HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/01/2023 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
------------------------------------7--------------------------------------------------
Southold Town Hall & Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing
Southold, New York
June 1, 2023
10:05 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member
ERIC DANTES—Member
ROBERT LEHNERT— Member
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member (Vice Chair)
KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant
JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney
ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant
DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Gwen Hyman and Andrew Carmellini #7776 3 - 9
Susan A. Forbes#7782 9 - 15
Henry and Ambriel Bostic#7777 15 - 18
Lucy Wohltman #7787 18- 22
The Endless Round, LLC/7785 Main Road Realty, LLC#7795SE 23 - 29
Pablo Peg, LLC#7781 30- 31
Nora Tuthill Glueck#7784 32 - 34
Timothy Pumillo#7791 34- 35
Eric H. Dorf#7783 36- 38
Mary McKay#7788 38-41
Felicia Tenedios#7785 42 -47
Melanie Belkin #7789 48-56
Maria Maroni #7790SE 56-62
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the
Zoning Board of Appeals for June 1, 2023. Please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Let us begin with the State Environmental Quality Reviews, Resolution declaring applications
that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as
Type'll Actions and are not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental
Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5c including the following: Hyman and Carmellini,
Forbes, Bostic, Wohltman, The Endless Round, Pablo Peg, Nora Tuthill Glueck, Pumillo, Dorf,
McKay, Tenedios, Belkin and Maroni so moved. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING #7776—GWEN HYMAN and ANDREW CARMELLINI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Gwen Hyman and.
Andrew Carmellini #7776. This is a request for variances from Article XXII, Section 280-
116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 31, 2023 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct alterations and additions to an
existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top
of the bluff, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 3)
located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 35 feet located
at 4565 Nassau Point Road (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. This is a bluff setback at
32 foot 2 inches where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet, side yard setback at 10.7
feet the code requiring a minimum of 15 and a combined side yard setback at 25 feet 7 inches
where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. It's LWRP exempt, am I getting this right Pat?
l
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Part said exempt the other part said I think it's setback to the bluff maybe
inconsistent. He had two but I couldn't
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I thought it's the other one that you're representing I think.
PAT MOORE : Okay I'll take the exempt.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also have Trustees approval on this.
PAT MOORE : The original decks were all permitted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right okay so what else would you like to enter into the record.
PAT MOORE : Thank you, first I believe my client Mr. Carmellini is on Zoom because I asked
one of them to be available in case I had an issue that I couldn't address and they have to
switch off based on their work schedule. Primarily the reason that we need variances are one
it's an existing house, the deck that at its closest point is a part of the CO'd structure but
because we're replacing the Building Department asked that we get the variance since we're
already coming to this Board for a variance I said ah what's one more so we this deck is
included in the variance. We purposely kept all activity within the footprint of the existing.
There's a little bit of record it's unclear let's say because the original house was built in 75',
76' and the deck that is the 32.2 was part of that C.O. The deck was extended to the north.
What shows is windows are actually one is still a window the other one is a sliding door on
the bedroom. The furthest to the east is I would say almost on grade because the topography
of the property goes up towards the north so the deck in front of that portion of the house is
showing as a new deck but it's for the most part eighty, ninety percent of it is on grade. Then
the grade drops a bit so the middle portion starts it needs some,height so it might be a foot or
two above grade as the topography changes. The original deck is I would say three to five less
than five three to four feet above grade. It's a little difficult it's very vegetated so when you're
looking at it it's hard to,tell but it was showing as a cross section on the 1975 elevations of the
original house that has not changed. The decking as it extended to the north the code was
very different, you could extend existing decking. Let's say it was done in the seventies,
eighties, my client bought the house it was as it is today so they did nothing. Everything
they've ever done has been with permits and we've tried to get permits in advance with the
Trustees for repairs to existing structures so that we could do it all within any permitting
requirements. As you came into the property you obviously noted that the elevations of the
property in the front you come in on the driveway and it's low so that it's a ranch with
finished lower floor so kind of an upside down house but has living space on the lower floor.
The driveway you come in and it's on grade at that point and then the primary level is what
would be a second floor from the garage level. I hope I'm describing it accurately for you but
June'1, 2023 Regular Meeting
the reason that the garage is placed where it is which results in- a need for a side yard or
combined side yard variance is that's where the grade exists and if we were to move it any
other place it would create a great deal more disturbance, excavation, removal of trees so the
addition has been placed in a location where it's already a cleared area. The sanitary system
has already been,permitted it's up on the north end, it got Trustees and Health Department
approval an&the reason for that was that there was a bedroom in the lower level that needed
to be we have to include the number of bedrooms that this house is presently a four
bedroom. So the size of the sanitary and the age of the house in the seventies required the
system to be inspected and upgraded. It was done under the prior regulations so it was
before the IA was required and it's all going to be conforming. I think I've addressed
everything. I would prefer to address any questions that you might have rather than recite
everything that you already have in writing.
MEMBER DANTES : Looking at the survey by Gary Bends Land Surveyor dated 10/28/2019
that's showing me a wood (inaudible) high wall and then an area labeled block which is on the
other side of the high wall, that says wood deck at 54 feet to the bluff it looks like. `
PAT MOORE : Let me find the right survey cause
MEMBER LEHNERT :That 54 is a contour line.
MEMBER DANTES : That's a contour line so you're saying the setback on that survey would
scale out to the 34 feet or the 32.4 that's shown on the site plan?
PAT MOORE : Yea they call it a timber wall it's really it's kind of at the top of the bank that's
where the bank starts to drop so we used that as a measurement. The Building Department
when Amanda was reviewing it that was her requested location so that's-the point that we
used for the setback. We were using the deck like straight on but because of the curve there
and the topography starts to change she asked for that location so we used that point. It's
actually a little more generous as you go directly behind the house but the topography there
because the original Carpenter Rd. the whole topography of the property kind of drops down
towards Carpenter Rd. Carpenter Rd. is a lower level and then there's kind of a it's not steep
it's more gradual but it does meet the code definition of a bank so that was the measurement
MEMBER DANTES : So is this a bank or a bluff?
PAT MOORE : It's kind of more of you know bluff/bank interchangeably. Nassau Point doesn't
really have a bluff, bluff is,the Sound it's more of a bank but we define both equally. You can
call it a bluff it's the same thing.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Well no cause the banks still require 100 foot setback so if it's a bank
(inaudible)
PAT MOORE : The Building Department does consider both no?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Usually Nassau Point is a bluff.
PAT MOORE : Oh they call it a bluff okay.
MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) Nassau Point is a bluff on the east side of Nassau Point.
PAT MOORE : (inaudible) definition bank, bluff so bluff then.
MEMBER DANTES :The angle of the slope
PAT MOORE : If it's more than twenty percent
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then it's a bluff.
MEMBER LEHNERT : He doesn't show the setback on the old survey but it scales out close to
PAT MOORE : We actually asked the surveyor specifically for that measurement, it was very
difficult.The delay here has been
MEMBER LEHNERT : Without putting a scale on it, it's give or take 32.
MEMBER DANTES My other question was, Carpenter Rd. is a paper road why are they
counting that as a side yard and not a front yard?
PAT MOORE : Because it's an unopened one of these Nassau Point questionable roads. I think
it's a right of way not a road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is.
MEMBER DANTES : So it's not a road I gotcha and then since it's not they don't access
(inaudible). My third question, is there a way to get a combined side yard setback?
PAT MOORE : No I asked the architect that specifically yesterday and what he explained to me
is that they're actually placing the garage in the lowest portion of the house. I mean you have
an existing house so the whole front has windows it's kind of a finished house. So you don't
want to block the entire structure and rooms and everything the windows by putting the
addition directly in front of it that's what I was trying to explain. You can see that it has steps
to the north side of the proposed garage, it steps up a platform another step another
platform that area is very, very hilly so it would have required a tremendous amount of
6
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
excavation plus the architectural features of the existing house would be completely modified
you would have to rebuild the front.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So to Eric's'point that was going to be a question of mine which
may be offset by the right of way to the south but why not a one car garage which would
allow basically a conforming combined side yard?
PAT MOORE : It's still not conforming, you'd add maybe ten feet so it would be 25 and a
combined is 35.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right so you would have 10 to the north and you'd have 25 to the
south.
r"
PAT MOORE : This is going to be their permanent home and they need the space, they're also
using the second floor as an addition to the house. So it would really impact their design, we
did everything we could to try to conform as much as possible but the lot width is 100.
MEMBER LEHNERT : They're all long and narrow lots.
PAT MOORE : All long narrow lots so it's really difficult
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In this case you actually have Carpenter Rd. which I think helps to
mitigate it but it's just a question I mean I understand the benefit of a two car garage over
one.
PAT MOORE : Well it's not just a garage it's the living space above so they're incorporating
both and the means of redesigning the house. The alternative would have been to really put
the whole addition in front and that's what I mentioned
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right to avoid. The second part of the question I wanted to ask is
relative to the music room above. There's an area that says built in lounge/sleeping and I'm
just curious how does that impact the existing septic or is that proposed to be used
PAT MOORE : No they count the design of the sanitary was meeting the current this design
because we knew this was the proposal and it was just a matter of getting through the
process so whether it's considered a family room or a bedroom we have the right number of
bedrooms for the sanitary system. 1 think it's just the way the architect labeled it more than
anything else.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just curious it was on A101.
PAT MOORE : Yea I'm looking at it, it says music room.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then above that it says built in lounge/sleeping.
PAT MOORE : I don't know why he labeled it, I mean I can get the client on board to answer
but it seems built in platform for storage something or other instruments. I mean it's just
architecturally what built ins. I mean the closet it relatively small I wouldn't make this a fancy
room. Their purpose is a music room so I don't know why they called it built in
lounge/sleeping. I didn't catch that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It could potentially read as a bedroom. I don't mean to make too
big of an issue of it with the powder room.
PAT MOORE : I would have to go back I mean I know that this plan got Health Department
approval so what the Health Department I mean if you want me to have them relabel it to just
a music room that's fine.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know how the other Members on the Board feel.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It doesn't matter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't matter as long it's got Health Department approval it's
their (inaudible) not ours.
MEMBER LEHNERT: What they want to call it.
MEMBER DANTES : It goes by you're allowed a certain number of rooms that aren't
(inaudible) and then they start counting.
PAT MOORE : I think though you're allowed like one family room and a living room, once you
go beyond well I'm not even sure you can even do an office.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) or three rooms.
PAT MOORE : I don't remember off the top of my head.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea you used to be able to call it like rec room or media room, they've
changed all that.
PAT MOORE : Right they've changed it more recently.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom who wants to address the Board?
Anybody in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or
comments I make 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.
HEARING#7782—SUSAN A. FORBES
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Susan A. Forbes#7782.
