anybody? 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 DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. That was on both of-those. HEARING#7663—PETER and GRETCHEN LANG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing is for Peter and Gretchen Lang #7663. This is adjourned from October 6, 2022. Request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 18, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a front porch attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 865 New Suffolk Rd. in Cutchogue. Would you just state your name please. GRETCHEN LANG : Hi my name is Gretchen Lang. I have one additional green card. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at a front yard setback of 32 feet 2 inches where the code requires,a minimum of 35 feet. GRETCHEN LANG : The house as it currently stands it has been built it has two section to it, one is little bit recessed and one projects closer to the street. The one that projects closer to the street which is original does not meet the current setbacks as well. This one is further back and I think by adding the front porch onto it that it previously existed at one point which is lovely. I have a lot of old pictures from the house from 1848. 1 think it makes us three feet over the setback of which of course the other part of the house doesn't meet either. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're just going across the front of the house filling in that L. GRETCHEN LANG :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all visited the site as you know and let's see if there's any questions from the Board on this, Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions but just out of curiosity I'd love to see your photographs: GRETCHEN LANG : Sure, so there's the porch that was there you can see the side view of it from the driveway. So that's the isn't that great and that was Stewart he was head of the Northfork Bank back in the nineteen hundreds and aunt Lizzie who used to live in the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that aunt Lizzie in the middle? GRETCHEN LANG : No that's her mother aunt Lizzie is sitting on the side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay got it,they're all dressed up for Sunday. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's always good to try and you know preserve and restore historic properties,this goes back to the mid eighteen hundreds. GRETCHEN LANG : We took great care to do that even though we've undergone renovations for a long time the footprint inside all looks the same and any walls that were termite eaten and what have you we've reused the beams in other places like a mantel and things like that so we've kept the history alive for sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? No hands, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? Okay, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second February 2,2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7729—MARY and KENNETH MARISSAEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next• application before the Board is for Mary and Kenneth Marissael #7729. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 18, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct roof alterations and dormer additions to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum secondary front yard of 20 feet located at 260 Founders Path in Southold. Would you state your name for the record please. MARY MARISSAEL : Mary Marissael KENNETH MARISSAEL : Kenneth Marissael. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, welcome. Please bring those up. So you're on a corner lot so you have two front yards technically. The front yard setback one of them is at 23 feet where 35 is the minimum required for a primary front yard and a front yard setback at 10 feet where the code requires a minimum of 20 feet in a secondary front yard. You're putting on really you're not changing the footprint it's dormer additions on the top. Are you putting on a full second floor? MARY MARISSAEL : We're going to keep the gable roof so we have to raise it a little bit because it doesn't (inaudible) the height we have to raise it a little bit so it meets the requirements because right now it's not 7 feet on the inside but we're keeping the gable roof and adding dormers not putting a full second story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is not a full second story? February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MARY MARISSAEL : It's not going to have the flat walls, it's going to retain the look that it has now more like a cape. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and this will be habitable space or still storage space? MARY MARISSAEL : Habitable CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are you going are you going to put bedrooms up there or something? KENNETH MARISSAEL : Two bedrooms and a bathroom. MARY MARISSAEL : And a little sitting room in between one of the bedrooms just to connect it to the hallway.That will be like a little office area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, actually you're quite far from your adjacent neighbor. There's some two story houses there, there's some small one story houses it's kind of mixed in terms of it's an old neighborhood it's a historic neighborhood. MARY MARISSAEL : Some of the houses are on 50 X 100 even very close together. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would say here though what's complementary to the site because it is close to the road it's not a full second story, the bedrooms are basically in the attic within the roof. MARY MARISSAEL : Yea we didn't want to make it you know obtrusive looking, we wanted it to kind of blend in the neighborhood. MEMBER DANTES : Just so I'm clear, I'm looking at the sheet drawing it's like 3 of 4, so it's'the two dormers are those what the variances are for? KENNETH MARISSAEL : No the variance is just to go up cause it didn't meet the property setback that's set up by code. MEMBER DANTES : Right and where it shows me the it's got like various triangles going up, is that the increase? MEMBER LEHNERT: No the existing house doesn't meet the setbacks and the dormers they're proposing are actually most of them are farther back from the existing setbacks so it's a technical variance that they're here. MARY MARISSAEL : They're shed dormers. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I'm just having trouble reading the plan, are you increasing the whole the height of the whole ridge for the whole house? MARY MARISSAEL : We have to. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's where I think you're referring to,in the elevations you can see the architectural drawings have this sort of movement applied but they're raising the roofline completely. MEMBER DANTES : So is the roofline goes up what is it six feet, seven feet and then you start adding the dormers? Okay I just want to make sure what I'm reading that's all. MARY MARISSAEL : It's across the street actually on the corner has this similar (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I noticed that. MEMBER DANTES : So basically you'll cut off the whole second floor and build a brand new second floor. MARY MARISSAEL : That looks like what was there but just higher. MEMBER DANTES : How close are you going to be to trigger the town's demo code'by doing that? KENNETH MARISSAEL : Trigger what? MEMBER DANTES :The demolition code for the Town of Southold. KENNETH MARISSAEL :- I have no idea what that means. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they're not doing much demolition they're really doing additions it's the roof. MEMBER DANTES : If you do the value and then you start going to the second floor, I think your triggering it. MEMBER LEHNERT :The Building Department didn't flag it in the Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not at all.Anything else from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA :�No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : anybody on Zoom, no hands, anybody in the audience? Okay 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 DANTES : Aye., . MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries.,We:ll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7730—CVJB LLC/JACQUELINE SCHNABEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for CVJB LLC/Jacqueline Schnabel #7730. This is request for a variance from,Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building.Inspector's September 6, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 1390 Demarest Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Orient. Would you state your name please. EILEEN ROWAN : Good morning, Eileen Rowan from Rowan Permit Expediting located in Coram, I'm the agent for the applicant/property owner. As stated the application before the Board is for relief from the requirement of a 100 foot setback from the bluff for all structures. This application is for a proposed raised deck approximately 7 % feet by 17 feet irregular with steps and platform. This deck is to replace the deck indicated 'on Certificate of Occupancy #Z15123 issued on November 24, 1986. This particular'certificate was also for the,dwelling. There's also a proposed paver patio and an outdoor shower under the deck however the Building Department has indicated to me that these did not require a variance. The proposed deck is larger than the original deck however the proposed deck has a setback to the bluff of 82 feet whereas the original deck has a setback of 73 feet increasing the setback to the bluff 'February 2, 2023'Regular Meeting by 9 feet. The dwelling .has a setback of approximately 94 feet to the. bluff. There's .no alternate location-for the deck to be conforming considering the setback of the dwelling. My research indicated that there have been many, many instances where the Board has granted relief from the section'of t'he code in the general area of this property. Variances-have been granted for the setbacks of pools,-decks, gazebos .and four instances of variances for single family dwellings:The variances granted for the setbacks for the dwellings were-fifty five-feet, seventy five feet, eighty feet and one for twenty.feet. Pools and decks were granted variances of anywhere from ten feet to seventy six foot setback from the bluff. The Town'of Southold Board of Trustees issued-a permit for this project on March 16, 2022. This permit has riot been,acted upon as it was determined by the Building Department after the issuance,of the, Trustees permit that a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals'was required.for the deck. Additionally the town LWRP Consistency Review indicates the project is consistent with LWRP policies. The relief requested is not substantial as it is an eighteen percent relaxation of the required setback. The deck cannot be located in a conforming location and still benefit by,the beautiful view. It is not self-created as the dwelling itself does_not conform to the code, there's .no,adverse effect to the neighborhood and is in conformance with the surrounding properties. Does the Board have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you realize.we've all been out and inspected the property, we do that with every application prior to a hearing. Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I do, the 73 foot setback your referencing was for the stairs and 'a . landing. : . EILEEN ROWAN : Correct - MEMBER LEHNERT : Not the deck. EILEEN ROWAN: Not the actual deck: . .. MEMBER LEHNERT : So the proposed deck is•matching the existing 82 foot setback. EILEEN ROWAN : Correct MEMBER LEHNERT : So we're really not lessening anything we're just keeping what's there. EILEEN ROWAN : Well I wasn't sure if the Board,considered the steps and the,platform to be an encroachment into the setback.