Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/05/2023 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York October 5, 2023 10:06 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member(Vice-Chair) KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Berry P. 2021 QPRT#7818 Decision 3 Alan Schwartzman #7816 Decision 4-5 Walter Gless#7826 5 -8 QJSG Properties, LLC#7827 8- 14 Joseph C. McCormick,Jr. #7828 14- 16 Patrick McElroy#7830 16- 22 Michael and Nicholas Giacone#7829 22 - 25 Tracy and Alexander Sutton #7831 25 - 36 Robert S. Martin #7833 36- 38 Kathleen Walas and Thomas Sarakatsannis#7835 38-44 Charles DiSapio and Xanne Perez#7832 45 -46 Edwin J. Pisani #7834SE 46- 55 William and Stacey Brennen #7837 55 - 56 North Fork Project 2, LLC& North Fork Project 3, LLC#7836 56- 66 Chris and Marisa Lazos#7809 66- 74 Budd's Pond Marina, Inc. aka Albertsons Marina, Wireless Cell Tower#7839 75 -85 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first item before the Board is a Resolution for new applications declaring 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 617.5© including the following : Gless, QJSG Properties, McCormack, McElroy, Giacone, Sutton, Martin, Walas and Sarakatsannis, Dispasio and Perez, Pisani, Brennen and North Fork Project 2 LLC and North Fork Project 3 LLC so move. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. SEQRA statement regarding Budd's Pond Marina Inc. a.k.a. Albertsons Marina Wireless Cell Tower #7839. Subject action to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility to be declared as an Unlisted Actions by the Planning Board as Lead Agency. I'm just entering that into the record, I don't think we have to make a motion on that. Do we Julie? T. A. MCGIVNEY : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have two draft decisions to deliberate on before we get to the first public hearing. The first is Alan Schwartzman #7816. Does everybody have a copy of the draft, everybody has read it? Nick do you want to just summarize this for us briefly? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sure this is an application for the legalization of "as built" alterations to an accessory building that has a Pre Certificate of Occupancy on it. The alterations include the expansion of a sitting room, the addition of a half bathroom, the addition of a second bedroom along with basically the relocation or reconfiguration of the floor plan and the abandonment of a garage use. It's a unique application in that the structure October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting i itself is pre-existing non-conforming, it's literally on a lot line in a non-conforming location but the alterations were not to the actual structure it was to the structural interior of the building and as an accessory the town code discusses that any non-coriforming pre-existing structure cannot be altered unless it's been made a conforming use and the addition of bedrooms etc. are not conforming uses. I'll note that there's also heating and cooling installed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that the other thing is that there is a strong likelihood that although it's a Building Department determination there's a likelihood that the Pre C.O. is extinguished as a result of the extent of the alterations which are very different than what the original Pre C.O. was for. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions on this drafts, any edits? _. MEMBER LEHNERT : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright do you want to make a motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO I'll make a motion based upon the draft as written that the application be denied. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second f CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Nay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. The next one is for Berry P. 2021 APRT #'7818 in East Marion. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I'll just remind you I'm recused from this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you I'm going to write that down. Pat do you want to do a quick summary for us? 4 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : This is a request from the applicant to add a pergola to the existing home.The home is on the water and the survey shows that the construction is 80 feet instead of the 100 feet according to code but this is not going to go over what is already there, it's staying within the footprint. That area that they want to add this to is the only part of the house that does have an exit from inside the dwelling and the applicant would like the pergola for shade. So I make a motion to accept this as requested. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have one condition just that the pergola remains open to the sky and open on three sides. Alright I'll second it, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7826—WALTER GLESS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Walter Gless #7826. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 28, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize the "as built" demolition of an existing residence (as per Town Code definition) and to reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 800 Koke Drive (adj. to Corey Creek) in Southold. State your name for the ,record please. JAKE LACHAPELLE : My name is Jake LaChapelle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an "as built" reconstructed demo per code of a single family dwelling with a rear yard setback at 22.4 feet is that correct?The code requires a minimum of 35 feet. What would you like us to know about the application? JAKE LACHAPELLE : The project is the renovation of the existing house. The demolition reference in the application and the Notice of Disapproval was the front the street side of the house.The house itself is (inaudible). October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : So basically the house doesn't require the variance for what you're doing. The variance is for the demolition and reconstruction of the rear deck? JAKE LACHAPELLE : It's shown on the survey in your package that the house and the deck require this. MEMBER DANTES : What's the setback for the house from the rear yard line? JAKE LACHAPELLE : 26 feet MEMBER DANTES : No, I mean the 26 feet is from the wetland line or the mean high tide but we go from the property line in zoning. So for us it would be the 22 foot number for the deck and then the house would be another (inaudible). JAKE LACHAPELLE : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The survey is very confusing. MEMBER LEHNERT : The line is crossing the, the 26 line is crossing the 22.4 you don't see it. JAKE LACHAPELLE : It's a little bit hard to read. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's there though. JAKE LACHAPELLE : The property is a non-conforming CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : lot JAKE LACHAPELLE : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Most of them are on that road. Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah, the LWRP Coordinator noted that you do not have the IA system on the survey. JAKE LACHAPELLE : That's correct, it will be an IA system and we're filing an IA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That will I presume will be in the front yard? JAKE LACHAPELLE : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? WALTER GLESS : Walter Gless, good morning. We've had the house for over seventy two years and (inaudible). It kind of fell into disrepair and we've (inaudible) retire (inaudible) spend ra October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting some money on it and get it back to' the way it was from my descendants. I'm looking for (inaudible) and I appreciate your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm a little confused about what the FEMA flood zone is. Since this is a demolition while it's a technical demolition there's also an expansion and I'm a little confused because according to the application packet as I've seen it the house does not have a year round C of 0, it's considered a seasonal dwelling. JAKE LACHAPELLE : It is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So if in fact it's a seasonal dwelling if you're making it a year round home at this time don't you need to also make it FEMA compliant? JAKE LACHAPELLE : We do MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then explain the zone and the elevation. JAKE LACHAPELLE : In what regard? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The compliancy. JAKE LACHAPELLE : Sure, the elevation of the house as it stands is above the FEMA required elevation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When I did the site inspection I know that the property slopes down but it's an AE6 zone so from the elevation don't you have to be like 10 feet? MEMBER LEHNERT : He's at 10 feet, finished floor is at 10 feet. JAKE LACHAPELLE : You're asking me the specific numbers. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't need the specific numbers but just from well I guess I do ultimately. JAKE LACHAPELLE : We're above the required elevation. MEMBER LEHNERT : And it looks like you're putting new footings and foundation and (inaudible) everything up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what we're probably going to look for here is an update on_ the survey to clarify these lines that are saying 22.4 and 1.4 and 26 feet, just make that a little bit clearer what setback we're really looking at and include in the it says existing septic I think October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting you're going to abandon that I presume and put in an IA. So perhaps you can locate the IA system and clarify those lines then we'll be able to stamp it with more certainty that it's accurate. JAKE LACHAPELLE : Sure that makes sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that okay with everybody? Liz I didn't ask you to do this, can you hear me Liz? Liz needs to actually explain to anybody how they can if they're on Zoom how they can access the Board. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, we do have a few on Zoom. If anyone wishes to comment on a particular application I ask you that you raise your hand. I will give you further instructions on how you will be able to speak. We have two phone numbers, those using a phone please press *9 to raise your hand and then I will let you know what to do next in order for you to speak.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. Is there anything further from the Board? Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Hearing no further comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? I'm going to amend that, subject to receipt of an updated revised survey as we just discussed. Is there a second on that? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7827—Q1SG PROPERTIES, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for WSG Properties, LLC #7827. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13C, Article III Section 280-15, October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting Article XXII Section 280-1051)(4) and the Building Inspector's May 9, 2023 amended July 28, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to install additional deer fencing and to construct an accessory potting shed, a chicken run with coop, a goat barn, an accessory artist studio structure, barn and two (2) hoop houses and to legalize an "as built" accessory pergola, a greenhouse and two (2) sheds on rural residential property at 1) the proposed artist studio use in the accessory building is not a permitted accessory use, 2) seven (7) proposed accessory structures located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 3) four (4) "as built" accessory structures located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 4) deer fencing located in the non-permitted front yard or primary front yard located at 38015 NYS Route 25 in Orient. CHARLES CUDDY : Charles Cuddy for the applicant. Just a couple of housekeeping things I may just start off with. We're not having a driveway go through the chicken coop which shows on your map. We'll move it a little bit to the south and west. Secondly, there was a concern I think by one of the residents about the deer fence. The only deer fence we want is around the wetlands, we don't want deer fence on the rest of the property at this point. As you know this is a 19.6 acre parcel, if you've seen it it's entirely wooded. The applicant really wants to put a number of agricultural type uses at this site including the potting shed, the chicken coop, the goat barn, regular barn and two hoop houses. If this were any other lot the house would probably be up near the road because it's down near the water the house is way back so essentially all of our property is front yard. So we really don't have a choice if we want to put anything on it we have to put it in the front yard. There were three structures that were built, they were built out of ignorance when they first bought this property, that's the pergola, the greenhouse and the shed. We understand we have to get permits for those and we'll have to pay appropriate fees for that. I think if you look very,closely at the site you'll see that the (inaudible) disturbed it's probably now one percent and when we (inaudible) with these additional items it would be two percent so we're not really doing a lot to the site. The woods is there, the neighbors will not be affected by it. I don't believe if you look at the standards it's certainly the neighborhood isn't going to be hurt by this in the least bit. Environmentally it's not adverse to anyone. The alternative would be to essentially develop the site, he doesn't want to do that. The owner very much wants to keep it the way it is and that's why he's asking for this relief. I note that one of the uses is not permitted according to that it's the artist studio and I'd like to address that just a little bit. I think that he wants to do some watercolor painting, that's what he does. I note that the code itself is pretty extensive, it allows a playhouse, you can have an accessory apartment but it doesn't talk about having an artist studio. I think for people that are in that area that are into literature and writing that are into art they usually want a small type of building to work in. I've known some of them and they all want to be away from the burdens of a household, the want to be in essentially a little shed. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting That's what they're really asking for, I don't think that's unusual. I would point out to you that the Board in the Stillman case and I'll hand that up to you, allowed the Stillmans to have in their front yard a very significant and undescribed assuming as they're arichtects they were probably using it for architecture. They had a 600 sq. ft. addition built so I don't know that this is much different than that. I would like to hand up if I many a number cases that I have with front yard use. I have some which show storage buildings in the front yard that's the Bivona and (inaudible) cases. I have cases that show garages in the front yard, pools in the front yard, tennis courts, gazebos even a radio tower. I'll hand those all up to you if I may. Again I think that except for the location of the house many of these items would be permitted without coming to the Board but the house we can't change. It's where people normally put it if you have water view and that's what they have. It's a 19.6 acre lot so I don't think anybody is disturbed at all by doing it. I know one neighbor wrote in and indicated that these were not uses that she thought should be permitted but they are permitted. Again I believe that we can meet all of the criteria, we're not substantially changing the site in its use and we'd like to keep it the way it is. So I ask the Board to grant the application. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Is the applicant an AG operation? CHARLES CUDDY : No he has some greenhouses, he has gardens, rose gardens near the house, he's not an agricultural use by itself no. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Excuse me a moment, Mr. Cuddy when you say the house and I'm a little confused are you talking about the large house on the separate lot that's on the sound or the little house that's being renovated? CHARLES CUDDY : The small house that house is being renovated and that's where he's going to live. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So who lives in the large house? CHARLES CUDDY : It's his large house, eventually he would go back have one of his children probably live in the smaller house. He's going to live in that house while the other house is being renovated. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the waterfront house as it is now at some later date will be renovated and during that period he wants to live in this other house which is at the north end of the property. CHARLES CUDDY : Yes MEMBER DANTES : Those are separate properties aren't they? October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHARLES CUDDY : They're two separate properties yes. One is 7.5 acres and the other is 19.6 acers. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I get that that was an existing structure that at some point in like 2009 was converted to a house. I guess what would have been simple is if it'had been at the southern end of the lot instead of the northern end everything would have fallen into place. CHARLES CUDDY : It would have been very nice for us. MEMBER LEHNERT : You wouldn't be here. CHARLES CUDDY : That's right. The lot in front of them by the way the Latham lot is used to store some equipment on it so it's not impacted by this. MEMBER LEHNERT : You're saying the deer fence you propose along the lot lines isn't going to happen? CHARLES CUDDY :That's right. MEMBER LEHNERT :Just the arc along the wetlands. CHARLES CUDDY : (inaudible) to try and enclose the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might be helpful if the survey was changed so that we see that the deer fencing is actually proposed because that way we can stamp what we're looking at. CHARLES CUDDY : The fence is just going to go around (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is the fenced area it's the kind of like that "C" in the center of the lot. Mr. Cuddy sort of two questions, one doesn't have anything to do with the application, the tennis court has a Certificate of Occupancy how was a tennis court approved where there is no house? CHARLES CUDDY : The house is there and I think the tennis court was approved as part of the overall site. I don't have any information on (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would have thought that you'd need or the owner the then owner Mendoza would have needed a variance and there's no variance relative to that. CHARLES CUDDY : I don't I can't answer the question I can get back to you to answer it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know how important it is, it has a C of 0 it's there I_just find it amazing. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHARLES CUDDY : Things happen that we don't understand sometimes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any other questions on this. Rob anything from you. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no more questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One more relative to the art studio, are you proposing and I know it's a small structure but is it just going to be the actual little shed structure or will there be plumbing or conditioning of any sort. CHARLES CUDDY : There might be electricity but there's no plumbing, there'll be no bathroom at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that going to be conditioned space, air conditioning, heat split zone what? CHARLES CUDDY : There will electricity so possibly there could be air conditioning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you know we did make a couple of decisions priors that define what and how an artist studio can be established and it made sense it's not in the code as a permitted use but we\had about fourteen conditions that had to be met. Primarily that it's for personal use only. CHARLES CUDDY : It's only for family use and personal use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No sales, no gallery no commercial, no outside visitors none of that. In both of those decisions that we've made the artists were practicing artists they were not hobbyists but we have had a situation since where it is a hobby for someone and frankly I think as long as those rest of those conditions are met I think I don't know how the rest of the Board feels but I don't think it's an unreasonable request. 1 think we're going to find more and more people especially as people retire out here that are going to want to be using whatever structures they have for their own personal pleasure. CHARLES CUDDY : Basically that's what it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz is there anybody on Zoom who wants to address this application? She's shaking her head no..Anybody in the audience please come up and state your name. JEFF STANDISH : My name is Jeff Standish and I work on this estate, I've been working there for many years. Knowing where every piece of these structures are going to be I don't see how they can impact anybody around that neighborhood. (inaudible) that would both intrude (inaudible). The deer fencing yeah of course that goes around some people's properties-if that's the fence they're putting but every structure is hidden in-its own little area with woods and everything around it so you'll never see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Jeff. Is there anybody else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie one other thing I just thought of, looking at the art studio it is elevated which I can understand cause they want to take advantage of the site but here to propose as being almost 18 feet, is that within the code limitations for an accessory the height? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It depends on the size of the lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and this is a large lot so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very large lot I don't think the height is an issue in this instance. MEMBER DANTES : Or the setback. J MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The setback is a non-issue without a doubt. This is more of like a viewing platform anyway. CHARLES CUDDY : One of the things that'll be helpful is to have that in a way because to see anything on this site you have to get up fairly high. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's heavily wooded. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) inspires art. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an updated corrected survey. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7828—JOSEPH C. MCCORMICK,JR. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph C. McCormick Jr. #7828. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 28, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum primary front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 2670 Stillwater Ave. in Cutchogue. Good morning Mike. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning everyone, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicants who are present today. This basically we're asking for two variances a front yard and a rear yard setback. The existing house configuration basically was established in 1971 by a prior zoning permit decision back then and that particular zoning permit decision allowed the setback to be 12 foot on the easterly side I believe. The actual house that was constructed it was 11.9 feet. As far as the rear was concerned of the house they basically approved at that particular time a 21.6 foot setback on the house. So that's the existing structure that's in place. The proposed work on this is to renovate it's in two sections, the section on the right is not going to be disturbed it's going to be somewhat but the construction on the left hand side we're adding a second floor to it to bring the bedrooms off the first floor and take two of the bedrooms and bring it up to the second floor and add a fourth bedroom. It might be helpful if I can point it out to you. This is (inaudible) and the house is set at that particular time under I think (inaudible) at 21.6. This corner was allowed to be 12 feet and it's actually 11.9 where the proposed porch is going to be 11.9 the same distance. So it's a little bit unusual where you have the prior determination on exactly the same thing that you're trying to discuss without looking any further to the neighbors because this is the one that would be controlling. So the second floor addition as I indicated adds (inaudible) and as a result of that they have applied :14 fr October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting for the Health Department to get an IOWTS system and it's in review at the present time. The house itself even though it's a demo reconstruction based upon the fifty percent calculation the foundation is in good shape, it's not being moved. The construction primarily is because of that second floor and the renovations kicks it over the fifty percent rule but it is a demo reconstruction which is the important language there. It's not going to be any different than what was allowed in the permit no. 1416 that was issued in 1971. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the number of that Mike? MIKE KIMACK : 1416, it's in your packet it was part of the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : Yea, I saw they put the sky plane for part of the property, I doubt they'll meet the sky plane on the front of the house does that matter? Do we take sky plane calculations on the front? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Usually it's the side. MIKE KIMACK : I think it's only the side Eric. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's from the side. MEMBER DANTES : I just don't want him to come back. MIKE KIMACK : It's a whole new,game basically, we're looking at it from new eyes quite frankly. MEMBER DANTES : I have seen another architect do the sky plane from the front too. I just don't want him to come back that's all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it's a tough lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think part of that decision also discussed that the eastern portion of the lot couldn't be cast off or subdivided this is one property. 5 October 5, 2023 Regular'Meeting MIKE KIMACK : It's one lot with basically three fronts essentially on the corner there. I think they did a good job just trying to get what the owner wanted without really contravening the original decision and getting any closer to the front or the rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : No this is straightforward second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz anybody on Zoom? Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7830—PATRICK MCELROY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Patrick McElroy#7830. This a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280- 207A(1)(b) and the Building Inspector's May 25, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum primary front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 4) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area located at 440 Third Street in New Suffolk. So we have four variances is that it, a primary front yard setback at MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then I won't bother to go through this. MIKE KIMACK : I wanted to give you some additional information on the prior determination. When I get to it it'll make it a little bit more clarification. We are asking for relief from essentially for four variances. We start with the fact that the house itself was constructed in 1815, it's been there a long time. Essentially it sits as is sits and it hasn't it's probably been renovated a few times and purchased by the new owners. When the front yard setback primarily this section that we're asking for is an extension or addition to the second floor on the back section of the house. If you went there and you looked at it from the road you wouldn't see it towards the back if you look at the architectural drawings. That front yard setback is really not it might be a misunderstanding on that 'it really isn't 7 feet 8 inches because the actual construction off the front yard is 32 foot back. I believe that prior policies has always been that if you're not within I mean we are within in it by 3 feet primarily but I wanted to point out to the Board that the construction doesn't start at the 7 feet 8 inch point as indicated from the front yard. The actual construction starts 32 foot back and if you have a chance to look at the survey by Nate Corwin and the architectural drawings you'll see what I mean it's squared off there. (inaudible too much noise away from microphone) The second floor exists and the applicants would like to be able to extend to the back so it isn't where we're starting at 7.8 feet we are in the front yard setback but we're only in the front yard setback by about 3 feet with the house. It's on the backside of the second floor adding back in that little L-shaped section. I know it's a little confusing but that's the front yard setback so it's in an existing structure that'already is within showing that basically that 8.3 or 8.5 from the road but the actual construction is on the second floor back from that and it begins roughly 32 foot from the front of the road. The side yard setback there really was a miscommunication on this particular one because the side yard setback in this particular one is 10 feet. Now the house is within that side yard setback but the actual second floor is 15 foot back the actual second floor construction. From the side yard perspective the construction the proposed construction of the second floor is outside the 10 foot side yard setback although the house itself is within the side yard setback. As my understanding is I haven't done one this particular one in a while, I think the Board has always taken the position that it's not so much where the existing house is it's where the actual construction occurs whether it's in the front or the side yard. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you Mike, the approximate location of existing septic field then you have a pool there, how are you going to get the 20 feet from the pool to the septic field? MIKE KIMACK : It's designed that way, it's worked out the application is being submitted to the Health Department. It's an IA system. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay so it's going to be a new system. MIKE KIMACK : It's a new system galley system. He made it big Eric when he did that primarily but the 20 foot is there. It pretty much extends pretty much in a line along the property line there along the backside in that area. MEMBER DANTES : So it won't be in that approximate location that's on the site plan? MIKE KIMACK : I could if the Board wants I could get you a copy of the specific Health Department plan which was submitted in terms of where the location is but it meets that requirement. It meets the 5 yard off the property line and it meets the 20 feet from the pool. MEMBER DANTES : It's not an IA system you said? MIKE KIMACK : No it is an IA system, it has to be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They have to now. MEMBER DANTES : I know but you said galley and MIKE KIMACK : Whether it's you or the Health Department CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Someone is going to require it. MIKE KIMACK : The (inaudible) Department uses the word substantial but essentially Health Department uses the fifty percent calculation which (inaudible) determination. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to address the lot coverage? MIKE KIMACK : I'll address the lot coverage, the applicants are asking for proposed in-ground- pool and that's why I submitted back to you. This area has had a lot of decisions to date, the sheet that I gave you primarily look at no. two decision #6462 in this case. This is probably the most relevant one to the (inaudible). In this particular one the Board was looking to they were being asked for relief to go beyond the 20% of 26% and the Board reviewed at that particular time the applicants submitted and it's in your packet primarily (inaudible) within 500 feet from the town records. The average lot coverage among the nine properties vary from 21%to 55% with the average being 31.9%. The Board stated in there that was more (inaudible) and approved the 26%. So the Board in that decision took the position that the average 31.9%was something that they used as a benchmark primarily. We're asking for I think 27% on this particular one for the pool, 27.11 apologize. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any way you can reduce that lot coverage? October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) and that's why I have the applicants here. The pool right now is 18 by 30 it's not a substantially large pool. I mean it has all the setbacks. If you reduced it to 15 by 30 you're really not changing the 27% by much maybe by a couple of points. MEMBER LEHNERT : So basically the only reason for the lot coverage issue is the pool? MIKE KIMACK : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then there's a shed also. MIKE KIMACK : I think the prior approval was 23% on this property which was granted. They want to put in a modest pool, they have a family (inaudible) and then we'll get to the next one on the GFA. I said basically and they really only had a limited area with which to put the pool in terms of its size but 18 by 30 basically fits and it's not an oval size but changing it Rob doesn't really change the calculation that much. MEMBER LEHNERT : It doesn't really make a big difference. MIKE KIMACK : It doesn't make a big difference on that one. There are other decisions there that go from approvals of 23, 24, 26.67% was approved under 4821 with coverage with an addition. So we feel that we're within the prior decision in terms of what the Board was allowing in terms of(inaudible) and looking at it from that perspective. Any other questions of me on this? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot coverage the only other option here is the shed, it's a pretty good sized shed. MIKE KIMACK : It is and it's in good shape and it's all framed out (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's also sitting on top of the property line basically. MIKE KIMACK : It's all C of O'ed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a C.O. on that guest house? MIKE KIMACK : Yes everything is C. O'ed on the property and also to point out it's well vegetated if you had a chance to get on the property. The pool really would be shielded from the backside by heavy vegetated growth line as it is on the north side too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very heavily vegetated but there along the it could be the pool could be visible from Jackson St. that's a lot more porous visually. You can sort to see right through to Jackson not the other street. 1 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : You're right about that but if you could look at that particular point at that particular point but perhaps I can ask my client that they be amiable to doing a landscape screen on Jackson St. on that particular one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to want privacy anyway. MIKE KIMACK : We've done that before I think that last one I did over in Greenport that's what you put on was a screen for that pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well almost everything in that area of New Suffolk they're small lots,they're non-conforming front yards that were built prior to zoning. MIKE KIMACK : They're getting a lot of action. New Suffolk is a nice place to be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it is and we're trying to keep it that way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you want to talk about the gross floor area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, that's the last one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the biggie. ,MIKE KIMACK : The applicants were in contract and in design when the GFA basically came in. The house structure as I pointed out was constructed in 1815 basically with a first floor and a partial second floor that doesn't go over the entire house. When they first came to me and I recognized that the GFA was a new issue before this Board with really not much in terms of prior determinations dealing with what the Board would feel in terms of exceeding it and under what conditions and what reasons to do so primarily. The original design to quite frank was much larger, the original design went over that porch on that one side primarily and I looked at it and I said I think if we're going to go to the Zoning Board under this GFA we have to go to them that we've done it to the minimum we can given what the requirements and necessity of what this particular space would provide for the clients. So I think we went through at least two design changes we cut it back but it back. This section back over here represents about 380 sq. ft. that basically creates it's a two bedroom house presently right now. There's a family of four right now and they'd like to be able to add two bedrooms that's what the design is to reconfigure that second floor and have two bedrooms and of course that triggers the IA system. I hadn't done one of GFA before so I was trying to come to you with rational reasons that there was no other place to put it obviously the only place that they could (inaudible) on this back section on the second floor primarily and I said keep it to the minimum possible so that we can at least show the Board that we were trying to achieve the two bedrooms but we weren't expanding more than we necessarily had to. To be fair on the October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting calculations as it stands now everything existing is 104.19 feet over the GFA calculation without doing anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much was that? MIKE KIMACK : 104.19 feet. if you added everything together the GFA allows basically so in essence the proposal if you look at the drawing it shows 484.36 feet but the bathroom upstairs is really 380.12 feet that's what's being added but I wanted to point out to you that there's already 109 feet that exceeds it that's where that 484.36 comes up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 484 1 mean we have GFA is proposed at 3,135.61 and the code allows a maximum GFA on that property MIKE KIMACK : 2,651 CHAIRPERSON,WIESMAN : 2,651 so that's 484 over. MIKE KIMACK : And it's currently 2,755.44 without adding the second floor. I just wanted to point out to you that we're not asking for 484.36 because 104.19 is already there. The upstairs basically the 380.19 is really what we're requesting to exceed the GFA by. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Got it so it's not an enormous variance. MIKE KIMACK : The line of the top of the house basically doesn't exceed what it is now, the ridge line is the same on the backside. They did work very hard and very earnestly with the architect to minimize it. They obviously wanted more but I didn't feel coming to you I wanted to come to you with what I felt was something that would be within the reasonable thing of if you're going to extend the GFA you needed to have some rational reasoning to do so and in this particular case they need the extra two bedrooms because of the family this is the only place that they can put it. It's not really going to be seen from the front yard it doesn't really change the contour of the house that much. It's the minimum necessary for those two bedrooms and I think an additional bathroom if I remember correctly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike how many bedrooms are in the cabin and is that a separate sanitary system? MIKE KIMACK : I don't know that much about the cabin on that particular one, I focused on the house cause it was already C of O'ed. I'm not quite sure if it has a separate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that there is one bathroom one full bathroom in that cabin I know that I've been in it with the prior owner. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting PAT MCELROY : Pat McElroy good morning, thank you yes the cottage is 800 sq. ft. it has three small bedrooms and one bathroom and it has its own separate septic tank. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else anybody? I think we covered it. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? MIKE KIMACK : Any other questions of me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye BOARD ASSISTANT : Suffolk County Health Department did you (inaudible)? MEMBER LEHNERT : The Building Department is going to make him do it.. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we just put it down as a condition of approval. HEARING#7829—MICHAEL and NICHOLAS GIACONE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael and Nicholas Giacone #7829. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's May 3, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" front porch and rear deck attached to an existing seasonal dwelling 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 270 Park Ave. Ext. (adj.to Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. , October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I'm recused from this one Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. I NICHOLAS MAZZAFFERO : Good morning, Nicholas Mazzaffero the agent for the Giacone's. I'd like to just walk through a little time line, there was a book written by Tony (inaudible) about Maratooka Point which is where this property is located and it goes through the history of it and he picks up-every house and describes it that's on the point. This house in particular is called the Wi6 and it was built by George Turrell in well after the hurricane of 1938 and it goes on to say in 1949 the Carrey family started renting the cottage so it existed in '49. After seven or eight seasons they bought it from Turrell and then two of the children inherited the house and her family started renting the lodge next door. But after the house was originally built it was built with a house and garage the main house was moved to another lot on the point and the garage remained and the building that you see there today is actually was the original garage property. We have it existing back sometime between 1938 and 1949. Second part of the history is, on the tax card that starts the first initial date of action is 1962 but at the initiation of the tax card which I guess was around '57 when the zoning started, the house is marked off as a seasonal house and it marked as having a value for the land and a value for the improvements which indicates that there was a structure there at that time so that further proves that it's a pre '57 structure. In 1975 a C of 0 was issued for the house allowing interior renovations. I guess there was an accessory building that was actually moved and attached to the house and then the whole interior was outfitted to make it more habitable. In 2020 a building permit was issued to renovate the interior to basically install a powder room and put in new windows and upgrade the siding. On that building permit the deck on the beach side of the house it was noted as being an extra issue but the steps on the street side of the house were in the permit. In 2023 the Trustees were approached in regards to this issue as far as the waterfront applications of the deck and the existing deck and the existing porch and on January 18th they issued a Certificate of Compliance it's all been finished. The Building Department now reviewed the Trustees declaration and they requested that we go to Zoning which is why we're here and they want to get the zoning regarding the existing deck and the existing porch in the rear. The deck that exists today is slightly bigger than the one that was back in 1940 or '50, we have some really old photographs if you want to see them from the family that owns it now. They've had it for three generations but they have old photographs from when they were kids. Sometime in the early nineties there was a major storm and the deck got all broken up so when they built it back I think they built it a few feet wider but it didn't substantially change the distance to the beach or it didn't exceed the width of the house. Also the main reason for this variance is the concept of taking a non-conforming structure in a non-conforming use which is a seasonal use and converting it. There's no way that this house can ever be converted to a seasonal use as it stands. This is an aerial 3 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting photograph of the point I'll bring it up to you. This is the location of the house (inaudible) the smallest one on the point. The eight houses to the east of it are all seasonal houses, none of them have any kind of substructure except stilts that they're all sitting on. They all have public water because Suffolk County was gracious enough to run the main down there but none of them are winterized they have to shut the water off in October because the lines would freeze and also their septic systems are not insulated. So eight houses to the east, two houses to the north and one house to the west are all shut down in October and the owner one of the other homeowners is here to attest to that if you need that verification. Basically what we're looking for is to maintain the house as a seasonal use. Once we get the seasonal use variance the Building Department is willing to modify the existing permit to cover the deck in the rear porch. The rear porch that is being built right now it actually four foot wider than the one that was shown on the original building permit plan because as a safety issue myself and the architect advised the owners to make the porch wider, the landing wider as you walk in the door for safety reasons. You want to be able to open the door and still be not standing on a step it should be a little bit wider. MEMBER LEHNERT : The front porch you're speaking about? NICHOLAS MAZZAFERRO :The street side that's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Every single one of those dwellings has they're elevated and you have to get in them and out of them. They all require some degree of a landing and steps down to the grade. NICHOLAS MAZZAFERRO : Right (inaudible)feet above the sand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Every one of them looks exactly the same and it is a minimal I don't know why it's called a porch, it's really a landing with a railing and steps and the rear deck is modest in size and functional and comparable to all the others wind up in a row. NICHOLAS MAZZAFERRO : 4 think the reason the Building Department is looking at the not a free pass,but the automatic stoop is a 4 x 6 stoop they give it this is 4 x 9. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? No hands, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. Thank you for your time. HEARING#7831—TRACY and ALEXANDER SUTTON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tracy and Alexander Sutton #7831. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's May 12, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" alterations to convert to habitable space in the attic (third floor) of a single family dwelling and to rescind a condition of a permitted Special Exception at 1) as per condition #4 stipulated in Special Exception file #7527SE dated September 16, 2021 which states the third floor attic shall not be used as living space by owner nor by the Bed and Breakfast guests and is to remain unheated and unconditioned for storage us only located at 25500 Main Rd. in Orient. Good morning Pat. PAT MOORE : Good morning, I have Alex and Tracy here with me, you're very familiar obviously with this property. This got approval to be a B&B when Alex and Tracy bought the house and I gave you in writing so I wouldn't have to go through in detail all of the history here. You have all the C.O.'s listed C.O.'s, the development of the property that has the over the years what was done with the property and most recently Tracy and Alex have invested a great deal of money to make improvements to the old house. It's a beautiful stately home but probably at least a hundred years old I would say so a hundred year old house needs a lot of upgrades. So they have done everything that was listed and we're at the point that the third floor which is an existing space and I gave you the notations that were throughout that this Z October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting was a habitable completed space. The interesting thing is habitable is an issue because it didn't have heat but for all other purposes it was finished space with insulation. They found when they were doing the most recent the infestation that they were dealing with there was a gas line that was in that third floor space and that could have been connected to some form of heater but they couldn't identify what it was. So at this point it's an application to allow that space to be habitable. With respect to the area variance criteria it is not going to impact the neighborhood in any way. It is taking an existing space and making it usable for the family. You have a lot in writing and I'm happy to go over it paragraph by paragraph but you don't really need that, I'd rather address any questions that you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me just enter into the record a couple of little odds and ends and see what the Board has to say in way of questions. The Building Department issued a Stop Work Order for the third story construction without a permit. The B&B Operating Permit was issued for six months to expire at the end of this year, December 13, 2023. Fire Marshal inspection issued the Stop Work Order because the third floor was being gutted and rooms and bathrooms were being constructed according to his notes. We did grant a five bedroom B&B on September 16, 2021. Plenty of parking spaces on site per code. I guess there was an older ZBA decision #5307 from it granted a B&B conversion from what was a rest home in Orient and acknowledged the third story. I think that's about all the notes I have in my notes for the moment. Let's see what questions the Board might have, Nick I'll start with you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I guess two questions Pat; there's a floor plan is this the proposed or is this what the original condition was drawn by Tracy Sutton on May 11, 2023? PAT MOORE : That's Tracy TRACY SUTTON : That's the proposed. PAT MOORE : That's the proposed thank you, that's the proposed. The proposed well the bedroom is no longer a bedroom it's going to be an office space. The other space has been identified as just a sitting area. There was a full bathroom and that's being proposed to being reduced down to just a toilet and a sink. So the proposed is what is the habitable space that they would like to use. The original as I said the original was it was described as an apartment but it was a full bathroom, a full bedroom then a sitting area and storage space as I recall. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do we have a floor plan of that? PAT MOORE : We could get one for you.Tracy do you have an original floor plan? October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting TRACY SUTTON : Nothing that came with the house. I don't have an original floor plan of the attic, I probably have one in my drawings,before I did the (inaudible) and I can find that for you if you'd like. The walls haven't been modified much at all just basically to reconform it to be more user friendly for us.The walls were infested with (inaudible) and birds (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything further? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : At this time no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : Was the existing third story you were speaking about was that conditioned space or was that unheated? PAT MOORE : Well we can't again when they bought it there was there were no heating spaces into the walls, the only when they found evidence of a pipe but by the time they bought it, it was they probably used the heat from just the rest of the house that rises. There were air conditioning units in the windows but aside from that there was insulation. MEMBER LEHNERT : So basically you're stating it was unconditioned space? PAT MOORE : Alex do you want to clarify? I mean under the state building code today it would be considered unconditioned space. At the time it was constructed the code was didn't distinguish conditioned, unconditioned. MEMBER LEHNERT : Because of where we are now we're dealing with today's code. PAT MOORE : No today it would have to be conditioned space yes. ALEX SUTTON : The only thing I was going to say was there were two air conditioning units in there and they were two window air conditioning units in there and they had twenty amp circuits on them so that presumable they didn't trip so it was somewhat built to that purpose and there was a gas line that went over and at the termination of that gas line which wasn't hooked up to anything there was a chimney a galvanized sealed chimney that had a cap on it that connected to nowhere, it came down about two feet from the ceiling. So it was evidence of either an appliance or a heating unit that had been there at some point. So potentially it was conditioned I guess what we're talking about at some point. At the point we moved in it only had the air conditioning units in it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but they're window units they have nothing whatever heat source that may have been there it was removed it's extinguished I think. MEMBER LEHNERT : It was removed that would be extinguished. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : The rooms were still all intact all the partitions were all intact. I mean as far as if you were to go up there you would still see a full bedroom, you would see a full bathroom, the plumbing was working so if you're talking about heat as a MEMBER LEHNERT : As to the history of the property wasn't that extinguished in the past C.O's? PAT MOORE : No that's what we did not see. I looked at every single C.O., I've looked at every building permit and it was kind of left unaddressed. The building permits that were issued were always dealing with (inaudible) a building permit for an elevator and for something else nothing to do with the third floor space. It remained intact from I would assume when it was observed in 2003 it would have been there by then and the (inaudible) based on construction style and what it was it was probably put in there when it was the adult home in 1966 or thereafter. Remember the adult home was an adult home from '66 till more or less'03. I think (inaudible) financial difficulty, the family got old, the adult home (inaudible) operators were getting to the same age as the clients and I thought I saw something about a it wasn't a foreclosure but there was a distress sale in 2003 transfer. It's all I mean nothing is from records town records I couldn't really distinguish more than that. I looked very carefully because as I said in the writing when the B&B was approved there was a discussion about how to extinguish the third floor and we were all kind of what, a little bit surprised by everything because there was nothing it was there I don't recall if the Board Members went up there or not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We did a full house inspection at the time all of us. PAT MOORE : So you saw what was there I mean - MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There were finished walls yea PAT MOORE : Finished wall, a full bathroom with an old tub, shower I don't have that (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't remember a bathroom, I remember like a laundry room. TRACY SUTTON : They were storing all the linens and stuff from the B&B cause when we bought the house it was prior a B&B so there were linens up there (inaudible). PAT MOORE : I have a picture of the full bathroom (inaudible). I mean at this point we've had to deconstruct for the purposes of the Building Department's continuation of the B&B so today it's (inaudible). October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you go through a little bit of how we got here from getting the approval with no habitable space to how we are getting you with an "as built"? PAT MOORE : Let me start with nothing was touched on the third floor till he had to do the work to make the building (inaudible). ALEX SUTTON : So there were two issues that we had. So we had knob and tube wiring throughout a lot of the house which was we planned to replaced that everywhere we could find it. Opening up the third floor and second floor ceiling (inaudible) from the third floor allowed us to get access to the knob and tube so that was one thing that we wanted to do upstairs and the second thing we needed MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Excuse me was there a building permit to do that work, the electrical work? ALEX SUTTON : There was in this MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No prior. ALEX SUTTON : No there was not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you did the work without a building permit? ALEX SUTTON : I did, I did not know I know how to do the electrical work and I was ignorant that to replace something that was there and upgrade it to the code I needed a building permit for that because I wasn't expanding anything I was just replacing the existing circuits. PAT MOORE : Yea prior permits I know you had applied for the windows and other things that were done along the way. They did have a history of submitting applications for things that were clearly Zoning Department issues. ALEX SUTTON : And we upgraded the pergola which was not (inaudible) when we bought the house we got a building permit for that. So that was my ignorance that that was required but once we found that out we did apply for it and at the completion of that work which was done in the spring it was approved and that permit is now closed. The one issue was to replace the knob and tube issue and the other was there was a lot of insect activity on the third floor including wasps and there was a birds nest that went into one of the partition walls about five feet and so when we discovered that we ripped that entire wall down. So the attic had partition walls separating out into the bedroom that's been just a living area and an office area, a storage room and the full bathroom that had a shower and with whirlpool spas on it. So when we found the birds and we had this wasp issue so we didn't know we decided to gut the entire thing because we wanted to discover any other intrusions and things like that to October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting clean it. So we gutted it and when we looked at it when we were done we decided to reframe it, we left some of the walls in existing place and just moved a couple of walls cause we were going to put it back to the way it was and our intention and we did that without a building permit, we started to move forward without a building permit was to replace the existing bathroom which is the half bath cause we didn't need the shower but we wanted to the plumbing was there so we needed to do something with it either remove it or put it back so it was easier to put a half bath in where that had been and we made (inaudible) the office we kind of moved the storage room and the framing design and.we left the big area pretty much the way it was and the room that had been a bedroom we reduced the size of it and we're going to make it a storage area. We can provide a rough or you know we should be able to provide an idea of what the old layout was and provide that to you so you can kind of map how it (inaudible). So we were in the midst of that construction in I want to say March or April \ to replace those partition walls and we had our annual fire inspection which was late it was supposed to be in October it happened in March or April and the Fire Inspector discovered it and issued a Stop Work Order and I think you have everything else. So that's the timeline of how we got here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question then is knowing that you had an approval for a five bedroom B&B which required that the third floor remain for storage only you went ahead and decided to renovate the third floor and replace it with habitable space knowing fully well that there was a condition that you're now asking us to rescind why did you do that? ALEX SUTTON : That's a good question, I guess in my mind and our minds we did not view it as non-habitable space because it was habitable space but we never used it for anything more than storage. We had a plan to use it as an office and storage so we made a mistake that's the answer to your question. We shouldn't have done that. Part of our minds I guess felt it was habitable because it had been habitable and as Pat's letter kind of lays out the change from it being habitable space to non-habitable space seemed to be a little bit from what we can see what we were purview to seemed a little bit whimsical. In other words somebody just said what's this space being used for and the question was asked in the open hearing (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code does not allow a third story habitable space which is why your approval was based upon that condition and you will find in your decision as we do always, failure to comply with a conditions imposed herein may nullify your permit and revoke your Special Exception. The Board was attempting to uphold the zoning code with that condition. You indicate that you really need the space for yourselves that you don't have much room on the existing B&B, you do have an option you have a five bedroom B&B which is the maximum the Board can grant it's a large house. You can take one of those rooms and October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting make it your own, living space your office space whatever and have a four bedroom B&B. Have you ever thought of doing that? ALEX SUTTON : We haven't thought I mean we're aware that we could do that cause we actually do have stored stuff that we have in attic in one of those rooms when we did those renovations so we're certainly aware the space exists. We feel that that would detract from the house and make it less economically viable as a B&B and make it less likely that somebody is going to want to keep it for what it's being used for and for what it has been used for its entire life. We kind of feel like the house was constructed with a full third floor with you know full sized ceilings on that third floor, a full staircase and we can easily put egress in. We can put in sprinkler systems or whatever else is required for some of the third floor exceptions that have been made by the town so we could comply with some of those decisions. We do think it would make the house what it is and what it could be maybe what it was designed to be with a full third floor. We could certainly take away one bedroom but it would detract from the house. So we haven't decided to do that. We have a large family, we have six grandchildren we have five children so we want to have rooms for people to come back to. That's one of the reasons we bought the house and we are in our early sixties late fifties and we want to have a large house where we could put everybody in the house. So even if we're not running it as a B&B we want to have the bedroom so certainly we all make do with less than what we have so can do that and we wouldn't be (inaudible) or whatever we could survive but we want to try and maximize the space that we have and we feel the house is designed to accommodate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony and I will say one thing, if you had concerns about the condition of that decision originally you had thirty days to appeal to a court of law you know that's above the ZBA and you know they would have decided whether we were capricious or not but that didn't happen. ALEX SUTTON : I respect what you do and I'm not particularly a (inaudible) person so I didn't view that an option even though it is an option. I would hopefully have to resort to that and try to work some of those issues out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fair enough. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just want to clarify something, we don't know exactly what that third floor was because in 1966 they called it an attic. So we really don't know when it became not ALEX SUTTON : I don't directly from the record in the 2003 hearing before the Board it was an affidavit provided to the Board and somebody testified that it was used as an apartment. It does say on the building record that it was an attic, I assume that that was just how it was 1 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting recorded on the property record because the (inaudible) testimony is clear and that affidavit in 2003 the Maintree case in front of the Board trying to turn it into an Inn. I think I referenced that in one of the pieces I put in and provided where that came from. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that was something that I was going to chime in about that when I look at the photographs the current condition as we see it and I'm holding up the picture of the current condition proposed the removal you can see the original framing of the house very different dimensional lumber versus what is commonly found today. In one of the pictures you can see the partition that you have which is like you know (inaudible) 2 x 4's. In the pictures that you submitted with the animal infestation or with the birds etc. you can see all the framing is from the 1980's with sheetrock and not plaster walls as expect when the house would have been built. There's actually rolled insulation and you can see in one of the pictures like the original sort of framing which I think is called balloon framing versus the more current framing platform so I mean this is when I look at the pictures and the amenities it would seem perhaps under the Norklens or someone without the benefit of a permit recognizing the Pre C of 0 that there was a walk up attic, they just said oh nobody will know. A house had a C of 0 at the time and not necessarily a detailed C of 0 like what is required today and they might have just thought oh nobody will now we're going to stay here forever we'll put a bathroom in, we'll put whatever room or an apartment there and it may not have a permit. So this is where it's interesting that you'll look at something from fifty five years ago it describes it one way versus what you're suggesting as recent homeowners. PAT MOORE : I'm not so sure that I would agree with you Nick because so remember in 1966 the adult home was started and in the inspection in '03 which would have occurred shortly after if not immediately after the family the Maintree Corp which was three individuals they bought it. I think there was if I remember correctly and this is old information the code was changing at the time whether B&B's would be two bedrooms, three bedrooms however number they were originally coming in to try to continue an Inn and I think that the simpler way that it was suggested to them was make it a single family with a B&B use. So in '03 based on the code as it was changing and BB uses were becoming more acceptable or legislated into the code they worked under that parameter but I did see it looked like it was built prior to Maintree and it may have gotten some newer sheetrock on the ceilings because it looked like there was a drop ceiling done in maybe the bedroom there was a drop ceiling as I recall. ALEX SUTTON :Just in the bedroom area everything else was to the roof. PAT MOORE : Which could have been in the eighties, it could have been whenever we just don't know structurally when things were done. I mean they're coming to you now with a request to make a third floor habitable and not for the B&B use that's clear only for their own October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting personal use. The house since the beginning has been described as a three story house. So it's always had that third story space. It did get modified over time and it was used as living space and when you're looking at the area variance criteria this is not impacting anything whatsoever. The B&B use is not going to change in any way. The number of bedrooms in the B&B that has from '03 till today is still a continuous use and this application we do discuss they were in fault in doing work without a permit but I think that that's been addressed in the testimony and the written and they're here, they're getting the approval that they need with this Board's consent. So I think you know all the facts, don't blame them, don't punish them for the fact that they did some work to the space and they shouldn't have clearly. He shouldn't have done it because MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would still dispute which is the question here was it a third floor or not and it's unclear cause there's no record to stipulate or to illustrate that it was a legal third floor. PAT MOORE : Well I mean you have a prior decision that the Zoning Board itself stated it was an apartment so I think legally there is a findings from the 2003 decision that defined it. T. A. MCGIVNEY : They said they probably used it so it wasn't definitive. PAT MOORE : It was probably used as an apartment but whether the space was there, there was a bedroom, there was a living space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but that could have been built in '82. If you look at the Romex electrical cable it might have a date on it I don't know that's all now been changed but the stud walls are not from the 1900's when the house was built. The partitioning very clear in the pictures that you submitted show something recent. The bathroom fixtures, the toilet, the sink, the sort of fiberglass shower is all something more of the 1990's even. So if it wasn't there legally we can't condone it. PAT MOORE : But we're asking for it to be we're treating it as if it doesn't exist right because it had to be removed in order to abide by the B&B decision that you issued. We're giving you the history of that space so that with respect to the area variance criteria it's not an impact to the neighborhood, it's practical to the applicant's, it's the minimum necessary without jeopardizing the B&B. What Leslie suggested was we'll just use one of your B&B rooms I think we all know and I think you're being kind of polite about it which is a B&B does generate a great deal of income. It helps run itself but we all know B&B's that have closed down and I mean it was a project and now we're homes. It's not a hotel. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The idea is to supplement the homeowner for income and that's the purpose, it's not commercial. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It's a single family home that when the kids are not there and the grandkids are not there it's for people to enjoy it. It is a positive use in Orient, I mean it's an Inn that has been identified as an Inn for generations at this point. It was an Inn before it was an adult home right so prior to zoning it was an Inn, then it was converted to an adult home by the family in '66 because that was the appeal that was in 1966. That record describes it as previously an Inn so the use has always been (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and it continued that's a dispute. PAT MOORE : I don't think there's any dispute about that, there's a whole record. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's just a question about the third floor and I guess the only thing was I don't know if you want to chime in but from the standpoint of a variance is for a third floor cause if we're treating it as new construction and we know that the stairwell you can see the stairwell walking in from the entry hall continues up to the attic space. PAT MOORE : It's there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I don't think anyone is disputing that it's just a question of you know whether or not one can legalize a third floor use. Is that the issue here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm going to see if Eric or Pat has any questions on this? MEMBER DANTES : I mean I just know twenty years ago the C.O.'s whatever especially thirty years ago were never written in detail but the Zoning Board did clarify as a three story house in 2003. PAT MOORE : Oh yes and yes I did point out they are being taxed the Assessors don't care whether there's a C.O. or not as you know. They base it on what they see and it was being taxed the same level as the second floor. So the Assessors must at some point seen it because they kept the tax the same. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but they also tax it if there's a pool there, they're not looking at the actual C of O's. If somebody made improvements they're not looking for that they're not Code Enforcement that's where it gets confusing. I don't disagree with that. ALEX SUTTON : Just to answer one question I don't having spent a fair amount of my life on that third floor now the two things that I noticed that might indicate there was something up there beyond just attic space is there was extensive two wire fire detectors that little ones with white twisted wire that probably came from somewhere between the twenties and the forties and there wasn't just one going through the center there were multiple ones like in different areas of the house so I can't imagine that that was installed unless there was space October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting up there that was being used and there was an intercom system that went down to the first floor that was very old and it was probably in the 1940's intercom and again it was two wires hooked up to knob and tube wiring that was there indicating that there was use up there. I can't say it indicates that there was an apartment up there but there was regular use up there to the point that somebody wanted to be notified that somebody rang the doorbell downstairs and they were up in the attic doing something. That something was likely not storing stuff in an attic it was probably using it as habitable space during the day to day running what was then a tourist home, (inaudible) home back to a B&B. So I think there's some evidence it's a little slim I give you that, it's not a pure documentation but that space has been used for a long time. The last thing I would say is on the staircase going up there there's (inaudible) plaster wall and it's got full balusters and everything like that. It just looks like a space that was built money was put into it to make it beautiful and like the rest of the house so I do believe originally it was some type of living space. I would agree with you that the framing we removed was I would say probably seventies, eighties I guess and especially based on the electric that was there so it is old, it is potentially passed the point of zoning but not necessarily (inaudible) but there is a lot there was knob and tube in the ceiling and knob and tube on several outlets in the area. So there is some evidence that it had use prior to 1960 or whatever. So I'm going to sit down now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application. Is there anybody on Zoom? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Pat this Certificate of Occupancy that the one dated 3/25/2011 I'm just confused because the decision to make it a B&B was in 2003(and then in 2011 was the C.O. to convert the adult home to a single family dwelling and then it said the Certificate replaces 29680, did you have a copy of the one it is replacing? PAT MOORE : No I looked for it and once it's replaced they don't have it on the town's T. A. MCGIVNEY : Server t PAT MOORE : Yea cause I went and looked for it as well but you know very typically a building permit might have been issued but just not closed out so they reissue you know one that was done in '03 now reissued in '11 because it just didn't get closed out as a C.O. but I went looking for it as well and I couldn't get a copy of it through the town's records. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we've spent a lot of time on this, I think if there are no other questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, thank you very much. HEARING#7833—ROBERT S. MARTIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert S. Martin #7833. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's May 23, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory pool pavilion at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1600 Little Nick Rd. in Cutchogue. State your name for the record please. DIANA LASPISA : Diana LaSpisa with Murano Expediting Services, 2938 Hempstead Tpk. Suite 212 Levittown, New York 11756. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, so this is an accessory pool pavilion in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard location for accessory structures. DIANA LASPISA : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All of us have been out to the site and have inspected the property, driven around the neighborhood. Are you aware that there is a letter of concern from one neighbor about additional noise near her bedroom? I guess her house is adjacent to DIANA LASPISA : I was not aware, would that be the neighbor to the south or cause they would be the one most affected I would say so I would assume that would be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, you have two front yards so I guess one of the where you're proposing to locate it is fairly close to their house the side of the house that's got bedrooms on it and they're concerned about noise and lighting. Do you plan in any way to illuminate that pavilion? October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting DIANA LASPISA : I'm sure they'll have they're still at the beginning stages you know of course because you know it all depends on if the Board acts favorable. I would assume most people do have a fan with a light inside the pavilion. Usually the pavilions though come to a peak so that would probably not even shine outside it would just illuminate the actual pavilion itself. I'm sure the Board's aware as you said that you've been to this site, really the only reason they're before the Board is because this is considered technically their side yard. So they're legal address is Little Neck Rd. however when you're at the site there is no entrance from the house onto Little Neck Rd. I'm not sure why that's the legal address but the house actually does front on Moose Trail. It would give the appearance that this really would be the rear yard for all other purposes but for the Building Department purpose it does go by the legal mailing address which is 1600 Little Neck for whatever reason that is. I do have some photographs of the property and I'm sure the Board's aware as well that this property is heavily vegetated around the whole perimeter. So this pavilion even if there was any light shining outside of it, it would not be visible and I'll submit these up to the Board as well because they have evergreen shrubs along the southerly property line that range from ten to twelve feet along Little East Neck Rd. is about twenty foot evergreens so this is not going to be visible from any neighboring parcels. So I'll submit these up to the Board if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The proposed pavilion is what we would call the architectural rear yard of the property, the Building Department looks at side and front and rear yards differently and it's always a shock to people because if their house faces one way they think that's their front yard and it could be the side yard. We understand there are limits with two streets, there are limits to where rear yard location can be. DIANA LASPISA : I know some people usually have a door that accesses whether that's the front but then when l went to the house I was like there's not even a door or anything I don't know but I guess there's a few in that neighborhood that have similar situations which in their case it worked to their advantage when they put in their pool cause they didn't have to come before the Board for the pool but in this instance you know unfortunately it doesn't work to their advantage. It does meet the required setbacks per say for you know accessory structures, it's just simply because of the yard. So had the Building Department deemed it how we see it and possibly how the Board sees it architecturally as the rear yard they would be complying with the setbacks off the neighboring property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye thank you for your time. HEARING#7835—KATHLEEN WALAS and THOMAS SARAKATSANNIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kathleen Walas and Thomas Sarakatsannis #7835. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280- 124, Article XXXVI Section 280-208A and the Building Inspector's May 25, 2023 amended July 7, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single family dwelling with swimming pool addition at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard property line setback of 40 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard property line setback of 15 feet, 3) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article XXXVI Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 750 Brooks Rd. (adj. to Pipes Neck Creek) in Greenport. Good morning Anthony. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board, I was just reading something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll just say quickly, we have a front yard setback at 9.6 feet where the code requires 40 minimum, side yard setback at 5 feet the code requiring 15, minimum and it exceeds the sky plane. It's LWRP inconsistent, it's in FEMA elevation 7 which is a hazard area. The sky plane issue I suppose related to design preference rather than to FEMA first floor elevation. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think it's a couple of things I'll get into. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the grading plan, the Mark suggested an engineer's grading plan for the elevational changes to install an IA system, you're going to need retaining walls. How high are they going to be? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The current subject design does not require us any retaining walls on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No retaining walls are required? ANTHONY PORTILLO : If I could I have a few things for the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea sure. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So I don't have copies of this but this is what has been submitted to the Health Department and I do have where we are with their current. BOARD ASSISTANT : Is this the copies for them? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes and that's the current reply to us which is basically asking us for Trustees and D.E.C. and (inaudible). So I didn't make copies of the septic submission that we currently have with the Health Department. I'm not sure if LWRP maybe looked at our original design. We met with Trustees on the site and they suggested that one thing was let's get rid of the retaining walls so we did and also let's reduce the raising of the grade. In regards to the location of the septic system there really is no other place on the property which was discussed with the Trustees. The existing system is pretty much in that same location so their remarks back to me were that they rather low nitrate system in the same place as the current cesspool system that's there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they haven't issued anything yet,Trustees? ANTHONY PORTILLO : When we're finished here then we're going to go to Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you have talked with them you said. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : We did a site visit that's correct and we had the original septic design which did we were planning on putting retaining wails and elevating and based on that meeting on site that's where it subsided and we decided okay let's figure out how to do this (inaudible). You can see from that current septic design that's no longer the case and maybe the just to bring the Board into the circulations that we've been through, this was submitted to the Board we were then asked to go to Trustees first then we were basically back here to Zoning. So I think that maybe the original septic design is what these remarks are based on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that makes sense. ANTHONY PORTILLO : First off thank you for having me today, this is considered a reconstruction by the Town of Southold due to the amount of work that we are proposing. This area the area where this home is situated is at a dead end road with very few neighbors. The neighbors are actually Suffolk County and Southold Town that own the properties next to this lot. It's very much an isolated private area and really what we're proposing is not going to cause distress to any of the neighbors. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony quick question, just cause you mentioned the adjacent land owners being County and Town, is Brooks Rd. a private road or is that a public road? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I believe it's a mapped road based on what I'm getting here because there is one other home on Brooks which really is by Pipes Neck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just an extension of Pipes Neck but it is an unpaved you know sort of ANTHONY PORTILLO : Unpaved basically you have a right of way to the Sarakatsannis residence and there's really just one other home which to get to this residence you have to pass by that home. The proposed design has taken several positive notions towards the nearby environment as well as zoning regulations. The front yard setbacks are existing non- conforming, the existing conditions have a ramp and covered porch that are closer to the front yard setback than the proposed structure. The front porch, the existing ramp to the proposed structure which is the front porch is what really is creating this non-conformance or more of a non-conformance than the existing building. The existing ramp is 2.4 feet from the front yard setback and the existing covered porch is 5.8 feet from the front yard setback. The proposed porch that we're asking a variance on is 9.6 feet from that front yard setback. The side yard non-conformance is the current or existing garage, so besides just elevating the garage we're not repositioning it so that non-conformance really is an existing non- conformance and the relief is needed due to the reconstruction. The proposed construction exceeds the permitted sky plane so we recognize this relief existing non-conformance October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting although this is due to the need to be FEMA compliant that's one reason and then also we are proposing a full second story or really a two and a half story building and that pyramid law and part of the reason that we're really having this issue is more because of the side and front yard existing setbacks. So that's where the plane is obstructing (inaudible) because of those current or existing side and front yard setbacks. So in other words if the home was positioned differently on the property then we probably would not be discussing the pyramid obstructions. I did provide you the neighboring home, I did an analysis for you and he is completely over the pyramid, if at that time he built his home I actually was the architect MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is this what you're speaking of? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No the other one 'it's a sketch of the front of the home. So he has the same sort of if it's not more than actually than what we're proposing. If you look at our drawing it's not really clear I think in the new code maybe you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm understanding is we have to use the grade plane for the pyramid law but if you were to use the design flood elevation we did plot both lines for the Board you'll see that we really aren't really obstructing that plane much because we are elevating the home we are making it FEMA compliant so we are bringing it up to code standards which if you use a grade plane on an elevated home and the existing home is non-conforming like this you're probably going to see a situation similar to this. As you can see the two lines on the drawing that the one is if you were to use the DFE which I think is the correct way to do that but I can be incorrect but you know the Board should at least consider the fact that the elevation of the home is getting less of an obstruction on that grade plane. The other thing I provided was like a map of the area and I showed you an elevation of the next closest home, so if you were to take in consideration the pyramid law if the Board had the ability to look at the average within five hundred feet so we provided the one home, the home next to that I was able to get a front elevation. We tried to get it from the town and we also tried to get it on Google we couldn't but if you look at the map you can clearly see that almost all the homes are really encroaching on the side yards in this area and if you look at the picture of the home it's basically a two and a half story home I would go on record saying that it's definitely obstructing the pyramid or that angled line we just couldn't really provide that. As mentioned before we have applied to the Health Department, we basically have approval on an IA system they're just requesting Trustees and D.E.C. and provided that to the Board and our next trip here is to go to Trustees and like I said .I did meet them on the site. I think their biggest concern was the retaining walls and the elevation of the grade so I think we've dealt with that and I feel pretty sure that we're going to have positive result there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good, Pat anything from you? 41 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : Just I mean he does have code conforming alternatives but then he's moved, it closer to the wetlands so he's kind of he's in a bind between us or the environmental. ANTHONY PORTILLO : You know I appreciate you saying that, I want to say one thing too, we are removing a large covered porch that's on that's seaward on the corner of the home we're completely removing that. All we're putting in is a landing and a stair but we sort of moved that porch further away from the wetlands closer to the (inaudible). So we are that was one thing I think was were being cautious of the wetlands and the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea a couple of questions, it has more to do with the difficult site constraints but Suffolk County owns the land all around it I'm assuming as you suggested there's an easement to gain access to the property but on the site plan you don't show parking so don't you at least need to meet the minimum parking requirement of two cars? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So the easement is allowing them to have a driveway basically on that easement. It's also similar to Mr. Heints the home I was talking about that's on that road. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The one on Pipes or ANTHONY PORTILLO : The one on Pipes, he parks on that easement too and his IA system is basically in front of his house so I think it's just common in that area that your parking is in the easement which I don't think is a problem cause I think. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're at the end of the road there's no one else there. Then the other question I wanted to ask is relative to the third floor, it's an unfinished attic correct? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pull down stair. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes we're proposing a pull down stair. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I guess the last thing I'll mention and perhaps it was something that came up while I walked away for a moment, why can't you conform and I understand what you discussed with the neighboring property but you got reverse gables, these sort of like October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting dormers and stuff why couldn't you just miter the roofline so it follows the pyramid law for the setback? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think if you were looking at proposed left elevation on DD4 that's really the one that is that's the most obstruction and it really isn't if you look at the proposed front elevation so on the left hand side that's the bathroom on the interior of the home on the second floor and that gable is in we actually brought that gable down MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No all I'm suggesting is why wouldn't you just miter the corner instead of having a full pitch (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : So then you're saying just create like a plane that goes across? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would say the architecture, I mean it would just not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just the visual appearance. MEMBER LEHNERT : On the front it's just a gable. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's those pretty much those reverse gables that are creating that obstruction. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My thought was it would just reduce a variance. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well you're going to have the variance regardless on the front elevation cause if you look at the garage and the other portion of MEMBER LEHNERT : Part of it is existing. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's also hitting the grade plane. Again Nick in my opinion if this house was originally five feet closer to the water MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It wouldn't be an issue. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right and I think going back to what Eric says it's a good thing maybe that it isn't closer to the water and how they plotted it originally whether it makes sense or not maybe there was a reason behind that MEMBER LEHNERT : Less of a non-conformity than going closer to the water. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So I guess it's you know the two evils. I think because honestly not having a neighbor right there this seems pretty de minimus. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? Anybody on Zoom? No hands, anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to recess for lunch, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER'DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to reconvene, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 441 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7832—CHARLES DISAPIO and XANNE PEREZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon everyone, the next application before the Board is for Charles Disapio and Xanne Perez #7832. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-13C and the Building Inspector's July 13, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" artist studio with a half bathroom in an existing accessory garage at 1) the proposed use in the accessory building is not a permitted accessory use located at 5780 New Suffolk Ave. (adj. to Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. Yes as the Board is aware this structure is a four car garage or was C.O.'ed as such. My client bought the property a year or so ago and the back bay of the garage which I guess would be the most western end of the garage having partially finished off into a kitchenette and a bathroom. He is an artist, his whole career has been in architectural design and he is retired and would like to continue using this space or legalize it as an artist studio. So essentially we're talking about modifying what is there I believe Leslie said you had a chance to look at it and to remove any of the kitchen improvements and leave behind just the plumbing that would be for a half bathroom and create an artist studio. I just with reference to the prior determinations in Nardilillo and Wilson Reichman as the Board is aware there's established criteria for your determination of whether this use would constitute or be accessory to the single family residence on the property. Just running through those established criteria, it is indeed going to be an incidental use to the principal use by my client of a single family residence. It will be for his personal use, there will be no commercial component to it (inaudible) to sell anything out of it or giving lessons it's just simply storing of art supplies and equipment and for use for completing art projects. He has no employees, I don't believe that there would be any evidence that creating art would have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. This is an existing structure and you know it's not as if it's going to be a daily activity but it will be available for his use. There is again it is in'the back there, there will be no display of any type of art work on the property or on the street, no sales of any kind will take place. As I mentioned there will be a half bath remaining in this bay of the garage. His proposed art activities will not include glass blowing but will include painting and sculpturing and sketches. There is no sleeping or cooking on the premises. There will be no accessory apartment it's the only use and he is not intending to have any type of a gym or recreational space there. So think on balance if you review this in accordance with the established criteria it's pretty clear that it's appropriate to be used as an artist studio and we would ask that you reverse the Notice of Disapproval and grant relief for legalizing the use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One question relative to (inaudible) for the bathroom, the septic system how it ties in or what changes if necessary? MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) satisfy existing sanitary system on site which is adequate for that use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sure it is, there would be no other reason to have a separate septic system for that, it's not a bedroom. Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7834SE—EDWIN J. PISANI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Edwin J. Pisani #7834SE. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13C(13). The applicant is the owner of the subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 7180 Peconic Bay Blvd. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. Well one of the things that was pointed out here was that the accessory structure was not established with a C.O. three years prior to this application, prior 463 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting to applying for the apartment from Mike Verity's comments. He's saying that he wants up to update the form but he's saying on the form MARTIN FINNEGAN : There's a 1995 Pre C.O. for garage, I don't know where Mike's coming from. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it's an existing structure, the apartment is in the structure. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I wonder if Mike is just confused thinking that we're adding the addition is the apartment where is the addition is a garage and not the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe MARTIN FINNEGAN : I haven't seen what he has submitted so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll show you. T. A. MCGIVNEY : He's saying the structure must have been certified I can understand what he's saying but I can barely read it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please update verification form as per current code. MEMBER LEHNERT : Here's there's a Pre CO in 1995, one family dwelling with an accessory two car garage. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't know what he's under current code it's an appropriate size for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why he's saying he couldn't calculate the livable floor area. I think that means appraised. T. A. MCGIVNEY : it's approved not appraised. BOARD ASSISTANT : Maybe it has to do with the addition to the apartment itself. The apartment part has an addition also. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's 100 sq.ft. addition to the apartment that's BOARD ASSISTANT : Maybe it has something to do with that. MARTIN FINNEGAN : You need 220 sq. ft. to have an accessory apartment so I'm not sure why it's not certifiable for livable floor area there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Does it have something to do with the house the gross floor area? T. A. MCGIVNEY : It says the proposed garage addition is 430 sq. ft.? 47 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's actually going to be a total 525 sq. ft. with the it's about 425 now we're adding 100. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It says proposed addition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The apartment you're proposing at 424? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Total with the 100 sq. ft. addition it's 525 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 525 MARTIN FINNEGAN : So it's currently it's about 425 sq. ft.just a two car garage because of the way the code is now we have to renovate that and build another garage rather than just building an apartment but that's why we're here just because we have to use T. A. MCGIVNEY : The site plan is showing it as an addition of 430 sq. ft. so that's gotta be why he's I mean that's the way it reads on your site plan. There's an existing garage at 448 sq. ft. and then a proposed garage addition for 430 sq. ft. so that easily could read CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So he's thinking you're adding on the apartment to the garage. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, no, no, no that's what he's thinking yea it's the opposite the plans that are attached show exactly what is T. A. MCGIVNEY : On the drawing it's showing the exact duplicate of what's there. MARTIN FINNEGAN : On the site plan it does show exactly the space that's going on to be added and the existing garage and (inaudible) confusing. MEMBER DANTES : It says existing garage and then proposed addition. MARTIN FINNEGAN : On A-6 you can see the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The addition to the garage is not the apartment, the apartment is going to go into the existing garage. So that's where the confusion is. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Into the existing garage and then they're attaching a new garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's for storage. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea just a garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Garage storage not apartment. MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) 481 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : So the code reads, you can build an addition in the same building, keep the apartment there but you have to use the new space for the garage and the old space can be the apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly, did you ever know a perfect law in your life ever? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't even get the putting the three year thing, it seems contrary to the intent of creating affordable housing but anyway you want me to just run through this Leslie?Just for the record Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant Edwin Pisani. Yes we're here for a Special Exception to convert the existing garage structure to an accessory apartment under 280-13B(13). As discussed there will a slight 100 sq. ft. add on to the existing garage to accommodate a two bedroom one bathroom apartment and then the. applicant will be constructing a new garage add on to for storage and the garage. So the criteria is pretty straightforward in the code for what we have to establish here and I believe that the record confirms that there is an existing C.O. for the garage as of 1995 and it has been certified for more than three years. The 525 sq. ft. accessory apartment does have only two bedrooms and one bathroom. The entire livable floor area is also on one floor. There are three available off street parking spaces for the apartment that appear on the site plan. It will be the only accessory apartment on the premises and it will have its own septic system that will be separate and apart from the existing one for the home. It will be occupied by a family member and the existing single family residence is for the applicant's exclusive use'and will not be otherwise rented to a third party. So the applicant would submit that the relief requested will not have an adverse impact on the property, the surrounding neighborhood. In fact we have submitted letters of support from both neighbors on either side of the property who have no objection to the application. The proposed structure otherwise is completely conforming with the bulk schedule, we don't require any variance relief so we would submit that the project is entirely consistent with the standards in Section 280-142 and if you review them in consideration of matters to be considered in 280-143 we're confident that you will find that relief is warranted here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the one thing that is missing in the application is usually if a family member is going to occupy it there is a named family member with a birth certificate indicating you know a relationship and usually there's a rental lease it's not necessarily an executed lease but it's usually signed and undated with an amount of rent on it and none of those things are in this application. Do you know specifically what family member they're talking about. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Genevieve Pisani who is the daughter of Edwin is the daughter who is going to live there. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so his daughter is going to go in there. Can you obtain that information from the applicant? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Absolutely I stated for the record she's absolutely the one. As to a lease I mean I presume that's something that (inaudible) before a C.O. but I don't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well usually the lease is submitted its anywhere from whatever amount they want, it can be a couple of hundred dollars it can be twelve hundred, it can be a dollar a year I mean a dollar a month or whatever. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Condition of approval or providing a lease to the Building Department before they issue a C.O.? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I would really like to have some verification for a birth certificate and or an affidavit of who the family member is, that's pretty standard in our submissions. MEMBER LEHNERT : A lease is pretty standard too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean it's a Bloomberg lease, I mean it's a form you can do that I know you can. MEMBER LEHNERT : Put down a dollar. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I will get both to you before you deliberate in two weeks. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can you just explain again the site plan-shows the existing garage at 448 so it says that the livable floor area the apartment is going to be 525, so you are MEMBER LEHNERT : He's putting an addition on to the garage. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right but a portion of that is for the apartment. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct MARTIN FINNEGAN : Expanding which you can do you can expand T. A. MCGIVNEY : The apartment was going to be the garage and you were adding storage but they are taking a little bit of the MARTIN FINNEGAN : We're expanding the existing garage slightly to T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm just wondering what the Building Department is going to say. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's part of the problem; it's one thing if they confused the addition for the apartment. I think what's happening here if he did do it carefully he would have seen what Julie just pointed out which is the addition was for storage but part of that addition is going to be added to the existing square footage in the existing garage where the apartment is going so that maybe what's throwing a wrench into it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well you can expand the existing structure to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can expand principal dwelling up to 25%of the foundation. MARTIN FINNEGAN : But you can also expand an accessory structure that is legally existing to create an accessory apartment. I mean I believe that other application CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd have to check that because I don't know that that's I'm not sure that's true. I'll have to look it up but I don't think so, 1 think the only expansion MEMBER DANTES : The code just says a Pre CO it's silent. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It doesn't say anything that you can convert a structure that is legally existing to an accessory apartment. There's no limitation on T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's just the extra 100 sq. ft. of it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : If it was a pre-existing non-conforming that's a different story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, yea, yea MARTIN FINNEGAN : We couldn't make it bigger but it's a legally existing structure so there's no and look I can ask Mark to redo the site plan here to clarify it that's something you'd rather have for the record cause it seems to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'd rather stamp something that's clear. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean again if you look at A6 I think it kind of lays it out what's but I can understand where there could have been some (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea cause we want to make sure that the since the file does have Mike's calculations and kind of comments in it I want to make sure that we can address it in the decision. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Sure I mean let me ask him to do that and I can submit that as well. BOARD ASSISTANT : So Martin so what you would do between those two spaces addition to the October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes let me just make a note of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're going to submit floor plans too or just the site plan? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Just make a note as Kim suggested on A-6 that that is an addition. You see the line here it's just the existing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is that on the proposed plan well it says kitchenette, two bedrooms, what are you saying Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No on the floor plan going back to that it's really just a kitchenette not a complete kitchen and there's really no living room which is kind of unusual. It reads more like a guest house than an apartment. MEMBER DANTES : You can use one of the bedrooms as your living room once you settle in you can figure out how you're going to use the space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was my original thought too but in light of perhaps what Mike Verity's memo was it's a confusing gray area of the additional living space that you can see it 3 feet by 20 feet basically the width of the tub (inaudible) across the structure is the extra space that's being constructed. T. A. MCGIVNEY : For the apartment which not C.O.'ed that 100 sq.ft. is not C.O'ed. i MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's 60 sq. ft. not 100, 20 by 3 is 60. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 100 sq. ft. You know is there a way that that can be I mean that's there's a way that that floor plan can be redesigned. MARTIN FINNEGAN : There's no Disapproval for that I mean I don't think there's any issue with expanding. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The expansion of an existing structure to accommodate an accessory apartment before it had to be a minimum of 450 sq. ft. so we allowed people to expand CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : to make it compliant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN. : That's correct but that was to make it conforming. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : Now they added in that it has to be in existence for three years. I'm just trying to make sure that there's no issue. If they grant your variance and you go to the Building Department and Mike is still not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's not going to give you a building permit. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I still don't understand the logic behind the three year rule but I'm pretty sure what it means is that you have to convert a structure that is legally existing for three years. It doesn't limit you on the expansion of that unless it's a pre-existing non- conforming structure. The code is silent to that so I don't believe and I'm confident that I've had this conversation with Amanda and we're okay here but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So what Kim suggested can we add it to our decision that we allowed the expansion that extra 60 sq. ft., 3 feet by 20 feet,or the other thing is maybe they can just modify the plan to make it conform to the existing garage and then at a later date deal with it if and when it's too small. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's a construction nightmare. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No when you're building you just better build it. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) make it like a shoebox bedroom. Those bedrooms are not that big as it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, see in a space like that I don't why you wouldn't want to have one bedroom and have the rest be a living room and dining room and a kitchen and a MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think they can modify it to be one bedroom I mean I don't know that if it's approve as an apartment does it from your analysis CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the code allows two bedrooms but I mean if you look at it from a functional point of view MEMBER ACAMPORA : There's no living room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where are you going to sit, where are you going to eat? I mean it doesn't oh there's a bench okay. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Pretend you're in a park, bad drawing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what, why don't you go talk to your client and think this through relative to what we just said about the layout what they really want to do. We need to get from you the birth certificate for the daughter. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : I have a note for that and I have an note for MEMBER LEHNERT : And a lease. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to clarify on the site plan and on the drawing A-6 exactly what you're proposing. Speak to them and see if they don't want to consider something that's a little bit more functional for one person namely the daughter and then submit an amended floor plan if they want to. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean they reviewed the plans and they were CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sure they did but MARTIN FINNEGAN : I will certainly make CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick does have a point, I mean he's this is something you probably would have for guests who are going to sleep there and going to the house for breakfast or whatever it's a kitchenette but we'll leave it to you to decide what the client wants. We're not supposed to be here designing what people's preferences are you know even though sometimes we see designs that kind of hurt my feelings. T. A. MCGIVNEY : The big thing is just the site plan cause it looks like you're doubling the storage space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, anything else from the Board, anyone in the audience? Is there anybody on Zoom? I think you want to-close the hearing subject to receipt or do you want to adjourn to the Special to see what you want to,do with your client or? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'm happy to close it subject to receipt. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board okay with that? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended annotation on the drawing for the floor plan of a site plan and a birth certificate for the daughter and a lease of some sort. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye 1 MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7837—WILLIAM and STACEY BRENNEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William and Stacey Brennen #7837. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 24, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 1050 Trumans Path (adj. to Marion Lake) in East Marion. Good afternoon Hideaki and thank you for all you patiently waiting through this whole mess this morning. So we have a side yard setback at 14.12 feet where the code requires 10 foot minimum so I don't even know why that's cited. I don't think that's a variance but the combined side yard setbacks are 24.29 where the code requires 25 which is literally inches. What are you doing, converting a small deck to a sunroom? HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : Yes it's exactly what the existing deck is and (inaudible). As you can see on the site plan the existing building is 45 almost 45 degree angled from the property line so that literally the variance we need is just (inaudible). The impact is very small I believe that's all I want to say. MEMBER LEHNERT : You're basically just squaring off the corner of the house. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : Like that? MEMBER LEHNERT : It's less than a foot. MEMBER DANTES : I think we've talked more about this variance than we need to really. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the other thing too it's an undeveloped lot across the street, it doesn't impact the neighbor because the neighbor's house is way you know in front of where this is going to take place. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT :The deck already exists. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea right. Okay anything from the Board? Is there anybody on Zoom? Is there anybody out in the audience? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7836—NORTH FORK PROJECT 2, LLC& NORTH FORK PROJECT 3, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for North Fork Project 2, LLC and North Fork Project 3, LLC#7836. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14 and Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's June 20, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to create a two lot subdivision at 1) proposed Lot 1 is less than the code required minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft., 2) proposed Lot 1 is less than the required lot depth of 250 feet, 3) a greenhouse located on proposed Lot 2 is less than the minimum required side yard setback of 20 feet located at 10020 Sound Ave. and 9650 Sound Ave. in Mattituck. Do you want to review the variances, sized and stuff? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon again, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. So these properties, we have two properties that are currently almost five and almost nine acres and the applicant is pursuing a lot line modification so that the one residential parcel can be subdivided from the agricultural parcel which is an active vineyard right now to clear the way for eventually having a winery there and a homestead. So that's the premise for why we're here. It's important to note that these properties are split zoned, R40 and R80. The portion of the property that lays closest to Old Sound Ave. is an R40, it's a really wonky zoning line that kind of cuts across along the front but then kind of veers down October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting behind the cottages there. The net of that is that the proposed Lot 1 that the applicant is seeking to create in the re subdivision is substantially in the R40 zoning district but we're here seeking relief from the Bulk Schedule requirements for the R80 zoning district. So the variances we need are for lot area where we're creating a lot that's 51,535 sq. ft. where we need 80,000 sq. ft., we have a lot depth of 224 sq. ft. where we need 250 however as we know in the R40 zoning district we only need 40,000 sq. ft. and 175 feet of depth. The greenhouse that is the subject of the other variance has been where it's been for a long, long time. It's not entirely clear how long it's been there. The survey we have that shows it as in '85 there's a Pre C.O. from 2000 but it pre-existed a long time before that. So essentially we're just asking for relief to allow it to stay where it is. That will end up being on parcel 2 the newly created lot that's going to end up being around twelve and half acres after the subdivision and that greenhouse will continue to support the agricultural operations on the farm. That's basically the background here, as to the criteria we would suggest that the re subdivision in creating this one plus acre lot which will encompass all of the existing residential improvements on that parcel is entirely in character with this neighborhood. If you look at the surrounding parcels on Old Sound there most of them are much smaller and have non-conforming widths, depths whatever you want to call it but they're all an acre or less. There's a couple of parcels up to the north that are a little larger but then of course we have the Cottages which are all smaller. Just looking around the radius there this is a conforming parcel or in character with those surrounding which are all primarily R40. As I said most of the neighboring lots are smaller than what is proposed here so we would suggest that the granting of relief would not be out of character or any type of detriment to surrounding properties. Side yard setback for the greenhouse again is just to allow that to remain where it is as an agricultural structure, because of the way it shakes out and it becomes a principle structure on the new lot which has the 20 foot setback as an accessory structure it requires 25 feet so we're actually working in the direction here because we need less relief for it as a principle structure than we do as an accessory structure. So do we need variance relief, yes we do, the goal as I said is to create a parcel large enough to accommodate the winery. As you know the code requires ten acres for that use and the remaining parcel one is sufficient to continue the residential use and retain the improvements associated with it in a way that substantially conforms to the code. Again, if we were viewing this from the R40 lens it we wouldn't even need to be here up to seventy five percent of the property is in the R40 zoning district so I ask you to consider that. Again, (inaudible) keep the greenhouse where it is without a variance either. As to substantiality again in R40 we really don't need any relief but even as to the R80 Bulk Schedule we're looking at 25 feet of relief about ten percent relief for the lot depth and the lot area is consistent with all of the other lots in the neighborhood there. The greenhouse does have a valid Certificate of Occupancy so as it is so I would say that the relief sought to let that stay where it is, is not substantial under the circumstances. There October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting are no perceivable adverse environmental impacts or physical impacts if relief was granted. Again, the proposed parcel 1 is typical for the neighborhood, there's not going to be any changes proposed to and no new structures nothing on that parcel, it is just to bless it with the existing improvements. So as to self-created I would say arguably it is not self-created but for the fact that the subject parcels are partially in the R80 zoning district we wouldn't need relief and it's really because of this kind of A typical wonky zoning district line that we're (inaudible). With that said I would ask that you grant the variance relief requested so we could (inaudible) Zoning Board and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's going to require Planning Board approval. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I believe the Planning Board was in support of(inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin, the residential development areas at the south of the lot, can you explain a little bit about that cause I think wouldn't that create the need for variance relief for the existing buildings that are on the street side? MARTIN FINNEGAN :The residential MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you look at the survey at the southern end of the lot it shows the residential cutout along the railroad tracks, I assume that's for a future house? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Oh yea that was on the site plan, it's a potential site for a homestead down the road if they decide to have a farm with a homestead on it. It's just kind of conceptual at this point. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but wouldn't that make the existing structures on the property variance relief would be required is what I'm saying. If the house was developed on the street side then the accessory buildings would be conforming. Am I going down the wrong path here? MEMBER DANTES : He's taking the house off the property and now it's just vacant land on that piece. You probably wouldn't be able to get the winery there cause you need two acres for the winery, two acres for the residence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Ten acres to plant. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : then 10 acres planted. So right now you have 2 acres for the winery and 10 acres planted. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No if I read your decision correctly on Sannino I need 11.85 acres I need 80,000 sq. ft. each two acres for each. So we have if you added it all up MEMBER DANTES : Yea you're right two builders acres. MARTIN FINNEGAN : We have enough to make it fly but that's a good point Nick; we'll have to consider that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the only thought that if the house is being placed the future house at the railroad track side of the property at the southern end that makes everything else non-conforming which requires variance relief and I don't know if that's something MARTIN FINNEGAN : There is no house, it's just kind of a reserve it's all wooded right now and I think you know that this thing is just conceptual. I think first and foremost he is looking to establish the winery but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably the site probably Planning Board which supports the subdivision is not going to necessarily support the location or proposed theoretical building site for the future. I mean I think it might be a cleaner application if you just MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Without it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : to not have that in there. If you want to do something in the future you just do it and you know get the approval but now it's a little confusing because it's like an add on that doesn't need to be there really. I mean you're talking about the lot line changes and one is a residential use and the other is an AG use. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and that's not with (inaudible) I'm just counting out I think it creates an unusual hardship for the future to come back here that ideally they shouldn't come back here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that would be up to them at the time you know if they wanted to apply for variances they have the right to do that but you know. We're just trying to be thorough. Anything else from the Board? Anyone in the audience? Please come to the podium and state your name for us. ALYSON REITER : My name is Alyson (inaudible) I was Alyson Reiter. I was actually the first person picked in the affordable housing lottery for Cottage Way and one of the reasons I picked my house from the different lots was, I was told that I would be butted up to a October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting preserve that would be there forever. Instead of picking a house on the other side of the street by Factory I was told that this would be a preserve and then this would be Factory Ave. I have more questions than answers, not really a statement if somebody can help me with. First of all, we didn't receive any notification or letters about what was going on behind our houses till two days before this hearing. The trees were being cut down, loud noises at all hours. I have cancer and I rest all day and it was very upsetting to find out that all of a sudden that this preserve that we've known was just being decimated and no one knew what was going on. Also to find out that it was going to be a tasting room, thoughts were coming back to us will there be you know parties, weddings, live music late at night we weren't sure would it just be just agricultural use. Would there be a traffic impact study, was that done, will it be done, will we know the answers? The house that was talked about by the railroad tracks, there was concern would they be using our Cottage Way as a road to get back and forth you know to Old Sound Ave? That was another question I have. Also, there was these very inexpensive fences that were put up without asking the residents just one night they appeared. We were wondering if this did go through would the owners be willing to put up something more substantial more of a barrier fence maybe that would help with the noise. Lastly, the blueprints that were sent were shrunk down they were completely illegible, we couldn't make heads or tails of them. So we did the best we could to read everything and you know (inaudible) all about and unfortunately we're not in favor of this project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, I can possibly answer some of the questions you asked. Maybe some of the Board Members can help me out with this or maybe Martin Finnegan can. They're not at this point proposing a winery a building. They're just saying in future they might want to do that cause they have enough acreage to qualify to have a winery which is where you would make the grapes and often wineries have tasting rooms that the public can go to. Not all of them do but many of them do so we don't really know what the future MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie maybe start with the fundamental which I don't know when you purchased your home and I remember reading about you. We've never met but I remember fifteen, eighteen years ago you were very excited to be the first one to select a house you know for its privacy I remember that but the interesting thing is that the property that you're talking about where your house abuts and I don't know which one you're in but the development rights are intact so by right the property owner and this is a new property owner can do any number of things with it. LORIANN PFEIFER : Is it commercial or it MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well it's agricultural so the interesting thing is if somebody had said something about sort of the preservation or perpetuity of that field you're unfortunately October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting perhaps misinformed. There is a recharge basin at the end of Cottage Way so maybe that is you know what can't be touched in perpetuity unless the property owner ever strips the property of its development rights they can develop it and can you know do any number of things with it. So I think that's the fundamental foundation of the conversation. So I'm sorry if they cut down trees, if they put up a fence and you're not happy with the fencing but those are all the neighboring property owner's rights. LORI ANN PFEIFER : I'm sorry I'm Lori Ann Pfeifer from the Mattituck Cottages as well. I have a question about, are they trying to change it from agricultural to commercial all these zonings? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No LORI ANN PFEIFER : Is a greenhouse CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's agricultural. LORI ANN PFEIFER : It is agricultural what about the winery? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's been a farm since the Dickersons. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A winery is considered an agricultural use because you're basically on property where you're growing grapes, you're processing the grapes to turn them into wine that's called you know production. LORI ANN PFEIFER : Okay not much we can because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because we don't have any idea when or if they're going to build that building. LORI ANN PFEIFER : It's just been so crazy and noisy now so I can't imagine CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What exactly are they cutting and what exactly are they i LORI ANN PFEIFER : They cut down all the trees, they put up all these new vines and they put up all that fencing I mean like it's you know don't get me wrong the vineyard is beautiful and the greenhouse which they said they sent us a letter saying they're going to put the tractors and vineyard equipment and the wine storage you know tasting room of course they're going to change the entire MEMBER DANTES : This is just a subdivision we don't have they haven't proposed the winery so we don't have any jurisdiction over it. So when and if the winery is proposed they will be required to go to Planning Board for site plan and you'll October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they may be required to come to us depending on whether they conform to the code or not we don't know. MEMBER DANTES : So at the very least when they go to site plan you'll have the opportunity to go in front of the Planning Board and then they will discuss the location of the buildings for setbacks, noise, mitigation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes anything like that will have to have a public hearing and you will be notified in future. ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : I'm Anthony Martignetti I'm the my wife and I are the owners of the house and the vineyard property. I'm the one if you got a letter in your mailbox I walked around and put those in there. The letter that I think they're talking about is our you know long term plan for the property. I went out and we decided to be very open from the beginning and let everyone know what the kind of five or ten year purpose what we're planning on doing. The noise over the past I guess two years, we put a deer fence in surrounding the entire property to protect not only the grapes but to try to keep the ticks down. Our first baby is due in January and my wife is very concerned about me bringing in ticks to the house. I work in the,fields all the time. All of the clearing that you have and all the new plants that we have that's sorghum which we're planting to bring more nitrogen into the soil and those are the two acres that we're planting this spring. Those will be all just vines, there's no more LORI ANN PFEIFER : Where is the greenhouse going to go? ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : The greenhouse is already there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's there. LORI ANN PFEIFER : You're not proposing to making it bigger and then ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : No, not at all. LORI ANN PFEIFER : So where is it on the property towards the front or towards the railroad? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can see it there. ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : That's been there for I'm not sure exactly. LORI ANN PFEIFER : I guess where we were coming from as being told we're on preserved land and then all of a sudden all of this is happening.Thank you for the letter, I wish we would have gotten it like a few months before like the deer and the knock down and all that stuff October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting but we got 'it like two days before this so that's the only thing. Again, we're coming from being told it's preserved land. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what it is, is agricultural land which means agricultural uses can go on it and that's growing grapes is an agricultural use and so is the greenhouse. LORI ANN PFEIFER : We were here to go "ROAR" because we thought so now that our eyes are open, thank you for the public hearing. ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : My long term goals as I've said in the letter you just got is to keep it as agricultural and work with the town or the county or Peconic Land Trust to sell my development rights and keep it as that. When I was working with the last owner when I was leasing the property at first trying to get the money together I know she was I think talking to Planning Board about building houses. I would have loved to see this stay as agricultural that's why we're planting a few more acres of vineyards, (inaudible), beehives we got a few more added this year. We rehabbed all the old, apple trees, we're putting a lot of money into it because the goal is to always keep it as agricultural land. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In that sense it's preserved from a different kind of development which could have been houses. Preserved really means the development rights have been sold which means the property owner has limited with what they can do because the town is paid to keep it the way it is basically. I LORI ANN PFEIFER : This is an eye opener and I'd rather have agricultural than have this so I mean MEMBER DANTES : Right but until they actually sell the development rights they can have it's 80,000 sq. ft. per building lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's not what their goal is stated goal but that would be their right to do. LORI ANN PFEIFER : Thank you for letting me know Eric cause right cause then surprise there's houses up and so I appreciate it. ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : I'm sorry that I jumped up in the middle I just wanted to answer your questions. We are in the middle of harvest today and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine and I've allowed you to talk to each other instead of the Board, you're supposed to be addressing the Board but that's alright. Sometimes neighbors need to talk to each other. Thank you for your comments. Did we get clarification on this? Basically they're just trying to October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : There is a preserve to the west of(inaudible) property there's a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Laurel lake. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So maybe in all that it was like oh there's a preserve next to your property just forgot about the intervening CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes the intervening, individually owned. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other thing I was thinking and I don't know the ladies name Loriann, his property is not contiguous to Old Sound Ave. they can't use Cottage Way as a road. So while there's the emergency egress out onto Factory he can't access that. So anything he ever does and sadly if it's his choice it's his right as Eric pointed out he could develop housing there he'd have to put the roadway whatever in on his own land. There's'no access to Cottage Way. LORI ANN PFEIFER : The one by the railroad tracks that was the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The house, and I brought that up just cause it shows the roadway from Old Sound Ave. through the vineyard on the opposite side of the property to a proposed house site. LORI ANN PFEIFER :That was the question I had. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's all theoretical and it's not MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And hopefully the beauty would have been and I don't know whiat your view is like I don't know which one you live in but a vineyard I think if infinitely much prettier to look at than a possible house and two acres. LORI ANN PFEIFER : It is I was worried that the-greenhouse was going to be abutted up to my back yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no it's already there and it's been there for years. LORI ANN PFEIFER : Then I love my view. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing I would still say which not wanting to be repetitive or difficult but it is his right from a farming standpoint, he's allowed to stockpile manure on a lot line but if he chose to have a greenhouse you know as long as his development rights are intact he can place whatever agricultural structure basically wherever he'd like, obviously there's a process to achieve that but October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting LORI ANN PFEIFER :The winery could be theoretically abutted up against CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No site plan approval is required for any kind of building like that and there would be LORI ANN PFEIFER : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't know where it's going to be or when it's going to be it's not proposed. If it is proposed there will be a public hearing, you will be notified just like you were for this. All they're really trying to do here today is separate the small residential lot with the house on it from the agricultural parcel. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's pretty clear cut. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The lot is smaller than what the zoning requires but it's the lot is actually larger I'm not talking about the AG I'm talking about the residential lot. That lot is very comparable to lots of other lots in fact it's a little bit bigger than some of the lots along there. So those are the kinds of things we look at but after we make a decision the applicant is going to have to go to the Planning Board for when a lot line change happens when we grant a subdivision they have to bless it, they have to go through the procedure basically to agree to it. LORI ANN PFEIFER :Thank you all for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : More information I can give you about the lot line and the deer fence in your back yards as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you talk to each other when we're done here, it's good when neighbors talk. LORI ANN PFEIFER : Like I said we just came in because we thought it was preserved land that we had no idea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is what democracy looks like. LORI ANN PFEIFER : What it is and I'd rather have a vineyard than houses so everything (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good we're happy. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Any other questions? October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. We'll have a decision in about two weeks. All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : So it's closed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's closed. Just so you know, what we do is we write up a draft decision and then we talk about it at another meeting we have two meetings a month, in two weeks from today at 4 o'clock over in the other building upstairs we'll be talking about all the decision we have to make based on all the hearing today and that's open to the public. If the hearing is closed we don't take testimony, there's no comments or anything like that but it'll be on Zoom if you're interested if you want to hear the results you can you know listen it, you can attend or you can be on Zoom or you can call the office the next day. HEARING#7809—CHRIS and MARISA LAZOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Chris and Marisa Lazos #7809. This was adjourned from September 71h so I don't need to reread the Notice of Disapproval in there. So there was some changes submitted, some amendments to what we looked at last time so why don't we review what those are, let's start with that. PAT MOORE : Oh then I'll have Anthony come up and go over the plans. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that's kind of where we left off so we might as well start with that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Hi Board, so we added the location of where we're proposing the IA system it's not fully designed but (inaudible). I think it was just more of we did make some interior minor changes, I did want to state that (inaudible) showed them what it would look like if we like cantilevered the building it just really didn't appear correct. I mean that was based on some (inaudible). Something that was sort of incorrect on my drawings that I did fix was the current overhang on the roof on the seaward side, if you look at SE2 you can see that side elevation you'll see that there's an overhang, I just kept that overhang on the proposed (inaudible) part of this conversation but I just wanted to make sure you have (inaudible). For some reason it wasn't shown on our proposed plan last time. Those were really the revisions from CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The lot coverage is still remaining at 37.3%? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The stair hall that we're adding to the side of the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're still looking at 966 sq. ft. over the maximum GFA? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That didn't change. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're still looking at the full bath, storage and rec room on the ground level? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I have here an existing deck is to become a balcony on what is called the third floor, that's the roof overhang? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's the existing roof. PAT MOORE.: The existing deck is remaining, the roof of the second floor becomes the balcony of the third floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's what I thought. Let me ask, so we're still calculating this as three stories, does the Board have any questions about these changes to the plans before we move on to Pat's explanation? MEMBER LEHNERT : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's pretty clear what October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's clear CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm just checking, I just want to make sure there's no questions about that part. Alright Pat I'll turn it over to you. PAT MOORE : I want to say that I wasn't generating work, last time I was here I was listening, attentively to what was going on. I actually represented the Lazos I didn't realize that as buyers. Anthony was doing a great job and has done a really good job with this project and the description that he gave and all the information he provided the first time. So when they called me I went through and I wanted to make sure that we had plenty of law inserted in the application process. To make it very clear for the record the building permits and what had legal permits, I know the Board recognized or I heard at the last hearing that you do recognize that the lower level the basement level has a C. of 0. 1 was I'm very visual and I think the Board is as well, I asked the Assessor's Office for the pictures of the different phases of the house the development of the house and you can see very clearly in 1965 the little house that was closer to the water all on (inaudible) essentially and then the moving of the house placing it on piles but what I described for you is the C.O. that was issued, there was a building permit to move it in '79 but the building permit and C.O. when the house was built was at the time the photograph that's identified as 1-80 was taken by the Assessor's Office. You can see that the piles were all filled in with some form of cement block or something cement and at that point it had the space that you see today. Then in 2011 there were some alterations (inaudible) window replacements I think they had gotten a permit for window replacements and you can see the window designs used instead of, they kind of go up and down these were sliding back and forth. It also included decking, everything really there was a very good record of the C.O.'s and all the permits that have been issued. I did feel that the LWRP recommendations had to be addressed and I did address those with some detail specifically he used and I know that there were comments about the coastal erosion law as a basis for the inconsistency and the coastal erosion law which would be the next step if this is granted is very clear that the coastal erosion law when it was adopted was recognized that people there were existing homes that were going to be affected. That the purpose was, if you're going to build over an existing structure rather than expanding a footprint and impacting the natural protective features. So by virtue of the definition and the language of the coastal erosion law the addition of a second floor is an exempt rather than a major so the coastal erosion law doesn't define minor it defines major additions so by (inaudible) if you're less than a certain percentage you're a minor addition but you are exempt if you are directly over living space. I know I've had coastal erosion appeals where the client was adding living space over a deck or enclosing a screened in porch but that was not living space. In this case we have living space and it fits the definition right on all fours. Also there was some discussion of (inaudible) effects of the alternative of expanding the footprint, clearly that is not something that this October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting plan proposes and one that the owners would prefer not to undertake. There is mitigation and that was talked about last time briefly but I wrote out very clearly, as far as the mitigation that clearly Storm Water Management would be followed. The sanitary system replacement was agreed to and I did point out that it would not generally been required in this instance based on the addition particularly because of the based on when the house was moved in 1980 the sanitary system would have been placed at the front in that area at the time that the house was moved. They wouldn't have been able to use the system that was down by the water. Anthony and I were talking in the hallway and because I, was trying to understand clearly the code with respect to the floors and yes we need a variance because of the story the basement being a story first and second floor and the number of stories but the Board was saying well why don't you take out all the improvements from the basement and that's a significant impact on any applicant and in particular this application when it's been designed in such a way so that is not necessary. What Anthony clarified for me is that let's say they were to take the whole basement and just leave the piles? Under the NYS building code you'd still have three stories because the lower level basement or piles is still a story for the state building code. Am I saying this correctly?Then you have the first story then you have a second story so under the NYS building code this proposal will require sprinklers but even if you had no living space on the first level the basement you'd still need sprinklers under the NYS building code. The code is all over the place and thank you for clarifying in my mind and I thought that it was important for the Board to know you know as far as throwing around the suggestion of eliminating a legal space. You have it all in writing I don't want to read it to you, you're capable of reading so if you have particular questions regarding the analysis I'm here to respond. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat while Leslie is doing her thing, I noticed in the packet you gave I was originally going to ask for the photographs, I see the Assessor card photographs here for more of the history of the relocated house and then on your final page you have a list of different variance relief that's been granted within the neighborhood, did you include any variance relief for third floors? PAT MOORE : Yes well it was one of these was called a third floor but most of these were MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Which one were you referring to? PAT MOORE : I'm trying to remember which one yea it's my description of what it was? I gave one from 8100 Hortons Lane that was a grant of a third floor. Alfonso Romano that's the one I saw, Appeal No. 4591 which is 58-2-2. Alfonse Romano was considered a third floor, 1380 Leeton Drive in '88, additions alterations to existing house, expand the footprint because October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting foundation cannot support second floor. I can go back and look specifically, I think I was probably trying to identify all of them. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So just to be clear on this storage I think there is a confusion. So the home that's in a flood zone and it being elevated and abandoning the first floor which would act as a garage or storage they can use the base flood elevation plus two which I called the designer from (inaudible) the Building Department uses that line to determine if it's a three story building or not so you don't have to get a variance (inaudible). PAT MOORE : State variance? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No town variance. State code says, any story having it's finished floor surface entirely above the grade plane so now they're using the grade plane which is what we kind of use for the pyramid law or in which the finished surface of the floor next above of it is any of the following: more than six feet above the grade line. So in other words, even though even this building if you abandon the bottom floor you're still a three story building by residential building code. It doesn't matter and in affect it's visually a three story building which we all could see that right. My point is, abandoning a floor not abandoning a floor doesn't relieve it from being three stories, that's what we're trying to say. It might relieve us from having to request a variance from the Board. The Board can see what I'm saying that it's still a three story building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Anthony are you saying that per state code even if it's an unconditioned space basically it's based on elevation? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's based on grade plane and elevation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And elevation. ANTHONY PORTILLO : A FEMA compliant building that first story is six feet above grade plane and the Building Department will tell you the same thing, they consider that a story. When they start talking about other things like fire safety for instance. PAT MOORE : What he described for me is if a fireman has to go up a set of stairs that's a story. MEMBER DANTES : We did a code interpretation years ago and I think all that was in there of everything you just said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our local interpretation basically was as if it's unconditioned space you know it's not habitable space it's not a habitable story. That was a code interpretation we did quite a while ago. 7 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : (inaudible) going to change the state building code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it has nothing to do with the state code, that was just our zoning code. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea it's two yea you're referencing state code, she's talking about town zoning. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just wanted to make it clear, if such said that the building was FEMA compliant and designed that way that we did have a C.O. for this basement and I went to the Building Department proposing this the addition of a story I would have to get a variance but I would still have to comply with third story (inaudible) because they're (inaudible). That's all I'm stating. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we understand, we got it. PAT MOORE : I'm sorry did I answer? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm not familiar with Alfonse Romano it's something that staff can pull up or if you have access to and drop it off 8100 Hortons Lane I don't know which file you're referring to but that was a recent application the house is under construction that I can't speak for other Members of the Board but I think at least on my end I'm not so happy about that decision in hindsight. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that was a complicated one because the original design that was_proposed was extremely visually porous, it was very delicate quite light, a lot of glazing, a lot of openness and it moved everything out of the CEHA and they put a new IA system in the front yard. So there were enormous amount of improvements relative to environmental impacts with that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sorry just one last thing, the third floor actually in-that case by memory was really just a stairwell access cause it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : the front foyer exceeded whatever Mike wanted to allow like 80 sq. ft. or something so it actually became the third floor which would really be at the fist level not the third floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Yea but unfortunately what happened was the application prior to a decision being made decided to no we didn't make a decision, no we made a decision and he came back and decided he was amending it cause he changed architects. He decided he didn't October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting like it after all. It was a dam shame because that was a beautiful design. Then you know he tried to convince the Board that it would have the same qualities which most of us understood it wouldn't but it did have some similar siting and so on and you all see the results now. It's very heavy handed and very in your face right on a curve. PAT MOORE : I think you all recognize that this house with a floor above is still pretty size wise and volume wise very appropriate. It's next door to a house that is part of the listed ones that's very large I mean MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It steals sunlight I think from this property. PAT MOORE : I mean they built what they could build which is fine. So you know functionally this is going to be for bedrooms and really the alternatives they are really not very many good alternatives. The house is quite small if you eliminate a family room on the first level and that's something that the family it's hard that's why you add the extra room. You don't think to add an extra room you have to give up what would be legal you now legal space. I'm glad we're talking about it so it's not a condition that you know that we haven't talked about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat I'm interested in your review of the coastal erosion law, we're not experts in this stuff the Trustees have more expertise than we do on this but and they have more jurisdiction also but he whole idea that if you're building directly over an existing footprint in the CEHA that those additions without expansion of a footprint are exempt. Can you submit that section, I mean is that just your interpretation or is it PAT MOORE : Oh no it's language, it's directly from the code. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Your citing the definition section of the code. PAT MOORE : Yea it's in the definition of the one it's 111-6 maybe. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Well 111-6 is just the general definitions PAT MOORE : Yea but general definition is for oh major addition. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Where does it say it's exempt? PAT MOORE : It says (inaudible) find the language cause I actually pulled it out CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'd like to see exactly that language it would be very helpful not just for this application but for future applications. I was reading those definitions too and it didn't it defined major and minor you know but it didn't say exempt. PAT MOORE : I have to look and see where I found it. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN . That's not the section of the coastal erosion law anyway, that's definitions. PAT MOORE : Eleven is the coastal erosion law. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Correct that's the code but you cited the definitions and I just did you know I think you're making a jump from t PAT MOORE : No it was actually T. A. MCGIVNEY : Where? PAT MOORE : I'm trying to remember cause definitions are all over the plate. It's in definitions, could it be under livable where it says I think it says T. A. MCGIVNEY : I brought them all so. PAT MOORE : If you want me to find it I can find it again. The run through the code it's not you have to look at major addition and major addition is defined as livable it's construction or expansion of livable floor area over a certain percentage. Then you have to go to livable floor area and I think it's in livable floor area that I will find it and you want me to email it to you or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you can email it to Kim and she'll forward it to all of us. PAT MOORE : I actually wrote it out and printed it and then forgot to get it so I will CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea cause I'm just not familiar with that language. What are you looking at? There's nothing about an exemption in a CEHA if it's over but that's not coastal erosion law. I mean we need to go to the section of the code that is the coastal erosion law so it's another chapter. That'll be great if you could T. A. MCGIVNEY : Chapter 111 is the coastal erosion. PAT MOORE : Correct it's coastal erosion law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board have anything else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Please come forward and state your name. ANDREW STANTON : My name is Andrew Stanton 1480 Leeton Drive, Southold. I live a couple of houses down. I just wanted to again state my support for the project, it's not overstated, it 3 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting actually fits. I actually live next door to the Romano house which is a three story. So what's being asked for here would fit right in with the section of the block so it's fine with me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much for your comments. Anybody else? Can we close to subject to receipt of that information from Pat, are we ready to do that Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm fine with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of information on Chapter 111 definitions on coastal erosion law. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Motion to recess for five minutes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion to reconvene. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING # 7839 — BLIDD'S POND MARINA, INC. a.k.a. ALBERTSONS MARINA, WIRELESS CELL TOWER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Budd's Pond Marina, Inc. a.k.a. Albertsons Marina, Wireless Cell Tower #7839. This is a request for variances from Article XIII Section 280-53 and the Building Inspector's August 9, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new wireless telecommunications facility at 1) having less than 160,000 sq. ft. as required for a second principal use (80,000 sq. ft. per principal use) in an MII Zoning District where a principal use as a marina with boat storage already exists, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard property line setback of 25 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 30% located at 61405 Main Rd. in Southold. Good afternoon, please state your name for the record. GREG ALVAREZ : It's Greg Alvarez from Amato Law Group 666 Old Country Rd. Garden City, New York. Let me take you through the particulars of the application. We have two folks here as well to speak directly to the variances. Let me first start with the overview. So the applicants, so we have Elite Towers who is the tower company who will construct and manage the pole for the wireless carriers and for the fire district. The two wireless carriers are Verizon Wireless and Dish Wireless both FCC licensed to provide wireless service to its subscribers throughout the U.S. and Southold Fire District obviously serves the community for first responder needs. Let's talk a little bit about the relief you had mentioned them already Chairperson Ms. Weisman. We're asking for two variances but aside from that just so you know the background as well, we are going to the Planning Board to seek site plan and Special Exception approval. The scheduling of that hearing is pending, we're hoping to have that very shortly actually we were just wrapping up completeness with them so that should be shortly. We're also asking for a wetlands application approval from the Town Trustees. We do have that hearing scheduled that's for October 18th so that's in two weeks. We're also asking for a Negative Declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. We understand earlier that this application may have already been noted as an Unlisted Action and October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what their intent is. We have received comments from them basically saying we need more time. GREG ALVAREZ : We understand that that'll be the Planning Board so we'll look forward to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They'll be Lead Agency on this. GREG ALVAREZ : So the two variances we're asking for, one is for lot size and that is the requirement here is that you need 80,000 sq. ft. in the MII district for each principle use. So this would be a second principle use, the telecommunications facility that we're proposing and meaning the total would be 160,000 sq. ft. that's required. This lot is about an acre so it's about 41,000 sq. ft. and change.The second variance is for a rear yard setback and that is a 25 foot requirement, we're asking for an 8 foot variance there and we'll talk about that in a little bit more detail on what that would consist of. There was another variance that was on the Notice but in the intervening time with the Planning Department and in fact the materials that you have already reflect the fact that we actually don't need that variance anymore and that's for the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the lot coverage? GREG ALVAREZ : Yea so we withdraw that request at this time since we were able to make sure that provision was met. The'application itself so we filed back in January, we got our Notice of Disapproval and then the Notice of Disapproval was updated in August but again it wasn't updated to reflect that removal of that third variance. The reason for this application can be boiled down to one word, it's need. The wireless carriers and the Fire District are in great need to fill the coverage gap that they have in this particular area that's just situated to the east of us. For Verizon Wireless and Dish they are mandated by the FCC to provide reliable coverage throughout their coverage area and that basically consists of the entire United States. So they're charged to provide that level of service and it is tied in with what the Fire District does. So not only the Fire District will be providing first responses and will be using the site for their own communication system but also for Verizon Wireless and Dish customers they also have the ability to access emergency needs through their wireless communications systems as well which would be their phones. Just to give you a flavor for how deep or how large the gap is just as an example Verizon Wireless the nearest site that's on air for them is three miles away and typically it doesn't sound like a lot but for these types of facilities they propagate maybe a mile so that gives you an idea of how far we're trying to bridge here and I was just talking to my colleagues earlier and looking at my phone and seeing even here it's pretty difficult to get coverage. The site itself currently is operated as a boat storage and repair business. It consists of let's see the address again 61405 Main Rd. an acre and it's on I ' 1 October S, 2023 Regular Meeting the north side of Main Rd. about 600 feet west of Old Main Rd. As you see on the detail of our site plan package you see that the Long Island Railroad borders it on the north side. I think I mentioned earlier we're in Marine II. Right now there is a building that's occupying the center of the property it's pretty tall actually, I was just out there before I never really got the scale of it so it's probably about thirty feet I would say twenty five feet. So it's situated in the middle of the property it's used for the storage sales, repair business that's associated with Albertson Marine and there's also an office inside as well. In the immediate area aside from the Long Island Railroad it's a mix of uses as you're probably familiar with. You have residential you have commercial you have agricultural and you have open space on the other side is the (inaudible) preserve. The nearest residence from where the pole would be would be over five hundred feet so I think by our measurement it's about five hundred and fifty feet. Overall we think we are meeting the objective the legislative intent of the town's wireless ordinance by trying to address and satisfy the area requirements that would be part of any sort of application like this. Again we are asking for a few variances so it's going to consist of the build itself is going to consist of two primary things and you can see it on the site plan here. You have the concealment pole that will be positioned central within the second portion of the build which will be an equipment compound where you will have surrounding the pole each of the ground equipment areas that will be devoted to each of the carriers that will be on the pole including the Fire District. So right now we're showing the Fire District will actually be located if you can see it just north of where that's circular where the pole will be and then the four outlaying ones are for the carriers. We show four because we do fully expect that the full industry and there are primarily four players at this point in the industry that will'co-locate here. Right now we have the two Verizon and Dish that are on the application. The compound itself is 35 by 70 feet and it will be enclosed by a six foot fence that will screen anyone from looking inside. Also, as part of your ordinance we do require the landscaping that we're showing that will surround the edges of the compound as well. The purpose of locating the property where it is and this really gets to the variances is that we position it in the rear portion of the property behind the building for a couple of reasons. One, it will aid in keeping it further off the road which you know we're certainly mindful of that behind the building trying to get a little bit further screening benefit from that building that's there. It's also more convenient frankly for the current boat operation. So I do have representatives here today from Albertsons Marine who could speak directly to it but essentially it will not in any way disrupt the operations that currently go on there either the storage or the repair. It's not used as a pathway�to move boats on or off the property so it's ideal in fact for its location and that's why we put it there and that's why we're asking for the rear yard setback relief because we think that would be a better position for a lot of reasons to put the facility. To help support that as well we just filed recently with Planning and I mentioned earlier that we're wrapping up our Planning completeness review and we have prepared and what I'd like to October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting submit into the record now, it's a just a short two page summary from the structural engineer for the manufacturer of the pole to describe how the pole would be built, it'll be built to all required codes and the idea obviously is to position it so it will be sturdy and positioned for years to come. So I'd like to submit that into the record as well. We did submit to Planning yea so I wanted to share with you as well. Not only for the rear setback but again lot size. So in the position here of the facility was situated for continuing operations on the site again I do have Bill Witzke here from Albertson Marine who can talk (inaudible) as you like about it but basically the thrust of it is that there is plenty of room on the site to continue to operate as they have. They actually operate using some of the adjacent properties as well and so you know really what we did here was to be as conservative as we could. So we kept it on the single tax lot that will actually host the facility and so in a way we're asking for a variance probably more than we necessarily needed to but what we're doing here is trying to be as most conservative as we can to show that even asking for the relief that we're seeking everything will continue to operate as it has and the Albertsons Marine will be able to function in conjunction with our facility. The facility itself doesn't take up thai much room, like I said 35 by 70 and also you know it's not visited very often it's basically a passive use. The carriers will come by maybe once every four to six weeks just to check in with a personal vehicle and just make sure everything is running functionally.