This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
the Building Inspector's February 13, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
lot line modification (conveyance of land) and to maintain a dwelling subsequent to a lot line
modification at 1) lot measuring less than the minimum code required lot size of 80,000 sq.
ft., 2) lot measuring less than the code required minimum lot width of 175 feet, 3) lot
measuring less than the minimum lot depth of 250 feet, 4) dwelling is located less than the
code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 1075 Narrow River Road and
1455 Narrow River Road in Orient. Pat did you just the thing we got from the Planning Board?
PAT MOORE : Yes thank you, yes I had met with the Planning Board and had expected this, I'm
glad they sent it in writing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We were trying to get them to send this before the hearing. Well
basically it's supportive of the application. So let me just quickly review the and of course this
will require Planning Board approval. We have a lot size at 16,447 sq. ft., we have a lot width
of 160.94 where 175 is the minimum. A lot depth of 82.60 feet where the code requires 250
feet and a rear yard setback on the dwelling of 33.5 feet the code requiring a minimum of 35
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
feet. So it's to convey from the Cohen property kind of a little rectangular piece sorry
triangular piece that will actually get rid of some encroachments of some infrastructure. Okay
let me turn it over to you Pat.
PAT MOORE : Thank you, as you pointed out probably the most important proactive measure
of this is putting the well on the property. So that was a very good solution to this result of
this lot line modification. We sent over a support letter from Betty Saderwaid
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got it.
PAT MOORE : Okay good. Again this is a non-conforming lot which is still non-conforming but
being made more conforming, any encroachments have been corrected by this lot line
modification. I will answer any questions that you might have so I can address whatever you
feel is important.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the existing lot is subject is 11,717 sq. ft.?
PAT MOORE : I actually have the lot area being 12,632 and we're adding 4,240 increasing it to
16,447.
MEMBER DANTES : Why do you have different numbers (inaudible)
PAT MOORE : I don't know why, existing lot 16 or 47 1 have the same one.
MEMBER DANTES : It says 11,717 (inaudible)
PAT MOORE : There was a change I don't know is that an old survey?
MEMBER DANTES : I have Woychuck's
PAT MOORE : The last revision was in March because we had to first there was an error on
Woychuk's survey that was caught and corrected. .
MEMBER DANTES : The smaller version is the one which (inaudible). I have no further
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
PAT MOORE : I have the last revision being March 16, 2023. That one should show 4,730 sq.
ft. conveyance.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MCGIVNEY : Mine was stapled to the N.O.D.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have the September one also.
MEMBER DANTES : You know what Pat, can you just give us one big copy of survey they can
stamp for the file?
PAT MOORE : Sure, this was delivered
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is it right here.
MEMBER DANTES : It's small this one shows both lots.
PAT MOORE : Kim has the correct one so if you need it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're alright this is the correct one. It is confusing we have three
of them.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Pat this is the first time I'm seeing the revised survey, can you
just do me a favor and walk me through the various setbacks. We're looking at a lot width
which should be 175.
PAT MOORE : Well no, I have a lot measurement here of 173.16 up at the top.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So walk me through this are we looking at the same map? So here's
the revision here, so where's the 173 I'm sorry.
PAT MOORE : If you look at the top of the page this line here that
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So they're using along the Cohen property
PAT MOORE : Yes that's the proposed line and then it goes down the side yard doesn't change
(inaudible)then along the road is 148.72 and then up 70.80.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that includes the little tail of 7.5 feet?
PAT MOORE : Well no I think it's 70.80 plus 7.5 okay and that takes you to the top where we
started.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then what I'm questioning though is on the Notice of
Disapproval unless I have the Notice that I have well actually Julie just gave me hers, March
20, so what I'm just curious here it states that the lot width would be 160.94 the numbers
don't jive from the Notice of Disapproval.
1:1
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : I think they took the center of the lot I don't know. I gave them this survey so I
don't know how they came up with
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would go by the survey Nick it's much more accurate.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The numbers here just don't meet (inaudible) on the Notice of
Disapproval.
PAT MOORE : I can't tell you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're going to use the numbers on the survey that's all.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Moreover it gets all of the separation from you're not going to
need a once this is blessed by the Planning Board it would appear that this pool does not need
a variance.
PAT MOORE : Correct, that was the location as an accessory structure was placed in such a
way so that we don't need another variance.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible)
CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure everybody knows what's happening here.
Anything from anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Is there somebody
on Zoom.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : Thank you, Members of the Board I'm here because I have some
concerns. First of all I received a copy of the Notice of this hearing on Saturday which I think
does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Board I'm just letting you know. I'm not
going to stand on that though as I have other concerns that are addressed. I happen to live
right next door and Orient has a very fragile water system and aquifer system as we all know.
If a variance does the Zoning Board take into account the impact of pools, additional pools on
the water quality and the water availability in making its decision?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ms. Holtzman the Zoning Board does not have a swimming pool
before it at the moment. It is proposed it does not exist. The only thing that is in front of us is
this conveyance of land to make this lot more conforming and to correct encroachments. In
general certainly environmental impacts are a big part of variance relief. This pool is placed in
such a way that it will not require a variance so the Board will not need to take any action on
it.
:1Z
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : But the acquisition of the property and first of all the maps that I see
show a pool. Secondly, the purpose of this acquisition seems to unless I'm misreading it
seems to be to support the construction of a pool. So how can you disregard the issue of the
impact of the pool on the water system,the water supply?
MEMBER DANTES : I'll answer, the honest answer it's a convenience for them. I mean they
have room. For the pool this is a convenience for the applicant cause if he wanted to put the
pool in the middle of the wood deck I mean he has full conforming locations to do it the way
it is now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me clarify it even further, the significant aspect ,of this
application is basically to correct the fact that there are structures that are actually not on
that belong to the dwelling that are not on the subject lot. They are on a part of the Cohen.
property and this will actually allow the applicant to purchase part of that property in order to
put all of her infrastructure on her own lot. So that's really what's before us. It will require site
plan approval from the Planning Board. It will require a lot line change it's really a-subdivision
approval and they've already entered into the record in their written commentary received
this morning that they are in support of this because it makes the lot more conforming and it
has no impact on the Cohen property which is extremely large.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : Right but I'm talking about the impact on my property which maybe
the Planning Board did not take into account that's a different story. You talked about
significant I'm not disagreeing with significant but there may be an insignificant or less
significant aspect which has to do with water quality and you're telling me that that's
something that you don't take into account although you said another point that
environmental issues are really important. Well which is it? I understand that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We take them into account when that is something that requires
relief from the Zoning Board then in fact we apply variance standards one of which is
environmental impact and because that is not before this Board. This Board cannot take any
action on this pool one way or the.other.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : Well isn't it in the drawings before you, I mean is this invisible writing
I'm seeing or what?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is but it's consistent.
PAT MOORE : I'm sorry to interject just for a moment I just clarified with the client, to begin
with well you're correct this is not an application for a pool. We my client has a shallow pool
proposed after this is all completed. It's going to be a Gunite pool which gets filled by a truck,
it's not using the aquifer to fill it.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat not to jump in but you can even just remove the pool from the
survey.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's not in front of us.
PAT MOORE : It's not in front of you cause it's not on the Notice of Disapproval. I think we
were concerned to make sure that because of her plans for a pool we wanted to be sure that
the lot line
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) we see it but I think the idea here is to get the well on
the subject property and
PAT MOORE : Yes that is the primary purpose.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) the shed I mean my question would be, why can't the
applicant make it conforming 80,000 sq. ft. lot which would be a really unusual shape
whether the neighbor the person that's yielding the land to you would allow that or not or
even more land but I think no matter how you look at it you end up with this strange triangle
but at least this makes it more conforming without making it unusually odd which enhances
the overall community. I feel maybe the neighbor Mrs. Holtzman has the opportunity to speak
but I think that we should just focus on the lot size and it's of course a pre-existing non-
conforming lot size and still would be but it's more conforming.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MCGIVNEY : The pool is also proposed it's not
PAT MOORE : Right it may never happen.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY MCGIVNEY : We can't make a decision on something that's
going to happen or not going to happen in future. Regardless it's not before the Zoning Board
so they absolutely cannot make a decision or have a say in what is going or not going to be on
the property other than the variance for the lot lines.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : Well if the variance didn't happen the pool wouldn't happen, is that
correct? So you can't really sort of say except in the most
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They can put a pool over the deck.
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : That's possible.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) conforming location so they have options.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are in a code conforming location as proposed alright but we
have to move on. I'm sorry with all due respect the pool is not before us and we are not able
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
to really do anything about it, it's being proposed as of right with a building permit in the
future and we can't make that determination we can't do anything about that. I think I
explained very clearly what is before us
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : Well I respect but I disagree you do have the authority and you're
just not looking at that issue that's all, you could.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Is there anybody else thank you for your comments, is there
anyone else who wants to address this application? Anybody else on Zoom? 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 we'll have a decision in two weeks.
HEARING#7777—HENRY and AMBRIEL BOSTIC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Henry and Ambriel
Bostic #7777. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
Inspector's December 15, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
legalize two (2) "as built" accessory sheds at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear
yard located at 5305 Narrow River Rd. in Orient. Enter into the record please your name.
HENRY BOSTIC : I'm Henry Bostic.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why in the world you are on Narrow River Rd. when you have to
be on Platt Rd.to get to your right of way beats me.
HENRY BOSTIC : Don't even ask me I don't know.
IS
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we've all been out there and we've inspected the property and
so on and there are two sheds there and the Building Department is considering them a front
yard where the code requires accessory structures to be in a rear yard. What would you like
us to this is considered to be LWRP inconsistent.
HENRY BOSTIC : But we did get an Administrative Permit from the Administrative Wetlands
Permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did?
HENRY BOSTIC : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you submit a copy of that for us? Or is it in the file here?
HENRY BOSTIC : They just sent it to me on May 5th no May 17th. The Resolution was May 17th
so I just got this in the mail.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the Resolution number?
HENRY BOSTIC : Resolution number
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we just make a copy of it here?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, Kim will make a copy of it.
HENRY BOSTIC : Other than what's stated in the application as you can see it's a relatively
large lot nearly 7 acres but the house was built at the very far end there which is both the
high ground but also as far as possible from all the wetlands. We proposed the location of the
sheds because that's where we enter so storing bikes etc. makes more sense there. The other
shed is a garden shed, that's where the garden is going to go. The only other place that would
be a designated rear yard would be in the corner by the pool and we're reserving that
location hoping to build a garage there at some point. It's also inconvenient in terms of going
in and out in terms of bikes (inaudible) etc. so the sheds are located next to the driveway in a
convenient locations. As far as you can tell most of that is obscured from view because most
of the property is wooded it doesn't show it on the survey here but the area between Platt
Rd. there and the sheds is also mostly wooded trees and bushes etc. I'm happy to take
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions on this one?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I have no questions. -
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Eric?
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nope, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you have any questions?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions it's a pretty benign application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There are two sheds there they're quite new.
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you,Trustees say an existing 10 x 10 shed and on our
application it's two sheds.
HENRY BOSTIC : The Trustees were only referring to the shed that was within 100 feet of the
wetlands which is the shed (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ah that makes sense.
MEMBER DANTES : To the one in the front?
HENRY BOSTIC : The one in the front I think it was 90 some feet rather than 100.
MEMBER LEHNERT : The one closest to the driveway is outside of their jurisdiction.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address this
application? Please come forward.
