Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/03/2023 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York August 3, 2023 10:02 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Absent) ERIC DANTES— Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member (Vice Chair) KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY-Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant r August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing: Page Pantelis and Dorothy Scoufaras#7797 4-6 Edna J. Acquaviva, Boni D. Fash,Vincent J. Quatroche, Jr.#7805 7 - 10 Chanet Tisdel #7806 10 - 14 Michele Sasso and Jaqueline Jones#7807 14- 17 Megan Baron, Cottage#15 Breezey Shores#7810 17-19 RQA PROPERTIES, LLC#7800(DECISION) 20- 21 Thomas and Kathleen Burke#7811SE 21-29 Agustin and Melissa Romp#7812 29 - 31 Lawrence C. and Jeanne M. Provenzano#7813 31 -40 9450 Main Bayview LLC/Daniel Marra #7804 41 - 56 Mary Kathleen Martin and Philippe Vaillancourt#7815 57-61 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter on the Agenda is resolutions the State Environmental Quality Review. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR part 617.5c including the following : Scoufaras, Acquaviva and Quatroche, Tisdel, Sasso and Jones, Megan Barron, Breezey Shores, Thomas and Kathleen Burke, Agustin and Melissa Romo, Provenzano, 9450 Main Bayview LLC/Daniel Marra #7804 and finally Vaillancourt so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a resolution before us to close the hearing on RQA Properties, LLC#7800 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a determination you know what, because I want to start these hearings on time I'm going to move these two decisions to the end of the meeting so that we can commence with the first hearing and get going. Is that alright with everybody? Okay I'm just going to move the agenda around then. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7797—PANTELIS and DOROTHY SCOUFARAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Pantelis and Dorothy Scoufaras #7797. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 23, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a raised patio with gable roof attached to a single family dwelling which will place the existing accessory garage in a non-permitted side yard at 1) accessory garage located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 305 Ole Jule Lane in Mattituck. Would you state your name for the record please. ANDREA TSOUKALAS KURDO : Good morning Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Board my name is Andrea Tsoukalas Kurdo. I'm with the firm of (inaudible) with offices at 333 (inaudible) Uniondale, New York on behalf of the applicants Peter and Dorothy Scoufaras. As you mentioned this is an application for an area variance. My client seeks to construct a raised patio with a gabled roof in the rear yard of the premises. A variance is required to maintained the existing garage in its current location because the proposed patio extends the rear of the house 7 feet east which places the garage partially in the side yard. As you know all accessory structures must be located in a rear yard. I do have an exhibit packet that I do like to submit, applicant's Exhibit A. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you and your clients are aware, the Zoning Board inspects personally each Member separately every property that comes before the Board prior to a hearing so we've all been there and have seen the property and so on. We have to look at character of the neighborhood so we drive around to see what else is there as well. Thank you. ANDREA TSOUKALAS KURDO : A little bit of background, the premises is located on the east side of Ole Jule Lane 148 feet south of New Suffolk Ave. It has a rectangular shape 190 X 225 feet with a 190 feet of frontage on Ole Jule Lane situated in the towns residence 80 zoning district and has a lot area of 42,750 sq. ft. and it's currently improved with a single family residence, garage, driveway, raised rear patio and an in-ground. A little bit of history regarding the parcel, a C.O. was issued for the residence in 2002, that was for a one family dwelling with covered front porch and attached two car garage. A C.O. was then issued for an alteration to the residence in 2008 converting the garage space to living space. The C.O. for the pool was issued in 2011 and the C.O. for the accessory two car garage which is such (inaudible) this application was issued in 2008 and this Board granted a variance for that garage with respect to height and floor area. The existing garage has not been altered since 2008. My clients purchased the premises two years ago and seek to make this minor improvements so they can enjoy their back yard. The proposed patio will provide much 4 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting needed shade and will also allow the family to eat outside when it's raining. They did speak to their two adjacent owners sorry neighbor the two owners to the right and left of them, lots 14.1 the.Ludlow residence and 14.3 the Perrina residence and they have no objection to the application. As you could see from the exhibit packet the aerial of the exhibit packet depicts the dense screening around the perimeter of the house. I've also provided photographs of the existing garage and house as well as the existing patio. The proposed covered patio will be in a relatively the same location as the raised patio. (inaudible) in the exhibit packet you can see it's basically the same location, the existing patio because it doesn't have a roof on it does not trigger the variance. With respect to the area variance standards an undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood if the requested variance is granted. The accessory garage will remain in its current location so there will be no visible change with respect to location. Also the proposed patio will not be visible to pedestrians on the street cause it's in the rear yard. Also as noted earlier there are existing mature trees and vegetation that create a natural barrier between the subject premises and the adjacent property owners. There's also pictures that show screening with the adjacent property owner. The requested relief is not substantial, most of the.existing garage will still be locate within the rear yard of the premises. Most of the patio actually lines up with the garage, only a small portion of that is 7 feet by 19 feet 8 inches goes beyond the existing garage. It's about 140 sq. ft. you can see the little jet out that comes out that's the only portion that requires that creates the extends the rear of the premises. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. Again as I mentioned the propose patio is going to serve for a shaded area for entertaining and the owner's personal use. There's an existing pool in the rear yard, there's no covered cabana or portico to provide cover from the elements. The alleged difficulty although it is self-created (inaudible) the owner is proposing the improvement the location of the garage and house,were established prior to the applicant purchasing the premises so there's really no alternatives with respect to placing the patio anywhere else. For these reason we request that the variance .for the rear patio be granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if we have any questions, Liz I neglected to ask you if there's anybody on Zoom. We'll wait till somebody is on Zoom before you explain how to access the Board. Anything from you Eric? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We have someone on. MEMBER DANTES : No it seems like a very benign variance request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. s August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No it's purely technical. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Yea it's an annoying thing when maybe a third of the existing garage is suddenly rendered non-conforming by virtue of a very benign addition that's completely screened from view by everybody, landscaping, fencing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It has a C of 0. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I know, we're trying to change that by the way. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie excuse me, we do have someone on with us one person but I don't know if they're here for this one but someone is listening in. I don't know if you want me to go over the instructions. H CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you it'll only take a second. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS.: Thank you, good morning for those on Zoom if you wish to make a comment on a particular application I ask that you please raise your hand and 1 will give you further instructions on how to speak. The person that is on with us I only have initials so if you would like to identify yourself please do. If,you're using a phone press *9 and then I will tell you what to do next. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye i MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision in two weeks. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7805—EDNA J. ACQUAVIVA, BONI D. FASH,VINCENT J. QUATROCHE,JR. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Edna J. Acquaviva, Boni D. Fash & Vincent J. Quatroche, Jr. #7805. This a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM No. 1000-33-4-69 which has merged with SUM No. 1000-33-4-70 based on the Building Inspector's February 21, 2023 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 Residential Zoning District) located at 130 Sunset Lane in Greenport. I'll turn this over to you Martin to explain why we do have in our prior record a decision in 1996 by a different Board well the Board of Appeals it was a denial for a waiver of merger so why don't we just start with that and bring us up to date. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. for the applicants. So just to start from,the top, this is a request for a waiver of merger of lots 69 we call it which is located at 130 Sunset Lane in Greenport from the adjacent improved parcel which is around the corner it faces around the corner on Sutton Place which we'll call lot 70. These are both recognized lots that have been in the Quatroche family since 1957 and 1968 respectfully. They have always been and treated as separate parcels, there's photographs submitted for the record which really demonstrates that lot 69 is just a vacant (inaudible). What happened of course is that in 1995 when the merger law came to be the Quatroche's the parents found themselves in this situation where the lots had merged by operation of law and they did come before the Zoning Board in 1996 to request a waiver. At that time as you're aware we had a very different code and so the option of waiver of merger based on the fact that the parcel had not been removed (inaudible) or transferred to a third party or outside of the family was not available to the Board and the application was denied. I think we can all agree that the merger law has been unpopular since its birth and I know that and I hope that the Town Board will eventually do away with it but they did in 2008 amend the code to address this very situation where sort of unbeknownst to families properties that they had acquired for the purposes of you know developing or passing on to other family members evaporated because of merger. In my memo I have cited to the legislated history of that code amendment in 2008 and I can I have a copy for the Board if you'd like it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have them. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The intent of that amendment was to create this as the principal criteria for determining waiver of merger what happened with the property is it's still in the family it August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting hasn't been conveyed to a third party and here that's exactly what we have. It's almost as if the code was amended at that time to address this very situation. My clients the children of Edna and Vincent really had no idea that any of this had occurred until later on. Really after their mother passed when they came to the Building Department and talked to Mike and it was actually his suggestion that they try again here today and here we are. They learned about this merger and the whole thing and that their mother had actually attempted to undo it back in '96. So under the current criteria you know to start off as I said with 280-11A which is just essentially the question of whether or not the property has ever left the family and is not the property was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Quatroche and Vincent in 2000 it was conveyed to their three children, Edna, Bonnie and Vincent Jr. and this title lies to this day. So it's clear that the Board should find as to 280-11A that the property has not been transferred to an unrelated person since they were effectively merged in 1995. Then we go on to sort of the balancing criteria that you are to consider under 280-11B, is the parcel comparable in size. If you look around and see in this neighborhood there are many similarly sized parcels that are in that kind of (inaudible) .20 acres size. The fact the this is a criteria that was kind of part of the earlier code and in that earlier 1996 decision the ZBA actually recognized that the lots in the surrounding area that this parcel lot 69 would be consistent with their character and they noted that the lots around them were all substandard in size some larger than the subject parcel others smaller in size. So I do believe we can satisfy that criteria. As to it being maintained as I mentioned previously this is a vacant parcel. If you look at the survey you can see that this is not a situation where they kind of use it as the driveway, they've used it as it has really always been even the grass looks different. It's,sort of mowed and maintained differently than the rest of the parcels so there are no structures on it that have been shared with lot 70 it has always just been its own vacant parcel and treated as such. (inaudible) separate tax bills and all that as well. As to any type of adverse impact we would submit that there is no perceivable adverse impacts we're just talking about unmerging the lots to have them be legally recognized as what they have been and create (inaudible) what is just one more buildable lot (inaudible). This is just as I've said I think the very intent of the Town Board's amendment in 2008 was to (inaudible) this situation.The Quatroche's just bought this property acquired them for their children and you know they did try to unmerge them in '96 and now the code allows them to do that. So our request is that you would reconsider that determination and grant a waiver of merger (inaudible) review of the facts and (inaudible) of the current code. I'm happy to address any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions from you? MEMBER DANTES : What about the other standards in the waiver of merger? There is single and separate search but then there's also several other standards after it. How do you is it maintained as a separate lot? Do they do work on it? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea I mean (inaudible) satisfied all three of the balancing criteria maintained separately and no adverse impacts and it is conforming in size with other lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just a flat grassy area that they've been mowing, probably for years. It has some cyclone fencing up, there is a shed in the corner with hedgerow along the Sunset Lane. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The shed is actually on lot 70. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it on somebody else's property? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Their shed is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the developed lot? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Developed lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know the way we've been writing these now is that the first step is do they qualify and clearly if it hasn't been transferred out of family ownership they qualify and then you go to the next step which are all of the standards of lot size and so on. Okay is there anybody on Zoom? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to ask Martin one question, can you build a conforming house on the proposed separate lot? MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) under a current code but yea absolutely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO The lot is 75 feet wide so you got a front yard and rear yard setbacks that are each 35, a depth of 105 so you believe CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can put a small house on it but it would have to MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There aren't a lot of other houses on those small lots that are small houses. I mean there is a certain scale in that whole area. Some of them have been developed 9 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting to two story you know one and a half story but mostly small ranch houses. Anybody on Zoom Liz? It doesn't look like it, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Alright motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7806—CHANET TISDEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Chanet Tisdel #7806. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 13, 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 permitted rear yard located at 905 Ninth St. in Greenport. This is a pool in a front yard, the code requiring a rear yard. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant Chanet Tisdel. As you can see if you can look at the survey you got the two streets Ninth St. and Flint St. which represents the two front yards primarily. The house is basically very close to the Ninth St. property. It does meet the rear yard setback from Ninth St. but not the rear yard setback from Flint St. If you've visited the site there is a fence pretty much all around what would be the pool area essentially and-there's a railroad track across from Ninth St. and on the other side is, a vacant lot which is lot number eight it's well vegetated. If you were on Flint St. there's a whole range of trees, the pool would not be visible from Flint St. at all and with the fencing all the way around it which is a closed fence you really wouldn't be able to see it. It's really setback as much as it can be on the property in order to try and avoid any other issues that may be there. It does meet the rear yard setback etc. like that, the only thing I'm before you right now is the fact that the inevitability of having two fronts and the inevitability of having a pool that requires a variance as such. i August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember this prior. MEMBER DANTES : Would you accept the condition that you have to put evergreen screening for the pool bordering Flint St? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ninth St. MEMBER DANTES : I'm saying Flint cause that's the side the non-conforming. MIKE KIMACK : There is take a look at the photos Eric, there is fairly a substantial amount of screening at the present time. I know Ninth St. there's screening it's heavily screened. Flint St. actually around the corner is heavily screened at the present time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well wait a minute, my notes indicate the possibility of a required evergreen screening on MIKE KIMACK : Flint St. or Ninth St? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's very heavy screening already located on let me look and see what I have here It's Flint MIKE KIMACK : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's got all the Leyland Cypress MIKE KIMACK : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But the other one is pretty open, I mean you can really see into it fairly well on Ninth St. I think that's what Eric was getting at. MIKE KIMACK : Across the street basically CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an undeveloped lot. MIKE KIMACK : It's an undeveloped lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : People driving by and from you know different angles they'll certainly going,to see MIKE KIMACK : But looking at that particular perspective you can I mean in a sense the fencing that they have right now blocks in and of itself the four foot closed fence closes the pool effectively from Ninth St. all the way around. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's true but if people were standing up and walking around the pool they would be perfectly visible in their bathing suits or whatever. I mean it's not at all uncommon that we simply say if a pool is going to be in a front yard even if it's MIKE KIMACK : So you would be looking at some more plantings pretty much along Ninth St. to the gravel driveway in that one area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea just leave the opening of the driveway of course. MIKE KIMACK : That would be helpful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we're not going to block the driveway but MIKE KIMACK : So you're looking for the screening along that existing chain link fence basically CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea MIKE KIMACK : out of the driveway and then would there be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't need it where the house is just along the portion up to the driveway. MIKE KIMACK : The driveway in that one area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, alright I don't have any further questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Mike just as a reminder and I'm sure you know this already, drywells where is the proposed drywell going? MIKE KIMACK : It can't go Nick the septic area is in that little corner between the house and the pool on the southeast corner of the property so the drywell will most likely go either on the north side primarily or towards the fence. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So somewhere in the triangle of either Flint or Ninth St. MIKE KIMACK : Yes and that would have to be on there in order to I'm not quite sure there is a drawing I'm not quite sure if the fellow that's putting in the pool actually included it on his (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : Why do they have a septic system, why not connect to Greenport sewer? MIKE KIMACK : Eric I'm not quite sure if the line is in the street. MEMBER DANTES : It says it on the survey that's why I'm asking. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Is it? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : It looks like they are there's a water meter there isn't there? MIKE KIMACK : They're hooked up to the water meter, I think Eric's question was whether they were hooked to the sewer line. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : By memory we had this discussion when they wanted the waiver of merger. I don't think because the railroad tracks and everything I don't think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think they're connected. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's not really relevant I just need to know where the MIKE KIMACK : In any respect the sewer line comes out the back of the house away at the present time so MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay. MIKE KIMACK : It would be quite a bit I'm looking at the drawing MEMBER DANTES : Then how do you get the 20 foot from the septic system to the pool? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to ask that. MIKE KIMACK : We do have that, it's a septic system in that back corner we got the 20 feet. MEMBER DANTES : Oh so it's on the property line? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not on the survey but it's MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The pool is 30 feet (inaudible) MIKE KIMACK : I was aware when I did that basically when we set the pool up primarily to make sure that we had that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Twenty foot distance. MIKE KIMACK : We've got 30 feet from the property line to that I think it's within we're 20 feet away with the pool. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're saying the septic is right on the lot line? August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : It's pretty close to it in that little corner right there. I'm looking at the drawing we'll have to put the drywell on obviously to satisfy the but I would not have a problem of having a condition that it have a drywell as part of the variance along with the screening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pool equipment is located on here already. MIKE KIMACK : Yea but it has a filter I'm not quite sure if it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, any other questions Board?Anybody on Zoom Liz who wants to address the application? Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye motion carries. HEARING#7807— MICHELE SASSO and JAQUELINE JONES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michele Sasso and Jacqueline Jones. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 24, 2023 amended May 2, 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 minimum front yard property line setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard property line setback of 10 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 4525 South Harbor Rd. in Southold. Would you state your name for the record please. JOSEPH OLIVERI :Joseph Oliveri CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning, so this is a proposed addition to a dwelling with a front yard setback at 26 feet is that correct where the code requires a minimum of 35, a side 141 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting yard setback at 8 feet where the code requires a 10 foot minimum and lot coverage of 21.8% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. 1 think this is a second floor addition on a one story single family dwelling. You are maintaining the existing front yard setback and actually increasing one side yard from 14.3 feet to 15 feet. It's a very oddly shaped lot. JOSEPH OLIVERI : That's what I'm here to talk to you about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I figured you would.be, I'll hand it over to you now. I couldn't even figure out I mean really who makes these lot lines up. JOSEPH OLIVERI : Our plan was to come before the Board today in order to request an area variance for a reconstruction of the existing residence. The Sasso family is intending to rebuild the structure to continue the use and ownership as a multi-generational summer retreat for the extended family as they have been the owners for several decades. The property is located in an R-40 zone, the existing lot is not only undersized for the zone but also irregular which poses a challenging site design. The existing house is showing signs of decay and age and before the house is unusable and becomes a safety risk my clients want to go through with reconstruction. The existing house was a mish mash of varying conditions built on and added on over time. The current floor plan includes only two bedrooms and is a poor layout for the intended use. Our initial design intent was to try and save as much of the existing house as could be saved but upon further inspection we've come to realize that it is going to require a complete rebuilt. However, we will keep the primary basement below grade structural walls and expand the footprint from there. The new design allows for a four bedroom, two bathroom residence with a kitchen and living area.To keep the footprint down and to avoid further relief required we added a second floor open loft which will be used as a bedroom. In terms of architectural expression in the fagade we decided on horizontal siding mixed with vertical board and batten on the gable walls. In addition, some standing seemed metal roofing was added over the covered front porch to give it some additional interest and depth. Our team especially feels that this reconstructed residence will fit in more with the fabric of the neighborhood. In terms of the actual dimensions and relief that we are requesting I offer the following, the required front yard is 35.8 feet the existing house is at 26 feet and the new areas of expansion of the house is at 32.6 feet much closer to the required 35 feet. Important to note is that we are not increasing the front yard relief from the existing but we're relieving the front yard depth. The minimum side yard is 10 feet, the existing structure is at 14.2 minimum and the proposed will be reduced down to 8 feet so we're asking for 2 feet of relief on the minimum side yard. The combined side yard minimum requirement is 25 feet, the existing house is 28 and after the additions we will be at 23 which again asks for 2 feet of relief. The lot coverage maximum allowed is 20% and after the reconstruction we will be at 21.8% which is asking for 1.8% of relief or 146 sq. ft. The main August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting difficulty with this site is the irregularity of the property and the size of the land. Mainly we are asking for 2 foot of side yard relief and about 150 sq. ft. of lot coverage. Mr. Sasso engaged Garten Architects eighteen months ago to work on this proposed design and the teamwork and dedication from all parties involved have brought this design together in such a way that we all feel will be at least impactful and cause no detriment to the neighborhood. In fact we know that this project will add property value to every property on the block. In addition to the time spent on this design we have also applied for and been approved for a new IA septic system which will serve this proposed four bedroom residence and we were not required to get a variance to be able to make it fit. Finally, it is important to point out that the neighbors are in support of the project and are hopeful that the work will get done and the house renovated. In closing I would like to thank the Board for considering our project for area variance and to allow the proposed reconstruction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your presentation, Eric questions? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No I mean working with a bizarrely shaped lot. JOSEPH OLIVERI : It could be,worse. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How? JOSEPH OLIVERI : We're talking about a family that's lived here for thirty years from generation to generation, we want to obviously you can see the existing pictures what it looks like it does not meet as you know fit in with the fabric of the neighborhood at all. The new design I think is much more in character with Southold. Again you're looking at a family that plans to stay here for generation after generation and really create a long lasting family element. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's only really literally one corner that's at 8 feet. JOSEPH OLIVERI : Such a small CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's tiny, what are you going to do (inaudible) for the corner? MEMBER LEHNERT : It's minor at best. August 3,2023 Regular Meeting JOSEPH OLIVER[ : It's (inaudible)to ask for a little corner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea really, it certainly is. Okay I don't have any questions, does anyone in the audience that wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. HEARING#7810—MEGAN BARRON, COTTAGE#15 BREEZEY SHORES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Megan Barron Cottage #15 Breezey Shores #7810. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's April 28, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a dormer addition to an existing seasonal cottage at 1) a non-conforming building containing a non-conforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use located at #15 Breezey Shores 65490 Main Rd. (adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. Is there someone here to represent the application? MEGAN BARRON : Good morning my name is Megan Barron I'm the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a proposal from you through your Architect Frank Uellendahl, have you got a copy of this letter? Yesterday we received a letter from a law firm we believe representing the Marina the new owners of the Marina at Sage Basin, it's a letter of objection and we wanted to make sure you have a copy of it. So it's part of our public record and the Board will have to address that in the decision. I think it's important to enter into the record that we have a lot of prior applications for Breezey Shores over many years in which the Board did sort of a code interpretation because this is very unusual. Typically a residence in a residential zone which is what this is would be considered a conforming use but August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting because there are multiple dwellings or cottages on one single property that's where it's considered non-conforming because we're only allowed one dwelling per one lot. So it's a very, very unique property and recognizing that these cottages have been in existence a long time and were in need of some reasonable structural repairs and so on without enlarging footprints necessarily. The Board determined that up to a three percent increase in the overall either through ceiling height through volume, livable floor area no decks you know that's against your C&R's on the property that this was reasonable. Basically this letter from the attorneys indicate that they believe that the standards for use variance are required. The Board looked at that a number of years ago and determined that that was not an applicable standard given the uniqueness of why these are considered non-conforming and usually it has to do with hardship with a single lot. Well we have multiple owners so it just simply became unwieldly. Frank knows very well the three percent increase that we were referring to have you talked to any of your neighbors in the other cottages about we know that the one neighbor has the identical dormer already installed. So it's not changing your footprint in any way MEGAN BARRON : I have talked to them before I even proposed doing this and they said oh you could put two up that would be great and I said no I'm good with one. So they are aware they know what it would look like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is very, very straightforward, Eric do you have any questions on this? I just wanted to be aware that we do have this in the record and in our decision we're going to have to acknowledge that and I think MEGAN BARRON : It's personal because I have stood against him in Trustees hearing a little revenge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't personalize it but you can. MEGAN BARRON : I'm like I'm not surprised. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO :.I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz anybody with their hands up? Anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We have four minutes to wait before we, we can't open a hearing until the time it's posted because there might be somebody rushing in at the last minute and say what do you mean that you already heard the decision I came here to talk about it. So I'm going to do some Resolutions we'll get those done. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 9:00 AM, so moved. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve Minutes from the Special Meeting held July 20, 2023 so moved. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Let's take a look at RQA Properties #7800, everybody got a copy of the draft? Everybody read it, everybody gone through it carefully? Any questions or comments or suggested edits? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe just a recap for the audience? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you do that briefly so that it's part of the record that we acknowledged what we (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is an application (inaudible) first page for a commercial use in a residential zone at the corner of Main Rd. and basically Pequash Ave., Fleets Neck Rd. The applicant wanted to legalize five (5) "as built" small sheds and temporary structures including a very large tensile structure that was required by the Planning Board to be removed back in 2006. Prior to that the applicant had come to the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief to expand the building_which was granted in 2005 to allow approximately twenty five percent increase in the floor area of the principal building. The owner/applicant without the benefit of any permits expanded the building to approximately sixty five percent I think or sixty seven percent greater than what was allowed. I think the motion is to and actually during the public hearing the applicant stated that they would remove all of the smaller sheds structures however they were hoping to keep the larger tensile one which was conditioned to be removed back in 2005 and 2006 by two different Boards and the motion is to grant relief as to allow the "as built" masonry addition measuring 24 by 48 feet approximately, expansion to the principal structure to remain. However the condition is that all the other tensile structures, the shed buildings and the larger tensile that was to be removed originally are all supposed to be removed before a building permit for the "as built" structure is granted. So I guess I'll make the motion that we CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to say one other thing, we did get comments from the Planning Board on here and by virtue of the establishment of these structures not in compliance with prior relief that was granted they've kind of messed up the parking situation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well one of the conditions of course on granting the relief for the existing "as built" is that they have to go back to the Planning Board to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's what I wanted to put into the record that we are acknowledging their comments from Planning. They are no longer they're not in compliance with the site plan approval either in addition to the ZBA's former determination. So in an effort to legalize everything on here we're going to require them to get an updated site plan approval to remedy the parking stalls and so on, on the site as well as remove what was supposed to be removed because in granting the variance for enlarging the building the idea Z August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting was that all the small accessories would be eliminated and everything would be indoors. They not only didn't do that but they enlarged it much bigger than what we even anticipated but it's a thriving business so we are going to allow them to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add that it's well screened (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not really an adverse impact to anybody and we don't want to be punitive but you know you gotta comply with on-site circulation. Alright any questions or comments or anything else from anybody? You ready to vote, you want to make a motion. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I make a motion that we grant relief for the masonry addition to the existing principal use "as built" and applied for with the conditions and there's six conditions including the removal of all of the other structures. It's quite detailed and of course the structures need to be removed prior to any "as built" building permit is issued therefore we ensure that the site is cleaned. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To deny the request to maintain the tent structure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'll second it, all in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7811SE—THOMAS and KATHLEEN BURKE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas and Kathleen Burke #7811SE. Applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is owner of the subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 780 Deep Hole Drive in Mattituck. Would you state your name for the record please. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting THOMAS BURKE : Thomas Burke I'm the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a letter of consistency with the LWRP in our record, we have a confirmation from the Building Department that the proposed livable floor area for the accessory apartment is 401 sq. ft. which does conform to the code. We have a birth certificate of your daughter indicating that the tenant will be your daughter, an affidavit of primary residency that you both signed, two driver's licenses, voter registration, income taxes alright we know you live there. The accessory garage has a C.O. I think that was just recently done you just got that. There's no longer a date on C.O. or is there? T. A. MCGIVNEY : The new one has to have a Certificate of three years prior to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you know what they changed the business of dates on Certificates of Occupancy like forever back and forth. At first it was 2010 then it was like eight years prior in other words the idea was originally of this was to say let's see if we can leverage more housing units out of what's built already not to build new stuff. So there was a date by which you know if you wanted to put it in a garage let's say the garage had to be there for a certain number of years, they keep changing it Town Board keeps changing it and updating it and now it's supposed to be for three years. T. A. MCGIVNEY : The new law says it can be a minimum of 220 sq. ft. but theirs is 401 which under the old one wouldn't have been appropriate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes because it would have been 450 minimum. I'm just explaining this to you it's not going to be a problem don't worry we'll figure this out but the bottom line is, the old code required a minimum of 450 sq. ft. and a maximum of 750. They now changed it lowered it to say 220 1 don't know who's living in 220 sq. ft. I mean even in my little house my closet is bigger but that's what the Board did and it still goes up to 750. So now you're conforming but on the other hand in terms of the date of your Certificate of Occupancy cause it's a pretty new building your garage that doesn't conform to the how many years was it, three? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Three years. MEMBER DANTES : When did they change the code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just recently, we looked at that they just recently. T. A. MCGIVNEY : 5/23/23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 5/23 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Was it recorded before he submitted the application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did we get the BOARD ASSISTANT : May 15th MEMBER DANTES :That's when they voted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's when they voted. MEMBER DANTES : But then it has to be recorded. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The application was May 15th and when did they vote? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Didn't we already put it into the code the new change? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in the code now. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's in the code now as of what date though let me go back and see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we're trying to do is figure out if we have a loop hole. In other words if you submitted your application before they voted on these changes then the date of the C.O. is okay we'll have to give you a variance for the undersized apartment which we can just roll into the decision we have the authority to do that and we've done it before when somebody was five feet over or two feet under or whatever it's a minimum amount really. We're just checking to see what leverage we have here. MEMBER DANTES : I mean May 5th is his letters to Trustees, May 9th is when his paperwork is notarized. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I have the date of the Local Law the meeting but whether it got to them but then when it went to the State. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's got to be codified by the State and then it can become effective. So we need to know what Albany did. Well you know we can figure this all out after I mean I don't because it's just a matter of how we have to write this in order to be within the boundaries of what's legally required. So you submitted what was May what? BOARD SECRETARY : May 15th was the submission of the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The code change was effective T. A. MCGIVNEY : May 23rd CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May 23? r August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yea it's in the code already it's so the state accepted I don't know what date they got it back from the state. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it was May 23rd so it would have to be after that, so you got your application in under the old code. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Which would have been a denial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no it would.have been an approval it would just have required MEMBER PLANAMENTO : An extra variance because it was too small. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the undersize yes. Well we could approve the apartment but grant relief for the undersized apartment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That would be the cleanest. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I agree. T. A. MCGIVNEY : That's the best (inaudible) C.O. for the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was on the old code, what was the date of the C.O? I don't think there was one they just needed a C.O. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right MEMBER DANTES : Why did they add that back in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't a clue. T. A. MCGIVNEY : To prevent from people from building (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But why wouldn't they, I mean it doesn't make sense it's not consistent logic in this particular case. Alright now we got it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We're adding a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, we have the template for that. MEMBER DANTES : What did they say the square footage was? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 401 MEMBER DANTES :'How did they get that cause I'm looking at the plans here and I'm counting like 440 which is still a little light but August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's less of a variance. MEMBER DANTES : I mean the way the dormers are shaped I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know exactly how Mike calculated that but that's what we have we do have the Building Department confirmation. MEMBER DANTES : How many square feet did you calculate it as? THOMAS BURKE : Not counting the bathroom space as livable space. MEMBER DANTES : Is that it? THOMAS BURKE : Yes MEMBER DANTES : Okay, what happens when you add the bathroom? THOMAS BURKE : It's close to 440 1 believe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But bathrooms are not calculated as livable floor area. You know in the beginning you just took the length and the width didn't care what rooms they were just the outside dimensions and that's the square footage but that isn't the way to calculate that's gross floor area but that's not livable floor area. Okay now we see why. Alright anything from the Board at this point? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Anybody in the audience please come forward and state your name. PAUL CONNER : My name is Paul Connor. I'd like to read a brief statement and it's really not comfortable.opposing the neighbors but we feel compelled to do so. So my name is Paul Connor and my wife and I have lived at 830 Deep Hole Drive which is next to the Burke property. So our property is immediately next to the Burke property and we have lived at this address for twenty two plus years and we are here today to voice our opposition to the establishment of an auxiliary apartment at the Burke property as we believe that such a requirement especially in a separate building from the prime residence is not in character with the neighborhood. Our neighborhood consists of single family homes with single home structures some with attached single story garages. Granting a variance especially in a separate building will have the potential to adversely change the character of our neighborhood and negatively affect property values and for these reasons we oppose this matter. Thank you for your time and attention. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome thank you. Anything else from anyone? Come forward please. ZS I I August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting PETER HACK : Okay if I approach, there's three packets there for the Board to follow along. Good morning my name is Pete Hack and I reside at 700 Deep Hole Drive which is on the other side of the Burke family (inaudible). As a (inaudible) combat disabled veteran this issue concerns me enough that I took time off my job losing money to be here today to address this and voice my objection to the project. This project I understand town code was or existing structures, the structure was built for the expressed purpose an apartment. As you can see the footings were poured, is something funny may I speak? Both footings were poured you can see the back was framed for a door. This is not the first time the Burkes have done this, as you can see the separate meters were done. If there was a C.O. issued I don't know how it was done because there's no downspouts, there's no gutters causing flooding and damaging my property you can see that in the photos the second page. So if there was a C.O. issued I don't know how that was done. Over lighting, the garage at night as you can see I have juvenile children and it completely lights up the whole side of the house the bedroom causing disruption to sleep patterns to a disabled child. If you continue along you'll see the agendas that were continued in the past where this was done on their prior property at 1570 Bray Ave. The exact same structure was built on the perimeter property with an accessory apartment above so they're well familiar with what they're doing. As the.work was performed some of the work was performed without permits, you'll see the letter from Mr. Goodwin on the back page. (inaudible) permit was done without permission. Contractors blocked the driveway, contractors trespassed you can see numerous photos. I tried addressing Mr. Burke he didn't want to hear it so at this point you know we're concerned. It drops the character of the neighborhood there's no other garages built out front with a residence above it. It does say it's for his daughter but his daughter is employed by the city and owns a condo in Jackson Heights so I don't understand how he expects her to be staying out here. He's been dishonest with me from the beginning of the project so I don't expect his honesty to improve. At this point I would like to register my objections and if you need any other further documentation for some of this work that's been done, the damage that's been caused to my property please let me know I'd be happy to (inaudible). Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Anything else, would you like to make a comments on any of that? THOMAS BURKE : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience?Anything else from the Board? T. A. MCGIVNEY : This was filed in June so the application is completely before the Local Law so then did you go over I'm not sure if you established all the things, one is going to be for him and principle residence you do have to be steps making sure it's going to be August 3, 2.023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, if you want me to review it again I'll do it. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just want to make sure because we have to go through all the checklist for that being CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this was these are the standards under which your application was submitted. The existing dwelling shall occupy one of the dwelling units as the owner's principle residence I think that was established by documents that were submitted. Secondly, the existing one family dwelling shall contain not less than no, no wait a minute that's for the that's not for the accessory this is accessory. The only thing that's crossed out here is, the owner of the premise shall occupy T. A. MCGIVNEY : then the lease CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have a lease submitted don't we? We need to have a lease submitted signed by the daughter. We do have a signed and undated lease to the daughter Megan Burke that's in our file. The required documentation for conforming to the code has been submitted other than the concern about the size and about the date of the C.O. that was what was the (inaudible).,So we'll have to grapple with that. I think the neighbors for your testimony your concern also that's why we have these public hearings. Everyone deserves their time in court and it's appropriate that everyone is able to participate and providing the ZBA with information that's helpful in making decisions. Typically just so you are aware this is a Special Exception Permit, it's not really a variance. It might require a variance for the size depending on how we manage to handle that but with Special Exception Permits basically what that means is they are permitted by law. However they need to meet certain standards and that's why they become before the ZBA in order to see-if they do. That's why we require the submission of certain documents which we've just entered into the record. It's sort of we do still have lots of leverage but the point there are some kinds of decisions the Zoning Board makes that more or less if you check off all the boxes it's assumed that you have the right to do this. So we're looking at boxes that are checked and boxes that area little murky at the moment. I don't know the exact relevance I mean Thomas Burke and Kathleen Burke are now have now established a life estate to your daughter right. T. A. MCGIVNEY : The daughter has granted you a life estate. The property is in your daughter's name and she's granted you,a life estate. THOMAS BURKE : She's in the deed but we have life T. A. MCGIVNEY : You have a life estate? THOMAS BURKE : Yes, actually we own it. 1 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting T. A. BURKE : I guess if she's using the principle they're staying in the principle residence then and she's still I don't think she needs a lease. MEMBER LEHNERT : How can he be the owner and the tenant? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Say that again. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm saying you can't be the owner and the tenant. THOMAS BURKE :Till we pass. MEMBER DANTES : She grants sole use control benefit and income of the above property described CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Until death, I think that's okay. MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay just a question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When things were going so easily. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then how does she qualify to live T. A. MCGIVNEY : As a tenant? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea she needs well I guess no you don't have to meet the standard cause it's a family member the affordable housing registry is what I was getting at. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All that is required basically is that principle occupancy by the property owner and that the occupant of the rental unit whichever it is, it can be the house or it can be the apartment it doesn't matter. That individual be either a direct relative of the property owner or someone who is on or qualifies to be on the affordable housing registry, those are the standards. It's a little unorthodox to have it this way but I don't believe it's disqualifying. MEMBER LEHNERT : They live there that I know that's not a question. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yea all rights to it until they pass. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so okay but thank you anyway for bringing it up. The more we have on the record the better. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Anything else we need to address for the record? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know, is there anything else you'd like to say or your wife? Anybody on Zoom Liz? Sure we'll accept it as part of the record. Okay are we ready to close? I August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting don't see any reason to hold it open, I think we have everything we need. Alright motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING #7812—AGUSTIN and MELISSA ROMO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Agustin and Melissa Romo #7812. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 25, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a deck addition with a canopy attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum secondary front yard property line setback of 25 feet located at 1820 Wells Ave. in Southold. Please state your name. PABLO DEMIGUEL IGLESIAS : My name is Pablo DeMiguel Architect helping the Romos built their home. You can see on the plans the existing home that we've been renovating this year that rectangle and the footprint hasn't changed. It is a condition right now that is encroaching the new secondary setback requirement. As part of the renovation we are proposing the first floor is about a foot and a half above the existing pool deck so we are proposing to (inaudible) access on the living area to the pool deck. You have a new pool deck area and it cannot be above it. Part of that is going to encroaching into that required setback. So we are seeking relief for that and requirement. At the moment there is an existing fence along the pool deck. The new deck extension won't be visible from the street, the canopy only a portion of this will be visible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all been out to the property and inspected the project and did notice of course that the rear yard is completely screened with mature evergreens and some fencing. You're not,going to see it from the street, it's not going to have any adverse impact. It's not affecting lot coverage it's a pergola it's a sun screen you know. I think your August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting application said it would be about I think I looked at the elevation too, 2 foot 6 inches above the fence so there's not really going to be the impact on the only neighbor that could have any kind of an impact. Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : This house is staying there aren't any changes to it and you're building a pergola? PABLO DEMIGUEL INGLESIAS : The house is staying yea and the fence is staying. The only thing that we're adding is that (inaudible)there is an existing deck for the pool. MEMBER DANTES : Then why are they sending you for gross floor area for a deck and a pergola? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's just a setback a secondary front yard setback, 13 foot 4 inches where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet. You jumped the gun the wrong application. , MEMBER LEHNERT :They have two front yards it's just a secondary setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They changed the code recently so that a secondary front yard is you know allowed to have a smaller setback than a primary front yard. Prior to that it was both front yards had to have the same 35 foot setback. Anything else from the Board, questions comments from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My only question is, why couldn't you conform to the 25 foot setback just start the pergola stepped in back in the corner of the house? PABLO DEMIGUEL IGLESIAS : We do but the living area actually is at that corner of the house with access to the pool (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and you have the proposed doorways. You have doorways in the elevation illustrating from I'm assuming the living space to the pool deck but my question is, why can't you just start the pergola on the outside where the first column is or approximately another 10 feet? PABLO DEMIGUEL IGLESIAS : Yea we could but that's why we are here to ask you for permission to just cover the (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this fs a design choice? PABLO DEMIGUEL IGLESIAS : Design choice. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And are you able to design it that it would function the same way? To allow access you can design and make it comply. PABLO DEMIGUEL IGLESIAS : (inaudible) stepping down to the pool deck and the other part is the pergola (inaudible) wouldn't be (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it's still going to be a setback variance for the deck. MEMBER LEHNERT : The house already violates the setback. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The house is right against the road. MEMBER LEHNERT : He's working with what's there. .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's pretty benign. MEMBER LEHNERT : I do too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing 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 DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7813—LAWRENCE C. and JEANNE M. PROVENZANO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lawrence C. and Jeanne M. Provenzano #7813. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's April 10, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and construct additions and alterations to a single family dwelling including a second story addition and a 31.5 sq. ft. outdoor shower at 1) pool located in other August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting than the code permitted rear yard, 2) additions more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%. 3) additions located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 4) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area located at 555 Three Waters Lane in Orient. ANTHONY PASCA : Anthony Pasca, 108 East Main St. Riverhead, I'm the attorney for the applicants who are here. I want to introduce you to Bishop Larry Provenzano and Jeanne Provenzano they've owned this property for about seven years. It's been a part time residence for them and Bishop Provenzano is approaching retirement soonish and they've been looking to turn this into their retirement home and they have a few adult children and they're hoping to have some room,for them to come and visit them. So they embarked on this project a while ago to start working on some renovations to the house building a little extra space and put in a pool somewhere. They hired Kate Samuels who's here and I'd like her to take you through the specific changes and then we'll talk a little bit about the variance. KATE SAMUELS : Hello my name is Kate Samuels from Samuels and Steelman Architects. Larry and Jeanne are the ones who hired me in April of 2022 for an addition and renovation of their house at Three Waters. The goal of the renovation and addition was to create a (inaudible) with four full bedrooms and an office. We were also hired to create pool and well and septic system as well on the site. We looked at many options that weren't successful including spreading off the master bedroom which added the lot coverage. We also looked at (inaudible) the existing garage and create living space however and also adding a standalone garage which also created and added to the lot coverage and setbacks. Lastly we looked at also having an addition a second floor addition to the main house but it unfortunately was not kind of a compact design. So ultimately the design that we ended up with was a second floor over the existing garage and basically we were able to make use of the height of the garage ceiling as you can see in this rendering to create that second floor. So ultimately the additional height of the roof is only about three feet above the existing roof line. Ultimately you know we have in the plans we were able to create three extra bedrooms in that addition. Ultimately the addition is about 750 sq. ft. for that second floor addition. Ultimately in the elevations and renderings it's shaded mostly on trees on most of the sides and for the scale of the renovation we were looking to kind of-the other area other houses in the area to keep with the existing context of the existing area. That is most of kind of the design. In terms of the site plan we wanted to add just a very small 15 by 30 pool in the rear yard. It was really kind of the only location since it is a corner lot so we tried to kind of include the pool close to (inaudible). Ultimately the result of both the addition and the site plan was that there was about an additional 580 sq. ft. over the allowed floor area which unfortunately as we were kind of going through the Health Department application this resolution 746 passed so we August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting were really in the middle of that design process. So that was kind of a bit of the history and the design and I welcome to answer any specific questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me enter into the record then unless you want to do this what the variance requests are all about. So we're looking at a rear yard setback at 13 feet 11 inches where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet, lot coverage at 23.4% where the code permits a maximum of 20%, gross floor area of 3,336 sq. ft. where the code permits a maximum in this case of 2,568 sq. ft. There's a prior ZBA decision #550 by (inaudible) which was a waiver of merger. ANTHONY PASCA : Sorry you said 3,336 sq. ft.? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did 3,236 ANTHONY PASCA : 3,236 1 think you said 3,336. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you 1 have 236 in my notes. The pool is in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard location but it is a corner lot with two front yards we're aware of that. It's very difficult in this case to even figure out where the rear yard is. ANTHONY PASCA : It's because of the L-shaped house. If it was a traditional rectangle there could be a primary and a secondary then you could determine which one was that but because of the L-shape there is no side yard or no rear yard I'm sorry where you could put MEMBER DANTES : Where the shed is but ANTHONY PASCA : I mean as far as functionally that is the rear yard if you were there, when you look at it you would say this is the rear yard but it's technically a side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we saw that. ANTHONY PASCA : Two side yards actually. The pool that's half of it, the fact that there really is no rear yard location for the pool we did want to meet the setbacks so that is the only location for it. We tried as far as the coverage because that's the other impact the pool has the coverage to minimize that as possible and ask for the minimum necessary by getting rid of the shed and redoing the decks into a patio so that the net affect was less than the pool addition. I think the pool 15 by 30 1 don't know what you guys typically see but that's on the small it's as small as it really can be without it being a spa at some point. So you know I think we're asking for the minimum relief that we can possibly ask for and still be able to put a pool on the property. Pools are a customary amenity in the neighborhood they're all over. I think I'd like to talk about the addition,this is a new law this August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I have a question about that first because it says on the Notice of Disapproval the one I have it says, please take notice your application dated January 25, 2023, my understanding was that law didn't go into effect till after January 25tH ANTHONY PASCA : (inaudible) I mean this was (inaudible) part of it I don't usually get to stand in front of you and say it's not a self-created hardship cause almost always it is you know when somebody buys. This project has been in the works for a lot longer and the law caught up with them. As Kate said they were working through the Health Department side of it and the new law kicked in and so we're subject to it we don't have vested rights but it isn't a self- created hardship in that respect it's something that they just you know got caught up in. MEMBER DANTES : Even though the application was in before the law. ANTHONY PASCA : Yea because there was no built in you either get grandfathering vested rights through a statutory grandfathering