The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-11/02/2023 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York November 2, 2023 10:08 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 BEN JOHNSON —Assistant Town Attorney DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Veronica Gonzalez #7767 4 Decision for North Fork Project 2, LLC & North Fork Project 3 LLC 4— 5 Decision for Walter Gless # 7826 5 Parisa Golestaneh/Little Poquatuck#7808 6- 12 Emily and Jarrett White#7843 13 - 15 67 Sound Cheshire LP/Susan Hewitt#7848 15 - 17 Galia Meiri and Oren Meiri, Executors#7840 17 - 24 Jeffrey and Elizabeth Samuels#7841 25 - 29 Jordan and Wendy Handler#7842 29 - 32 Lisa and Mark Montifiore#7844 32 - 34 SMB RE Service, Inc. #7845 35 -41 Michael V. Liegey#7846 42 -57 November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The item on the Agenda is Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following : Little Poquatuck #7808, White #7843, Hewitt #7848, Meiri and Meiri #7840, Samuels #7841, Handler #7842, Montifiore #7844, SMB RE Services #7845 and Liegey#7846 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to close the hearing for North Fork Project 2 LLC & North Fork Project 3 LLC#7836 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a possible resolution to reopen Edward J. Pisani #7834 Special Exception so moved all in favor? November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Opposed, No. Motion does not carry, we're not reopening the hearing. The next is Decisions the first is Veronica Gonzalez #7767 on Oyster Ponds Rd. in Orient, proposed swimming pool in a side yard. Has everybody read the decision, any comments, questions, suggestions?Alright you want to make a motion Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I make a motion to accept and vote on the variance as applied for. MEMBER DANTES : I'll second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. Decision for North Fork Project 2 LLC & North Fork Project 3 LLC #7836. This is a lot line change, we reopened to accept an amended survey which we did do and we just closed it. Has everybody read this? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there any typos or changes that anybody,wants to propose? Eric would you like to make a motion? MEMBER DANTES : I make a motion to approve the relief as amended for the non-conforming lot size and non-conforming lot depth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One condition, site plan approval. Okay we have a motion, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. The next and last one is for Walter Gless #7826. Are you aware that late last night I sent out just a change in the sentence structure and the LWRP determination? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so Kim you should have gotten that also that sentence change. So this is a single family dwelling demolition per town code and it was a rear yard setback, they're maintaining the existing rear yard setback so there's no increase in non- conformity. So this is a motion to grant the variance for the rear yard setback as applied for with four conditions, Trustees approval, Department of Health for an IA system, deck remains open to the sky and a vegetated buffer. Is there whose going to make a motion here? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I make a motion to grant the variance as applied for with conditions. MEMBER DANTES : I second that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7808—PARISA GOLESTANEH/LITTLE POQUATUCK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Parisa Golestaneh/Little Poquatuck #7808. 1 know Nick you're recused from this one. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 2, 2023 amended March 7, 2023 and August 23, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 2) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 960 Willow Terrace (adj. to Orient Harbor) in Orient. Hi would you state your name please. BROOKE EPPERSON : Brooke Epperson from AMP Architecture. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a pool in a side yard where the code requires a rear or a front yard on waterfront properties and a lot coverage of 27.1% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. What would you like us to know about this application? BROOKE EPPERSON : We are requesting as you just stated for the 27.1%we do have hardship at this site because of the (inaudible) CEHA area. Based on the based survey by Scalice Land Surveying we have a CEHA area which comprises about 43% of the total lot area. Without the CEHA area the proposed lot coverage would be based upon the total lot area of 22,551 sq. ft. and that would give us the proposed lot coverage of 15.3% which would be under the 20% allowable. As for the accessory in the side yard variance we had originally proposed the pool to be in the rear yard but at our Southold Trustees hearing in July they had asked us to move the pool out of the rear yard to avoid the CEHA area and to align the back edge of the pool with the existing rear yard patio. We discussed with the homeowners the option to place the pool in the front yard to avoid the side yard but however with the layout of the house and the existing septic location that just was not an option. I did do some research and I found two other prior variances in the area that were granted. One was for an existing 25% lot coverage that went up to 30.8%that is for a building addition and the second relief was for a 33.85 lot coverage also for a building addition. I would also like to state that when we started this project at the beginning of the year entering the design and filing process the reasons that the owners would like to remain private (inaudible) decided to sell the property and they currently have a buyer who is well aware of the proposed pool and asked us to continue the filing process to obtain permits. T. A. MCGIVNEY : You can just add in the ZBA Decision numbers because I r November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON : Absolutely, the 30.8% grant was No. 4131 and the 33.8% grant was No. 7334. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you know we've all been out to the site and inspected it. Will retaining walls be required cause it does slope down toward the bulkhead. BROOKE EPPERSON : We moved it back far enough we can avoid having to do retaining walls. We have less than eight inches coming up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There is a buffer in place. BROOKE EPPERSON : Yes the Trustees asked us to install the 25 foot buffer which they have approved. We handed in plans with the pool in the side yard then the 25 foot buffer which you are looking at today has been approved by the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have Trustees approval then on this. With that proposed side yard location you will be able to see part of the pool certainly from the street and in this case it's not atypical for the Board to ask for some evergreen screening just simply to prevent that from happening. Is that alright with you? It'll probably be like from the corner of the garage to the side property line I'm thinking. BROOKE EPPERSON :That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right over there that should be adequate plus you've got a septic system in the front and a big driveway and (inaudible) the house. There really isn't any room in the front yard. BROOKE EPPERSON : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well this is a better scenario. Anything from the Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore, I'm actually the attorney for the contract vendee and we've been working with AMP throughout this process to push we were all in agreement with pushing the pool back. Part of the design is to I think It's relocating a bilco door something there had to be some alterations to the house itself in order to fit the pool in the side yard and the owner was excuse me my client was amiable so that's part of the design. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON : The bilco is currently where the proposed outdoor shower is in that area and that's why we are proposing the basement entry on the other side of the house. PAT MOORE : With respect to screening, this is going to need a fence so if there could be some flexibility or where the screening is because the screening may be I'm looking at it in my you know if I was screening this I might push it closer to the street, if the fence is closer to the street or just so that you're not interfering with I think that's relocating AC unit. Does the AC unit stay on that side or is it being okay so we have to kind of work around an AC unit and another little box there I can't tell what that is oh the pool equipment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a pretty narrow side yard anyway. PAT MOORE : It's a very narrow side yard so to put evergreens I'm sure knowing the my client that there's going to be a desire to landscape. CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN : Screen it anyway. PAT MOORE : So there's no objection to screening it's just I don't want to dictate where it is because the landscaper or someone else or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any objection if that fence well you need a code conforming pool fence anyway. If that fence is where it possibly could be by the garage it's a side yard and you can do it six foot high it's not a front yard. PAT MOORE : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can screen it that way. I don't care as long as it's not visible from the street. PAT MOORE : That's fine I didn't want to dictate where it was going to go because it's a little kind of to decide where everything should go today maybe a little more I don't want to make those kind of decisions for a client but certainly screening is what most people would want to do anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can condition approval based upon some flexibility with the screening. PAT MOORE : Thank you, yeah as far as when it's ready. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any objection to that? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any comments or questions from the Board? Anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? I think you wanted to say something. MARIANNE TOY : I'm not a professional so forgive me if CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name for the record please. MARIANNE TOY : Marianne Toy and I am the one of the owners to the property adjacent to this proposed pool. I just have some questions. MEMBER DANTES : Which side of the property the north or the south? MARIANNE TOY : The north side. I guess my first questions are regarding I guess their an for the reason on their appeal on the application and I guess one of the things that they noted was like you know (inaudible) character of the neighborhood and they noted that there are other pools in the neighborhood. Well my understanding is there are currently three pools on Orient Harbor all of which are grandfathered in is my understanding cause they've all been permitted I mean mine is one of them but my permit has been in place since 1973. 1 think there is one on Harbor Rd. which is a little farther over which is from 1976 and then there's another one on our block which is from 1982. 1 think that there is confusion because on this one particular block there are already two existing swimming pools but they've been in place for a long, long time. So I don't know how that affects this, my understanding is that when I purchased the house was that you couldn't put a pool in the bay so our concerns and my neighbors concerns are you know with the coastal erosion. 1 know that the Trustees asked for this larger setback in this case but I guess our concern is just you know we have issues with the water table. We're part of the area that's been affected I guess Suffolk County we've had our water tested because of the I guess I don't know if you guys are aware of this but in Orient Village there's the county has found pfa's which are the (inaudible) substances in the well water so they tested the Village Lane and they found it to be in excess of what is MEMBER DANTES : How will a swimming pool affect the pfa's? MARIANNE TOY : I don't know that's my question. I think the swimming pool the displacement of the you know the amount of groundwater we require in the neighborhood which to put in a. swimming pool this size would require approximately twenty thousand gallons`of water and I think that even if the water initially was brought it I think to maintain the pool would put a strain. I think if they find my understanding is if they findings are positive on the Willow Terrace Lane neighborhood because we're sort of adjacent where the village has they found you know the problematic water is that the county will put in filtrations systems for everybody to help regulate the water from I guess to just regulate the drinking 9 November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting water for the neighborhood. So my concern or you know and my neighbor's concern is like will a pool affect the groundwater. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It should not and there will be pool de-watering dry well in place. Drainage will have to managed per Storm Water Management of the town code. Basically when they talk about other pools in the neighborhood it doesn't matter what year they were put it, what matters is the fact that they speak to the character of the neighborhood which means that there are other pools in the neighborhood so that it is not uncharacteristic to have another swimming pool in that neighborhood. That's what that standard stands for basically. It's not what year it was put it's that it's there and they're not grandfathered, they're legally there because they got permission to put them in either because the code allowed them to do it as of right. The zoning code was put in in 1957 so anything before that would have been grandfathered or been rendered non-conforming when zoning was put into place.Just so you understand historic (inaudible) MARIANNE TOY : That's why I said (inaudible) things that I've been told and you know just because of like the fact that you know it's been so long since anyone has you know constructed a pool it does not make sense to me because it's my understanding that nobody has even you know submitted an application to put in a pool you know unless I you know I'm wrong it's just it doesn't appear that anybody along Orient Harbor has even considered installing a pool at least waterfront. T. A. MCGIVNEY : If I may, this unfortunately the only thing the ZBA can rule over is the location of the pool not exactly any of the Trustees stuff or any other requirements. So they're just here to decide whether or not this is an appropriate location so any other concerns about health and safety unfortunately are not under the purview of the ZBA for this particular application MARIANNE TOY : Okay so because there are so in terms of like in this particular pool already I mean this pool is going to exceed the 20% 1 mean the house as is as built already exceeds the 20% so they're