MAGGIE TRAKAS : My name is Maggie Trakas I own the property that abuts the Bostics and
over the course of the last seven or six years especially during the three year construction
process both of these sheds appeared they're brand new and certainly my concern is not with
the one that's closer to their driveway but with the one that is really part of the (inaudible).
So I'd be curious to see what that document says but rather than sort of go through the
laundry list of insults and sort of unpleasant aspects of their construction it (inaudible)
location very much speaks to the bigger way that they've operated on this property and
essentially disturbing the entire eco system. I'm not opposed to construction and renovation
but putting in a pool relative to the very serious issues of the water table in Orient, putting in
a shed brand new that could have been part of the original permitting process you know
would have allowed for addressing it's closeness to the bulrush and the wetland. None of that
was done, there's sort of this steamrolling mentality with a lot of entitlement. They've
disrupted you know wildlife corridors and dumped all of the excavation earth from the
building of their pool onto our small road which all four of us residents (inaudible) share the
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
responsibility of I mean many things. Essentially the shed is really encroaching I mean I'm very
curious to see that document because really it is in the bulrushes and it's about location
convenience for this family which doesn't take into the account the deep roots of the rest of
us that have lived there and tried to be very careful the way that we move. So my issue is that
that both of these sheds are brand new, they could have been better considered and I ask
that you do not grant this variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you for your comments. We also have your letter in
our record. Anyone else wishing to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom?
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. We'll have a decision in two weeks.
HEARING#7787— LUCY WOHLTMAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Lucy Wohltman #7787.
This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's
February 15, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an
accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard
located at 4955 Moores Lane in Cutchogue.
PAT MOORE : Dave Chicanowitz is the design professional'on this and yesterday he brought to
me this plan because when they were measuring out where the pool was originally proposed
there are two large trees and he marked them on the site plan, one is an existing 24 caliber
red oak and the other 24 caliber beech tree. They're two beautiful trees, he put a pictures of
them for us and the owners would really like who are here would like to retain them so that
necessitated moving the pool a little bit down by a few feet still maintaining 110 feet to Short
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
Rd. and 118 feet to Moores Lane and it's still considered a part of it is in the side yard. Also
because we have the two front yards anywhere you put a pool on this property is non-
conforming so it's a technical variance replacement and I apologize we didn't get this to you
earlier. As I said it just came to me yesterday and I said well that's not going to help us any so
I'm delivering it today. You can see from the survey that was submitted as part of the
application we are maintaining the same side yard setback of 15 feet and it just pushes it
down pretty much where the patio was originally was proposed it just moves the pool itself
down in the area where the patio was originally was detailed on the survey. The property is
quite large as you can see, only 8.4% lot coverage, the pool and pool equipment will have the
appropriate drainage that the code requires and that will be he shows the dry well over on
the north side to capture any runoff from the surrounding property surrounding area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just looking to see on the landscape plan it's great that we have
this there's no legend so it's very hard
PAT MOORE : (inaudible) I think (inaudible),if you need it further as far as what detailing what
type of landscaping
MEMBER DANTES : You're just asking if they can label this evergreen screening?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only thing I had a comment on was because it is going to be
visible from you know part of the driveway and so on that certainly some privacy screening
something anybody would want you don't put in a pool and want to be visible to all of your
neighbors driving by and it would appear that that's the intent of this but because there is no
legend I don't know if that's hedgerow I don't know how tall it is I don't know.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I do know a little bit about this property and the property adjacent
property to the south I believe is not buildable for some reason is to remain. I knew the old
owners.
PAT MOORE : Are we talking about the Case property?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes
PAT MOORE : Okay I know it's pretty (inaudible) over there but I don't I know Mr. Case called'
and just checked to make sure that we weren't affecting his property and I said no we're
maintaining our setback and he just wanted me to know that he was the owner of that piece.
I said yes thank you. We actually on the north side it's the Country Club so we really our
neighbors are across the street on Short Rd. and we have wetlands across Moores Lane so
this is really kind of a little peninsula of a house at the end. I know that there is yes both side
of the road have privet hedge and I know it was a challenge for me to post this property
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
because everything is hedge so as far as visible from the road the existing privet hedge does
provide for a great deal of privacy for this property.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat question, how deep is the proposed pool?
PAT MOORE : Isn't it a lap pool, um
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought I`saw something to 5 feet from Bob Brown.
PAT MOORE : Max 5 yea.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My only concern is the depth to water. I mean that location has
severely flooded that property.
PAT MOORE : Well I did ask Dave about that and it's actually the property I think because of
when the house was built it's a little bit mounded up so the elevation of the land and in
particular where this pool is going to be is a little bit higher so we should have enough depth
to ground water. As far as flooding goes again it's the property is I don't want to say raised
significantly because it's very gradual.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The house is there that actually flooded I believe but you're not
proposing to build the pool up in like a berm or
PAT MOORE : No it's the way it was described by Dave was its higher but it's not a berm it's
really maybe the coping will be they'll be able to see the coping when you're far away it's just
inches.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a matter of inches not
PAT MOORE : Yea I mean the whole property is anywhere from ten to eighteen inches from
existing grade.
MEMBER LEHNERT : The only time I've ever seen that property come close to flooding was
Hurricane Sandy.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but the whole house was (inaudible)
PAT MOORE : That wasn't the house-that was the Cases's property and the (inaudible)
MEMBER LEHNERT : It never made it to the house.
PAT MOORE : I don't believe we were very concerned about that.
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : It was close but it never made it, like I said I knew the old owner. The
pool equipment is that going to be in a sound deadening enclosure?
PAT MOORE : It looks that way yes pool equipment box. That's my client answering Lucy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other questions from any of the Board Members, anybody on
Zoom Liz?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Leslie the only thing I think that we would really need is an
updated signed and stamped site plan to illustrate the drywell and (inaudible).
PAT MOORE : Do you need because Dave Chicanowitz prepared this he's not an engineer so
MEMBER LEHNERT : Landscape architect anyone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He has someone on his staff I believe that has
PAT MOORE : If not I have to send it back to the surveyor and have him plot it I don't know
but I will see if
MEMBER LEHNERT : We just need something signed for the file.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you want to say something ma'am?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to address the application?Yes you can, go right up
to the microphone and you tell us your name.
TRINA WALDRON : My name is Trina Waldron I'm at 300 Short Rd. which is the property and
my driveway are directly opposite and my reason for being here is twofold. I wrote a letter
and I brought pictures of flooding so you would have a better idea. If they have the right to
have a pool there I welcome them I don't even know them yet but I am concerned about if
the pool is flush to the ground these pictures will give some indication where the water goes
right through that property. Chemicals could mix with that pool water and get out and so is
there any possibility you know that this could be ammeliated by
MEMBER LEHNERT : Is this a salt water pool or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a salt water pool.
TRINA WALDRON : Yea but the salt water pool of course produces (inaudible). Anyway, but
there'll still be chemicals in the pool. So what I'd like to see would it be possible to have some
kind of drainage around the pool so there would never be a problem? The other thing that I
want to bring, if you looked at the property she's right it's raised and then there's a deck
z:t
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
running north to south I put it all in the letter which I was unable to deliver in time because
another graduation I have three this month. That was fill five trucks of fill that the (inaudible)
put in actually to raise that part of the property that's where it originated. Now I don't know
how stable fill is but I want to see this I think they're entitled to a pool, I have no objection to
the pool I just want them to (inaudible) that's all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well usually there's a standard thing for pool drainage is there's a
dry well that's proposed for pool de-watering.
TRINA WALDRON : Well when the water comes out of the creek across the road on that
property that's an awful lot of water to put in a dry well.
i
MEMBER DANTES : No you won't be able to put that in a dry well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just going to wrap this up, I'm sorry to interrupt you but we
have an arraignment the judge has to come in here.
TRINA WALDRON : Can I leave this for you, would that be alright?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please submit it, we'd like to read it. Thank you very much and
your photos too. I make a motion to close the hearing subject to submission of a site plan. 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene.
MEMBER DANTES : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7795 SE—THE ENDLESS ROUND, LLC/7785 MAIN ROAD REALTY, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for The Endless Round,
LLC/7785 Main Road Realty, LLC#7795SE. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article
III Section 280-488(6) to establish and operate a fully enclosed commercial recreation facility
at 7785 Main Rd. in Mattituck.This is to operate a facility for a golf simulation?
PAT MOORE : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all inspected it, we've been inside and this does not require
site plan approval from the Planning Board.
PAT MOORE : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim did you say we were waiting for comments from them
anyway?
PAT MOORE : You received no site plan required from the Planning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I think they're going to send us comments but
MEMBER DANTES : Is this 7785 or 7795?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 7795 is the Special Exception and 7785 is the address, 7795 SE is
the application number that I have.
PAT MOORE : The address is 7785 that's what was confusing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The address is 7785, the application is 7795SE. What else would
you like us to know about this? We've reviewed all the documents in the file, it's a 6,400 sq.
ft. building conversion built in 1988 1 think.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Correct, the Suffolk Times Newspaper. I know you've all most of you not all of
you have been inside the building. Before I proceed let me introduce to you the two of the
three the third is on Zoom, we have Brian and we have Dan here. John Michael is on Zoom
and they are the partners, members of The Endless Round LLC. If you want to or have
questions I would put on the record how this recreational use functions. If you need it I will
defer to them for a very quick description of how the golf simulation works and the very
specialized tracking that he was explaining to me and I would never be able to repeat. So who
wants to be the one to present go ahead,this is Brian.
BRIAN ZISSEL : Good morning Brian Zissel, thanks for having us today. Dan, John Michael and
myself all born and raised in Southold went to Southold High School raising our kids here now.
We're excited to bring a recreational opportunity to the Town of Southold for people of all
ages. It's completely enclosed (inaudible) trackman simulation bays, fifteen to seventeen foot
screens and you hit a golf ball into the screens. So if you've ever watched PGA golf on TV after
a golfer hits it you see a yellow line behind the ball that's a trackman radar that's set up
behind the golfers. It's two Doppler radars that work and sync all of the different statistics of
the shot. So essentially this is an opportunity to create recreation for people of all ages, the
serious golfer and the not serious golfer. You can play closest to the pin capture the flag or
Pebble Beach completely your choice. This is just an opportunity for my partners and I to
bring a recreational opportunity to the town.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can see how many times you wind up in the sand trap.
BRIAN ZISSEL : Every single time for me, I love the beach.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How wide are the fairways.
BRIAN ZISSEL : Not wide enough.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's no exterior change proposed is that correct?
BRIAN ZISSEL : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is a B Zoned property.
PAT MOORE : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is very straightforward as far as I'm concerned. Let's see if the
Board has any questions, Nick we'll start with you.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions, just really kind of a statement. I think the required
parking is twenty five spaces, I counted an excess of twenty six plus there's additional parking
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
by the little court that's in the back.. So it would seem to be regardless of what hours of
operation with the limited numbers of bays even if your application mentioned there will be
multiple people playing it would seem that you have sufficient parking which would be a big
concern for anyone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably why site plan approval is not required.