and there is not statutory grandfathering until you put the framing up you don't have a vested right so unfortunately that's why the Building Department flagged it. I wish that they had thought of saying, anybody who is in the pipeline at this point is exempted but that's the Town Board prerogative so that's why we're here. Anytime you're doing a new law you know you all have to be I'm sure that you're thinking well this is our first one, probably I don't know if you've had any others but this may be your first one on this new law and there's always that concern, well what kind of precedence are we setting you know by giving variances and so I'd like to think of these as you're dealing with good precedence, bad precedence. A precedent in and of itself is not a bad thing unless it's a bad precedent so in this case what I think makes this a good template for the types of applications that might be eligible for relief are they've been careful to stick to the footprint. This is not an expansive application for an addition that then branches out beyond the existing footprint. It's taking a one story house and adding a second story to part of it and only doing so within you know a few feet of the roofline so in terms of impacts on the character of the community I think it's negligible. I think it's hard to say like going around that community that anyone would notice this to being quote, unquote out of character with the neighborhood given what else is there. There are larger lots to be sure in the neighborhood and larger houses than what this one is. We're in that range of where we have to ask for the variance it's a three figure variance we're not even at a thousand square feet over but it's still a variance so we still have to come before the Board. I'll point out that we do not exceed the new law has a maximum so it creates this formula and it says up to a certain number, we do not exceed the maximum but we're within the range of what would be allowable for this category of lot size but we do admittedly need the variance. As Kate said we looked at alternatives, we looked at alternatives there really is no because it's not a new construction it's different if you're doing a new construction you might be able to build a bigger foundation August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting and get some living space down there but it would have been cost prohibitive to try to build downward, lift the house remove the house built a new foundation it would have been a much different project. As you can see there's new other location, there was some talk about squaring off southeast corner but that would have added to lot coverage and it still would have been GFA'ish. I think it's safe to say there's no environmental adverse environmental impacts, there's going to be a new IA system built into this project. With respect to the GFA variance it's not a self-created hardship. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Even if it is self-created it's still not (inaudible) ANTHONY PASCA :True, true but I never get to say that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is unusual. ANTHONY PASCA : I never get to say that so I get to point out that it's not a self-created hardship which is maybe a first for me in many years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't see them often either. MEMBER DANTES : Actually there is a grandfathering provision in the statute I just don't know if this qualifies or not. ANTHONY PASCA : You have it in front of you? MEMBER DANTES : Yea, maximum gross floor area restrictions imposed by this Section 280- 207 shall not be applicable to any project otherwise subject to the restrictions for which complete construction application has been submitted for approval to the Town of Southold Building Department or discretionary Board which I'm assuming that's what we are prior to the enactment date of this Section. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But then let's look at dates. We just went through this with the accessory apartment. MEMBER DANTES : It finally got recorded I thought sometime_ last spring and then he's got January 25th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They messed it up, they passed the wrong draft, voted on it sent it to Albany had to rescind it and resend it. It would have been done a lot earlier but the Attorney at the time erroneously submitted to the Board the wrong draft and they didn't realize it till I screamed at them. MEMBER DANTES : I think at least the GFA requirement might be August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll just have to look at dates. ANTHONY PASCA : If you guys can the Building Department flagged it so we're here because they flagged it we have to apply CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood ANTHONY PASCA : You guys can certainly take a second look at that and then CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it will mitigate you know ANTHONY PASCA : It could mitigate or it can avoid having to even set a precedent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so we'll have a look we just have to check dates. Thank you for pointing that out. ANTHONY PASCA : Questions of us or the applicants are here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've driven around the neighborhood, we know what it looks like, we. see what the other houses are, we see what the subject property looks like, they're preserving some trees which is nice. It's going to look different but it's not going to radically in my mind it will not architecturally radically change anything it will improve. It's a very contextual design. ANHONY PASCA : It's screened properly hard to see any impacts on anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, did anybody talk to the neighbors or anything like that? ANTHONY PASCA : Many of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there's no objection, there's no support just unless somebody is on Zoom. MARGARET NESSBAUM Hello can you hear me, my name is Margaret Nessbaum good morning all. I live right across the street from Lawrence and Jeanne and I'm very excited that you have a new project but I have a number of questions which really tends to our most precious resource that we all share is water use. First of all I'd like to share that one of my neighbors who I did not get your certified letter has and expressed feeling that even though I can see from out my window that you have big greenery your variance that you're asking for is massively incongruous to what all the other small homes are here and that's just let's move forward. More importantly I am interested in the water use. You said you're putting in a new septic is that correct? August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PASCA : There's a new septic system that is part of the project it's one of the low nitrogen new systems that will replace the existing system. MARGARET NESSBAUM : Excellent, are you going to have a gray water capture system for reuse because as I can see you have irrigation to maintain those trees, is that correct? ANTHONY PASCA : No irrigation for the trees. MARGARET NESSBAUM : Oh so you're the only people that have green lawn even though we're all brown. Let's move forward, how are you expecting to fill the water in the pool, is it going to chlorinated or brominated? ANTHONY PASCA : That has not been determined. MARGARET NESSBAUM : You mean whether it's chlorine or bromine or so in other words you may build a pool from the aquafer that we all si hare, is that correct? ANTHONY PASCA : Should I keep answering these? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With all respect to your questions and we're not trying in any way to stop you, what they do relative to filling the pool is not before the Board of Appeals it is really not relevant it's the location of the pool. MARGARET.NESSBAUM : Oh no, no actually it should be because if the water use impacts all the ground water of the neighbors then this should be denied. Let's move forward, how many bathrooms are there,currently in the house? (?)Three MARGARET NESSBAUM : Three, and how many do you plan to add on to (inaudible) I just want to know how much water are you guys going to be using? Is this going to be an accessory apartment CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There will be one more bathroom then existing and that is a matter for determination by the Health Department who supervisors and grants permits okay for water usage on the property. MARGARET NESSBAUM : So in other words my questions about water usage are not viable at this time? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I won't you know we're all concerned about water all throughout the town August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting MARGARET NESSBAUM : Well that's the whole point here. Isn't that the entire point of how much more water is this house going to use?The structure of the house whether it's beautiful blah, blah, blah, has a shower I want to know how they're going to fill that pool and refill it and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that is not determined at this point. You've already gotten an answer MARGARET NESSBAUM : The answer is you haven't decided. So you're not going to base your decision so the apartment that's going to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me, ma'am look we understand your concern I think but you are really you are free to comment but to continue to question especially when those questions are not we're not equipped to address them, they are not before the Board of Appeals. MARGARET NESSBAUM : When will they be addressed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The Health Department will address those concerns. MARGARET NESSBAUM : So I should call the Health Department immediately? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well perhaps the best course of action would be for you to consult an attorney if you wish to pursue these complicated questions because the Board of Appeals MARGARET NESSBAUM : I don't see them as being complicated, normal people can answer these questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the bottom line is these are not issues that are matters before the Zoning Board of Appeals. We limit ourselves to whatever the law allows us to have jurisdiction over.The applicant MARGARET NESSBAUM : So the use of ground water is not your purview? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The use of ground water in this application is being addressed by the incorporation of a new IA system and is proposed by the applicant that is it. If you have more comments you're welcomed to make them but we are not in a position to answer questions. So please proceed with any other comments you want to make MARGARET NESSBAUM : I really appreciate you listening to me, hopefully this will not impact our community in a detrimental way where we will have to take further action. I appreciate your time. You guys all have a great day. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else on Zoom? Is there anybody in the audience? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) some calculations previous and I rechecked it, under the old code their lot is approximately 13,750 sq. ft. they could have had 2,750 sq. ft. of footprint originally but then in theory times two because you'd have a second floor. So a house of approximately 5,500 sq. ft. and I'm saying this just because you guys are the first people that we're working under the new code whether to Eric's point is truly applicable or not I think you're here and it's a lovely design but under the new code you're allowed 2,100 sq. ft. for the first 10,000 and then 12.5% for the additional 3,750 sq. ft. which is 2,568 total. Now you don't have a finished basement, this house is more than half of what would' have been allowed CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Under the old code. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : just a month or two before. I mean in a sense I'd argue it's a good thing maybe a little sad because it's a small house compared to before but the opportunity what the town hopes to achieve is to have people building things in scale within the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't personally with my architectural training and background do not see this as out of scale with the rest of the community. MEMBER PLANEMENTO : My only thought is that I'd remind people cause I don't like seeing "as builts" when they come before us, you have a proposal to have an unfinished basement please don't finish the basement because that impacts your livable CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Floor area MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No that's what I'm saying. ANTHONY PASCA : It was looked at as an alternative could the basement be finished but it cannot be finished cause it's not (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That kind of in a sense saddens me cause a basement shouldn't impact anyone's use at a project like this home. I'm saying this cause this is the first application we have under the new code and also it's a small house. MEMBER LEHNERT : And a percentage of their lot coverage is the pool. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well you still have the 20%for the pool just not for the livable. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we've heard all we need to hear, is there anything else from anybody? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to recess for lunch is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to reconvene, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 4'Q August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7804—9450 MAIN BAYVIEW LLC/DANIEL MARRA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board this afternoon is for 9450 Main Bayview LLC/Daniel Marra #7804. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 30, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet located at 9450 Main Bayview Rd. in Southold. So this is a proposed we've certainly have seen this before and we went back and forth between Trustees and ZBA. This is a proposal for a new single family dwelling with a front yard setback at 20 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet on this particular lot. So that's to conform to the required setbacks oh okay hold on. I've got notes in here that indicates what you put into your application already but what's going on with the Trustees? They've had hearings I know there was a couple of denials and it would appear that you were before them more recently and there was no decision rendered. We didn't get an approval or a denial. ' ANTHONY PORTILLO : So this is our third design on this property the smallest of the three obviously. The first one was probably double the size it (inaudible) D.E.C. approval and then it went to Trustees and it was denied by Trustees. I thought I took their comments into consideration on the second application but it also was denied. Then we submitted a third application and we did have a we actually just did a site visit with them. During that site visit the owner Dan Marra was present and they are asking us to get 80 feet from the freshwater CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 80? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am 80 feet from the freshwater wetland line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that from the survey we have you're proposing 79.4 they want 80. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea we'll probably get a little bit we'll see from the floor plans it's bunch of the house is pretty small but we're able to get three bedrooms and two full bathrooms and a half bath on the first floor and then really just like a kind of an open floor plan on the first floor for living space.-I actually wanted to present a couple of things. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure go ahead. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm going to read into the record but it's a couple of approvals of homes nearby that got variances. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have D.E.C. or a letter of non-jurisdiction from D.E.C.? August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : We had D.E.C. approval on our first design which is much larger we were like 55 feet from the freshwater but I don't think that's going to be an issue (inaudible) an amendment. I just wanted to get Trustees approval first before I go back to the D.E.C. BOARD ASSISTANT : You do have to go back? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I will I think once Trustees approves it then we can go back to the D.E.C. cause again,I don't want to spin my wheels with that MEMBER DANTES : If you can get us a copy of that first the D.E.C. approval for our file. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, actually I wrote something it's a little bit of a tricky site. So the property listed as SCTM#1000-87-05-22, 9450 Main Bayview has site specific conditions that create design limitations. The properties total lot area is 53,596 sq. ft. although about 44,578 sq. ft. of that is wetland area which leave us with approximately 29,017 sq. ft. of buildable area which is I sort'of drew that out or map it out on that site (inaudible). When the previous application was presented before the Trustees there was a limitation from their department that said that they would only allow us to build 80 feet from the wetlands on the property. Taking this limitations from the Trustees and the allowed setback from the Zoning Board in consideration this leaves us with no area to build a dwelling. The 50 foot front yard setback and the 80 foot setback from the wetlands overlap. Due to this we're requesting a variance from the ZBA that allows the client to construct a relatively small dwelling that only occupies about three percent of the properties lot coverage. In order to propose this we stand before the ZBA requesting relief for a 20 foot front yard setback. If the Zoning Board did not count the wetlands as part of the lot area and only consider the buildable area the lot would be determined a non-conforming lot'under 39,999 sq. ft. This would allow the dwelling to sit 40 feet from the front yard 15 feet from the side yard and 35 foot combined and 50 feet from the rear which then we would only be proposing a 20 foot variance or relief. It is common for Main Bayview Road's character that the dwellings are set near the road and a study done by our office we have determined that there are numerous properties that have been constructed 40 feet or closer to the road. 9450 Main Bayview Rd. has a specific addition where the property line has a 20 foot about a 22 foot buffer from the road despite requesting a 20 foot front yard variance. The dwelling will still sit back further from the road. The dwelling will still sit back further from the road than its neighboring properties. Some properties with similar front yard setbacks conditions include 9625 Main Bayview, 4015 Main Bayview, 5875 Main Bayview and also I think seven examples which we sort of showed you where they were located down Main Bayview on the map I presented. So just to kind of summarize a little bit, what I'm suggesting is we obviously have a hardship with the land and where the wetlands is you can see that we sort of gave you guys a sort of a mark out of like 4 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting where 80 feet is and really the area we can really put a home on the property. My other thought on this is having that buffer from the street we're really going to be 40 feet off the street line so I don't think we're really creating a presence on the road and one other thing that we sort of thought about in the design is to try to keep it as low as possible even though it's a two story one of the things we considered based on the Trustees is don't do a normal foundation. We are going to do a pier foundation cause we want to have the least amount of disturbance to the land. So doing a flat roof design really brings the structure down it's not going to be as tall as maybe a normal pitched structure. The other thought on this was about to kind of deduct the wetlands area then you really would have a non-conforming lot and our relief would be smaller and that was really what I was getting at if you looked at it that way. I do believe that if you look down Main Bayview on that map that we provided there are a lot of homes right across the street a little more east you have a home that's basically like 20 feet off the road it's pretty close to its property line which I have there was a relief for. This relief is ZBA file 6853 the property is 9625 Main Bayview and they were granted a relief for a 10 foot front yard setback on a reconstruction and that variance was granted. Then there was another variance that was granted similar on this road, 4015 Main Bayview there was a front yard variance of 28 feet 7 inches on a 50 foot required front yard so we're asking for a little bit more than that but I think it's similar. Like I said I think one thing to think about here is (inaudible)from the street line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are any of these brand new construction? ANTHONY PORTILLO : This one was a reconstruction so it was an existing home that was reconstructed based on Southold Town Code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea cause that's what I remember I mean a lot of them were there already so they were already non-conforming. It's a little bit different when you're starting from scratch. You know very well the limitations of this building site. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I do believe if you when we're talking about zoning and thinking about reliefs I believe that you really are looking at the neighborhood that you're constructing a building in. I mean that's the prime example where a lot of the homes in this neighborhood are built close to the street I mean (inaudible) drive up and down this road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So how close are you to getting a determination from the Trustees? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Like is said the meeting with them on site went really well, they asked us to come back here to basically get approval from the Board on what you would allow on August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting the front yard setback and then we would go bath there. It sounded to me that if we are holding that 80 feet that that would be acceptable to them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because this property's primary driver is really environmental impacts more than anything else that's been the reason for the difficulty to begin with. I think our Board would prefer to have a determination from the Trustees. I mean typically we would render decisions before that, there's no hard and fast rule, there's nothing in the code that requires it. The point is and I don't want to see people bounce back and forth and caught in the middle but you have a lot more negotiating ability with Trustees. I mean you can sit down and discuss it in a pre-conference submission you can discuss it at the site, we're in real time here. I mean I don't know if you want to phrase it any other way but if they have a hard and fast line then the ZBA ANTHONY PORTILLO : But we did have the site visit and at least they're (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but they haven't you know written their determination yet and if you're that close then I don't know that we would need another public hearing particularly cause I don't think there's any more information we're going to learn. So I think basically I don't really have any questions about it, it's a fairly modest sized house it's certainly a lot smaller than what we started with and the you know as you point out the setback at 20 feet from the property line is going to look a lot larger than that it won't be totally out of keeping. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Is there anyway the Board is in agreeance with what we're proposing and thinks the relief is something they're going to grant I don't know how to communicate that to the Trustees so that they can cause to me it sounded like their determination wasn't gonna be granted until Zoning made some determination. So I thought I would just I don't know where that's going to go with them if I go back and then it all seemed like it went well but I don't have any CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can communicate it to them. I mean you know we certainly don't have no problem I can call Glenn today. I mean the bottom line is if you're that close and they made a determination of 80 feet and you tweak your site plan to 80 feet and Liz writes up an administrative permit then you know that's a decision that the ZBA can then say that's a hard and fast decision. Then we have to look and see whether or not that front yard setback is warranted based upon those standards which you've addressed in your application and here. We need to put an end to this one way or the other,this ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would appreciate that because you know again my client has the right to do what he wants basically and 441 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood, people have property rights. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We've doing this for two years now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because it's really you know it's a very tough almost unbuildable site given where the water table is and everything else and the small lot size. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The area where we are proposing to build (inaudible) the higher part of the lot and get septic in there, it's not a problem CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it wouldn't be a building site if you couldn't. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're not going in the water though where we're proposing it so you might be on other building sites where you are putting a septic system in the water that's not the case here. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can I just ask you, why did the Trustees issue two previous decisions without waiting to see what the ZBA was going to do? Did they give you an indication why now they want this? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Honestly I thought it was a pretty harsh ruling and they I feel like there should have been a discussion and then an adjournment. Maybe it didn't hear properly when they were looking for the statement of 80 feet never came up until we did the site visit. Looking back I would say (inaudible) would,have probably been helpful so that we didn't go to a public hearing with that and go back and forth but again that mention of the 80 foot discussion was at the site visit not at any hearings. They didn't fully tell us like hey if you push it back to this which if they did then I would have tried I would have come up with a different design (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're not going to I don't think need we'll hear from you know today from anyone else who wants to address the application but I don't think we're going to need look this is what it is and I think we're going to have to make a decision one way or the other based on what you've submitted. The point is to make a decision one way or the other based on what you've submitted. The point is I think it would be important since the primary we're going to have to talk we already have an appointment scheduled to talk to Trustees not about just this application but about this whole process. We don't want to burden property owners unfairly and we want to do a better job when we have concurrent jurisdiction like we do with the Planning Board to coordinate things to run as smoothly as possible between Trustees and ZBA. Originally you know it was an informal agreement because the ZBA has more (inaudible) powers than Trustees we would tend to go first to see what restrictions if any we might impose and then it would be an easier job for them to 451 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting proceed. In cases like this I think we have to make some exceptions because their either Board could undo what the other Board did I mean in theory you know it's happened before. We've granted something first over on Lake Maratooka and they decided the house needed to be pushed back closer to the road and what they didn't understand was not only creating then a front yard variance which we didn't have to grant previously but side yard variances cause the lot was shaped like this it wasn't parallel. So then they had to come back to us again. If we can avoid that it's in everybody's best interest. We can speak to them about it but I don't know how does the Board to me the best thing to do is to simply hear what else everybody has to say and then adjourn it without a date until such time as the Trustees have rendered their decision and then I'm pretty sure we can just simply close it and make a decision on our own without having to do anything further. Does that make sense to everybody? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm fine with that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The property owner is here he wanted to just address (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely let them say whatever they'd like to, I think maybe there's someone other people in the audience want to speak. DANIEL MARRA : How you doing, Dan Marra the owner of the property. I just want to let you guys know that we have been working with Trustees and we're trying to you know do what they would like us to do to be conforming as much as possible and this is just a house that I'm building-for my family it's not like I'm a builder out here I work out here all the time I'm just trying to get a small little house out here to have somewhere to go. We've always wanted a place out here, we're from Nassau County so I just hope you guys can kind of understand and give us a little relief somehow you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what we're here for the Board of relief, the Board of ,Appeals. I appreciate that by the way so you're aware, we have copies from the Trustees office of the hearing transcript the letter that you wrote to them of the testimony and the hearing of the prior denials and the reasons for those denials so we have a pretty complete package of everything. I just wanted to make sure that we have a total you know because over time we have a lot of reason you know with the details can get foggy so we want to make sure we have everything absolutely up to date on here. DANIEL MARRA :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Anybody else want to address the Board? August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting MARY KIRSH : Hi my name is Mary Kirsh and I am the property owner adjacent to Mr. Marra's (inaudible) package. I'll just recap a little bit what's been going on. About a year ago we came here and they suggested that we go to the Trustees because there's a very large vernal pond situated on the property. I live next to that pond and I know that at April 15' the (inaudible) show up and then the salamanders and the turtles a,nd it's alive and well and thriving with a lot of life, it's really like a preserve. Lots of aquatic life a lot of birds and it deserves to be protected. Evidently the Trustees agreed with me because they denied it .two times. They denied it because Mr. Marra can't he didn't have the 100 foot setback from the pond and it deserves to be protected and not only the Trustees but the Conservation Advisory and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Both of those agencies also did not support this. Another issue with Mr. Marra's proposal is the pond is it's a freshwater pond and it's fed through springs and at certain times of the year it goes up and it goes up high and it percolates and there's gonna I don't know if he's aware but it's going to be percolating right under his foundation and around that foundation. The next problem that for me his driveway is on my property line and the reason is, because he just doesn't have the footage on this particular lot. So we're here at the Zoning Board the code for the Zoning Board is 50 feet, he wants a variance of 30 feet. I love the North Fork I chose to live on Main Bayview because I kind have a relationship with it when I was younger and I like coming down there and seeing things look harmonious and appealing and easy on the eyes and to have a new structure built you know a 20 foot front yard would send a terrible precedence for Main Bayview's future. Things could just in a few years it would be that whole spirit would disappear. I understand why we have codes and now that I'm here I see that they're very necessary because people kind of they do kind of crazy things. But anyway, another thing to be noted is this property was in foreclosure and the judge at the auction told everyone that it was an unbuildable lot. Now I don't know if Mr. Marra didn't do his homework or he didn't do his research but it was public knowledge and maybe he things he's a little bit he's going to get over as the kids say or whatever because he purchased it. It was unbuildable twenty five years ago when I built my property because the Trustees told me find another parcel Mary. Anyway, as of Monday I'm on my deck and I hear yelling and talking and I go out next to the property and there is a crew of guys all guys and a truck that are backing into Mr. Marra's property and I said what are you doing? He said oh well we have a permit and we're going to cut down the trees. I says wait a minute we're going to discuss this on Thursday, oh no, no, no it wasn't until I said well I guess I have to call the Police that I got a response and the man decided okay I'm going to leave. So after all said and done I just feel as though he can't meet the criteria the codes from the Zoning Board, he can't meet the criteria from the Trustees the 100 foot setback, he's actually asking for a 51 foot pass variance and I would,just like that this Board you know deny his request because I'm sorry but this property but you have to do your homework. You have to 1 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting know codes when you buy a car you just don't go and buy it you do your research and you had a lot of history. That's all I have