asking for an additional what 7% almost but because there's existing I guess per the architect there's existing homes that have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well again it's character of the neighborhood, if there are other homes that exceed the lot coverage in that area then it simply speaks in favor of the applicant. If there were not then it would be setting a precedent for the neighborhood cause everything else is less than 20%. There are other properties that are developed to more than 20% in that neighborhood probably with variance relief for some reason or another. Brooke did you want to say what's the existing lot coverage on the property? November 2,2023 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON : 22.2 and we're going up to 27.1%. On the-groundwater, we are proposing to be 5 feet 11 % inches above the existing groundwater and that's to the bottom of the lowest footing it just goes up from there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have to be anyway so, alright. MARIANNE TOY : So in terms of the variances that are being asked it's just like we've addressed the lot coverage CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in the side yard that's the other one, it's either allowed in a rear yard or a front yard on waterfront properties. There is clearly no room in the front yard nor would anyone want to see a swimming pool in the front yard on Willow Terrace. The Trustees have asked them as a condition of their approval to move it into the side yard so it's farther away from the water and to protect the water quality of the bay with a twenty five foot buffer a non-vegetated buffer. So that's what's come before us. It was in a code conforming location originally right Brooke and then we wouldn't have to have seen it but Trustees required it to be moved to protect the water so that's why we're looking at it for the side yard which is not a conforming location. Does that clear it up? MARIANNE TOY : Yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and that's what's before this Board. MARIANNE TOY : Then I guess in terms of the side yard I guess the proposed pool is well I guess the pool itself is like 10 feet away from the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a conforming setback, it's a conforming side yard setback yep. Those are the only two variances the lot coverage and the side yard location. MARIANNE TOY : Okay and those are the only things that are really addressable here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By us yes. MARIANNE TOY : If any other concerns and I don't know if I guess would that have been a Trustees thing or is there CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's both because it's within 100 foot of the bay the Trustees are required to review it and grant a wetlands permit and the Zoning Board is required to approve it because it's not in a conforming location and it doesn't have a conforming lot coverage. Those are all the approvals that are required. n November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MARIANNE TOY : Okay and then I have a question about I guess the land the local the LWRP I guess it's deemed it inconsistent with their one of their policies. So how does that affect your decision? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Ultimately the ZBA makes the decision where they are not it's consistent or how they can make it consistent the LWRP. This is (inaudible) is written up by a person in charge of that and then there's (inaudible) and how to make it more consistent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With Trustees approval and with moving it to a side yard it is really out of the coastal erosion hazard area which is why the Trustees wanted it moved and we would have required it as well. So it is in a much safer location where it is being proposed. MARIANNE TOY : So does that void like what the like the LWRP CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't void it, what it does is it indicates that we have examined all the factors, inspected the site, held a public hearing and concluded based upon mitigation of this non-conforming side yard location it is consistent. Once there's a buffer in place a landscape buffer and it's been moved farther away from the water and it's been moved out of the coastal erosion hazard area their concerns have been met. The LWRP's concerns for inconsistency have been met and the ZBA will rule it to be consistent. That will be in the decision that we will write, you will have access to that decision if you want to see it. We'll be discussing a decision two weeks from today over in the Annex Board Room upstairs in the other building. We will have drafts in front of us you just heard us this morning do exactly the same thing, we write them up in advance, we read them carefully we make any changes we wish. All the decisions belong to all the Board Members and then we vote so that's what we will be doing in two weeks from today. Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? No hands okay, anything else from anyone? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. November 2,2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7843—EMILY and JARRETT WHITE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Emily and Jarrett White #7843. This is a request, for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 5, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single family dwelling and an accessory garage and to legalize the location of an existing shed (under 144 sq. ft.) at 1) dwelling is located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) accessory garage located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 3) accessory shed is located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet, 4) accessory shed is located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 230 Lesters Rd. in Mattituck. So we're looking at a partial demo of a single family dwelling, demolishing an accessory garage and rebuilding. Oh no it's just an accessory garage in a side yard and legalize a shed. Now the shed has got a side yard setback and a rear yard setback at 6 ft., the code requires a minimum of 10 feet. We have a front yard setback at 32.3 feet, the code requires in that property zone 40 feet, correct? You're adding what a covered porch entry? BROOKE EPPERSON : To the left side yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's easy to see why what's going on here, the front lot line is not parallel to the street so you're getting diminishing setback on that corner and the other end it's conforming. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house currently sits at the conforming well let's see what is it BROOKE EPPERSON : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not conforming it's already non-conforming. BROOKE EPPERSON : It's 35.5 feet is the (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : Why not just attach the garage to the corner? BROOKE EPPERSON : We discussed that with the homeowners and you can see on that side of the property as well we have that one property line coming in and then it goes to the rear yard. They and we agreed like the access from the front yard to the back yard from that November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting location and in addition we did look at connecting the garage and they just it's not something that they wanted to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It also depends on the layout of the house. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct which is also comes over pretty close where we're also proposing the garage which is another reason why we couldn't put it in the rear yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Brooke to that same question, why wouldn't you push the proposed addition back? BROOKE EPPERSON : From the covered (inaudible) entry? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no I'm so sorry I'm talking about on the left side the major addition the larger addition. BROOKE EPPERSON : We wanted to keep it in line with the existing the layout of the floor plan works nicely this way and we are proposing a covered porch in that area so it won't be habitable space. The second floor addition if you were to offset the angled line it is in line with the 35.5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Lesters is a very narrow gravel right of way almost really it looks like a driveway. Most of the homes are pretty large two story dwellings there. BROOKE EPPERSON : I do want to point out that in 2018 the previous owners of this property applied for a variance for a front covered porch, it was granted and that's No. 7201. That was for a 27.5 foot setback which was granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the number on that? BROOKE EPPERSON : 7201, it was never built. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Never built exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh right, right, right I got this in here you submitted that already. That was October 18, 2018. BROOKE EPPERSON : Lastly, for the house I did just give Kim the approved Health Department site plan we got that on (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's for the IA system? Kim will you just scan that and mail it out?Alright let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No 241 November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No she answered the one question I had, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to .address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just want to put on the record that for the next matter Sound Cheshire No. 78481 will be recusing myself and Ben Johnson the Assistant Town Attorney will be sitting in. HEARING#7848—67 SOUND CHESHIRE LP/SUSAN HEWITT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 67 Sound Cheshire LP/Susan Hewitt #7848. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 31, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 520 Madison Ave. in Greenport. So this is a new single family dwelling on an undeveloped lot with a front yard setback proposed at 25 feet where November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. This property has Trustees Wetlands Permit No. 10406 June 14, 2023. They're proposing also in addition to a dwelling a plunge pool that's 13 by 7 feet behind the house, the house is facing Madison. I think the interesting thing here is the Trustees required that house to be moved further toward the street. You originally had it at a conforming setback so we wouldn't have seen it but they were trying to protect even a greater the wetlands and that's always a good thing to do. The other'thing that is of course complicated is the fact that normally you could do front yard averaging but because it's split zoned and it's partially in Greenport Village on that street and then some part of it in Southold Town BROOKE EPPERSON : We're actually the only property CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : lot on that side of the street. Well the property across the street is split zoned. It's partially in Southold not where the house is but the other part. If that were the case you would not even be before us because I'm sure that most of those were built pre- dated zoning anyway and they all have non-conforming front yards. I think that's it for me, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wants to address the application?Any hands on Zoom up there, no hands. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. We'll have a decision in two weeks. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. HEARING#7840—GALIA MEIRI and OREN MEIRI, EXECUTORS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Meiri and Meiri Executors #7840. This is a request for a variance from Article II Section 280-9A(1) and the Building Inspector's July 13, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a lot recognition and to legalize a lot created by deed on October 22, 1980 at 1) lot having less than the required lot width of 100 feet which no longer conforms to Bulk Schedule AA located at 955 Lilac Lane in Cutchogue. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. I just wanted to hand up a little handout which will be sort of explanatory of what we're going to be talking about. As Leslie explained we're here for a variance for lot width to achieve lot recognition under Section 280-9 of the code. The lot requested is a 23,575 sq. ft. lot in the R40 zoning district. It is 90 feet wide and 257 feet deep. Under the code as we know lots created between April 9, 1957 and December 1, 1971 had to be 100 feet for lot recognition. This lot was actually created by deed in 1965 and the original deed that was filed cited a lot width of 110 feet. I handed up this handout which I will give credit to Gail Wickham for preparing. There's just this kind of convoluted history of how this lot came to be that is just offered to you by way of background. Essentially what happened was the lots on either side of this parcel were created Lot 13 was created in the fifties through a series of conveyances and that ended up being 130 feet wide. Lots 15 and 16.1 on the other side were created in the sixties and as was Lot 14 in 1965. The Gunthers, the Sterlings these family conveyances all happened and the way it shook out was that at the end of the day Lot 14 was actually 90 feet even though for a good fifteen years the deed description had it at 110 feet. When my clients parents took title to the property in 1980 this error was discovered and he deeds going forward have the 90 feet lot width. We're here today because while the property had been purchased by the family with the intent of building on it there was a family tragedy and so my clients are the executors the children of the original owners the Meiri's and they are seeking to sell the lot to Gail's clients and we need this variance relief. What we're essentially asking simply for a lot width variance to allow this lot to be recognized. If we go through the criteria I think a review of the surrounding lots in this neighborhood shows that November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting there are many similarly sized lots along Lilac Lane and in that community. There's many single family homes with similar sized lots. The lot is otherwise conforming to the Bulk Schedule it is just the lot width that is at issue here. We have submitted a survey that shows an available building envelope that would be conforming as well. Looking around the neighborhood there are nearby lots 18.2 and 18.3 that are also 90 feet wide. Lots 20, 22 are 70 feet and 50 feet wide (inaudible) respectfully. So as to the character of the neighborhood the granting of this relief will certainly not have any detriment to any nearby property or cause an undesirable change it would just simply fit in with many other lots. No we can't achieve the benefit of a buildable lot due to the pre-existing non-conformities of the parcel that existed since it was created we're going to need the variance relief to achieve recognition. We would submit that the relief sought is not substantial, it's essentially a 10 