PAT MOORE : I do see Gail here, we did receive yesterday by email and I think you did as well,
a letter regarding the existing tennis court in the back which by the way has a C of 0. 1 don't
know if any of you went back there to look but it is a cement concrete structure and when I
looked back at the Building Department records, at the time it was built it needed a variance
from this Board variance 4069 but only because he was lit and the Board granted that the
owner at the time the lighting of the tennis he called it a paddle court as long as the lights
were turned off by 10 PM. So that was part of the Board's decision the conditions of the
decision. The tennis court they called it a tennis court, it's a paddle court it is my clients are
the tenants of this property so we have no control over the structure itself. We can certainly
maintain it so that it's not dangerous and it can be used but we have no right to commit
anything or on behalf of the owner with respect to its continued maintenance there or
preservation of it there. That is something that the adjacent owner would have to address
with the owner who is Ilgin owns the gas stations.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat I didn't see this letter.
PAT MOORE : It came yesterday.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have it.
PAT MOORE : Oh just for me? Are you planning to discuss it? Oh I apologize, I did not
understand I thought you would be getting it.
MEMBER DANTES : It's there it's legalized.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen this was employees hung out and played.
MEMBER DANTES : I prefer if these types of applications didn't come before us.
PAT MOORE : I didn't want to leave it unanswered only because I don't want to create some
of the requests that in the letter we don't want to have any conditions imposed with regard
to the use here. We have it's a B Zone, we're going to do whatever the code allows us to do
which means accessory,complimentary. We may have a picnic table in the back for the staff
or people that are there might want to smoke or might want to snack. We just didn't one of
the requests that was made to us was a condition that no outdoor use and that's a very
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
generic request and we certainly did not want to have any type of condition like that. The
primary use here as has been described to you is it's all inside but you know ultimately
whatever the zoning would allow in the future we don't want to have that limitation. A
Special Permit allows this recreational use and I guess I will respond to anything that is
discussed but the letter I received asked for some concessions that were self-imposed
regarding a tennis court that we really have no control over. I'll let Gail speak for herself and
I'll reply as needed. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gail do you want to go ahead?
GAIL WICKHAM : Yes, I received very late yesterday the application so I just wrote a quick
letter to Pat which really I thought she might be able to answer. Let me just explain, I
represent FHB LLC who is the adjoining neighbor to the west. I raised a clarification as to what
was going to happen with the platform tennis court which years ago you did grant a variance
for. It was operated for a long time by an official non for profit corporation a group of people
that played and at this point I just confirmed with someone who was involved with it that it is
not operational may not even be usable. So I was asking for clarification as to how that fit into
this application for a Special Exception because there was no mention of it in the application. I
believe the ZBA at that time required that it be used for-non-commercial purposes as a non-
profit. So that was what I was asking Pat for and I do think that if it is going to be (inaudible)
or there will be other outside uses just that that would be something that the Board may have
to review again or perhaps the Planning Board. I was just trying to clarify that the application
today is for what is proposed in the building. ,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's all that's before us,today.
GAIL WICKHAM : My main concern in raising the question about the platform tennis court is
that when it was built it was built over the line and encroaching on my, client's property
former owner not the current owner. Mr. Gustayson who owned the subject property at the
time did sign a waiver to any adverse claims. So if there was any plan,of further use or further
development of that platform tennis court first of all I wanted to make sure that Pat advised
the owners of that waiver if (inaudible) and 'also question you as to whether that would be
addressed. I cannot read the survey that was sent because it was too small as to what it says
about the platform tennis court. Maybe someone can tell me on a larger scale, it does
encroach over almost a foot and a half onto the property next door and there are no setbacks
to speak of. That was all, I'm not trying to be antagonistic (inaudible) find out what the plan is
if there is a plan for that building that it be addressed separately. The other thing that the
application did say was that it was a partial use area, there are two residential uses in my
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
clients property adjoining two rented legal apartments. We'd also like to confirm that any
lighting be dark sky compliant and that was about it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob? -
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just to clarify something that Gail said because the site plan is not
required everything exists the lighting etc. is that within our discussion? It seems that it's
outside what we're here for today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're here strictly for the use being proposed for that building.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There are no changes to the exterior.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would presume it's dark sky compliant anyway because that
building isn't that old and if there's any lighting at all there has to be some lighting for the
parking lot.
PAT MOORE : It actually had as part of the ZBA application it was like a fluorescent that goes
in as part of the fence enclosure which is still there. The court is still functional it needs
cleanup I mean it's been just leaves and the steps going up have deteriorated so that's just
steps cause their family their kids play there right now. It would work as a pickle ball court
probably because that's more of the size it is but it's the primary use here is what we've come
before the Board for. I just don't want to have any conditions thrown in to this business use
that are really
MEMBER LEHNERT : If there were (inaudible) issues they would have tagged it already.
PAT MOORE : It has a C of 0 and at the time that the permit for the'tennis court was issued it
got a building permit, it had a proposed site plan but the Building Department at the time did
not ask'for as built surveys so that's I think what happened is it got built a little off kilter and it
is very heavy vegetated over there so you really can't tell where a property line is so they
eyeballed it they didn't get it right. So that's the end result of not getting a survey but that
was then. There was a not claim letter that must have been part of a previous title transfer
cause Gustayson did sign a no claim but that was the letter that was submitted just said
make no claim of right, nothing more nothing less so there was nothing like I won't fix it, I
won't maintain it, none of those conditions were placed on it. We can acknowledge that it
was built there and that there's no claim of right but it's a pretty substantial structural tennis
court with cement and
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I would still say there's no proposed exterior alterations beyond
our
PAT MOORE : Right my concern was what conditions you might throw into this Special Permit
that can affect us when this tennis court is there and
MEMBER LEHNERT : The tennis court has a C. 0. it's legal.
PAT MOORE : Okay I never know what I might get after the decision is written I just wanted to
be sure that it was on the table so that we didn't have interfering with our business plan.
Thank you.
GAIL WICKHAM : Two things that I want to clarify briefly, no question is to dark sky
compliance as to the entire property not just to the platform tennis court because I do know
the Board is concerned about dark sky compliance and I would hope that the owners would
agree that that is something that they would comply with on the building itself if it's not
already. The building has been there quite some time. The second thing is, I just want the
Board to understand a platform tennis court is not on the ground, it's not comparable to a
pickle ball court, it is elevated. It is elevated by at least five to six feet,in some places so it is a
concern you know just what would be happening over there that was all. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else, anything from you Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom?Anybody in the audience who wants to
address this application further? Okay, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing
reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? Subject to comments from Planning.
Planning is probably going to just reiterate what they've already told us which is that it
doesn't require site plan approval. We can do that if you no big deal.
PAT MOORE : My only concern is I don't know what comments and we have no I mean if they
say something that is out of sorts how do I
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think Kim said she had a conversation with Brian Cummings.
PAT MOORE : Okay as long as it says no issue I have no issue but if it starts going into any
elaborate conditions I would ask to be given an opportunity to reply.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look what I can do is adjourn this to the Special Meeting in
two weeks.
PAT MOORE : I don't want to hold up the application that's my only concern.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) hold up our decision then I don't want to do that.
PAT MOORE : Exactly cause we've been waiting. I think they have an obligation to get this
before this Board and the public hearing so if other than the no problem I would ask that any
comments just be at this point too late.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't think we can do that. I can't ask for comments and
then say
PAT MOORE : (inaudible)jurisdiction
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We have a verbal from Brian Cummings that there's no issue. I
mean it's a benign application and as Eric stated earlier the same thing happened with
Peconic Community School and it's sort of I wish the guys weren't here.
PAT MOORE : I know I think it's benign and I will assume it's benign.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a verbal and I don't think the comments are going to be
(inaudible) I'm just going to close the hearing reserve decision.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
r
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.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7781— PABLO PEG, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Pablo Peg, LLC #7781.
This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's
February 8, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an
accessory in-ground swimming pool and to legalize an existing shed (under 100 sq. ft.) at 1)
swimming pool located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) "as built" shed located
in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 375 Reydon Drive in Southold. Is there
someone here to represent that?
JEN DELVAGLIO : Hi Jennifer DelVaglio for East End Pool King representing my clients Pablo
Peg, LLC. Basically the reason that we're asking for the pool to be located in a non-conforming
is because we did go before the Trustees to put the pool in the back yard and it was not
favorable for them to have the pool there so we decided to move to the front yard as the
other option.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So tell me what happened with the Trustees, they wanted it
moved?
JEN DELVAGLIO : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did they issue anything in writing or no? In other words they just
told you they weren't going to approve it as proposed.
JEN DELVAGLIO : So we started in the side yard and it was running parallel to what's shown on
the survey as the wood deck and that was within their 100 feet jurisdiction so they didn't
want to see it there''they wanted us to start moving it back towards the front yard so we
ended up taking out of the side yard completely because it was getting really tight and
congested back there so we pushed it to the front yard. They did not issue a letter though.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to ask to clarify that.- So this was the pre-
submission site inspection?
JEN DELVAGLIO : It was.
MEMBER DANTES : Out of their jurisdiction.
JEN DELVAGLIO : I am out of their jurisdiction.
MEMBER DANTES : The only think I don't understand is if it's waterfront you're a code
conforming allowed to put (inaudible) waterfront.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was my opinion about the Orient application earlier.
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think however wetlands are not necessarily considered
waterfront. Whether they should be or not that's another story, it's Trustees jurisdiction but
we do have a lot of properties with you know wetlands, big ponds, vernal ponds, marsh and
Trustees obviously chime in on it and but they're not considered
MEMBER LEHNERT : If this was on the bay we wouldn't even consider it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Plus it's almost 90 feet back from the road so it meets the minimum
front yard setback:
MEMBER LEHNERT :Just because it's a freshwater yea that's why you're here.
MEMBER DANTES : I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
i
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
1
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? Anyone in the audience wanting to
address the application? 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.
1
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7784—NORA TUTHILL GLUECK
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Nora Tuthill Glueck
#7784. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-
124 and the Building Inspector's December 2, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a pre-existing seasonal yacht
club and to legalize an "as built" accessory shed at 1) prop-osed construction located less than
the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) proposed construction located
less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) "as built" accessory shed
located in the non-permitted side yard located at 1400 Old Harbor Rd. (adj. to Cutchogue
Harbor) in New Suffolk.
LENA DESANTIS : Hi I'm Lena DeSantis I'm representing Nora.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a side yard setback at 11 feet 10 inches the code
requiring a minimum of 15. We have a rear yard setback at 11.3 feet where the code requires
a minimum of 50 and an the existing shed has a side yard setback at 6.5 feet, the code
requiring a minimum of 10. According to what we have in our record it's LWRP exempt for the
setbacks and inconsistent for the shed. You have Trustees approval for additions to the
clubhouse from 2022?