to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. TOM PASSANANT : Good afternoon, my name is Tom Passanant and I reside too on the property adjacent to 9450 and I'd like to voice my opposition to the proposal to revise the setback from 50 feet to 20 feet. It's a significant reduction 60% reduction. I was in attendance at the two Trustees meetings in March and also June of 2022. One of the permanent conclusion by Mr. Sepnosksi and Ms. Gillepsie was the 100 foot buffer zone from the distance to that pond the freshwater pond and they were pretty adamant'about it. A final conclusion was made that Mr. Marra was allowed to (inaudible). They were pretty serious (inaudible). Today is the first time I'm hearing about an 80 foot and as you were discussing that I was wondering if you know are we entitled to be involved with that discussion too. I know you said it's been (inaudible) and maybe come to some sort of conclusion soon. Me and Mary are learning this today that 80 feet but a buffer zone was presented but that was news to us. That was June of 2022, 1 obtained a copy from the Conservation Advisory Board we had a meeting on July 6th of 2022 but I wasn't aware until after and I understand that they're only an advisory capacity. I would like to read that conclusion from July 6th that the six members resolve to not support the application of 9450 Main Bayview single family dwelling, the CAC does not support the application because the project was not in compliance to Chapter 275 Wetlands and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Less than a week ago I decided what's Chapter 275 cause that was their statement. There was no other (inaudible) about it. I looked up Chapter 275 on the town website under the (inaudible) section and my own edification I came up with some points if I can briefly state them that probably contributes to CAC decision. The first one defines Corey Creek as a critical environmental area you touched on that Ms. Weisman. Corey Creek borders the whole property in that series of (inaudible) wetlands (inaudible). The second thing I identified these all definitions in Chapter 275 it defines a habitat a place where plant and animal species grow. I thought that was pertinent too. It's not just a lot that's allowed to kind of get vacant and grow it's a living breathing there's so many things I can tell you fifty plants and animals and birds mammals off the top of my head that thrive there. The next point is number three, habitat fragmentation which was defined and kind of occurs as the result of removal of vegetated cover changes in sediment characteristics and.changes in hydrology and water problems. Clearly clear cutting will impact that fragmentation of that property especially the freshwater pond. Then I saw a term called non-disturbance buffer, a vegetated,area designed landward of the wetland boundary where no operation maintenance placement and signs or other activity may take place. When that buffer as far as I experience was 100 foot defined by the Trustees when I attended that meeting last March and last June. (inaudible) setback and this is all new to me so I was kind of 481 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting beaching myself all this. The minimum disturbance by which any building structure operation must be separated from a wetland boundary, there's a minimum requirement. Number six was a freshwater wetlands an area that can support trees which is an emergent species, the freshwater wetland emergent species house a whole bunch of reeds in there too. Simple definitions but the concluding one Chapter 27S Section D stated minimal setbacks from the wetlands boundary of 100 feet and today is the first day I'm hearing 80 feet and I know that the survey shows 79 feet which is a 21% reduction from the original request of 100 feet. So all these factors make (inaudible) to protect this property and it's a sensitive area. Now I'm hoping to remain protected is now (inaudible). We already touched on the events of Monday, about eleven thirty what was it July 31St when she saw a bunch of workmen walking around the property and she did ask them what they were doing and they said that they were going to begin clearing the land even cut trees. Mary said she would call the Police. They walked away there was no dispute. Immediately when I heard that the only recourse I could feel was to call the Trustees, I called the Town (inaudible) and I spoke to Elizabeth the secretary and she said that it's not their jurisdiction but advised that I call the Building Department. So I called the Building Department and I spoke to a man named Michael and I explained what happened briefly, (inaudible) to what I said and he asked me is that lot vacant? I said yes and he said if it's vacant this is not permissible to have people clear cut, clearing or whatever action they were going to do which is what the man told Mary and I believe Mary she told (inaudible) too. I said to him Michael isn't this in violation, this is wrong this is not in compliance it's some kind of violation. He couldn't give me an answer other than he suggested I call the Code Enforcement Department. So I called the Code Enforcement this is all Monday morning between 11:30 and 12:00 and I spoke to someone named Julie and she asked me the same questions is the lot vacant? I said it was and she said any action prior to the hearing is not permissible. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm Julie, what I said to you was that without the permit they weren't allowed to clear it. TOM PASSANANT : Without a permit? T. A. MCGIVNEY : They don't have a building permit that's why they're here but you said that they left and I said if they were to come back you would have to call Code Enforcement. They never called back. TOM PASSANANT : From you was to say if you see any activity call me and we would send an agent out to intervene. T. A. MCGIVNEY :That's all I can do. If they were in fact cutting, not being 491 August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting TOM PASSANANT : But there was (inaudible) activity and the next morning I saw a thirty foot yellow tape with caution it's still there now as we were coming to this meeting today. So I don't know where that came from if it was put up by the property owner. I can assume it might be from the Code Enforcement Department as a kind of don't T. A. MCGIVNEY : No TOM PASSANANT : that yellow line came from T. A. MCGIVNEY : No that's TOM PASSANANT : I saw that not knowing where it came from but nobody did come to the property. To me you know a little over seventy two hours prior to the hearing to actually instruct the work crew to go out and in their words to clear the land seems a violation of something. T. A. MCGIVNEY : The gentleman at the site tell you that they were told to come and clear the land? TOM PASSANANT : They said that to Mary not to me directly. MARY KIRSH : They said we're building a house we have filed. T. A. MCGIVNEY : That's kind of they're not hear to defend themselves and it's not really relevant to this hearing so MEMBER DANTES : Even so I think we have our variance standards we have to follow so I mean this isn't really part of the standards. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right not relevant to the MEMBER DANTES : For us you have to go by the standards. TOM PASSANANT : Not having any experience in this that these types of things have happened before but to me it seems like wrong. T. A. MCGIVNEY : You seem to have experience you mentioned that you were at the last two hearings and you spoke at the last two hearings so you certainly have some experience in this. TOM PASSANANT : So in conclusion and request that you deny this variance, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your comments. Would you like to speak now? August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Just take a couple of minutes, just to be clear we asked a couple of our guys to clear some of the brush away cause we wanted to give you guys a line so you can see where the front of the house would be if you guys were going out there. We weren't cutting anything or clearing any trees. They didn't speak good English and that's what they said. I just wanted to clear that up. Regarding the driveway it's not passing the property line on our site plan. MARY KIRSH : It's on the property line, it's touching it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : If you look at our site plan it's not touching the property line. (inaudible) about the looking down Main Bayview or driving down Main Bayview and what we're proposing is (inaudible) Main Bayview just to go back to my map (inaudible)you can see that there's seven (inaudible) there very similar to (inaudible). We did do a test hole (inaudible) septic and we do have (inaudible) location so there are no concerns with groundwater (inaudible). In regards to being an unbuildable lot it is a buildable lot by town code (inaudible) it's not an unbuildable lot just to be clear about that. The only other thing I don't want to go (inaudible) have anything to do with this but he kept saying that 100 feet from the wetlands just to be clear that's the jurisdiction of the Trustees not necessarily that you can't build inside of the 100 feet so I just wanted to be clear that that's not a setback requirement for us. Our discussion with the Trustees on site was that they're looking for us to be 80 feet that that would be within their compliance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yea that's correct, I mean what the 100 foot means is that if anything is built within a 100 feet of a wetlands then it is within the jurisdiction of the Trustees to render an approval or permit. It doesn't say hard and fast what they're decision is going to be about how far away, it would be site specific depending on the site. If you build 100 feet away they have nothing to do with it, they have no jurisdiction then. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So I just want to make that clear cause I think it was mentioned that we have to be outside the 100 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is correct. ANTHONY.PORTILLO : I just want to state that in regards to buying this land I did speak to Dan Marra about this cause we know each other pretty well and when you're dealing with freshwater wetlands in my experience 50 feet has been pretty common and approved by D.E.C. and I've worked with Trustees when they've approved that. With that said we also looked at some of the neighboring lots and the neighbors that are here today actually are about 52 feet away from MARY KIRSH : That was in the past. , August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : the same line so I just want to state that in purchasing this land there was an analysis that it seemed that it was something we could build a house on using some of those thoughts of what I've seen in the past be approved. Like I said D.E.C. approved us I think we're about 55 feet I'll give you the ruling. So it was a little strange to me that when I did go to Trustees that they were in somewhat agreeance with the D.E.C. and you know maybe part of that having to do with some of newer Board Members whatever it might be. I just wanted to say that in regards to doing some homework we didn't just Dan didn't just purchase this land thinking hey I can build something on this I'll get it through. Our thought was that we could be closer to the (inaudible) freshwater wetland than what they're allowing us to now so (inaudible) hardship because-80 is kind of what they're looking for. Okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you for your clarification. Is there anybody on Zoom who wants to address this? MARY KIRSH : There was an email. MEMBER DANTES : I think there were two letters. MARY KIRSH : I know a neighbor sent an email. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we got that. GAIL WICKHAM : I'm here on behalf of Mary Kirsch who I believe is also there. I just wanted to supplement what was said. Did I hear that the hearing will be held over? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We were talking Gail about the fact that it would appear that they're very close to the Trustees approving an 80 foot wetlands setback which would then determine precisely what variance the ZBA would have to grant if we decided to grant anything. So it made more sense the driving force in this application is environmental impacts for the Trustees to render their determination and then we can proceed to we won't need another hearing because I think we've heard everything we need to hear but we'll hold it open until we receive their determination and then we will close it and write our decision. So that was what the proposed process was. GAIL WICKHAM : Well I would certainly agree because that was the determination that your Board made initially on this application was to wait for the Trustees to actually weigh in. Did 1 understand that once you get a Trustees approval you would close the hearing or there would be a further opportunity for us to be heard? If it's the former well I'm happy to defer my presentation if you're going to continue the hearing as opposed to close it after submission. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we'd rather take your testimony now. Our hearing dates are just jammed pack and we will never compromise that if there is a way to expedite this without having to hold another public hearing if we hear what you have to say now unless there are some absolute you know really confusing things in which case rather than closing it we would adjourn it to a public hearing date. My expectations would be that if there was Trustees approval the Board could then close it and then render it's decision. Again unless there is some unpredicted things that happen between now and then 'we could possibly adjourn it you know to a hearing date but the intent would be not to have another hearing. We've heard this so many times it's not like we're going to get brand new information on it. So why don't you just go ahead and present what you have in mind. GAIL WICKHAM : Okay I will try to be brief. I'd like to. incorporate into the record if it is not already the record of the prior hearing as well as the Trustees hearings. I would like to note that the application today is for a 79 foot setback from the wetlands if I read the map correctly and the proposed which brings the house within twenty feet of Main Bayview Rd. and that of course is our issue, we think it's completely out of character with other houses in the neighborhood. The applicant just stated that he didn't have any assurance before he bought that it could be built upon, that he's trying to get a buildable lot but we think quite frankly given the extent of the wetlands here and all the environmental impacts, the groundwater the ability of the soil to absorb any kind of runoff and proximity of the groundwater that it is just not a feasible place to have a residence for percolation purposes for all kinds of environmental prudent concerns. We also note that the wetlands have finally been delineated I think that was one of the problems on the earlier hearing currently but I wanted to note that the wetlands markings are delineated by a notation on the map of Sean Brown M.S. and we have no idea what his credentials might be. It doesn't say that he is an expert in environmental matters or Trustees matters. So I did want to question that, it's up the upper left corner there. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Where is that that you're speaking of?The map that GAIL WICKHAM : I think it's up in the upper left hand T. A. MCGIVNEY : The one we have is by En-Consultants. GAIL WICKHAM : That's not the map I saw. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a proposed site plan okay and it's drawn by Anthony Portillo and it says up in the corner, edge of freshwater boundary as delineated by En-Consultants Inc. October 31, 2005. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting GAIL WICKHAM : Yes that was the 2005 map but the more recent one that was submitted with your application now has a more recent date by someone else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me look and see what MEMBER DANTES : I have that one but it's still stamped by Scalice Land Surveyor. GAIL WICKHAM : It is but not the I don't know what the data points you know what the qualifications BOARD ASSISTANT :That's a survey not a site plan correct? MEMBER DANTES : Well it's pretty close to the old one so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking for I have that too I just can't find it at the moment. GAIL WICKHAM : It was in a box I think it was in the lower left. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we have it stamped received April 20, 2023 and it's by Scalice Land Surveying is that the one you're referring too? MEMBER DANTES : Yep and it does there is a Sean Brown listed on here. GAIL WICKHAM : So the bottom line is that 20 feet is a real disruption to the code, the neighborhood and you know to try and shoe horn this in on such a sensitive lot just is not a good precedent for the town or the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay GAIL WICKHAM : There's nowhere you know you can have dry wells but if there's no place for the water in them to go they're going to overflow. You can have all kinds of ameliorating factors or mitigating factors but if there's no place for the water to go then you're going to have basement issues you're going to have all kinds of issues and besides the setback, 20 feet is a huge percentage difference from 50. MEMBER DANTES :There won't be basement issues because they're using piles. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN You may not have heard earlier was that Anthony Portillo the architect indicated that it's a pier foundation and it's not a conventional basement. GAIL WICKHAM : Yes August 3,2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Percolation is not as large an issue with something like that. Anthony, when you had prior Department of Health approval was it for an IA system located in that same basic area cause it's high enough and it's not in the water table? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're not going to have to do any regrading in that area to get it in? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's the highest part of the land. GAIL WICKHAM : But you still have roof runoff you still have I'm sorry ANTHONY PORTILLO : If I can just state that things that Gail is bringing up I believe are under our building code our requirements and we have to meet the building code we're going to have to meet Trustees requirements on dry wells. Our dry wells are going to have to be a certain distance from groundwater, we won't design it that way. Some of the statements being made I feel have now backing from Gail or others because they haven't done any of this testing and it's kind of and we have done this test and in regards to credentials for the mark out I don't think it's really for this Board, I would say if the Trustees want the credentials that's fine. The person who did the mark out can provide us (inaudible) satisfactory to the Trustees I would imagine it's satisfactory to the Zoning Board. I would keep saying the same things cause I keep hearing the same things, (inaudible) to the neighborhood (inaudible) to me is a lot of the homes are upfront on the street and a lot of homes are built on that creek and a lot of homes have wetlands on their lots that are on this street. I keep hearing unbuildable but it is a single and separate lot, it is buildable so I feel like these terms are being really loosely thrown around and I just want to be clear on the record that those things aren't really true and somewhat of a false statement. GAIL WICKHAM : I have to respond to that I'm sorry. First of all we're talking about front yard setback in your particular variance. Second of all, I refer back to the testimony in prior hearings about the non-percolation characteristics of the soil. There is going to be roof runoff, there's going to be yard runoff. There's just no place for it to go except the street and the neighbor's yard. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Gail. Does the Board have any questions at this point? We have an ever increasingly thick file on this application, we got more (inaudible). I want to thank everybody for their input it's very helpful all the way around and I want to thank everyone for participating. This is why we have public hearings and that's what's great about a small town because we're all accessible to each other and we listen and we also know our communities. Board do we want to proceed just adjourning and we'll speak to the Trustees August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting and maybe you can Anthony and see how fast we can get this done and then as I said if there are no unforeseen things that arise and by the way just so you all know as long as this hearing is held open any additional we can take written additional comments. So if anybody wants to submit anything else it'll just make it a thicker file. MARY KIRSH : Does that mean we're going to have another meeting with the Trustees or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That'll be up to the Trustees. MARY KIRSH : Should I get in touch with them? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can call their office and see what is on their schedule and how they're planning to proceed. We don't really have any say on how they do that but they can tell you and certainly you know it'll be public whatever they do it's not going to be behind closed doors and they too will welcome whatever input you know is received. As I said once that's done and we know what they decide and we have a final site plan that shows exactly what they've granted with their permit then we will be able to proceed without having to go back and forth. Clearly you know if you can only be so far from here then you're going to have to be closer to there. It's this back and forth and back and forth and I think they tried very hard to take into consideration all the information all the objections. They've come up with yet another plan, we're prepared to look at it again with open minds as is the fair way to proceed. So we'll see what Trustees do and you can always call our office as well to see if we have any further update. Everything we have gets scanned into Laser Fiche it's all public record but I just wanted to let you know if you had any other thoughts between now and then the records open so you can submit them in writing. If we have to have another hearing we will and then it will be back here with more testimony. I don't know that that's going to be necessary I'm hoping it won't be but we're going to wait and see what things unfold. Does that make sense? Okay hearing no further comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this application without a date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll let the Trustees know what happened, I'm sure they'll be interested anyway. Thank you for your patients Martin. August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7815— MARY KATHLEEN MARTIN and PHILIPPE VAILLANCOURT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The last application before the Board is for Mary Kathleen Martin and Philippe Vaillancourt#7815. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's May 11, 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 permitted rear yard at 375 Mill Rd. in Mattituck. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon, Martin Finnegan 13250_Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants Mary Kathleen Martin and Philippe Vaillancourt. I'm here today for I hope will be a less complicated application for a side yard variance for the construction of a swimming pool. This is on a one acre parcel on Mill Rd. in Mattituck. It's a through lot but it really doesn't have a whole lot to do with why we're here. Why we're here really is because of the topography of this lot because of the location of the house and the configuration of the existing home. It kind of has a larger front yard area and have to push the pool there to make it work. The r applicant is proposing as you can see from the plans to construct an 18 by 36 in-ground pool. It has a 12 by 16 sun deck. It had originally been configured parallel but it now perpendicular to the house so go back as far as possible. So one thing I did want to note is I anticipated that there would be a question about where the drywell will go. You may note that that is not on the plan you may have had. I did email an updated plan and I will submit stamped copies of. We're going to put the drywell right south of the pool right here and the pool mechanicals are shown on the plan that you have on the record but somehow that slipped through the cracks but I just wanted you to know that that's been taken care of. Anyway just to briefly address the 267 criteria, as to character of the community this is a community there's lots of shapes and sizes of lots but there are surrounding homes that have pools in the vicinity to the northwest and east. The pool is to be constructed substantially in the rear yard but we do need some relief to fit it back there based on the shape of the property. Other than its actual location the pool is completely conforming to the bulk schedule. There is ample screening as you can see from the photographs, I'm sure you were out there yourself of the properties to the east and north we do have letters of support from the Brigmans who live just north and from Christian Shultz who owns the property just to the east in support of the application so with all that we do not fully that the granting of relief will result in (inaudible) change or any detriment to the surrounding neighbors but we do need the variance relief because as I explained because of just the way the house "sits and the way the it's configured to achieve the benefit of the swimming pool and (inaudible) recreational space. Substantiality we would argue that it's not substantial again in light of the (inaudible) lot the location of the house and the fact that construction is otherwise completely conforming to the zoning. We don't believe there's any perceivable adverse impacts, the construction of a pool here in the side yard it is again screened, I think if you've seen the property there's also a lot of screening on the front August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting yard of the property so the pool itself would barely be visible from the road. As to self- creation we (inaudible) so I'm happy to answer any questions you have regarding the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do have a couple of questions, I'll start and then turn it over to the Board. We didn't get any drawings of the pavilion itself. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's not subject to the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no I know but I can't tell if that's enclosed or if it's open. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's a pavilion it's open it's just an open CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay so it's just columns and a roof. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, because in looking at this it occurred to me that it's kind of unusual to have these two T-shaped buildings facing you know the pool is got a T on it and the pavilion has a T on it and if that T was eliminated from the pavilion and it even could be eliminated from the pool you could put the whole thing in the rear yard. The pool and pavilion could both be in the rear yard. I don't understand why that design was chosen. MEMBER DANTES : I don't understand but isn't it you have the 25 for the access easement your clients seem to be able to use and then the road J CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the other thing. MEMBER DANTES : How do you have a rear yard at all and not two front yards and then a side yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It kind of appears to dead end on the you know just about where the pool is but I was wondering the same cause it is accessible. You can use that driveway in fact it would appear that they mostly use that driveway to get into their garage rather than the front. MARTIN FINNEGAN : That's how they access CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so that's how they access that's how they get to their house along that 25 foot easement. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So we have a primary front yard August 3,2023 Regular Meeting r CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and it looks like you should have a secondary front yard. I mean I don't know it wasn't called out that way. What does the Notice say, not a conforming yard or does it say MARTIN FINNEGAN : Side yard CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Side yard, I guess that would be true even if it was a front yard cause if you look at where the pool is it would be partially in the side yard and partially in a front yard right. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right but my understanding of the rule is your primary front yard than the MEMBER DANTES : and the other side is a rear yard? So then you're saying that the proposed pergola meets the accessory MARTIN FINNEGAN : Completely conforming (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : So that's a rear yard line then that 15.4 foot setback is conforming? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How high is the retaining wall? It just says retaining wall and it looks like there's quite a few little steps to get up to it so I'm just wondering how high that elevation is cause we don't have anything that shows that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) the lot coverage. MEMBER DANTES : It says elevation 29.3 on the patio and then it says elevation 25.6'outside the patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's like a three foot. MEMBER DANTES : Three and a half feet yea but then on the back it's elevation 31.8 on the back of the for the-grass. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to know what it's going to look like. I mean sometimes we have these retaining walls here and the next thing we know you know the roads down here and the wall is up here. It doesn't appear that it's going to be dramatic but I was wondering August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) the pool sort of looked like it can be an infinity pool on the long side facing the road it's like a four foot distance between the grade and the pool the deck or patio. MEMBER DANTES : It looks like it starts at 4 foot on the lower road side and then it goes back. So then the proposed pavilion is going to higher than the pool so you're going to step down from the pavilion down to the patio and down to the pool kind of? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea I mean it's not going to be (inaudible) I think that there's going to be some grading there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think they're going to have to do some grading. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a step down. MARTIN_-FINNEGAN : No there's no step down oh on the side here yea going towards the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Going towards the house there's some steps down. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eric had said the proposed pavilion would be a step down. MEMBER DANTES : It's going to have to be cause your elevation is 31.8 outside the pavilion and then the patio elevation is 29.3 so if the pavilion is at 31.8 there's going to have to be MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but the pavilion is at 28.8 MEMBER DANTES : So it's going to lower than the grade? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's like one step, you're right it would be one foot down than the patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep MEMBER DANTES : No the pavilion is if the pavilion is at 28.8 and the elevation of the patio is 29.3 then it's one step from the patio down to the pavilion and the pavilion CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says the proposed patio elevation is 28.8 the same. MEMBER DANTES : Where are you looking at that? I have 29 right here. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it's the existing elevation MEMBER DANTES : Oh and then they're going to grade it down to the patio? August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Anyway the pavilion is completely conforming to all setbacks there was nothing called out for that. We're simply here just for the side yard for the pool the partial side yard location and that was primarily because of the configuration of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've all been out there you know we talked about whether it's a second frontage or what but the right of way which is really how they access their house even though the front of the house is facing Mill and Jackson they're coming in on that right of way and pulling into their driveway and get into their garage that way. There is already in the area of the pool the retaining wall in place a rock wall. It's just all grassy right now kind of weedy area. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I have pictures of all that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's not really visible to others. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No it's not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : it looks like you got mostly front yard everywhere you look. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's just an odd thing the Building Department was like pick which one you want that's kind of the way they look at these things (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well I don't have any other questions, do you guys have any? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do not have any questions. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have none. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye August 3, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye thank you Martin. I'm going to make a motion to table the Constance Levy application to the Special Meeting on August 17th. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, let's just close the meeting and the recording. Motion to close the hearing, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye August 3, 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 :August 14, 2023