-Otherwise it will just hopefully operate there for many years and provide better coverage than we have currently. Just one other thing just to mention the LIRR, we have reached out to them to make sure that they are aware of the proposal.They've just advised us that when we are hopefully closer to a decision on from the Town Boards as to the applications then we will return to them with approved drawings and then we would just work with them in connection with construction schedules and the like. Otherwise that was really the only ask that they had of us. We have built, Elite Towers has several other towers on Long Island that have been built pretty close to the railroad and everything has sort of operated in the same way. For one example we have in the town the Laurel Stone Supply site in Mattituck that was built relatively close to the railroad so similar sort of situation there as well. For me I'm going to see the floor to my two experts just to talk briefly about the variances. So first I'd like to call up William Sclar, Senior Environmental Planner of VHB just to talk about his analysis to the two variances from the perspective of he was looking at this. As part of our Planning review from a consistency and environmental aspects so I'll see the floor to him to speak for a few minutes. WILLIAM SCLAR : Good afternoon I'm William Sclar Senior Environmental Planner with VHB, offices as 100 Motor Parkway in Happauge, New York. So VHB prepared Planning, Zoning and visual analysis report for this proposed facility along with the Part I of Environmental Assessment Form and. a Local Waterfront Revitalization Consistency Assessment Form. The Planning, Zoning and environmental and visual analysis includes a discussion of the proposed October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting variances for the rear yard setback and the lot area. It also includes a discussion of the proposed facilities consistency for the town standards for wireless communications facilities and a visual impact analysis which includes a view shed model map, photographic simulations of the proposed facility as well as a summary of field observations that were taken when the crane was put up at the site. So first I'll get into the lot area variance which Greg did a good job of introducing so this site is within the MII zoning district of the town which requires a minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft. per use and this site itself is on a lot of approximately 41,346 sq. ft. It contains a boat storage yard with a warehouse, outdoor storage and parking facilities. It's also contiguous to other parcels to the east and west which are also part of the same operations of Albertson Marine. So the primary uses that are permitted in the MII zoning district include marinas, boat docks, yacht clubs and boat yards which would normally be expected to require larger areas due to the nature of those activities involved in commercial maritime uses. The proposed facility on the other hand would really only occupy a relatively small area of the site it's approximately 2,450 sq. ft. in the 70 by 35 foot compound which is .06 acres. So it wouldn't require any additional parking as there would only be occasional maintenance visits for the carriers and the Fire Department which could be accommodated within the existing parking present at the site. So therefore a minimum lot area of 80,000 sq. ft. for a communications facility such as this one is well above what would actually be needed for the facility to operate and as Greg was noting earlier Albertson Marine expects to be able to continue its operations after construction of the proposed facility. Now with regard to the rear yard setback the requirement is 25 feet in the rear yard which is adjacent here to the Long Island Railroad right of way and the proposed facility includes a minimum of 8 feet between the compound fence and the railroad property line. While the compound fence would be located within this required rear yard we note that the concealment pole itself would be located 30 feet from the property line which is outside the 25 foot requirement. By placing the facility at the rear of the warehouse there are some benefits as the warehouse would screen views of the base of the facility and the compound from along Main Rd. We also note that additional landscaping as you can see on the plan is proposed adjacent to the rear yard between,the facility and the Long Island Railroad. By locating the facility on this portion of the site as I've already mentioned Albertson Marine is able to continue its operations at the warehouse. It's also noted that the area north of the railroad tracks contains an undeveloped area within the nature preserve. This portion immediately adjacent beyond the railroad tracks. We reviewed the map of this nature preserve and there are no formal walking trails in this immediate area, they're all further up to the northeast of our site. Now I'll get into a little bit of the community character of the site and surrounding area. So it contains a mix of suburban residential waterfront, commercial, agricultural and open space land uses, immediately north of the site we have the railroad tracks followed by the nature preserve. Immediately to the east is a continuation of Albertson 791 October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting Marine's boat storage area followed by vacant land and then another boat storage facility that includes a warehouse. Immediately south of the site we have Main Rd. which is followed by the marina itself and then there's also undeveloped land between Budd's Pond and the residential development to the southwest. Immediately west of the site is another contiguation of Albertson Marine facility, that's where the maintenance and sales building is. To the west of that we have residential and agricultural properties. So the visual landscape along Main Rd. includes utility poles with overhead wires, it includes marinas with boat docking facilities as well as large commercial structures and undeveloped vegetated areas. As we get farther out from the subject property there are single family residential homes within densely vegetated neighborhoods and these are interspersed with agricultural and undeveloped open areas. The nearest residential structures to the west is approximately 500 feet away and then the nearest residential structure to the south is approximately 674 feet away. So overall from a land use planning perspective installation of the proposed facility we believe is appropriate as it utilizes a commercial property situated along a heavily traveled roadway adjacent to the Long Island Railroad and commercial marine uses with large buildings and overhead utilities as part of the visual landscape. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have with regard to the visual impact analysis we prepared of the Part I EAF. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I ask you just a question, I have the plans here somewhere but rather than digging through them, what is the proposed height of the tower? GREG ALVAREZ : It's 150 feet with an antenna Fire Department antenna on top that brings it to 164 feet 10 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What color are you proposing, this is a monopole I presume with all of the stuff in the internal? GREG ALVAREZ : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What color are you proposing? The Planning Board is probably going to tell you. GREG ALVAREZ : Probably, we're pretty flexible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just don't make it look like a Christmas tree please. GREG ALVAREZ : No we won't do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can go to Costco for that, that's okay. Anybody have any questions about this, it's pretty straightforward. October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know we've all visited the property more than once, we're familiar with it. GREG ALVAREZ : I just have also wanted to bring up Mike Lynch because he evaluated as part of our criteria under Town Law. He also took a look at potential effects on property values. He did prepare a report as well so he's just going to summarize it for us but I'll submit the copies of his report. (inaudible)there was just one minor (inaudible) with the address so.we've made that correction in (inaudible). MICHAEL LYNCH : Good afternoon Madam Chair and Members of the.Board, I'm Michael Lynch offices at 15 Dewey St. Huntington, New York. I have appeared many times in the past before this Board and I've been involved in several of the monopole structures in the Town of Southold over the years.Just a note on the Christmas tree, it's more like (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got that right, I didn't want to be that crude. MICHAEL LYNCH : So I was out to the site last week, I inspecte'd the property and the surrounding neighborhood. I took a series of photographs and walked the area and those are included in my report. As you know I tried not to be too repetitive with Mr. Sclar and Mr. Alvarez, Greg's previous description of the area. So the property is the Albertson Marine property used as a boat repair and storage yard. There's a large steel boat shed on the property which as the owner indicated is close to 44 feet high. To the north of the property running along the northerly boundary of the property is the Long Island Railroad right of way which is slightly elevated with respect to the grade of the boatyard itself. So that actually is going to further help screen the compound at least from passersby not only in the immediate area along Main Rd. but further to the west the residences to the west. The immediate neighborhood again is as was noted by the (inaudible) to the south we have (inaudible) land, it's largely wooded this property which also further helps screen any visibility of the proposed communication facility to those homes that are further to the west. (inaudible) on Budd's Pond Rd. As noted the nearest residence is actually further to the north to the west northwest known as 610 Pond Ave. which is off Laurel Ave. and that's approximately 550 feet away from the proposed facility. Diagonally to the southwest to the southeast rather we have further associated operations with Albertson Marine, we have a marina and then there's a motel further to the east and onto the southeast onto the east northeast is a shuttered restaurant and then further east is the Port of Egypt Marina. As noted, this is going to be a proposed 150 foot concealed monopole so the only thing that will be exposed are the whip antennas of the Fire District which would be at 164 feet elevation but the actual stealth or concealed monopole structure will be 150 feet above grade level. Then the compound which will October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting surround the monopole itself will be approximately 2,500 sq. ft. in overall area. Again, as was noted due to the boat shed being immediately to the south of this and the slightly elevated railroad immediately to the north the visibility of the compound really won't be seen from passersby and with respect to the two variances that are requested of course the setback becomes almost a non-issue here because again we're up against the railroad and technically the monopole itself is within the required side yard of 30 feet it's just the compound area but again it's a small roughly 2,500 sq. ft. area so it's in my estimation it's a de minimus request. With respect to the request for lot area again, it's an existing situation we're only just under an acre in area whereby within the Marine II District we are 80,000 but again this is a passive type use so I don't feel the relief for lot area in the second use on the property will have any deleterious effect to nearby property values. Now with respect to any possible impact to nearby residences, again I've worked on probably close to a dozen of these monopole sites within the Town of Southold over the years including several Fire Districts including the Orient Point, East Marion, the Mattituck Fire District and then on private properties for more conventional type monopoles with exposed antennas. In this case again other than the whip antennas the panel antennas of Dish and Verizon will be internally mounted so there won't be any visible view of those antennas. I've looked at other sites over the years, in this report I focused on the east end and I think two studies of note that I'd like to point out and they are outlined in my report. If you're familiar with the golf course Cherry Creek out in Centerville which is out in the town of Riverhead it's just as you enter the Northfork of course there's a 130 foot concealed pole on that property and immediately to the east of that is a newer homeowner's association development known as The Highland at Reeves that development commenced roughly in around 2006. The monopole itself was put up on the golf course back in 2003 and as I noted it's 130 feet with concealed antennas. So I looked at the sales over the years roughly from 2006 to 2014 of the newer homes that sold within the Highlands at Reeves which again is a Homeowner's Association immediately to the east of that on Sound Ave. and I noted that the median sales prices of those homes and average sales prices was roughly round two hundred dollars a square foot. The same developer I believe further to the east at on Sound Ave. also developed the Highlands at Aquebogue. It's a similar situation that is also immediately adjacent to another golf course so the two developments are very similar in vintage and they're both again Homeowner's Associations. The only difference between the two, the one variable that stands out between the two there's no monopole on the Long Island National Gold Club. So I compared the sales prices again during the same period of the Highlands at Aquebogue and I found that the price per square foot of those newer homes was very similar and insignificantly different from the price per square foot of the Highlands at Reeves which again very similar developments, similar vintage both abut a golf course, the only difference is at Cherry Creek there is a 130 foot monopole which is in view of the homeowners at the Highland at Reeves. I like that study because again it's a pole that is October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting visible and it's a stealth pole within internally-mounted antennas. The other study I looked at is of a more conventional monopole with exposed antennas and this is in the Village of Southampton, 165 foot monopole was constructed at 145 Powell Ave. which is a commercial industrial type area but to the south of that is an older development within Southampton Village and many of these homes over the past ten years have been either raised or significantly rebuilt into luxury type residencies. So I looked at sales within that immediate development to the south of 145 Powell Ave. and I looked at homes that were within view and within nearby distance of that monopole and I've looked at the price per square foot of those homes and then compared homes further south again of newer homes or of homes that were significantly rebuilt and but were not in view of that particular monopole and I compared the price per square foot and both the median and average price per square foot again were very similar and insignificantly different. So I included in that study as well that the presence of and this is a more conventional type monopole of 165 feet with exposed antennas. The presence of that communications facility does not have any impact to those nearby residences that were within partial view of that tower. Similar situation here, you're going to have a few homes that are going to have a partial view of the tower however again based on my studies I don't feel that again the presence of this structure will, have any adverse impact to property values and again there's a great need for this facility in the neighborhood both for public safety and from wireless users. So I can answer any questions if the Board may have any and again I have prepared a report with my findings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to say welcome back. Well not only do first responders but you know more and more people are dropping their land lines depending on increasingly on cell phone coverage and it's now become a critical part of our infrastructure, we need it. I don't think anybody is going to argue with that. What it looks like and how it's installed does have some impact but we try to minimize it which I can see that you're trying to do. Anything from the Board? MEMBER DANTES : I have no questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's been covered I think. Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address this? BILL WITZKE : Bill Witzke my address is 532 Laurel Ave. in Southold I'm the owner of Albertsons Marine. (inaudible) where the property is you see where Laurel Ave. is I'm probably an eight of a mile from the shop so I may actually may or may not (inaudible) see this thing also. Obviously I'm in support of it and I am also the current Chairman of the Southold Fire District, I've been a member for forty five years and obviously as all of us you October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting can see by the gray hair (inaudible) and I have testified that we've had a lot of issues from a fire department standpoint (inaudible) communications. As aggravated as can be when you want to use the cell phone you can't get it can you imagine if we needed it as an emergency. So I just can't emphasize enough that there is a need for it and if it'll take some of my property away of course it will but it should work and I'm looking forward to it if it so happens. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your service. Is there anything else from anybody? Nobody on Zoom. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Didn't the Planning Board want to leave it open? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what, we can't really close it because we don't have a SEAR determination that's true, I could adjourn it subject to SEAR. MEMBER LEHNERT: We can close it subject to SEAR. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we should just close it subject to SEAR. Why do we need to, we're not going to hear anything else. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else can they tell us? I think it's better to do that to tell you the truth. Let's just wait for their SEAR determination. BOARD SECRETARY : I think their hearing is November 6th they said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : November 6th? Planning Board is looking at November it won't be that much longer GREG ALVAREZ : If it is that would be great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've all tried to expedite this anyway because it is certainly in the best interest of the community to move these things swiftly. Okay so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to a SEQR determination by the Planning Board as Lead Agency. Is there a second? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, thank you all for your testimony and all your submissions. I think we can make a motion to close oh we have Resolutions. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with public hearings to be held Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held September 21, 2023 so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye J MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye' MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve you've all read these extensions, a one year extension for Paul Reinckens#7359 at 1065 Hummel Ave. in Southold, so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve a one year extension for Paul Reinckens#7361SE accessory apartment again on Hummel Ave. in Southold, so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant an extension for Andrew Fohrkolb Appeal No. 7266 on Fleetwood Rd. in Cutchogue, so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. There's no time on that one on Wilmerding. I think he asked for three weeks or something. 10/31/23 is what it probably should be to if they wanted a three they wanted like three weeks till the end of October. MEMBER DANTES : He's got it all ready to go it's just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then let's just add that to the Resolution I just want the Resolution in the Minutes. I know it's on there but that's what I sign, that's not in the Minutes. Let's put that down just going to add to No. C April 25, 2024. Resolution to grant an extension for Alexander Wilmerding Appeal No. 7259 on Reservoir Rd. on Fishers Island beginning this date to April 25, 2024. So moved, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second October 5, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Grant an extension for Hard Corners Partners on Main Rd. in Southold. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm recused from that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, what's the deadline I got 8/6/2024, think they just wanted a very short time to comply with some Planning Board stuff. Is that right? I have it here but you've got it handier. I think I have 8/6/2024. Okay grant extension to 8/6/2024 alright so moved, is there a second? . MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I think we can now make a motion to close the hearing. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We can now stop the recording. October 5, 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 : 6 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : October 16, 2023