LENA DESANTIS : Yes, the original permit is to the roof is falling apart in the clubhouse. The
clubhouse has been there we in going through the whole thing we needed to get a C. 0. its'
been there pre 1951 and in doing this in getting the C. 0. we had to go in front of the ZBA. So
we're requesting that the clubhouse stay where it is. Really it's the configuration of the site is
small and we really need an area for it's a seasonal yacht club for junior sailing and the kids
need an area to really layout their sails and layout their masts to be able to rig their boats. So
by moving to move anything we lose quite a bit of an area because the road goes in between
the two properties. The shed is also there's it's not showri on this but there's greenery that
hides the shed from the road and the view shed as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all been out to the property so we've certainly seen that
high hedgerow that's there. The Notice of Disapproval says the shed setback is 6.5 feet, the
site plan is showing 5 foot 6 am I right? Maybe I've got the wrong setback. Please state your
name.
DEON LYNCH : Deon Lynch from Old Cove Yacht Club. The 6 foot 6 is to the property line, the
5 foot 6 connection is to the right of way which is not the property line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that clears that up. So the 5.6 is to the right of way thank
you. I mean it's clear that that side yard for the shed is actually the gravel driveway, there's
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
some storage lockers side yard I guess the rear yard is the water. This is not generally open to
the public,this is a membership club?
LENA DESANTIS : It is a membership club.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many on-site parking spaces do you have there for cars, I
mean driving there? I presume most people will be driving there.
LENA DESANTIS : It's just pick up and drop off so people don't normally park for the day. The
pick-up and drop off is along the road and there's a town beach right there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that town beach used by town residents, do you need a permit?
LENA DESANTIS : You do, you need a sticker. There's parking for folks that have a sticker they
just park on the road further on. Again it's just during pick-up and drop off for the kids.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That does it for me, Pat anything from you any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric
MEMBER DANTES : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to further address the
application? Is there anybody on Zoom. Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing
reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
.3-
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7791—TIMOTHY PUMILLO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Timothy Pumillo
#7791. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's March 7, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
demolish a porch and rebuild as new living space in an existing single family dwelling at 1)
located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 835
Legion Ave. in Mattituck. Would you state your name please.
TIMOTHY PUMILLO : Tim Pumillo
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a front yard setback of 15 foot 8 inches where the code
requires a minimum of 35 feet.
TIMOTHY PUMILLO : So there was an existing structure there and we just wanted to rebuild it
to (inaudible) the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this was a porch?
TIMOTHY PUMILLO : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no expansion of that footprint?
TIMOTHY PUMILLO : No same size.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all been out there and we've seen it, we've seen the
property so we've looked at it, we looked around we know the street. So it's boarded up now
sort of under construction?
TIMOTHY PUMILLO : We have been issued a building permit and then we got a Stop Work
Order and it's been like that since so'it was like
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess they realized it was non-conforming they issued the permit
and then said oops.
TIMOTHY PUMILLO : Yea basically.
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if anybody has any questions, (inaudible) like a sunroom
or open porch to be habitable space on the inside.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : By memory we granted similar relief right around the corner, it's
under renovation right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did right on the same street. Anyone in the audience want to
address the application?There is nobody on Zoom so I'm going to make a motion to close the
hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. What we'll do is we have another meeting coming up on two
weeks you can Zoom in on it, if you want you can come over to the Annex around 5 o'clock.
We have draft decisions written up and then we talk about them and we vote on them. As
soon as we vote on them I go in the next day and sign it and that legalizes is and then it has to
go over to the Town Clerk's Office but we will mail you a copy. You can also call the office and
say what happened you know but you will get a copy in the mail sent to your home. It's not a
hearing, the hearing is closed but if you want to listen to us talk about it then it's open to the
public so you can do whatever you like. Motion to recess for lunch.
MEMBER DANTES : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene.
MEMBER DANTES : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7783—ERIC H. DORF
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Eric H. Dorf #7783.
This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's
February 2, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct
additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code
required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 620 North,Drive (adj. to Mattituck
Creek) in Mattituck. So it's a side yard setback at 10.2 feet, the code requiring a minimum of
15 feet.
MIKE KIMACK : Good afternoon, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. This might have
been the address that you were not able to find. I couldn't find it the first time I went there
either.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I went down the wrong right of way, there's two right next to
each other. Fortunately there's a cut over I didn't have to go all the way back cause I'm
standing there and I'm seeing this house over there and I'm saying that's the house. That's
why we get pictures. I walked over.
MIKE KIMACK : My client proposes to put a second addition on the backside of the house in
order to create two additional bedrooms. There are two bedrooms in the existing house at
the present time. It goes no closer than the existing first floor on that one side yard setback
on the 10.2 which has a C of 0 for it. Then that little section on the other side is closed off but
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
that's still that's not part of it we're outside on the minimum setback on that side. As you can
tell when you visited the site it's a very tight piece of property, there really isn't many places
that you can expand laterally and he basically just wants to be able to add two additional
bedrooms for the family. I'm not quite sure if you're aware but he had already installed an IA
system.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didnit know that.
MIKE KIMACK : You wouldn't see it, it would be on the opposite side if you're going down
looking at the backside of the house it would be on the left hand side. He was able to
convince the next door neighbor to be able to come in from that direction and go across the
front of the property to put it in. When I looked at it I said, how the hell did you get that in
there
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Really
MIKE KIMACK : and that's.how he got it in so it already has the IA system in place.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's good. The house is not even parallel to the property line it's
more like a corner of the house that's really impacted. It gets bigger as it goes
MIKE KIMACK : It gets bigger as it goes away primarily in that particular side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's quite an amazing property those boulders are really something.
MIKE KIMACK : When I first saw it I agree with you, it's amazing how they were able to
develop it and they did a very nice job.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a very good landscape architect that's for sure. It's a very
private piece of property. I don't really have any questions this is pretty straightforward, let's
see if anybody else does Pat do you have any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob
MEMBER LEHNERT : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's nobody on Zoom. Okay motion to close the hearing
reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
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#7788— MARY MCKAY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mary McKay #7788.
This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116A(1)
and the Building Inspector's December 27, 2022 amended January 3, 2023 and February 15,
2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to reconstruct an accessory
in-ground swimming pool with deck and to install an accessory solar panel heating system for
the swimming pool at 1) pool located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the
bluff, 2) solar panel system is located in other than the code required rear yard located at 450
Castle Hill Rd. (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. So the proposed setback from the
bluff is 80 feet 3 inches and the code requires a minimum of 100 and solar panel system is in a
side yard is that correct Mike?
MIKE KIMACK : That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the pool that exists there now is 20 by 40 and you want to put
ina15by50.
MIKE KIMACK : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's no increase or the bluff setback remains the same?
MIKE KIMACK : The bluff setback stays the same except for the extension with the decks on
that one. It's a very interesting piece of property. The bluff is well vegetated, if you happen to
have an opportunity to walk out there but it's very hilly going up there. There's a lot of just it
well grassed going up we knew we weren't be able to get much closer obviously there hasn't
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
been any impact on the bluff as a result of this pool.The solar panel is the only place we really
can put it in that location in order to generate the energy necessary to heat the pool.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Quick question to that point, why are you not placing it on the roof
of the dwelling?
MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure if she wants it there quite frankly Nick. Looking at the pool
itself it's just been a new roof some people simply don't like to put it up on the roof itself. I'm
not quite sure quite frankly, it's a good question I didn't look at an alternative from the fact
that whether or not they'd have as much room it's a fairly extensive amount of solar array.
I'm not quite sure if that would be able to be accommodated on the roof line as it now exists.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we have well we can look at pictures but it would
depend on which way the ridge is running, which way the gable runs. See the thing is that that
big berm along the edge of the bluff you know the crest is rolling backward toward the
dwelling so there isn't going to be any runoff over the bluff.
MIKE KIMACK : No none at all.
MEMBER DANTES : So you're saying that the existing pool matches the bluff setback of the
proposed pool?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes except Eric where it extends off to that northeasterly side which is more
deck than anything else. It comes a little bit closer from the deck point of view. I think the
original it's 84.6 to the pool corner and I think it was the old one was 84 or 86 basically and
the only reason for the difference is that we're going from a 20 by 40 pool to a 15 by 50 pool
and keeping it on that same line it got a little closer when we extended it to the northeast.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to need Trustees yea?
MIKE KIMACK : Gotta go to Trustees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They shouldn't have a problem with it. We do have to have that
determination that we have to have. What Kim?
BOARD SECRETARY : (inaudible)
MIKE KIMACK : I understand. Well you have that two week window in order to obtain it
before your Special.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sure we'll have it by then. I can just close it subject to receipt
because even if they find it inconsistent we have to find ways to mitigate so and Trustees
1
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
approval will be one mitigation. It's not like it's going to change an outcome one way or the
other.
MIKE KIMACK : I didn't look at this as being totally controversial in its makeup in terms of
what she was trying to achieve.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike going back to the solar panels, are they being placed at grade,
how elevated are they, is it being used as a shed or (inaudible)?
MIKE KIMACK : I'm sure that they have to elevate it looking at the northeast and the position
they're on they'll probably be elevated what do you figure two or three feet on the backside
Nick roughly the panel itself coming off the grade? They really given the fact that they're
basically facing it would probably be elevated back towards the road in order to get the most
from the sun on that particular side.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So following sort of the terrain as it raises north with the rear yard.
It's not meant to be a pergola or some other?
MIKE KIMACK : No just the array.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Similar to what we see when you're driving on Edwards Ave. in
Riverhead.
MIKE KIMACK : Not as large but something like that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions on this one?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No other than the fact there was no sign put up, a statement not a
question.
MIKE KIMACK : Yes it was.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No sign on the property.
MIKE KIMACK : When were you there?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yesterday
MIKE KIMACK : Oh, I had it up and I have the picture.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well we had the wind storm the other day.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sometimes things get blown down.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : I do apologize Pat I normally go back and tend to check to make sure I haven't
lost them along the way. I didn't get back to this one I apologize.The photo was submitted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was posted, sometimes people put them in the weirdest places.
You can drive right by it.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : They're too small.
MIKE KIMACK : I can only say that Riverhead and I don't recommend it, but Riverhead uses a
24 by 36 and generally
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's harder to post but easier to see.
MIKE KIMACK : It's easier to see, harder to post use two posts instead of one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing
CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the
application? It looks like nobody is on Zoom. I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing
reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
41
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7785—FELICIA TENEDIOS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Felicia Tenedios
#7785. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-104C(1), Article XXIII
Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 28, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based
on an application for a permit to construct a deck addition attached to an existing single
family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15
feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet,
3) proposed steps projecting to the street more than the permitted 15 feet, located at 315
Sound Ave. in Peconic. Would you state your name please.
ROBERT SAETTA : My name is Robert Saetta agent for Felicia Tenedios.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this deck addition has a side yard setback at 5 feet where the
code requires a minimum of 10. Then we have a combined side yard setback at 19.9 feet
where the code requires a minimum of,25. Then the deck steps are at .8 feet from the street
line,the code requires a 16 foot minimum.That summarizes the variances.