- MEMBER LEHNERT : That's the only question I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick , IST February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just curious, I noticed that there's footings for the,deck along with the ledger board on the house and I'm just wondering if this should be an "as built" application. I guess it really doesn't even matter at this point we're still discussing the same thing but the footings are in fact in place. EILEEN ROWAN : I was unaware of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's all kinds of construction going on, they're doing renovations on the house and you know. EILEEN ROWAN : They do have a building permit for the interior alterations and changing out windows and doors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that was actually posted the building permit.,Well you know the good news is there's a very large berm up at the top of the bluff that is actually rolling back towards the house so you know it's going to help prevent any kind of runoff over the bluff. There are restoration permits in place for. bluff stability. Is this going to need Trustees approval or has this already been done? EILEEN ROWAN : As I indicated in my testimony we already have a permit from the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's what I thought. As a matter of fact I've got three different one,there's an Administrative Permit, the demo of a second story deck and this is to construct a 68 foot 7 inch by 17 foot deck and landing. Okay I have no questions, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : You mentioned several variances in your statement, do you have copies would you be able to send us a list? EILEEN ROWAN : I have copies of two of the variances. MEMBER DANTES : Can you submit those? EILEEN ROWAN : I have a list that maybe very difficult to read, I can forwarded it to the Board. MEMBER DANTES : If you can email that to the office. EILEEN ROWAN : Email this as well? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we usually like to cite priors, if there are prior determinations that can set a precedent in the neighborhood it speaks to character of the neighborhood. However, some of these variances were probably granted in the seventies. If you're talking about ten feet from the top of a bluff the bottom line is that the science is such that we certainly have come to realize that those are not reasonable things to do. I'm wondering February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting about a non-turf buffer it's all turf but it's rolling backwards so-1 don't even really think that you know a non-disturbance buffer MEMBER-LEHNERT : Well at the end of the day they're.not changing the setback they're just replacing what's there. MEMBER DANTES : Does the LWRP ask for a non-turf buffer or anything?, EILEEN ROWAN : No they just indicated that it was consistent. , MEMBER DANTES : The Trustees didn't say anything about it? EILEEN ROWAN : They did not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN':They didn't say anything about a buffer. EILEEN ROWAN : Just to clarify, what you want from me, there's approximately twenty_-: variances within a.quarter mile;do you want a copy of each one of them or just a recitation of the tax lot.number and the hearing number and what was granted? . MEMBER DANTES : I'can look it up online once I have the.,variance number and address. EILEEN ROWAN.: Okay that I can,easily give to you.:. CHAIRPERSON-WEISMAN : Okay, often we will cite them in additional-information or just say there's .a great deal on non-conformity with regard to bluff setback that received prior variances and so on. . EILEEN ROWAN : Okay I'm sure I can provide the Board with that information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from,you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No nothing-from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Is there anyone in the audience who wants ,to address the application? MEMBER DANTES : We can do a condition that the deck the second floor deck shall be open to the sky not enclosed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.;Yes EILEEN ROWAN :That's-how it's proposed right now so I'm sure that won't be an issue. MEMBER LEHNERT :-Yeah that's one of our standard conditions. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very good I think that's all. 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 DANTES :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7744—JUDITH SPATES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Judith Spates #7744. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 10, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct a garage addition attached to an existing single family dwelling 'at 1) lessthan the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 375 Masters Rd. in Laurel. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. When you look at how it was set up primarily, the proposed garage area attached to the house it does not intrude into the side yard setback and it's setback about one foot more than the corner of the existing building simply because the front yard is cut at an angle primarily. It doesn't extend into the front yard setback any more than the existing,house does by one foot. I do have on that particular one I was able to find one particular prior decision which was ZBA file 6948 for 2775 Bray Ave. where they required a relief of a variance where they were 27 feet from the front yard in a 35 foot yard setback and that was granted. There wasn't a lot within this area that was the only one°that I came up with I didn't want to go too far astray because I know you like to be able to stay within the area if possible. On another note primarily if you can take a look at the shed which is directly behind the proposed garage, that shed is.proposed to be moved to where the other shed is in the back and that shed is going to be removed. So the shed behind the proposed garage will be relocated to the back and will be set the required setback from the rear and the side yard in order.to meet the code. m February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLAN'AMENTO, : So Mike to that point then-'why can't. the applicant build a conforming garage addition?They can just step the garage further and rriake it conform. MIKE KIMACK : I don't think he wanted toTm not quite sure where the septic is back there. He may not have had the opportunity I think they wanted to square the back of the house off. Probably also it's a cost consideration, these are two retired people 'I don't,think they necessarily I think this may be the extent of what they would be, able to expand the: house with. They would like to be able to have a garage that they can simply walk into the house on primarily: The shed is a storage shed that's all it ,is simply for storage forthat kind of construction area since they already have a shed that can be relocated it does, add an' enormous amount of unnecessary funds to the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN,: Well you know it's along a very strange right of way two single lane down the middle. MIKE KIMACK : The first time I went to visit I said where's the place, where's the house. It took me a while to find the MEMBER LEHNERT : Didn't we have something in here recently? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did have something. MEMBER LEHNERT : On the corner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did yes. MEMBER LEHNERT : It was a front porch or something' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah all of them are setback issues along there. MIKE KIMACK: The only one that I found was,the one I just referred to in terms of the case of a front yard setback primarily: But I know basically having dealt with you before that certainly we don't want to encroach any further into the front yard than already exists which has been accommodated and we did,not create a side yard setback so they skinnyed up the garage cause it's only a single car garage primarily. That shedbehind it hasIto be,moved anyway,-it's too close and recognizing that the one in th&back.is not within conformity with at least the side yard setback I think it's 5 and 5 for this sized lot, That shed when.it's relocated the other one will come down will meet the conformity. MEMBER LEHNERT : So both sheds will be moved to conforming locations? MIKE KIMACK : No one's going to betaken away. The one in'the back is going to be removed and the front is going to be moved to the back. zzJ February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Gottcha MIKE KIMACK : The one in the back doesn't conform now and it's MEMBER LEHNERT : That's the one being removed? MIKE KIMACK : Yes sir. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well also I mean you have to realize that the front property line,is not parallel to the citing of the house so the farther you go along the closer you're going to get in terms of a setback. MIKE KIMACK : That was the nature of the design and that's why he stepped it back because in order to come out-they couldn't go out any further simply not to exceed into the side yard 'primarily and not to try to go further than the existing house is on the angle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's reasonably placed. Let's see if there are any questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :'Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON:WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : All in favor? , MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye . MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye i February 2,.2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :,Aye HEARING#7731=GIL BEN-AMI and TRACY'BEN-AMI " `CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Gil Ben-Ami and Tracy Ben-Ami #7731:This is a.request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(i) and the Building Inspector's September 27, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for•`,a permit to demolish and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located"less than the code required 100 feet -from the top of the bluff located at 1800. Hyatt Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. LISA POYER : Lisa Poyer with Twin Forks Permits Hampton Bays, New York: I'm'here before you representing the owner.Gil and Tracy Ben-Ami. They purchased the property last year and r they're interested in building a new residence on the lot.The prior residence was issued a C of 0 in-1961 with an updated C of 0 ,in 2015. At some point in 2016 to 2017 the house established was burned down with fire and so the only items remaining right now is basically the in-ground foundation and it's part of the foundation. The ZBA in 2018 by decision'#7184 issued a permit variances"to construct a new residence.to prior owners where the residence was located 75 feet Ifrom the top of.the bluff. The pool patio at that point was 70-feet from, the bluff and the- swimming pool was 77 feet from the bluff.'The "current'owners have redesigned- the site and with the help of an architect they are now proposing it a new residence with.no swimming pool. The residence will. be located for the habitable space,90 feet from the top of the bluff,and then there will,be a deck seaward:of that with the setback of 76.5,feet from the top of the bluff this is just illustrative it's (inaudible). It's the survey of the prior approval With the proposed house and deck overlaid on top so,that you can just see how they relate to each other in regards to the site layout. We have received the LWRP comments and with regards to their recommendations they had discussed about clarifying grading on site. The site is sloped from basically north to south where you have a higher elevation on one side and then about ten to twelve feet sloping down to the other"side. The house is currently designed where it's kind of stuck into that hill and so on two sides,on the,, ,,, north side and the east side it's looking like a two story,residence from the street.Then on the west side and south side it reads more as a walkout basement type of situation. So they're trying to design the house.into that hill that slopes from north to south as well as you know the backside and there's.a highpoint where the,house is going to be so that way it does slope 241 February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting from the bluff back down towards the road side. So they're trying to use the property as best as they can. We are going to need to install a small retaining wall on the south side to contain the sanitary system and that's part of the septic design. I can submit to you "a copy of the adjacent properties to the north and to the south, pretty much everybody has retaining walls between the lots. Overall three or four lots to the north you're at a much higher elevation;and then it does slope naturally to the south. So they're kind of steps into this natural (inaudible) along the'bluff from north to south. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a copy of that variance that we granted? LISA POYER : Yes I do. I was submitted with the application but I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it in our packet. MEMBER'LEHNERT : When I got here I remember going there before. LISA.POYER : It wasn't that long ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible)that so called driveway two years ago. LISA POYER : It was not that long ago and it has been renewed so it is valid. The new owners have been working with an arborist and there are three significant trees on the property towards the street, they're working very hard to keep those trees they want to maintain them and it's one of the reasons they bought the property so we have designed the driveway to kind of meander around them a little bit while at the same time preserving them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea this is a very unusual property in terms of the land contours and just even getting that driveway in in a functional way is going to require some major you know grade changes. LISA POYER : And all the grading is on the landward side of the property. . MEMBER PLANAMENTO ,: I was just going to add that the site really,reminds me of Blue Horizons Bluff and Salt March Lane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie question, in my opinion and I don't know how to define what the third floor is or isn't but on other proposed applications that we've heard the structure similar to this was cited for having three floors,this however wasn't cited. LISA POYER Less than fifty percent of the area exposed is not a third floor so,the Building Department has reviewed that. Z February 2,'2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's below grade, it's a walkout cause of the contour. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Remember Alvah's Lane it was the same situation it was just a smaller section than what they propose. MEMBER DANTES : Alvah's' Lane Wasn't here for a third floor I thought they were here for a front yard setback. MEMBER.PLANAMENTO : You're right I'm sorry, my mistake. LISA POYER : The Building Department obviously looked at it and they did an analysis of the ration between what's exposed as the 'lower` level versus what is not and it was not determined to be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's got proper egress it's habitable but it's not a story. Any questions, from anybody on the Board? It'll be nice to see something on that property. It's been a long time since all of that it's a beautiful lot it will be when all that stuff is removed: .Anybody in the audience? Liz anybody on Zoom, it doesn't look like anybody.is even on Zoom. 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? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye L. MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO': Aye' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries; we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7732-ANDREAS SERPANOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Andreas Serpanos #7732. This-is.a request for a variance from,Article XXIII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's September 7, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an. application for a permit to February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool with spa at 1) located.less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 19105 Soundview Ave. (adj. to Long Island Sound) .in Southold. So we're looking at a proposed swimming pool with a 71 foot 9 inch bluff setback, the code requiring a minimum of 100 feet. You indicated in your application that this is going to total less than 20% lot coverage with the proposed pool and you're proposing a 10 foot sand buffer you know along the top of the bluff. What else?,' ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're proposing 300 linear foot fence and a dry well for the pool. We also have the pool equipment on the I believe that's the east side of the home I'm sorry on the western side of the'home. There's currently an existing condenser there so that would be a. good spot we,thought for the pool equipment area. Really one thing I mean I think it's a pretty straightforward application, obviously we have to go to Trustees for approval.as well and as you can see we really we only provided a 5 foot pathway between the existing deck and the pool the proposed pool location. That's sort of how we determined you know.we sort of decided that to be kind of a minimum for the pathway so that's sort of determined the', distance from the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What size is this pool? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The request is for 14 wide by 35 feet long. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 35 yeah so is that the smallest? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well I think what's creating you know the setback issue is actually the 14 foot more of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it is exactly. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right so the 35 is not really causing any issue I mean anymore of a non- conformance. Generally pools normal sized pool is 20 or 18 feet wide so it is actually kind of a' narrow it's a narrower pool size based on and I want to correct myself we have a 4 foot walkway with a 1 foot coping so but you know the code,being and obviously the patio won't be flush so it creates about a 5 foot walkway the pool and the deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony are you able to or have you discussed the possibility of reducing the deck width to bring the pool closer to the house? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I generally try not to dissemble something that's there if possible., It seemed like the deck is legal and has a C.O. on it so we sort of worked inside that parameter. The other obstacle is as you can see the septic system that's also you know part of things that we had to design around so February 2,-2023 Regular.Meeting CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN : And I guess because the well is in the front yard that kind of you know l know everybody wants it where there's a water view anyway but there is no room in- side yards for anything and I guess you have a well in the front yard? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct and,that's-why the septic-is in the rear yard as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah for distance. It looks like you're going to have to cut down one very large tree. ANTHONY PORTILLO :.Yes we,are planning on removing a tree to do this. Just for the-record'I did a little research in the area, it never went to ZBA but there was an approved in-ground pool in 2018 ,at 18975 Soundview Ave. and'this pool .was 26.8 feet from'a bluff. It did.get approved by Trustees and Building Department but I'm not sure why it didn't have to go to ZBA maybe was it not a requirement at the time I'm not sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN It must have been a long,time,ago then. - MEMBER DANTES :.What year did you say that was? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It was May of 2018 it was approved. MEMBER DANTES : Was it part of a house like"built into it? ANTHONY PORTILLO : •From what I saw it was well you know cause pools are usually.separate applications so;maybe it was at the samelime but I didn't see that. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : What was that address Anthony? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It was 18975 Soundview Ave. which is pretty much a neighboring lot to this home. MEMBER DANTES :.The 100 foot setback has been code for a long time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :-1 don't knowwhy it escaped the ZBA it doesn't make any sense. MEMBER DANTES : Maybe it was part of a house or something they just didn't call it out on the Notice.,, ANTHONY PORTILLO : Another reason that we sort of determined the 14 feet was I don't want to talk for Trustees but normally you know if we can get 70 feet"from a bluff we generally they 1 seem to accept that but the parameters arer definitely tight,to fit this and putting it in the front yard obviouslywas not possible. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the yard itself is completely screened on both side property lines by a six foot high fence and again the topography is in your favor because it rolls back from the top of the bluff back toward the house which is always helpful in terms of you know and if'you're putting in the ten foot buffer it seems to me a reasonable proposition. I don't have any further questions, does anybody else on the Board Nick or Rob? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's more of a Trustees issue regarding the buffer. I noticed myself personally that the fence is literally is on the crest,of the bluff like it's been eroding. I don't know if sand is appropriate but I think it's obviously something the Trustees would discuss but typically it should be I think like a vegetated buffer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you know I think you're-right and we'll just let them do that. mean we're just going to condition it based on Trustees approval and if they require a different kind of buffer than that's fine. MEMBER DANTES : Are those boulders there now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah there's a lot of rock revetment down there. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes MEMBER DANTES : If that's all permitted they probably did a buffer when they did all the revetment permitting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there is no buffer now at the top of the bluff. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You can see that the bluff is eroded. MEMBER DANTES : Do we have the Trustees permit.that they did for the boulders? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if I have anything in here. MEMBER LEHNERT : Why can't we just put you know buffer as per Trustees? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's easy. MEMBER LEHNERT : They're going to require a buffer anyway so let them do what they need to do that way we don't go back and forth with this. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can speak to Kolb Environmental, we work with them on other projects and see if they want to gives us their two cents on what that buffer should be. So I February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting can always do that first prior to"going to Trustees and doing an amendment to my Trustee application. MEMBER LEHNERT : Why don't we just condition it with a buffer as per the Trustees so then you don't have to go back and forth? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I appreciate that, that sounds good. MEMBER DANTES : If that's a recent rock revetment"permit I would say there probably was a vegetated buffer requirement it just never got never materialized. MEMBER LEHNERT : The Trustees will put one there anyway that's standard procedure for them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well look that's the best way to protect the bluff is by a buffer and if it's already just grass then a non-disturbance isn't going to help. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) sand that doesn't seem to make sense to me. " J CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's probably better to do a vegetated buffer, drought tolerant native vegetation but let the Trustees decide and we'll condition the approval based on Trustees approval with buffer as per their requirements some such thing. So it's very clear to the Building Department that the Trustees will prevail to what they want to do. Does that make sense? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah so that he doesn't have to go you know they're not going back and forth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright everybody okay? There's nobody on Zoom right? There's nobody in the room but us so if no further questions 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 DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Motion to recess for lunch, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to resume the hearing, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : All in-favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES: Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7728—PAUL and LISA HOLOBIGIAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz it doesn't look like there is anyone on Zoom is that correct? For that reason I'm not going to ask you to review on how they can participate, we'll do that if somebody comes on. I'm going to read into the record the next application before the Board which is Paul and Lisa Holobigian #7728. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 9, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 70 Owaissa Ave. Southold. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the Holobigian's. Paul is here he's the property owner. So I've given to you my outline again just with additional facts but pretty much outlining from my original submission. I also am attaching I know you always like to see what prior variances there were. Minnehaha Blvd. this subdivision has more-variances than not variances. I didn't really know where to stop so I gave you all the ones that popped up for general yard variances. The one that I attached here in 1957 is when the house was originally constructed. It was a little box at the time then in 1964 that house got a small addition .which was built with a C of 0, no variance was required. I think in part because the code at the time one had different setbacks but also the interpretation of continuing a non-conforming setback was permitted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Prior to Walz. PAT MOORE : Yeah so there's no record of a variance for the addition to the house. The variance that's being proposed here today is very modest I think. It is a bedroom/bathroom addition for the family. I also attached to the packet the new sanitary system and the family was able to get a grant to assist in the construction of the sanitary system which he just signed we kind of the deadline was yesterday and I said well you know you're going to sign and accept it and we're hoping that obviously you approve this because the sanitary is not necessary if we don't have the addition. This is pretty straightforward. I'd be happy to address any issues that you might have. I asked about the design why it's designed this way cause it's a little bit stepped back towards the back property line rather than in line with the front property line and the reason is when the architect was designing it you see that on the north side of the property there's a little step back so to make it a little more similar design symmetrical thank you symmetrical design. So that's the way the design is proposed here. Drywells are proposed, everything is as it should be so I'd be happy to answer any questions. I don't want to we'll have some longer hearings later on so I'll be efficient. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just enter that the rear yard setback being proposed is 19 feet 4 inches where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet for rear yard setback. It's a corner lot, it's a parallelogram it's a very oddly shaped lot as is the case in many of those lots in that neighborhood. There's a very, very large what would appear to be the architectural side yard which is a secondary front yard actually. We did receive a letter of support from a neighbor that would-be the only one impacted by that rear yard setback of 19.4. PAT MOORE : Mr. McCarrick I think it was. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Brian somebody. The neighborhood varies, the homes are cited on all different angles on those lots in that area and some of them are small one story, others are two story they've been renovated over time. The rear property line according to my notes from the site inspection indicates that there's a slight there's a sort of a line of evergreens along that property line which in some way mitigates some of the potential impacts of views. It's a very small back yard, technical back yard anyway. I don't really have any questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would just add I think any improvement to this property requires CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN-: Anything is going to need a variance. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's the whole neighborhood. PAT MOORE : That's why I have the number of\variances listed as I had on that sheet. Also if you go back it's funny to the 1957 variance one of the comments was, it's an usually designed or lot is an unusual shape and that hasn't changed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you, is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the application? Please come forward oh you're just waving hello, you can't do that. Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserved decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#77395E—DIANE MULVANEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(14). The applicant is.the owner of subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory bed and breakfast. accessory and incidental to the. residential occupancy in this single family dwelling, with three (3) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual transient roomers located "at 225 Marion Lane in East Marion. Would you please state your name for the record. DIANE MULVANEY : Diane Mulvaney CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So some of us have inspected the property and we understand that you are applying for three (3) bedrooms to entertain guests in and that you are proposing to use a room that had previously been used as an office family room on the ground floor for your room to sleep in your bedroom and three bedrooms,upstairs with -a sitting area for guests. Is that correct? DIANE-MULVANEY : Yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me go down the line and see what questions the Board might have. As you know the property has been inspected. Let's see Rob we want to start with you. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes, Diane my question is about parking for the B&B use. Where you're proposing to have parking on the property? DIANE MULVANEY : Well if you my driveway is at least forty feet long and it's wide enough for two cars so my hope was that I could utilize my driveway. However, I`have,if you went past my house and made a left as you know I'm the corner and you were at my house you could access making a quick little left and then there's plenty of side yard parking. Not the right of way whoever is pointing the cursor right now that's a right of way that's actually grass.area February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting that's from my fence towards the road. I'm talking about where.those three little squares are where it says B&B parking that's right adjacent to my driveway as it,exists. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's fine, that's on-site parking right off of your driveway off.of the in the front of your house. DIANE MULVANEY : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing is that's lawn not parking does she need to pave it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you-provide us with a drawing showing you know parking spaces not just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's there. MEMBER LEHNERT :'It's sketched in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's sketched in yeah. I think as long as we require the parking be you know developed in that area as a condition of approval. r MEMBER LEHNERT : I mean we make people draw in real parking spaces. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sometimes, sometimes yes sometimes no. You can get an updated survey but that's going to take about you know eight months. MEMBER LEHNERT: Or site plan. DIANE MULVANEY : I'm sorry I'm not understanding. That is the three parking spaces -additional that is drawn in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to answer that Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : It would be great to have a site plan showing that. DIANE MULVANEY : I don't know what that MEMBER LEHNERT : We need a signed and sealed site plan. I mean we usually hold every other applicant to that standard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we'll have to do is should the Board decide to approve this we will condition the approval based upon the'submission of a signed sealed either survey or site plan by a design professional showing the three parking spaces. MEMBER LEHNERT : Site plan is okay, a survey will take you forever to get. of February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting DIANE MULVANEY : I'm sorry I need further clarification what is different than what is there. So you're saying if I well let me not ask I just don't understand what you mean by site plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A site plan is generally based off of a survey it's usually drawn by an architect sometimes an engineer and they're simply going to duplicate the survey and they're going to show at scale okay and they will stamp it with their professional seal and that will show where the parking spaces are going to be are being proposed and that they are the right size and exactly what the material is going to be and all of that.. DIAN MULVANEY : Is it acceptable if ] receive something from well right now I can't do anything because of the weather but is it acceptable to take a drawing from like the person I would utilize the person that did my driveway initially that they would remove the grass and you know put some gravel and a border is that acceptable? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think after the fact Member Dantes is suggesting that you just give the office a call and they will give you examples of the kinds of things that the Board accepts, so then you can see what exactly is expected. DIANE MULVANEY : Okay MEMBER LEHNERT : The way this is sketched out even I mean you got two cars blocking the third. DIANE MULVANEY : No, no, no, no, no the two cars are parked directly outside of my double driveway excuse me my two car garage. I don't even own two vehicles. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen you know what this is wasting time, I think we'll just simply you know you're going to have to put three functional parking spaces in the vicinity of your driveway the details can be worked out. "We,can figure that out later, let's move on. Nick questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Miss Mulvaney, do you live, in the house alone or are there other occupants? DIANE MULVANEY : No I live alone. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Live alone, also Leslie and I'm sure everyone saw this in the packet as part of the record, Ms. Mulvaney did,provide a copy of'her deed, her tax return, electrical bill, voter registration, the Southold Town tax bill and a copy of her driver's license establishing residency I do have a question however relative to the C of 0 on the property. You're applying for three (3).bedrooms and the owner needs to have one bedroom for their sole use separate from the transient guests but the C of 0 illustrates that you have a three February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting bedroom house, is that the correct C of 0 or are there other permits or rather C of 0's that are missing? DIANE MULVANEY : No I just did all the updates to legalize the house. On the first floor there's where it says owners use yeah that one where you're circling there is a full bathroom right outside that and right now is my office that I will utilize as a bedroom. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I understand that but again the C of 0 on the house says it's a three bedroom house not a four bedroom house so if you want to convert that study to a bedroom I think that's something you can certainly achieve but that's something that I think would require a building permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words what the Board has discovered is that the Certificate of Occupancy was written,for a three bedroom house. That would mean at this point you would either have to updated the Certificate of Occupancy to a four (4) bedroom house so that you could have three (3) guest bedrooms and one for yourself or you may on the other hand have a two bedroom B&B and then if you wish in future to change the Certificate of Occupancy to a four (4) bedroom because you certainly have a layout that would allow that then you can do that and the third bedroom can become a guest bedroom. Is that stated correctly? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would say yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you understand what the Board is saying Ms. Mulvaney? DIANE MULVANEY : I believe so, so if for the purposes of today then I'll change it to what is required to either reduce it to the two (2) bedroom or increase it to the fourth a building permit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We 'have the right to without any changes from the Building Department we have the right to grant you a two (2) bedroom B&B for now. DIANE MULVANEY : Okay then I would change it to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and then in future if you want it to be a three (3) bedroom B&B you need to get your Certificate of Occupancy updated to a four (4) bedroom house. Do you follow? DIANE MULVANEY : Okay, I do. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie she would need to come through again to add a bedroom right she needs to understand that. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not necessarily because you can grant up to five (5) bedrooms we can always condition this of approval based upon either or. In other words we can grant the two (2) bedroom now without her doing anything. If in future she wishes to update the C.O. to a four (4) bedroom we can simply condition the fact that then a third bedroom is acceptable cause the layout certainly allows for it. She doesn't have to come back, it.depends on how the decision is written,and what the Board wants to do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I would just add that the code allows for up to five (5) guest bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does, it allows up to five (5). That would be on a.six bedroom house though. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed, IVIS. Mulvaney one other thing I wanted to mention from a housekeeping-standpoint the rental permit that's pending would of course become void because you're going to be operating a bed and breakfast. So in other words the house isn't a rental property it would be a bed and breakfast property. DIANE MULVANEY : I understand that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : I do`,not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is .there anyone in.the audience who wishes to address. the application? Please come forward and state your name. SUSAN KAMRASKI : My name is Susan Kamrowski and I live on Huckleberry Hill in East Marion. I've been a homeowner there for forty two years. This is in a residential neighborhood and the B&B people trespass, they go on people's property, we pick up alcohol all different things and you're changing the whole complexion of the neighborhood by letting people do B&B's that are transient. For the health and safety of everyone I'm not for it and my neighbors are not for it. I think if it was done if this came up about in the summertime this place will probably be packed, everybody is in Florida. I don't think the residents.in that area want a B&B. The police were just called on New Year's day from somebody that was laying on the February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting beach we don't know what they were doing, the cops came and they were from a B&B on Bay Ave. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to clarify that there is a difference between many of the Air B&B's which are short term rentals which are transient. SUSAN KAMROWSKI : I understand but I think Diane Mulvaney would make a great B&B person and she'd be by the rules but we never know what's going to happen five years from now whether she sells and somebody else gets the property. I mean my grandparents are out here from 1903 so I just I'm not for it and I don't think there are a lot of people that are disgusted right now with the B&B's that are allowed on Bay Ave. I mean I can see them on a Main Rd. you know but when they're in a residential neighborhood like that I don't agree with it and I'm here kind of representing neighbors that feel the same way. I don't know whether the East Marion community has had anything to address this with you but I just found out about it you know people that I know just found out about it like yesterday. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you for your testimony, anyone else? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7723—CHRIS and MARY STRATAKIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Chris and Mary Stratakis #7723. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building,Inspector's July 20, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and to legalize two "as built" accessory decks with sheds at 1) swimming pool located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) "as built" accessory deck located in a non- permitted location seaward of the top of the bluff, 3) "as built" accessory shed with deck located in a non-permitted location seaward of the top of the bluff, 4) construction more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 800 Sound Drive (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Greenport. Pat do you want me to review the various variances enter into the record or are you going to do that? PAT MOORE : I thought you just did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was well you're proposing the pool at 62 feet where the bluff setback minimum is 100. The "as built" 23.5 foot by 8 foot accessory deck and "as built" shed are seaward of the top of the bluff and lot coverage will be 235 where the code permits a maximum of 20%. PAT MOORE : Thank you. I have Mr. and Mrs. Stratakis here so that they can address I know Mr. Stratakis would like to address the Board at the end. Again as usual I give you just a power point of all the issues that I see applicable here. Let me start off with what I've given you which is first and foremost the outline. I've also included a survey, I always try to come up with a better alternate. I know sometimes the Board asks of us some alternatives if you can and I was able to get from the surveyors with his assistance how to increase the setback from the top of the bluff to the proposed pool which we were able to maximize to 70.1 if you see the survey that'll show you. The pool whether it's attached I think or detached but I did-it here as an attached pool because just to integrate it with existing deck. It's not the greatest plan I didn't really have the chance to sit down with Mr. Stratakis but we were trying to maximize the distances and reduce the lot coverage if at all possible. One way to do that was to incorporate some of the decking kind of cut off the old deck where the steps go. The deck has a C. 0. the existing deck has a C. 0. and it has a design that is somewhat triangular and then there is a step down with additional decking. Right off the bat it didn't seem to me we needed that additional lower decking which all of that was constructed but before the code was changed and they lost half the property through a definitional change of buildable area and lot coverage. So we eliminated that lower platform deck and then as I said I had the pool as connected to the existing deck so that it integrates it. It's a very it's not a great design and my client is a little concerned because I had enough square footage around the pool to enable somebody to get in and out of the pool as a platform but it gives nobody a chance to be able to put a chair there and watch the kids or you know it's just very narrow. So as I said it's trying to do a better job with meeting the setbacks and meeting the lot coverage but we could accomplish the same thing with an in-ground pool at this proposed location so it's maximizing 401 February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting the setback. Again the deck cutting the deck back a little bit and making patio around the pool would result in this lesser lot-coverage. So the original lot coverage of keeping the existing deck as it was originally proposed with the pool brought the lot coverage above 25% and this design is able to bring the lot coverage down to 23.3%. It takes very little put it this way, lot coverage when you're dealing with this type of thing and this amount of land because again our setbacks are measured to the top of the bluff but our lot coverage is measured based on the coastal erosion. I also gave the Board the pool and lot coverage issues are pretty standard with the Board you've seen them a lot. It seems like everybody would like a pool and its becoming very frustrating because we've changed the code and resulted in impacting properties when they're trying to _put even a modest sized pool. The issue with the beach structures, that is a real mess right now and I gave you it actually applies to the next hearing-I have and I sent an email to the Building Department questioning on the Barnard case which is the next case, I don't understand I'm seeing all these marine structures, I see decks, I see everything on the beach you know along the top of the bank or the beach they're regularly existing structures. I even have a Notice of Disapproval I'm working on today where it doesn't come up and it's for small decks that were built with Trustee approval, with D.E.C. approval and all of a sudden_they become structures now that need variances. It really concerns me because we're creating violation and when we're doing real estat&cleals and closings all of a sudden we have violations that pop up for structures that were legally existing and suddenly are not permitted anymore without a variance.'The email back that I got back from Amanda and I attach it here oh Nancy excuse me because I said I don't understand where is,this t coming from the code didn't change and the response back from Nancy was she, Mike and Amanda got together and on the Bay side they do need variance but on the Sound side if there's a true bluff we don't deal with it but here I am on the bluff on Stratakis and it's being raised. The shed, the stairs, the platform decks have been there since I think I gave you the D.E.C. permit and Trustees permit that's involved, they've been there forever thirty years I think he mentioned since they've been there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a 1995 Trustees approval. PAT MOORE : Yeah. I don't know what's going on why all of a sudden they're being sent to you, I don't think that's correct. When I pulled the code cause I said what's going on, there's been no change to the code why is it included or why is it not included. I attached an outline of the zoning code and the zoning code 280 is what you deal with and what the Building Department deals with, 275 is what the Trustees deal with and marine structures those are the two avenues. When-you're dealing with a deck, a deck is defined as an open to the sky attached to a building. We all know what a deck is it's what Stratakis has behind their house is a deck no argument there that's a deck but a deck is not a structure that it typically along the water and it is either attached to the bulkhead as part of staircases they're different animals. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting In many of the cases I have what are decks on grade because they are integrated in the staircase at the base of the staircase'or they're'integrated into the bulkhead and they are'part of the bulkhead. Usually the, bulkhead runs to here and then the deck either goes flush against the bulkhead or right on top ofthe bulkhead but it's been the equivalent of a platform or on grade let's call it.'The zoning code, one doesn't call for it as a structure it's not in the . zoning code and alternatively could we call it a patio, yeah and a patio specifically exempt from having to get a building permit and a patio is' not-just stone it could be made out of wood. So I've given you the code on that and then when I look at 275 the coastal construction there it clearly says decks that are it's defined and it'can be attached or detached. That is not tied into'being attached to a dwelling or to a building. So I .think we got to. clean this up because and you see from my email from the Building Department even internally it's not making sense over there and for some reason you guys there was an application done by Mike Kimack on the bay side and you ruled on-a patio or a deck on that so when I reached out to the Building Department theysaid well, well you know'look at this decision which I pulled tho decision and I was well I don't know why it was liste&on the Notice of Disapproval. So you know just like you've dealt with other issues where you get inconsistency by the Building Department, well you absolutely have inconsistency here and the structure that I have on the bluff here are strictly marine structures legally existing, properly constructed and even the shed is under 100 sq. ft. so technically it wouldn't even need a building permit today. It would need Trustees and it would need D.E.C. most likely which it has. So I didn't really want to deviate from the whole presentation but we're really off in a direction that makes no sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do appreciate all the comments you've made, sometimes they're making a judgment call between what's a landing and if it gets big enough what's a deck. I understand you know exactly what you've said;these are substantial if you want to call them a landing they're quite_ big and they've got benches on them. Having said that you have a 1995 Trustees approval I believe it's somewhat. bigger than what the original .Trustees approval was for the size of these so called decks or. landing. PAT MOORE : No they've been the same since. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the-shed 6 foot by.6 foot? PAT MOORE : No it's less, it's'4 by let me look there were measurements'.- CHAIRPERSON easurements:CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Ahe '95 approval was,to reconstruct stairs and a.platform and a 6 x 6 storage shed adjacent to-the stairs that's what the,1995 Trustees . PAT MOORE :That would-be the same one.Those structures were there February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will need Trustees approval again.though because of the proposed swimming pool because you're within their jurisdiction. PAT MOORE : I go to the right Board when I don't disagree. The setbacks to the top of the bluff I do have to get Trustees approval after the Zoning Board if they approve it to.move forward that's not an issue. Let me just clarify the deck that's at the top of the bluff is the 12 x 5 is actually on grade so it wasn't called out by the Building Department so that isn't included. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Question, so it looks like the survey you just gave to us, it looks like you're amending your application you're going to reduce the pool to 36 x 18 PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and it was previously PAT MOORE : 20 x 40 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and you are increasing the bluff setback to 70 feet 1 inch. It's been called out at 62 feet? PAT MOORE : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The lot coverage was 23.4% now you say it's 23.3%. PAT MOORE : No it was 25.something I think. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see what the Notice says maybe I wrote it down wrong. MEMBER DANTES :The first survey says 24.something CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says on the Notice of Disapproval the survey shows the lot coverage.at 23% PAT MOORE : Oh I'm sorry 23.49/6 yeah CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the original it does say 23.4% so you're really the lot coverage remains virtually the same but you are increasing the setback and reducing the size of the pool. Okay I just want to be sure cause if we write the decision we have to write it as you know an amended application. PAT MOORE : Usually if I was asking for more I would be in trouble usually it's less. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting TOWN ATTORNEY DECHANCE : Yes you are amending the application you're-asking the Board to amend the application, I think the Board should move to accept the amendment. PAT MOORE : Right as alternative relief, I was trying to propose alternative relief that is reducing to the extent possible. With a little flexibility it's going-to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically if you know a thrill to welcome a Town Attorney who is a zoning expert typically what we would do if you did not offer this change and that's what we wanted to see then we would grant alternative relief subject to your submission of a survey showing those changes. If however you have offered this at a hearing then you are proposing to amend your application which the Board will now consider'since it's a lesser variance than what previously was. Often we ask a hearing I'm just saying this to Paul cause we might have done things a little differently, we'll say we ask the applicant to bring the plan into more conformity with the code the applicant agreed to whatever, whatever and we will close it subject to receipt of that or you know we'll require the alternative relief to-be submitted to us. If we already have the document then we will simply write it up as an amendment from you that we accept. TOWN ATTORNEY DECHANCE : Yes I think that's the point, there should be a motion to accept the amendment that's offered by the applicant so the motion would be to accept the amended relief as opposed to the relief that was noticed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fine if that's what you'd like us to do there's no problem. MEMBER DANTES : We (inaudible) with the decision making cause we don't know if we're going to accept it or not until we deliberate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No but we can accept the document. It doesn't mean we automatically approved it we have to do that in the decision. TOWN ATTORNEY DECHANCE : But that was the only point, if you haven't done it in the past you don't need to do it at this meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay it's something we'll discuss. It's just a formal gesture if in fact at a hearing somebody submits something we can do it that way too, belts and suspenders kind of thing whatever you advise is fine. You said your clients want to make a statement. CHRIS STRATAKIS : Good afternoon Board, my name is Chris Stratakis Ms. Chairman and Members of the Board I just would like to say that I've been out here for nearly half a century. I've been taking care of our property, my children and my grandchildren love it and we appreciate and I would like to thank you for spending time on something that I requested. For 4,4 February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting the first time in my knowledge before this Board. I've been practicing (inaudible) law for fifty years downtown and it's unfortunately among other things take away some of your items like my hearing and a little bit of my vision but my children look forward to continue doing and spending time at this beautiful house that we have been taking care as well as the bluff. spent a lot of money maintaining the bluff to avoid erosion with the assistance of the D.E.C. with the permission of the D.E.C. As a lawyer I should know that I have to follow the law and whatever you people decide would be appreciated by us and I'd like to thank you for the time you're spending on this case for me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. I do have a question that perhaps you can answer. I did notice when I or I think they can answer it better than you Pat, I noticed that when] did the site inspection when I came to your property to look around which every Board Member does that on all the applications before we have a hearing in noticed at the top of the bluff right by'the deck the top deck there is a water spigot a cold water pipe coming up with a PAT MOORE : Are there sprinklers in the back? CHRIS-STRATAKIS : Yes PAT MOORE : Hose bib? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a' metal pipe with a spigot on the top and you know a down spout probably to wash your feet off or something when you come up. CHRIS STRATAKIS : No l CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is that for? CHRIS STRATAKIS : The sprinklers are set back from the top of the bluff and they just cover the grass to the edge of the bluff. If there is any concern about that I would be very happy to comply. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The sprinklers I saw and they were set back, they didn't look like there was any bluff erosion. CHRIS STRATAKIS : No they're under the ground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sticking out you can attach a hose to it, but you can also just turn it on and wash your feet off or something like that if you had sand or CHRIS STRATAKIS : It's just done automatically, we have the latest invention where they work with the weather and when it's dry that's when they go on during the night. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting - PAT MOORE : No she's asking about a hose connection at the top is that for (inaudible) or just to wash your feet off? . CHRIS STRATAKIS : No we have a spigot at the house not or anywhere near the grass. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not in the grass it's right as you hit the top of the bluff and you hit your first deck where you're going to walk downstairs right there at the lop of the bluff is that spigot. PAT MOORE : Yeah I think his wife is saying it's just like for a hose connection to rinse off the steps or water things in that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause normally that's something Soil and-Water would say would if you,just turned it on and let the water run to wash your feet off you're going to cause erosion cause there's a little gulley that runs right along that deck down the face of that bluff. PAT MOORE : So the suggestion would be not to have that hose connection at the top of,the bluff cause it could (inaudible). CHRIS STRATAKIS : No we do not have a hose with water going all the way to the top-of the bluff, we only have sprinklers. We have no hose going all the way to the top of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, I'll let the Trustees know and let them deal with it. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We have another John Stratakis on Zoom, would,he be able to answer? PAT MOORE : Oh that's the son yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does he want to say'anything? JOHN STRATAKIS. : Hi, no I'm just observing thank you for acknowledging me. Just to the question about the spigot, I don't remember a spigot being up there at all that's a really interesting point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going back to see if I'm crazy or MEMBER DANTES : We'll just put in the paperwork and the Trustees can take a look on their inspection. PAT MOORE : It might have been disconnected years ago. 4161 February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Obviously we'll put on the standard Soil and Water conditions of hay bale you know during construction and no heavy equipment within 25 feet of the bluff during construction of the pool and so on. PAT MOORE : By the way you saw it there's a huge boulder between the top of the bluff and like the coastal erosion area so this property has some topographic features that have been there since the ice age that are not being touched so. ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? Pat I don't think I asked you if you had any questions. Okay anything else from the Board? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7727—THOMAS E. BARNARD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas E. Barnard #7727. This is a request for Variances from Article III, Section 280-15; Article XXIII, Section 280-124; and the Building Inspector's August 26, '2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize an "as-built" addition to a deck and "as built" conversion of a screen porch to living space attached to an existing single family dwelling, and an "as-built" accessory deck; at; 1) the deck addition located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 60 feet; 2) the screen room conversion located less than the coderequired minimum rear yard setback of 60 feet; 3) the screen room conversion located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet; 4) accessory deck located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet; 5) accessory deck located less than the code required 471 February,2, 2023 Regular Meeting minimum side yard setback of 15 feet; located at: 4240 Paradise Point Road, (Adj. to Southold Bay) in Southold.i PAT MOORE :' Pat Moore on behalf of the applicant and I have Tommy Barnard here to answer any'issues or questions. What I submitted to you here today is again an outline of the issues'that I wish to address. Also dealing with the beach structure this what prompted my inquiry with the Building Department which I've photocopied for,the. record. The exchange with the Building Department again not making much sense on all of this,.but what prompted it is when I went to look for similar variances from this Board for these type of structures I found none and I thought that's unusual because the aerial photograph I had showed pretty much every property on this block on Paradise Point kd. and on the bay to have a most identical structures. So what I did is I then checked the Trustees records and sure enough my client his father cause he bought the property from family the structure was built-in the nineties I want to say oh I'm sorry repaired in '93 so it was existing prior�to that. He provided for me a photograph that's dated on the back July 1993 of the existing structure and I'll make a photocopy for the Board and I'll submit that as well. You can see that each one most of the structures along the beach here were built it's in a similar timeframe very early when Paradise Point was first developed they may have been replaced over the years. Then the first Trustee permit that I saw which is probably when the Trustees got jurisdiction for structures that were not in the water structures that was in 2003 and then after Sandy in 2013 many of these structures that were on the water they went and got Trustee permits because after Sandy-if the structure had a Trustees permit you can get an emergency permit but if it didn't have it because it was pre-existing then you'd have to go into the Trustees and just get a permit to restore, repair or replace these structures. So clearly these structures were not subject to Building Department review, were not subject to zoning issues and I would even point out that the Notice of Disapproval addresses a rear yard setback. There's a problem with that because when you're dealing with waterfront properties the rear yard is the mean high water. 1 Every surveyor that I have ever talked to has told me the mean high water is not a fixed point, it will change depending on the date that the surveyor goes out. You .can have .based on historic measurements an average but most surveyors will base the mean high water on when they go out that day what they visualize being the high water.mark. Let's assume in theory that you had to get rear yard setbacks for these structures, when this structure was built the mean high water was quite different and it would have potentially meant 15 feet it might have been 40 feet at the time you don't know but today.you.have a different measurement. So there's a problem with how-do you even apply for a variance for a moving target. You're granting a variance today for mean high water, by.the time twenty.years goes down you know past you may have a completely"different line, global warming can make it closer but we could have hurricanes-that bring in creep the beach and you have wider. So there's just an 48- 1 February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting intellectual problem with bringing these structures into review and variance procedures and Building Department procedures. So all of that I think addresses these structures as I said have been in existence there since well certainly before his father bought the property or the property was purchased I want to say '67. It could have been around that time so I would hope the Board would really send back to the Building Department and say the Trustees yes, Building Department no. As far as the other variances that are necessary, my client also just gave me a survey that he had done in 2004 and when he bought the property (talking to client). I have a 2004 survey and it shows the deck in the back that used to be rounded, now I'm looking I think the Building Department and I are looking at old Building Department records. Building Department records are not always the best and the house was renovated had significant renovation done in the nineties I think it was '94 and at that time bedrooms were added, there was a lot of construction that went on. The deck that shows on the site plan is squared but in fact what was built was rounded and there were no railings on that deck. That is what is on this survey and what Tommy was telling is that when he acquired it he said listen I'need to have railings so instead of rounded he squared it off. The deck is still the same deck but it got modified so we would part of our process here was when we started this application process was going to the Building Department to make sure everything had proper permits and it all matched and of course the Building Department records and what our survey showed did not match so we then got plans drawn up which is what lead to this application. The plans that have been drawn up and will ultimately the building permits and C.O.'s that will be issued will be for interior alterations and those are relatively minor, simple things a bathroom, a tub was replace a shower and maybe bathroom or closet was changed for a bathroom. There is a little stoop on the right hand side that we're-told needed a variance. Again the zoning code says stoops and stairs are not lot area so I don't know why they called out for it to get a variance it's included here I don't know why but the explanation for that is, when his mom had cancer and was under hospice his father provided for a bathroom a half bathroom. When he took over the house he just opened up a door because the. outdoor shower which has a permit is right there on the same side it's a shower enclosure.So the master bedroom you can take a shower and go up the steps and go into the master bedroom, so that's that little stoop on the east side which has been called out for a side yard variance. c THOMAS BARNARD : Thomas Barnard, I go by Tommy like I'm still ten. It wasn't even a half bath it was just a toilet installed next to the bed just for ease of usage and then when she passed I took the toilet out and made the access to the shower. So it wasn't even a half bath it was jut PAT MOORE : Thank you for clarifying. The roofline is still the same roofline for the enclosed, porch it was built as an enclosed porch with the same roofline that was converted to 4,91 February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting habitable space so yes that was included because converting it to habitable space I guess the Building Department felt we needed a variance for that. Again, there's no change to the roof or the foundation nothing it's still the existing structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat let me do this, let me enter into the record again the specific variances you're looking for. The deck addition is at 51 foot 476 inches so call it 51 feet rear yard setback the code requires a minimum of 60. Secondly, the screen room conversion has a 59.4 foot rear yard setback again minimum 60 foot. Three, there's a 17.2 foot side yard setback for the screen room, the code requires 20 minimum. Four, the "as built" accessory deck is at 14.25 feet rear yard setback where the code requires a 15 foot minimum for accessory structures. PAT MOORE : That's the detached deck that is the marine deck that we're talking about. CHAIRPERSON WEIMSMAN : Yeah the "as built" deck at 14 yep and then five, a 10.4 foot side yard setback again the code requires 15 feet for the setback for accessory structures so it's the two setbacks for the accessory structure. PAT MOORE : For the marine decks CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The "as built" accessory deck. PAT MOORE : So they didn't call out the wood deck behind the house? I guess they didn't okay well we're getting a building permit for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the one that's up at the top right on the bulkhead yeah they did. PAT MOORE : The bulkhead is what I call the marine deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right on the bulkhead, yeah they did. PAT MOORE : The bulkhead is what I call the marine deck. So the other deck the wood deck behind the house doesn't need a variance it didn't get called out for a variance I guess. MEMBER LEHN.ERT : Yeah it does, 51.476 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it does that's the rear yard setback to the high water line. PAT MOORE : Mean high water. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Okay, so obviously this property is pre-existing, we're in R-80 zoning so our setbacks are all based on R-80 and the house I think most of these alterations were done were interior alterations so we're not changing the original footprint. I -would call them technical variances because they don't meet the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So just a couple of comments from the site inspection, the wood platform in the side yard is totally screened from view along that property line by a solid wood fence and very tall evergreens on your neighbor's property. The adjacent lot has a very large two story house but it's set back very far from the subject. PAT MOORE : Ciampa is the neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you pointed out Pat the seaward decks and steps are cantilevered literally off the wood bulkhead but the bank is vegetated pretty well and looking down the beach in both directions you can see that that's a fairly common practice along that area there's similar decks and steps. PAT MOORE : That I just gave you for the record was the aerial with all the decks and permits that were issued. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did have a questions which was just an observation that I made, when the Board inspects a property we inspect all of the property whether it's before us or not; many times we've said the fence is on your neighbor's property it's not you know you have to bring it put it on yours. The two car garage that's there it has a bay window a glass bay window and lots of windows in fact all over and it's got a people sized door and stoop and so on, I'm just wondering is it habitable space? PAT MOORE : I did some research on it, well let me answer cause I have the whole history on it and it makes more sense and correct me if I'm wrong because I did review that with Amanda. Going back in time Tommy's dad came in for a variance for a detached garage, in reading the transcript of the conversation he really wanted some additional space in the garage for a private space. He had his wife he and his wife had relocated and he needed a quiet place to be for his own paperwork and so on. The Board said granted the approval for a detached garage but not for habitable space. Prior to the construction so the variance was granted then they put in a building permit for the location of the garage was more in keeping with that shed it was out further out where the area where the shed is. They came in with a different design,they figured out through whatever advice they got that if they connected the garage to the'house they could have habitable space in the garage and the connection was the roofed over connection that is existing there. You see that there's today it has to be habitable connection but at the time that the garage was built it could.be just a roofed over. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A breezeway as long as it was no longer than a certain dimension. PAT MOORE : Exactly so they actually put in a building permit application with the space for the habitable space that had the bay window they even had the bay window showing and everything. So that structure is actually legal we're okay with it and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How is it being used? Is it sleeping space, it is cooking space is it THOMAS BARNARD : When I'm out here I use it as an (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it conditioned, do you have any heat or air-conditioning in it? THOMAS BARNARD : The builder was Charlie Thompson back in the day I don't if that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember THOMAS BARNARD : in the early nineties great guy and he came up with the I guess he investigated about that attachment and one of the things you had to have heat out there was what at the time so there is heat. PAT MOORE : But that is actually a C.O'd structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but it appeared to be habitable and it was called a garage so I inquired that's why. PAT MOORE : The plans if the Building Department's garage with extra space (inaudible) show that space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a half bath or anything in there? THOMAS BARNARD : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's allowed in an accessory structure. PAT MOORE : It's all spelled out in the permit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I don't think it's an accessory structure if it's attached to the house. I'm thinking what you just submitted you're also proposing to convert it into a full bathroom. THOMAS BARNARD : I'd like to if that's a possibility. MEMBER DANTES : Is it attached to the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just by a roof. J February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the fourth page of what you just gave us. MEMBER DANTES : I think to do that you would have to enclose the portico as conditioned space and then it'll be attached. MEMBER LEHERT : Yeah MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I'm just commenting it's in the packet I looked at it. THOMAS BARNARD : Future ideas. MEMBER DANTES : Once it's attached to the house you can do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? MEMBER DANTES : It kind of confuses the Notices of Disapproval including stuff on the bluff these days too so it's something PAT MOORE :That's a real problem that's about to be opened up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well typically that would have been before the Trustees I mean and not the ZBA. If its seaward of a rear yard setback we typically MEMBER LEHNERT : Historically we would have never seen the one on the bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No PAT MOORE : That's why my email I was preparing and I didn't see any one application my concern is that what I'm finding these days is any issue that the Building Department sees as an issue will call out for it in the way it's being scanned in the computer ,in the Building Department as a violation. So I've had more violations for air conditioners that don't have permits. I see this as just the next logical step that they're going to call out and ninety nine percent of these structures have never gone to the Building Department. We're going to end up with problems and I'm hoping that we can kind of cut it off now. You have two applications before you within you know the Stratakis and this one, you have one on the Sound, you have one on the bay and neither one really belong with the Board. Again the rear yard setback is.a technical problem that you're always going to experience setting a rear yard setback on a moving point. Anything else? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No questions. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay a lot of moving parts on this one. PAT MOORE : Well when they send me for a stoop and 1 pull up the building code and it says, stoops and stairs are not included it just I mean I don't know if they just threw the kitchen sink or once you're here at the Zoning Board you'll get it all cleaned up but now with the filing fees that are required.The discretion is in the code now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not being exercised. PAT MOORE : I feel bad for Amanda and Nancy because they're being trained and I'm getting things that are that's where you guys have to step in because you have to send them maybe internally meetings whatever but certainly decisions when like the one on deck at the beach that Nancy raised as the reason why yes now we do require them to get variances. That creates a problem cause that reinforces an error I think that you're getting the decision and saying okay you sent it to us well we'll act on it but I think you have to go back and say no don't give us these because they don't belong here there's no jurisdiction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there are no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7724SE—ROSEMARIE J.WAGNER and ROBERT H. WAGNER,JR. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rosemarie J. Wagner and Robert H. Wagner Jr. #7742SE. Applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is owner of subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure measuring less than the February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting code required 450 sq. ft. in area at 8310 Soundview Ave. in Southold. It looks like Rosemarie Wagner is on Zoom, is that correct? ROSEMARIE WAGNER : Yes and my husband as well, can you see us or just hear us? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can just hear you but that's okay as long as we can talk. So as you know we've done an interior inspection and we've.received I think according to I think what your application said the apartment was 414 sq. ft. we received a notice as we're required to do from the Building Department calculating the livable floor area per code and they indicate that the livable floor area is_376 sq. ft. and is non-conforming because the code requires a minimum of 450 sq. ft. and a maximum of 750. ROSEMARIE WAGNER : I'm not quite sure where they got the 376 but we had a survey done of the property and it was only 400. ROBERT WAGNER : It was 408 sq.ft. MEMBER DANTES :That could be the difference is the outside walls versus the inside walls. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah even the well but there's still a difference between 376 and 408 is a lot. MEMBER DANTES : 40 sq. ft.? . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, I think that's more than sometimes they just do the footprint basically. The bathroom for example would not be included in livable floor area by definition. MEMBER LEHNERT: And they take closets out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Take the closet out it's complicated how they compute livable floor area, that's different than square footage. He probably calculated the square footage which is what most people would do but the point is the Board has the right to grant variance relief. If we're going to grant a Special Exception for the apartment use which is how long your son is living in that did you say? ROSEMARIE WAGNER : No he's living at home right now, he wants to live there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, and do you have I guess a 2016 C.O. for an indoor wall mounted AC unit in the existing building? RICHARD WAGNER : Right and the electrical to go with it and the Electrical Inspector at the time made mention of how well the electrical is done in the fuse panel. So I don't know if it's the same guy but you can certainly ask him what it's like in there. February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : What was the building historically, what was that building built for? ROSEMARIE WAGNER : We purchased the property in 2009 and we were told it was originally a what did they call it? RICHARD WAGNER : They called it a speak easy but it's, been on the property. Our original survey showed the cottage before the house was built like they showed wherethe house was going to be and the cottage was there. I mean that cottage is there if I'had to guess how old the building is I would say it's from the 1920's. MEMBER DANTES : Is that the original house on the property and then when they built a new house they left the existing structure? ROSEMARIE WAGNER : I think it was vacant land originally. RICHARD WAGNER : It was part of Charnews farm originally and in '78 it was divided up and sold off and houses were built, that's when our residence was built was '78 but the cottage was already there. ROSEMARIE WAGNER : Yeah vacant land except for the small cottage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so the record is complete, my notes show that ZBA 5232 November 6, 2003 approved a storage shed in the front yard and denied the conversion of a 408 sq. ft. one story accessory building for habitable space for family members plus added an 18 x 24 foot addition. At that time was already occupied by the owners mother, the history of the building was that it was a social club with a Pre CO for a non-habitable accessory structure but there are no documents available to show the accessory building was legally used as a pre-existing non-conforming dwelling. Then the new dwelling which is your house I believe was put on that lot when it became a four lot subdivision so that's kind of some of the background. You have submitted adequate documentation of principle ownership of the house, Board of Election, driver's license, Optimum bill, PSEG bill, affidavit of residence, income tax returns, STAR registration, birth certificate of your son and having said that we have a lease for$750 a month that's signed but undated. ROSEMARIE WAGNER : Yes because he's not living there until we get approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, several of us did inspection, anything from you Nick on this one? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom? Okay are we ready to close? 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 DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. We'll have a decision for you in two weeks. ROSEMARIE WAGNER :Thank you very much,thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearing to be held Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:00 am so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All I favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :✓Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held January 19, 2023 so moved. February 2, 2023'kegular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye " CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a third and final one year extension to #7137 SV Greenport LLC located at 58775 CR 48 in Greenport. This was with regard to the variance they receive for the sign that they wanted to put up. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a second one year extension to #7245 JoEllen Cortapasso at 4830 Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel so moved. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a 180 day we changed it we discussed it this morning of Condition No. 1 for 7688 North Fork Project LLC at 5775 West Mill Rd. in Mattituck. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.Then we have to add this F. Resolution to amend decision No. 7720 Orlofsky to permit lot coverage of 21.16%, all other conditions to remain. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Those are all of the formal things on the Agenda and I guess we can close the meeting. I'm going to make a motion to close the Hearings, close the meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries, the meeting is closed please lock the Zoom up. 1 February 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : February 13, 2023 J