ROBERT SAETTA : The front deck is going to be 8 feet, that 8 foot falls between into the
twenty percent average on that block. So with the variance it was going before (inaudible) the
size of the deck is only 8 feet. The only way to access it was a set of stairs without losing too
much of the deck, it's only an 8 foot deck. The whole house is very small. We have a permit
right now work in progress where I removed the front portion of the roof and the wall that
divided the kitchen and the living room to create one larger room is only like 18 by 25. Then
with the 8 foot deck on the front it would give a little bit of living enjoyment area for a very
small house which again at the same time give you a water view looking down the street
towards Goldsmith's Inlet sitting on the deck. Now to access the deck a set of stairs would
chop too much of the deck off if we stay contained in that 8 foot distance. That's why we
wanted to put a set of stairs running out the front. That was the one point they said you need
variance which we're here for and as it is right now there is a 4 foot landing projecting off the
side of the house that has a set of steps that go towards the street, that side entrance
accesses the kitchen. So what we wanted to do is then take and continue that don't go any
further out than the 4 foot we'd just make 4 foot catwalk down the side of the house passed
where the landing is now at the kitchen door and then have the stairs go down to the back
yard which would then bring you closer to proximity to the garage like say in the winter
months cause this is going to be a year round residence for Felicia. To access the house easily
when you pull in the winter months you pull into the garage go out the side garage door very
short walk across the back yard and then up the stairs and into the kitchen. It would also then
join the front deck to the kitchen and give a nice wraparound movement because the house is
Z
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
now elevated six feet above the ground so the deck would function very well then giving you
access to the kitchen and to the bathroom when you're entertaining on the deck you
wouldn't have to go up and down stairs. It's a very small lot as every house on that whole
street is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's nothing conforming on any
ROBERT SAETTA : At the end of the street there's a house that has the deck goes past the
property line so it's nothing that's in any way out of line with that area in any way at all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just ask you a question, when we went out there you had
some stakes on the property
ROBERT SAETTA : That was the deck and the stairs.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So my question is, I can see where the deck was clearly, the two
stakes that are the closest to the road okay I presume that's the steps and is that are they
staked where the steps would begin to go up to the deck?
ROBERT SAETTA : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So it's interesting because the survey doesn't really show like
where the road is, where the property line is, they're talking about the property line but the
visual appearance then is going to be setback a lot farther than what the actual where the
property is there's a big shoulder and then there's the you know kind of private road.
ROBERT SAETTA : I don't understand how that's all working out because if you look at the
property lines and I went down and checked everything measured all the houses cause a lot
of surveys they had there was additions and things that were done that weren't even shown
on the surveys on the other houses and even the house next to us they have a well just on
their property for their house. All those bushes that everybody has and fences that go all the
way down that street are like 8 feet past their property lines. I don't know how that works, is
it a private road? I asked all the other neighbors and anybody if there's a committee there,
usually if it's a private road you pay road taxes and you're responsible for that road. There is
no granted that the property lines are always short of where everything is developed to on
the entire road that makes any impact on anything but as I said if you look at the houses up
and down that's where I staked it out and made sure I staked it out well so you can see that
these are where the stairs, this is the house now look down the street and it's not in any way
non-conforming to the area.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you consider at all the option of taking those steps on the
frontage road frontage and making them parallel to the deck? I don't mean cutting into the
deck cause I understand when you're saying that it's small already it wouldn't function but if
you rotated them you know ninety degrees they can run parallel and it would be set back
farther. Have you thought about doing that?
ROBERT SAETTA,: It would set it back farther it would probably land in and would work but it
wouldn't look as well, it wouldn't look as appealing streetwise when you look at it. With the
front set of windows there, I designed all the stuff I work with Zac Nichols who is the Architect
who did the actual proposal and plans and stuff but I worked on him with the design of it and
that's what he said this would look the best. It has a right now a permit in progress a work in
progress but at the (inaudible) and what not but as that elevation is not true to the actual
finished appearance of the front of the house there's going to be two sliders and a center
patio door in the middle and there's going to be cathedral glass in the gable. The whole front
appearance just trying to get a nice appearance in the front as well as you know functionality
to go up and down the stairs.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The steps are 6 foot something 6.1, well I don't really have any
further questions.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's would definitely be less of a non-conformity by turning them.
MEMBER DANTES : The other thing is I think if you look at your site plan SP1 it says average
setback (inaudible) so if you're turning it you can meet the setback and then that eliminates
the variance. If you go by averaging it's 8.3 feet is what you need to get to not 15 that's on the
Notice of Disapproval? By turning the steps you can keep the average setback.
ROBERT SAETTA : No because (inaudible) 8 feet something.
MEMBER DANTES : 8.3
ROBERT SAETTA : 8.3 if the deck is 8 foot it's 16
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eric to your point the landing at the top of the stairs and the width
of the stairs wouldn't count against the setback would it and therefore it would remove the
requirement of a variance.
MEMBER DANTES : Yea I think it would.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea a typical 3 foot landing does not count.
l
441
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
ROBERT SAETTA : Well I was told a 3 foot landing off the front once it's attached like that, that
that becomes it's part of the deck that it can say now that's part of the setback.
MEMBER DANTES : Right but I mean I'm looking at one of these documents shows 16 feet for
the deck itself then you get 3 feet (inaudible) you'd still be under the
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would reduce it by 5 it would end up being a 5 foot setback
instead of a .8 so that's still better than whether the variance goes away or not. I would argue
the variance should go away.
ROBERT SAETTA : But I will still need a variance for the which I was a little bit surprised but
when you're going down that side yard it already is an existing 4 foot landing and set of stairs
there. So if I was just going to make a catwalk that went down to the back running parallel to
the building and just reversed the stairs which are not supposed to count anyway down into
the back yard bringing it closer to the garage (inaudible). I mean that 4 foot is already there so
the landing and the stairs are already 4 foot off the building, I'm not asking to go more than 4
foot I was just going to go right down the side with it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't think that's going to have any impact on anything so I
don't think this Board is concerned so much with that. It's a matter of when we do grant
variances we have to by law grant the minimum variance that we reasonably for good reason
should grant. I think you have certainly given the non-conformity all over the place you do
have certainly strong case about variance relief. The question is can we reduce the amount of
that variance by rotating the steps somehow without compromising the depth of the deck
because 8 feet is very small.
ROBERT SAETTA : Like I said it's the only permanent water view is to look down the street at
the shoreline and the Sound of Goldsmith Inlet which is still a nice view and it's nice to be able
to (inaudible) across the street because one house is a two story and the other house is going
probably wind up being (inaudible) and built up higher.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only thing that I can say is that based upon you know just
visual appearance there although the variance would be lessened by rotating the stairs the
fact of the matter is it does not appear to be anywhere near the street the way you designed
it. That is often the case because property lines are very different where an actual road is.
This is a shoulder probably.
ROBERT SAETTA : That's why I said the wording it looks like as if you're going to be going
down your steps and you're going to be going down to the road which you're not. It's a
tremendous distance there and the steps coming out the front would just add so much more
to the appearance of the house.
451
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea but we have to look at this from the property line not the road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have to look at both. The legal part is the property line but
the other part is the character of the neighborhood and if it does not look out of place for
what else is there then that's you know that's the kind of consideration that's one of the
standards we have to what do you want to do Board?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have an unrelated but separate question perhaps it's unrelated,
the survey did anyone else catch I'm confused, why is the garage attached. The 2021 survey
ROBERT SAETTA :That's an old survey that's not the new survey.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but wouldn't the this is dated 2021 the revised survey
ROBERT SAETTA : The previous job that I did there initially we had to put a foundation was
collapsing in the house so we got a permit to rebuild the foundation and to do that (inaudible)
build it up a little to be able to get underneath it and pour a foundation and I had to detach
the garage for two reasons
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So at some point the garage was in fact attached?
ROBERT SAETTA : Yes it was attached but now it's detached because I couldn't raise the house
to rebuild the foundation and the rear of the house near the garage is in the flood zone and it
being attached to the house would also be in the flood zone. So we killed two birds with one
stone, we saved the foundation of the house by raising it a little and detach the garage
because it was a ridiculous garage. It was a 45 foot long garage (inaudible). So I says you know
just attach the thing now at the same time now you can get into the back yard without having
to what was there before was a mudroom there so you basically had to go through the garage
and side door of the garage to the back yard. Its' stupid. The guy (inaudible) had it had a shop
in there he built stuff so he wanted all that space to build he didn't care about it being a
garage. He doesn't want a shop he just wants to be able to park the car going to the back yard
without having to go climb over the roof? So we killed the two birds with one stone by
detaching it. I noticed on that site plan that Jack Nichols had given you the shed behind the
garage is no longer there, that was an old shed. There was no footing it was just a rotten old
metal shed and actually gaining in square footage and that square footage was just so close
we're making the front deck that. I got rid of it took it to the dumps.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying that the shed that's behind the detached garage is
not there?
ROBERT SAETTA : No
46
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have in our file a stamped survey or site plan? Do we have
the current survey?
MEMBER DANTES : It is a site plan by Zachary (inaudible). There is an old survey not a new
one.
MEMBER LEHNERT : A site plan should be alright.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to need to be stamped. That's why I asked sometimes we
have a stamped one that's not we have in here a stamped survey this is the wrong one the
garage is still attached on this thing. The site plan is more accurate however A. the shed isn't
there and B. it's not stamped by a licensed professional.
MEMBER DANTES : Mine is.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh wait the big one is then we're good okay I was looking at the
small version. Here's the big one, yep it's stamped we're good. Alright, so what do you want
to do Board?
MEMBER DANTES : Close it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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, we'll have a decision in two weeks at the next meeting on
JunelSth. It's an open meeting and it's on Zoom if you want to listen. The hearing is closed
there's no testimony if you have questions but people can sit in and listen in if you want to
hear us talk about the decision and you'll know right then and there how the vote went. Kim
can make sure you find the link.
June 1, 2023,Regular Meeting
HEARING#7789—MELANIE BELKIN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Melanie Belkin #7789.
This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's
December 16, 2022 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an
accessory shed at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 10
feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at
1700 Cedar Beach Rd. in Southold.
ANTHONY PASCA : Good afternoon, hi Anthony Pasca I'm representing Melanie Belkin on this
and she's here I want to point that out. It's a shed, I'm going to start off by saying that that's
what we're here for it's a shed. The property is 20,000 sq. ft. exactly down to the 200 by 100
and I'll tell you why that's relevant in a couple of minutes. We have a 20,000 sq. ft. property,
we have a 100 sq. ft. shed, the shed is by definition one of those sheds that you don't have to
get a building permit for but you do still have to comply with setbacks and all. The reason why
we're here is that several years ago when the shed was put in this isn't one of those cases
where Melanie got her C.O.'s for other work that was done and then snuck the shed in back
corner of the property. She went into the Building Department, she asked about the rules that
govern and she was told 3 feet. Now 3 feet is the setback if you have a 10,000 sq. ft. property
or less because a 20,000 sq. ft. property so there was a miscommunication in that regard. She
proceeded to put the shed in at 5.5 feet to the side lot line and 4 feet to the rear lot line and it
was put on the survey. The survey was one of the surveys that was presented to the Trustees
as part of their wetland review and I'm not sure that we actually provided that version of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please do yea.
ANTHONY PASCA : It was something that was never flagged at the time as being a problem
and certainly it wasn't something that Melanie was hiding from the town or trying to slip in.
For those of you that might have gotten a chance to see the property you'll probably
understand why it was put exactly where it was. It's the only place to put a shed on this
property that's away from the wetlands out of the wetland setback line in the rear yard and
from a terrain standpoint it's really the only place to put it. So she put the shed in the back
there and it's been there for several years and recently one of the neighbors made a
complaint about it because not having much to do with zoning is having to do with a private
easement dispute that has brewed between the next door neighbor and Melanie which I am
dealing with in the Supreme Court. We have a title case pending over that easement. There's
nothing to do with you guys as far as we're concerned. You have zoning jurisdiction, Supreme
Court has title jurisdiction. We're dealing with the title issue in Supreme Court and we're
fairly confident that we're going to prevail on that but of course the neighbor has her rights to
s
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
pursue her claim there. The way that our zoning code works, if this lost was literally one
millimeter less wide we would not need a side yard variance for the shed and we would only
need a one foot rear yard variance for the shed. As you know we have the schedule that says
you know 0 to 10,000 sq. ft., 10,000 to 19,999 sq. ft. you get 5 foot setbacks for rear and side
yards for sheds that are under 18 feet tall so I say literally if we were one millimeter less wide
we'd be in the range of 19,999 which would put us at a 5 foot setback. So to kind of put in
context of where we are on the cusp of things we're at literally at the point of one millimeter.
That's not relevant to the fact that we need a variance cause we do, we're at 20,000 sq. ft.
exactly so that puts us in line to ask for this variance but certainly it provides a context for you
to consider the character of the community and impacts on the character of the community. I
don't think anyone other than a surveyor would be able to make that distinction between a
19,999 sq. ft. property and a 20,000 sq. ft. property but you know we are where we are.
Sheds are quite a common amenity to accessory structure to properties especially in
Melanie's case where she does not have a garage, she has no garage, she has no basement,
she has not attic. So it provides 100 sq. ft. of storage space to keep things out the clutter that
normally brews you probably all heard the expression good fences make good neighbors but
'sheds make good neighbors too. If anyone has lived next to someone like I have who doesn't
have a shed who has stuff everywhere strewing about their yard there's something to be said
for 100 sq. ft. structure to keep things tidy and out of the way. You've been there as far as the
impacts go, so it's tucked away in the back, screened by fences, there's mature cedar trees
that actually sort of in between the shed and-the next door neighbor's house. The house to
the rear is set way back and also has some vegetation between the shed and the fence so
from an impact standpoint it's fairly benign. It's only an 8 foot tall shed, the code allows 18
feet for accessory structures this is only an 8 foot tall shed. Again it's only 100 sq. ft.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I want to ask you about that because you indicated that but
the survey shows this shed as 8.2 feet by 12.2 okay so it's a little less than 100 actually.
ANTHONY PASCA : It's right at the 100 sq. ft. number. If it's inches less or inches whatever but
it's certainly in that it falls in the exemption category of not needing a building permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just checking with counsel, we have been made aware of this
right of way that we did not see on this survey so we were a little confused so then we had
another survey but I think you've explained that that is a civil matter that you're pursuing in
Supreme Court.
ANTHONY PASCA : It's a claimed right of way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an uncivilized way.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PASCA : Again I don't dispute that the neighbor has a right to pursue civil remedies
in Supreme Court that's where they belong but I do know that Zoning Boards do not have
jurisdiction to resolve title disputes and I've been through that many, many time with this
Board too that we don't touch in the zoning world.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No
T.A. MCGIVNEY : Can I just ask though, we have the town has a violation file open for that
shed in a right of way, is that still where does
ANTHONY PASCA : This application was filed in response to that and when it was brought up I
reached out to the Town Attorney's Office one of the Town Attorneys who is not here
anymore and we talked about it and I said we absolutely acknowledge we have to get
variances for the side yard setbacks but I talked to Damon about the civil dispute and it was
agreed they'd talk to the Building Department that that was not something the Building
Department had any enforcement rights over. So to the extent the original citation
mentioned the right of way cause that was the complaint that was filed by the neighbor she
said you put the shed in my right of way we applied for this variance to clear up the setback
issue we're in Supreme Court to deal with the right of way.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : So this file the file that was opened in the Town of Southold was dismissed?
I just don't know
ANTHONY PASCA : I don't think it ever proceeded anything other than filing as far as I know.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : this violation so I have a copy of there was an appearance ticket.
/ANTHONY PASCA : I don't know, I mean this would have stayed that because of the we can
talk about it after if you want. I didn't participate in any criminal justice court proceedings if
there were any.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Okay I just have to clarify that cause I'm not getting the Code Enforcement
isn't here, he's on leave right now so I get clarify whether or not it's still current. I don't see
anything that it was dismissed or it was discharged or settled so that's why I was wondering.
1
ANTHONY PASCA : All I remember is when it happened when I reached out to the Town
Attorney's Office he said clearly you have jurisdiction over the setbacks and we'll file the
variance application for that but whatever was mentioned about the right of way there's no
code violation that involves an alleged right of way.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Okay, I don't have the complete information that the Code Enforcement
Agent I just see the notice and then the appearance ticket. If (inaudible) I'd have no problem
with it but
ANTHONY PASCA : Well depending on what happens here right it may or may not parts of this
may not get resolved. If there's anything you think left afterwards we'll deal with it I'll get
involved and we'll figure out what's
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Just probably making it subject to contingent on it not being an active town
code violation case.
ANTHONY PASCA : If there is anything left.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I don't know the status of that.
ANTHONY PASCA : Going through the factors I talked about the impacts the alternatives, the
only thing I didn't mention yet is that there is a sanitary field literally right in front of so it
can't be moved even a foot or two further from the rear yard line than where it is. With
respect to the side yard line there's these mature cedar trees if anybody was there and it
would be a travesty to take those cedar trees down to try to move a shed over. I think that
would actually be more impactful to the next door neighbor to move it further from the you
know into that spot where the cedar trees are. The substantiality part of this mathematically
it's a bigger number because of the we're measuring it based on ten so 5.5 feet compared to
10 is a 45% variance, 4 feet compared to 10 is a 60% variance but that's why I mention that
we're on such a cusp the context of this is if we were a millimeter less wide we wouldn't need
a side yard variance and we would only need a one foot variance to the 5 foot setback
requirement so based on that the fact that it's half as high as it could be (inaudible) it's not a
substantial variance that we're asking for. There's certainly no physical or environmental
problems that are caused by a shed being tucked away in the corner. It's outside of the
wetland setbacks and as far as self-created, it's a self-created hardship because of purchasing
after the regulations went into effect but just to point out she did not again she did not put
1 this in with any sleight of hand intent to get it passed the town she literally went to the
Building Department before installing this and just because of that miscommunication over
the setbacks is why it was put exactly where it was. The only last thing I would just like to
hand up, there was a variance granted to the property literally behind her for a shed tucked
away in the far corner of the property the applicants name was Coristidis, it's a different sized
property (away from microphone) setbacks were different and because it was waterfront the
front yard was swapped out but this Board did grant them a 66% variance for the front yard
setback for that shed in a smaller I think it was a 10% variance or so for the side yard for this
other property to let them keep their shed there.Any questions?
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, I mean I understand you're saying about the right of
way and I know that (inaudible) but just like a (inaudible) we usually don't grant variances in
right of ways and it is on a filed map that we got (inaudible).
ANTHONY PASCA : Not filed as a right of way though and that's where there's a dashed line
on the filed map that's it there's no indication that it was meant to be an easement and that's
the dispute that we have with the neighbor. It wasn't created by the Planning Board for
example I would kind of agree with you, if this was the type of right of way where Planning
Board goes through a process you create a right of way for purpose of providing access,that's
needed and the Planning Board conditions their approval that would be a sort of a town
version of a right of way. This is a dashed line that was put on a subdivision an old subdivision
map that the neighbor believes indicates that it was meant to be a right of way and we have
reason to believe that it was not meant to a right of way. So that's why it's not quite the same
as like literally putting a structure within a town recognized right of way there's no sort of
official recognition like that.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I don't know if you spoke to anybody from the John Ehlers survey is showing
it as a right of way not just a dotted line and he's saying he's getting it from the filed map but
that's I mean
ANTHONY PASCA :That's their claim.
T. A. MCGIVNEY :The surveyors claim?
ANTHONY PASCA : That's the neighbor's claim that it's a right of way, it's not a right of way.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm just (inaudible) I understand I'm just confused as to why the surveyor
would put this on without anything showing
ANTHONY PASCA : May I see it?
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Sure, this is the adjacent (inaudible) so that's the two pieces it's the ,
neighbor's and continues onto the subject property.
ANTHONY PASCA : I get it. (away from microphone) don't have any more title jurisdiction than
you do to make a determination that something is (inaudible) easement. I can't object to
Ehlers putting a dash line on a survey based on a dash line that exists on an old filed map but
it doesn't make it a right of way. Again I mean we've been through this a few times where the
Board I have no problem if the Board wants to put in its decision we are not making any
determination of title (inaudible) I've seen that many times this Board or the Trustees
whenever a title dispute is raised they sort of make it clear that you're not picking sides
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
between neighbors you're just applying the zoning code straight and whatever title disputes
people have they're going to have to take it to Supreme Court which we're actually there it's
not like
T. A. MCGIVNEY : No, no I'm trying to flush it out to make sure we have an understanding of
all the parts including you know Ehlers survey that's all. Anything else?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric
MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wanting to address the application?
Please come forward and state your name.
PATRICIA MELLY : My name is Patricia Melly and I am the resident at 105 Orchard Lane which
is adjacent to the Belkin property. I wasn't planning to go through this but since he brought
up the character of the neighborhood I thought it's important to note that I grew up I've been
here for summers since 1958 and I grew up in a house with a right of way and I use that right
of way and I enjoyed it so when I purchased this house I looked for a house with a right of way
and I was thrilled to have bought this house cause it did have a right of way. It's on my deed, I
have the 1927 map which shows the dotted lines he speaks of. Now I have researched it a
little bit and the readings that go with this map 781 in Riverhead are microfiched and they're
-disintegrated so they're impossible to read. So there's no way to know exactly what they said
but everybody that I have dealt with has assured me it is a right of way so I have my deed
where the right of way is stated, I have my survey where the right of way is stated, I have a
subdivision map of Cedar Beach done by the previous owners who built the house and the
right of way is there. I have those are my legal things that I kind of hang my hat on. I went to
the town multiple times to decide whether this really is a right of way and I have been
assured by the building people and everybody that this is a right of way and I do have rights to
it. When I bought the house Melanie Belkin acknowledged that it was a right of way as did Jay
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
Askine who encouraged me to use it and I used the right of way for years and there was a
gate between my property and Melanie's. When she submitted her building plan to make the
improvements for the pool and things she wanted, I have a copy of that and there is no shed
at that time but when she built it suddenly there is a fence that she tacked over my gate so I
couldn't go through, there was the shed and there was a pool gate that went across the right
of way and in addition she planted barberry trees down there. I don't think that this was a
slight of hand or whatever he called that, I think this was intentional to block the right of way
and it was very clear that this right of way which had been wide open until that point was
now blocked. We had multiple attempts to try and settle this and we were unable to settle
this amicably. It is a'shed that is not intrusive to me except for the fact that it impedes my
access to the right of way and there are other places she could put a shed, she's got a very
elevated deck which she just rebuilt and it's big and beautiful and there's plenty of room
under there for a shed for her to store her things. In addition she's got a very large parking
area where she can put a shed there too. So I agree with the Board's decision on the 15th of
December to disallow this shed, I think it's intrusive to me. I grew up in this community where
everybody who has access to water or actually it doesn't have water all the time it's like a
wetland area and I would go down there and enjoy going down there and I got a beautiful
view and I loved it and I no longer have it. I think I'm entitled to my right of way that I was
assured I had in the purchasing of the house and in the use of the property for several years.
So I agree with the previous decision by the Board to say that this was not in the plan or
acceptable and I urge you to disallow it and I hope it can be removed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. Nobody is on Zoom. Would you like
to say something else?Anything from the Board at this point?
ANTHONY PASCA : Just a thirty seconds or less, nothing that the neighbor mentioned has to
do with zoning that's my point. She has her issues over the right of way (inaudible) but we're
here because of zoning code that has setback requirements not because of the zoning code
that has right of way (inaudible)that's all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to yes.
PATRICIA MELLY : He talked about fences making good neighbors and all that and I think good
rules make good neighbors and I think that the rules are you can't put a shed within a certain
amount of distance from the property line and I think that's a good rule and I think that
should be upheld when it interferes with somebody else's use of land and I think that that's
important for people to have rules that they can rely on.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody?
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
T. A. MCGIVNEY : the reason that it came up with the right of way is because of the town
violation file that I have to sort out to make sure that it isn't. That's why it's a Zoning Board
issue is because if there is a violation outstanding then the Zoning Board can't rule obviously
so that's why it's an issue.
ANTHONY PASCA : I understand, we did get a turned down letter and the turned down letter
indicates that we have setback issues nothing else flagged in terms of the turn down letter
that would require a different kind of relief.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : You mean the Notice of Disapproval, the turn down letter?
ANTHONY PASCA : Yea
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I don't think but it wouldn't note any kind of violations on the property so
that's separate and apart from the turn down letter.
ANTHONY PASCA : Well but the sequencing of things just to cause you weren't around but the
sequence of the violation or whatever it was, the citation was issued and when I got hired to
deal with the title issue it told Melanie to get a turn down letter from the Building
Department so that there was something to take to this Board and that's when the
conversation was had with the Town Attorney's Office about the right of way has nothing to
do with the zoning code, the turn down letter the Notice of Disapproval was issued relating to
the setbacks and so that's how we ended up here based on the setback variance questions
and nothing else. If you certainly need time to figure that part out
T. A. MCGIVNEY : There is an active violation file open and we couldn't rule regardless of a
turn down letter cause we're not going to approve a variance on a property that has a
violation on it.
ANTHONY PASCA : So whatever you need to do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the best thing to do would be to just adjourn this to the
Special Meeting in two weeks. There's no hardship there it just gives us a little time just to
make sure that we've got everything right.
ANTHONY PASCA : You need us to appear on that or not?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No
ANTHONY PASCA : You can let me know, if you come up .with something a question or
something like that.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only way that we would not close at that point would be if
there were issues related to this discovery that you would then be informed about and then
we would at that point if we needed to talk about it adjourn it to the next hearing which is
like a month from now so that you could just wrap it up. I don't know what the outcome will
be
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm sure it's very easily dissolvable.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It certainly can be figured out pretty quickly and we'll keep you
informed.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yes I will.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special
Meeting on June 15th. 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
HEARING#7790 SE—MARIA MARONI
.CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Maria Maroni
#7790SE. The applicant requests 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 located at 855 Pine Neck Rd. (adj. to Jockey
Creek) in Southold. Hi Anthony.
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Hi thanks for waiting for me the last application. So the current garage
accessory building that's on the property I just want to state does have an original approval
for a half bathroom. It has a toilet and a sink currently in the garage and has a separate septic
system. That septic system was sized properly for a three bedroom system so that's on file
with Southold Town, the system was put in per Health Department requirements, inspected
there's a green stamped survey on that system. I just wanted to state that first. So we're not
applying for a new system, we're going to utilize that system for the accessory apartment. The
septic line is already ran to.the existing toilet and sink. So part of the application is to for
some reason when Mrs. Maroni purchased the property how they configured the toilet and
sink in the existing downstairs area didn't really make much sense to her so she'd like to make
it into just one room and keep it a half bathroom on the first floor. I'm just bringing that up
cause I don't want the Board to think that there's anything going on on the first floor she just
doesn't want to have it as like a separate sink and toilet that's the way it's configured now so
all we're doing is making basically taking down that demising wall and making it one room.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually when I did the inspection all I saw was a toilet in the
garage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you walked around the corner there was a slop sink.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's a slop sink it's not part of the bathroom.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but he's proposing to combine them into one half bathroom.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have a bath upstairs and it seems to me I mean if
it's just a garage downstairs then the full bathroom upstairs should service the apartment
adequately.There is no reason to have two bathrooms in that building.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can understand the point but the existing half bathroom was already a
legally with septic
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean if it's a stretch to ask to combine it as I propose it I don't think
removing it should be necessary cause it's already there operating and was always part of the
accessory structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if you have a living quarters in that building with a full bath I
don't understand why you also need another bath downstairs' in the garage which is an
unheated garage.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The building code it's acceptable to have the
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In an accessory structure you're absolutely right that's why it was
approved originally. Now the facts are changing so I bring that up to you know
ANTHONY PORTILLO : But the use of the garage is not the accessory apartment is being used
by the tenant and they use the garage for the owner so it's not that they will be able to use
the bathroom in the accessory apartment you know
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think if you look at the site plan you can see like the accessory building
so far from the home so it's sensible that maybe there's a bathroom
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) been in the garage it's just (inaudible)
ANTHONY PORTILLO : workshop, you're hanging out in there if there's a bench in there I don't
personally don't know what her activities are in the garage but I just wanted to make sure I
explained that because
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I figured I'd be asked about it. So basically we are proposing one
bedroom accessory apartment on the second floor, there is a separate bedroom with a full
bathroom, kitchen and living area that's combined essentially. It is somewhat of a half story in
a sense with the shed dormer but there are portions of this like in the bedroom area that
really is sloped with 4 foot knee walls. Essentially it's I think it meets the accessory apartment
standard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is a conforming livable floor area. We have confirmation from
Building Department on that. You have done a number of these before so you are aware that
the Board typically would condition if an apartment is proposed on the second floor an
exterior stair. This is a situation where there's one already in there and I could certainly
understand the desire to want to keep it however at the very least I would certainly suggest
that in order to discourage the use of that garage for anything other than garage storage it is
not a big deal to put up a parapet wall of some sort not a parapet I mean a full wall from the
entry going up the stairs. If you look at the first floor plan
ANTHONY PORTILLO : We are proposing a wall separating the garage from the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea exactly and I don't think that that's a big ask when we typically
would ask that you have to put in an outside stair but the garage would have to remain
unheated, unconditioned.
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The intent is to use it as a garage, there's no other (inaudible). The wall
that's separating it that stair area will also be a fire rated door a forty five minute separating
the garage from
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's look at something else. Ms. Maroni states that the tenant will
be a nephew?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. Actually I think he works in the restaurant Maroni's in
Southold.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To be perfectly honest I'm going to enter it into the record but the
code defines a relationship a relative by blood marriage or adoption so the blood line down to
a nephew is pretty far outstretched but it doesn't specifically rule it out either.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well I share blood with my aunt and uncle.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know I mean I get that.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : My understanding is he works in the restaurant and he basically is full
time there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will he be on his own there or
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes that's the plan.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : It says on this prepared lease that Brandon Ciricco, Amber Smith
Ciricco and their children are the only people entitled to occupy the premises.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't think it's a family residence, my understanding he works at the
restaurant during the week and then I guess out there during the weekend. I could give you
guys, I can have them write a letter(inaudible). My understanding it's him mostly.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : She has it in the lease agreement.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : My understanding it's him mostly. Are they going to visit, are they going
to (inaudible) I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know the intent here is to have an annual lease which is
in our record, I don't think it's the lease is the dates are not filled in so it's not dated the lease
isn't dated there's the typical documentation of occupancy, electric bills and so on. There's a
birth certificate I think showing Angel Noel Ciricco as the a sister? Well Anthony anything you
can get from them cause often they're here to testify people you know and you know the rent
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
is not a one dollar a year you know like you would for your kid, this is eighteen hundred
dollars a month.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So again my understanding is he works for the restaurant he might go
home on the weekends. From what she told me it's not a family, he's basically going to be
utilizing it and works at the restaurant that's my understanding. If the wife and kids come
once in a while maybe I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's pretty small for a wife and kids.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's why I don't think it's not like you know what I mean it's where
you stay while he's working, he's full time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So going back to Leslie's original question about like the use of the
garage area and I think in the past we have given people a half bath knowing that there's an
apartment also upstairs but perhaps it were special circumstances, my question is there's an
air handler outside of the garage building in the photograph and from the site inspection,
there's split system in the garage that's being used more than a garage. Are you removing
that?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes we are plus they have she had like a she had a swimming pool like
a lap pool and I explained like all the stuff needs to be removed.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea it wasn't there during inspection.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea I explained all that stuff needed to be removed. I don't from my
understanding that could have been there when she purchased from the original owner, I
don't think she installed it but I explained to her this space will be unconditioned and only
used as a garage space. She's aware of
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're taking out the sheetrock from the garage also?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No the sheetrock will be required for the fire rating.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For the ceiling.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : For the ceiling and then you come down five feet on the side walls.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From the floor up four feet or whatever you're going to open the
sheetrock?
June 1,2023 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That wasn't the plan but if that's something the Board would like us to .
do I mean a lot of time when you have an attached garage through let's say a residence you
just sheetrock the whole garage even though the code only requires you to go five feet up. So
it's the wall that's touching the residence that's required. Do you want them to cut that out I
mean that's fine but the sheetrock that's there can be used as (inaudible).
MEMBER DANTES : I don't have a problem with the sheetrock.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Neither do I.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the air conditioning?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I believe it was removed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It can be sheet rocked but it needs to be unconditioned space for
storage of vehicles or any other storage you want to use.
MEMBER LEHNERT : And it needs the sheetrock for the fire rating.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Actually the question that came up from the Building Department and
we had to remove it I believe or get the denial letter I think that was one of the reasons that it
was removed and the swimming pool the lap pool.
MEMBER DANTES : Like an above ground pool?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It was a lap pool you know the ones with the motor that you can swim <
in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Infinity pool.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Not a lap pool swim in place.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else from anybody on this? Are we ready to close?
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
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. Resolution for the next Public Hearings to
be held Thursday July 6, 2023 at 9:00 AM so moved.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in 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 May 18, 2023 so moved.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I think that's it for the formal meeting. I'm going to make a
motion to close the meeting. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
z
June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, okay you can shut it down.
r
r
6a
June 1, 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 :June 8, 2023