foot variance again to create a lot that is consistent in size. The lot has significant lot depth so the slight decrease in width is balanced out to have a still substantial sized lot here it's over almost 26,000 sq. ft. Of course there's no indication that this could have any adverse environmental impacts obviously under current regulations to any house that would be constructed would be regulated under Chapter 236 and have an IA system. We would submit that this is not a self-created hardship,this is something that has existed since the birth of this lot and our clients parent's purchased it and this issue was discovered. So with all that if you have any questions about the change of title we can address them but I think you understand how this came to be. I think that we certainly have established the entitlement to relief under 267 and if there's any questions I'm happy to (inaudible). MEMBER DANTES : What's the metes and bounds descriptions in the deed? Was it that the metes and bounds was wrong on the first two iterations of the deed or was it that the number of the 100 was just written wrong? Like were the metes and bounds giving this property title to part of Lot 13 is basically what I'm asking cause you got these arrows coming in here? Was that they were just correcting the metes and bounds and once they corrected the metes and bounds then all of a sudden that 10 feet disappeared or was it that however they drew up the original deeds the metes and bounds had them owning in error part of Lot 13? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it was the measurement was wrong but you lived and breathed this so GAIL WICKHAM : Good morning, Abigail Wickham I am representing Lisa Jacobs who is purchasing this lot, she's a local woman. I think she's from Cutchogue originally still lives here and she's really excited that she could buy this lot and after wading through many deeds if I understand your question in 1950 and 1954 deeds for the corner parcel Lot 13 had a series of conveyances that can conveyed 130 feet from the corner. However when the Lot 14 deeds on November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting the parcel she's buying were created they didn't realize it was 130 feet wide. They deeded the property as if they still owned the easterly conveyances, so the deed metes and bounds overlap and that's what I've tried to show here. It's difficult to understand but it's pretty simple, basically there's 20 feet that was conveyed improperly. T. A. MCGIVNEY : How was this discovered, when it was discovered in the eighties? GAIL WICKHAM : I imagine the title company discovered it, it took me hours to go through the deeds. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I know the deeds are cumbersome right cause they were all conveying the 110, 110, 110 and then all of a sudden it was wait a second 130 and 90 so I'm just curious what was that turning point? GAIL WICKHAM : The 1965 deeds encompassed a larger width than (inaudible) so when the 1980 conveyance from Barron to (inaudible) was created I imagine that title company picked it up. The thing that was really interesting was that I've never seen in the Assessor's records or the tax map, if you look at the tax map it says 110 feet and there's a dotted line and it says 90. There is a notation on the property card that mentions an incorrect deed so they probably (inaudible) picked it up years ago. He picked up a lot of things. This is sort of a real estate lawyers nightmare and I think whoever did it is probably no longer living so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob or Nick anything from you guys?,. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see who has something from the audience, please come to the podium. JAKE BEHAN : Jake Behan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a letter from you. JAKE BEHAN : Yes you do and that was well thought, out hopefully and with you know obviously input from the surrounding neighbors. I would submit that it's completely irrelevant for Mr. Finnegan to have shown you those 110 foot deeds from the seventies. The hand drawings I think are completely irrelevant. I can show you a deed from 1954 that clearly shows the land that's trimmed from their land allocated to my land if I can do it certainly lawyers could find that. My lot is on November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : It was done in 1954 so it pre-dates zoning he wouldn't need to be here. JAKE BEHAN : Right but it clearly shows that (inaudible) for the deeds even (inaudible) in 1965 that this lot was smaller than represented. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have that deed from 1965? JAKE BEHAN : Sure do. Pardon my nerves here. MEMBER DANTES : Can you make a copy for us? JAKE BEHAN : So that's the Liber that's available on the Assessor's website. You can clearly see the language in there allocates 20 feet to my lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What does that deed say the width is? JAKE BEHAN : It shows the conveyance the affirmation of conveyance of that land to the owners of Lot 13 at the time clearly represents that conveyance. So it's not it shouldn't have been confused you know whether it was misrepresented when the deed was originally (inaudible) cause with the property being 110 feet wide or I would also submit that it's purchased at 90 feet wide that's well known when it's purchased in 1980. The hardship in question here is not stemming from the request for 10 feet, the hardship is that they can't sell it without this variance. That is a self-created hardship that's the purchasing in 1980 aware of 90 feet width that's a self-created hardship as it pertains to being unable to sell the lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are you the Behan that sold? JAKE BEHAN : No I'm not oddly enough when we bought our house there was a Behan on the survey. Behan was a resident I think in the seventies I don't know them though. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You are not at all related? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did notice that it seemed very strange. JAKE BEHAN : I noticed it when we bought the place because Behan was on the lot'riext door so that kind of peaked my interest. You can see that the neighbors that signed this long time neighbors Thomas and Doris Cibulsky had Ray Conklin, Adele (inaudible) these are people who have lived in this neighborhood for years and years. I myself have (inaudible) fifteen so these are not you know not willy nilly signatures is what I'm trying to say. (inaudible) serious considerations that's gone into the points that we have submitted to the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you, aside from the fact that this may have existed in its current state of 90 foot wide for some time let's say and the applicants purchased it in that November 2,2023 Regular Meeting condition what objection if any do you have to the development of that lot with a conforming building envelope? JAKE BEHAN : Yeah you can see just going through my letter, one of the main ones really and I know we're arguing against the recognition lot but here implicit in that recognition it just sets off a chain of events right, the sale occurs the survey included in the appeal is sort of rubber stamped as okay you then create this building envelope that is completely out of character with Lilac Lane. If anybody has walked down Lilac Lane it's mostly composed of cottages, my home is a cottage built in 1940's it's 1,200 sq. ft. So what I'm saying is that you are rubber stamping of potential for (inaudible) square foot home on a 90 foot wide lot that is completely out of character of Nassau Farms. It sets a precedent, there are other•non- conforming lots in the immediate area that this would set a precedent for. You can see even in Nassau Farms the auto merge you have to merge the lots this goes directly against that right? The lot adjacent to mine was two lots that were auto merged. Again I'm arguing (inaudible) doesn't preclude the granting of a variance but I would submit that it should be strongly considered this hardship in question is self-created on more than one level. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? JAKE BEHAN : I think it's somewhat disingenuous to submit those deeds from the seventies the maps from the seventies representing a false something that was never (inaudible) very evidently you know you can go on the Assessor's website and find these things. Thankfully by the way it's quite an interesting journey to go through those things but luckily I found this and it's clearly evident that that lot was never been labeled as 110 feet. Whether that was (inaudible) or mislabeled is obviously we can't tell. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) there's nothing (inaudible) about submitting public records that points to the history of this parcel. The relief we're requesting doesn't change whether or not it was 110 or 90. It was a 90 foot lot we need relief. The building envelope that appears on the survey as you know is a building envelope, it's not a footprint of a proposed house there are no plans for that. Clearly GFA regulations, Sky Plane regulations are going to limit the size of any structure built there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And lot coverage, I would argue that anyone in the neighborhood has the same benefit. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly and whether or not it's self-created as you know that should not preclude (inaudible)that's sought here so nobody is trying to play any games. We've disclosed all of these things. This is not an issue that was created by my clients, it pre-dated their , November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting ownership it was corrected so they've done nothing but be fully transparent in this application and I just wanted to be clear that we take (inaudible) to the accusation that there was something improperly done here. JAKE BEHAN : I don't mean to say that your position is vicarious in any way shape or form I apologize if that's how it was perceived. I mean the original seventies deeds that here represented as 110 feet would potentially been I didn't mean to convey that.] would suggest that the hardship here is again you seem to be stating that the hardship is the request for 10 feet of relief. The hardship is the inability to sell and selling is contingent upon you're creating your own difficulty and not having attempted to sell this property and not-'having to have it zoned as conforming in the thirty years of having owned this property. I would argue this complete passivity, no action has been taken in an attempt to zone it prior, sell it in its current condition or,get it zoned to a conforming state since it was taken into possession in 1980. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you, Gail did you want to say something? GAIL WICKHAM : Just briefly cause I know we've spent some time.` First I do want to just correct the map I prepared. I left out if you see on Lot 13 1 have (inaudible) the 10 foot there should be an arrow from the circle C into the 20 foot strip there. That's when the third deed in 1954 created the 130 foot width on Mr. Behan's lot. Second of all, just to clarify that it was presumably that and I don't know that the title company that discovered this problem when the Meiri's purchased in 1980 that doesn't mean that the Meiri's or even their attorney knew there was a problem. They got a description and that's what they bought with. Could I ask, which deed was submitted as okay C. I don't even understand his point, that was clearly a record, it was missed when the Sterlings in 1965 conveyed to Gunther. I don't think there was any fraud I think they just made a mistake. MEMBER DANTES : Are you saying the deed has a mistake on it or a mistake was made after that? GAIL WICKHAM : That deed was mistaken in 1965 deed for tax Lot 14. MEMBER DANTES : So you're saying the deed should control and you think this deed is accurate? GAIL WICKHAM : This deed conveyed 130 feet to the corner property or completed the 130 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot 13 November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting GAIL WICKHAM : Right so when the 1965 deed to Lot 14 conveyed part of that property it was ineffective as to that portion. That's when it overlapped. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has already been conveyed to the other lot. GAIL WICKHAM : Yes so even though this 1965 deed conveyed 110 feet they didn't have it they only had 90. MEMBER DANTES : I see what you're saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well what's before us basically is not so much what is it now, the bottom line is, is it worth granting a variance for 10 feet. Let's simplify this, it's overly complicated. GAIL WICKHAM : I was just trying to answer the issues there. I don't think it does create a precedent because I don't see any lot in that immediate neighborhood that could divided'into two pieces or that would result in a smaller-lot width. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the lot width typically in that area? GAIL WICKHAM : It ranges from Martin has all of that listed in his CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Memorandum of Law? GAIL WICKHAM : It ranges from 53 to hard to read there's some 110 and less than that along Stirling Rd. MEMBER LEHNERT : In Martin's submission he stated 53 to 135., GAIL WICKHAM : Yes and there's a little lot tax lot 12 that is minuscule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So lot size is typically varied within the area. GAIL WICKHAM : Lot sizes to do and you actually granted your Board actually granted a variance years ago I'm sorry I don't hav6the site I will get it for you, I think it's 7041 for a shed on this corner lot that Mr. Behan owns. It said in it that in the decision that the neighborhood of modest sized homes and differing sized lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :,Can you supply that for us? GAIL WICKHAM : I'll get it to you. J Z3 November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : So just to be clear, it is although it's an interesting puzzle what we're trying to figure out is exactly the size of the lot the bottom line is that you're here for a variance for the frontage. Whether it's 110 or 130 it's GAIL WICKHAM : (inaudible) we have 90 and then it's 110 it's all averaging out to it's not creating the non-conformity extent.Thank you. MEMBER LEHNERT : And the building envelope is you know it doesn't really make any sense with the new codes today anyway cause you've got sky planes and GFA. MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : Absolutely CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay anything else from any of you? JAKE BEHAN : Can I just speak one more time? I would submit that the original deed from 1965 is disingenuous and at the code at that time which exists it would have been deeded from its origin as a non-conforming lot. So to have it represented at any point in time as 110 feet I think is again sort of irrelevant to this proceeding. I just think it's well established that 90 feet is the correct and again it sets a precedent for the neighborhood. I can cite specific lots in the neighborhood that are non-conforming that could request similar relief. We have a lot of neighbors that have concerns about the potential approval of this variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, alright motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye- MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7841—JEFFREY and ELIZABETH SAMUELS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jeffrey and Elizabeth Samuels #7841. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 28, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a front porch addition, an outdoor shower and interior alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 855 Gagens Landing Rd. in Southold. Hi Rob nice to see you. So this is a front yard setback at 27 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. I think the house already has a 35 foot front yard setback is that correct? ROBERT BROWN : The house is at 35 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the proposed front porch addition with dormers above a wrap- around is proposed at it looks like it's only 8 feet deep, it's pretty shallow. ROBERT BROWN : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's what you need the variance for in order to create a nicer entry to the house and a porch. ROBERT BROWN : That's it. MEMBER DANTES : Are the dormers in there a non-conforming setback or just the porch. ROBERT BROWN : The dormers align with the existing plane of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's not before us it's just the porch. ROBERT BROWN : Just the porch. It's a very straightforward application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a C.O. for the or a variance for the pool fence along South St? It's very close to the road. ROBERT BROWN : The pool fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's a tall fence. MEMBER DANTES : On this property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I think so. There's the pool C.O. with fence to code as applied for. It was in 2009 1 must have that in my packet I just didn't see it. Alright, it wasn't shown on the survey but it is in place. Okay that's fine. Anything from you Pat? November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions it's pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It certainly is. You couldn't make that any shallower you know 8 feet is ROBERT BROWN : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's certainly going to look much nice than what's there now. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? One hand is raised okay. LOUIS MESSINA : Hello, I just heard you discuss we're next door to them. Don't tell me that shower is to the right of their property. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Excuse me sir,just before you continue could you please state your first and last name. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir you need for the record cause we're recording this to state your first and last name so that when we transcribe it we'll have it accurate. LOUIS MESSINA : Louis Messina. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you sir, go ahead. LOUIS MESSINA : I'm asking a question, I just was listening to you, is that shower according to his plans I don't see any description of a shower. Is that on the right side looking at their house from the Gagens Landing? Don't tell me that shower is on the right side of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not. It's behind the house and it's actually right behind the existing garage and LOUIS MESSINA : At the back of the house ma'am? November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes LOUIS MESSINA : Alright. Can you describe the porch to us more clearly from what the plans are? It looks like looking at his plan does it extend beyond the house like a couple of feet on the right side ma'am? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it's exactly the same side yard setback as the existing house. It's 23 feet from the side property line just like the house is. LOUIS MESSINA : So architecturally what is the porch made out of? Is it going to be poured concrete, is it going to be wood, screened in? MEMBER DANTES : It's not showing that it's going to be screened in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an opened covered porch. LOUIS MESSINA : Open covered porch. So now if you grant them eight feet that means you're setting the precedence for the rest of us to go out eight or nine or ten feet, am I correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No T. A. MCGIVNEY :There's no precedence set. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not setting any kind of precedent, every application is site specific and application specific. LOUIS MESSINA : I understand that but still you're setting a legal precedent. So if I want to go out and extend my side I could really technically you know hire a good lawyer and go out eight;ten feet. I mean I'm not saying that you will grant it but I got a good chance of winning. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Excuse me sir, just to reiterate the only way it would set a precedence is if you had the exact same piece of property and the exact same situation and every property as I said is different. There's no precedent being set, it's eight feet for this particular.property in this situation. Yours would be a completely different situation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And he's entitled to apply for something. LOUIS MESSINA : Nobody on that block is everybody is in line except if you grant this. To me that would be setting a legal precedent. There's nobody on the block, everybody in fact just to go back a little, my neighbor across the street went out eight feet, his garage and you know what you people the neighbor next door complained and the garage was already built. They had to take down the eight feet. I mean I don't know why we have zoning laws anymore. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All I can say is we have inspected the property LOUIS MESSINA : All they do is appeal-and they win most of the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : People win before the Board of Appeals approvals if they meet all of the six state statutes that allow us to grant variance relief. If they don't then they don't get relief. If they do and they make their case we drive around and we see that there are plenty of other houses in your neighborhood that have front porches. It is not an uncommon feature. LOUIS MESSINA : Not on Gagens Landing ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else in the audience? LOUIS MESSINA : I've been here forty years nobody has it you know everybody is conforming to the rules and regulations. You know what, what I'm really scared of is you grant this and then down the road they make a modification they'll close it in and then we're going to have either obviously a rental total rental or Bed and Breakfast and that's what I'm you know down the road. I hate to be a pessimist but. T. A. MCGIVNEY : That's not something we can even speculate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First of all,.the Zoning Board can't speculate on a theoretical possibility of what somebody might do in the future. LOUIS MESSINA : I understand that. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Additionally that's also you know whether things are turned into things or not that's a decision for Code Enforcement. We can only judge based on the decision in front of the ZBA today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you sir for your comments. Is there anybody else? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. HEARING#7842—JORDAN and WENDY HANDLER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jordan and Wendy Handler #7842. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13C, Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 29, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a non-conforming accessory building at 1) proposed conditioned habitable space is not customarily incidental to the principal use and furthermore not a permitted use, 2) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1225 North Sea Drive (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. As you know we've inspected the property, we have an accessory structure that's connected by a deck and it's in a side yard so it's already in a non-conforming location. You want to put a second story on this and make it habitable space? ROBERT BROWN : A bedroom a guest bedroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know habitable space other than unless it's an accessory apartment or it's attached to the principle dwelling is not a permitted use. If they were applying for an accessory apartment that was going to be occupied by someone on the housing registry eligible for affordable housing or a family member but for extra bedrooms typically are going to have to add it to the principle dwelling. I understand that you're trying to avoid lot coverage you're just going up. ROBERT BROWN : I don't believe lot coverage is an issue. We have an existing structure that as you said it attached by a deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why not attach it with a roof to the principle dwelling and get rid of the deck and have an attached couple of extra bedrooms? ROBERT BROWN : I suppose there are a number of options. MEMBER LEHNERT : What about a second floor? ROBERT BROWN : This is what the Handlers were trying to accomplish (inaudible) the Building Department, we were told we'd be worse off if we called it an apartment. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well to make it an apartment it limits who can live there and secondly you need a kitchen in it and it's a whole other story. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think that the two floor thing would also preclude the apartment use. MEMBER DANTES : How come you didn't have to draw the sky plane in on the plans, like the pyramid law (inaudible) or non-conformity? ROBERT BROWN : I can't answer that (inaudible)those were the (inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : The enclosed stairs also we usually ask for exterior stairs. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well for an apartment. MEMBER LEHNERT : For an apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Part of the second story part of the existing structure is in a VE Zone it's a high velocity zone. Another part is in an AE Zone closer toward the street. MEMBER DANTES : Does the existing proposed plan comply with FEMA? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wouldn't because it's just it's an accessory garage and they're just going to add on top of it. ROBERT BROWN : Yea because the first floor which would be what's affected by the FEMA regulations is pre-existing. MEMBER DANTES : So then the second floor would add fifty percent or more of value so wouldn't that require the whole structure to comply with FEMA? ROBERT BROWN : I don't believe it's more than fifty percent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It probably wouldn't be. MEMBER LEHNERT : What about the septic? ROBERT BROWN We understand that there will be a new septic system designed an IA system. MEMBER DANTES : So basically they have code conforming alternatives but this is what they asked you to apply for. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think also as it was stated they clearly said it's for spill over, it's not an accessory apartment and this is not a permitted use and they're aware of it. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting ROBERT BROWN : Totally if might add, I received a phone call this morning from one of the neighbors a Mr. Burman who supported the Handler's application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I think we understand, I mean you know I'm not sure how this clearly it's full of storage right now but there's an air conditioner sticking out of the wall and one wonders how that was historically used. I mean most storage does not require air conditioning. ROBERT BROWN : Based on my inspection of the structure many months ago it was never used for habitation. It was finished as storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well there's lots of issues here to look at, not one of your easier ones Rob. ROBERT BROWN : I can appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom who wants to talk about this? Anything else from the Board? ROBERT BROWN : May I ask a silly question, the fact that it's attached by a deck does that make it part of the principle structure? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it would have to be a conditioned breezeway of a,certain length. If it was connected by a conditioned interior space then it would be part of the principle dwelling it would no longer be an accessory structure. ROBERT BROWN : So the connection has to be conditioned? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's limited to 80 sq. ft.? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's small. MEMBER DANTES : But even if you did do that then, they would send you back for a non- conforming side yard setback. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And probably the sky plane. MEMBER LEHNERT : Sky plane because it would become part of the principle structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's all true. MEMBER LEHNERT :Then they'd send you to FEMA. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Talk to your client. ROBERT BROWN : We knew this was a tough one going in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well people have the right to request these things, it's definitely what we're here for to listen. Anything else from anybody? Motion to close the hearing reserved decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. HEARING#7844— LISA and MARK MONTIFIORE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lisa and; Mark Montifiore #7844. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's September 16, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage 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 35 feet located at 4452 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel. ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : Isaac Clay Coffey with Isaac Rae Architects for the applicant representing the applicant. Just a quick correction on the Notice of Disapproval was something we also (inaudible). We're not proposing for an accessory garage. The existing garage is a pre-existing non-conforming CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh alright hold on. That's right I pointed that out, it was incorrectly advertised there was an error there and I did let staff know when I read the Legal Notice and then went out to inspect it I said no this is for an addition to a dwelling it has nothing to do November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting with an accessory garage. So I've got to correct my own notes. I have it corrected here but you're looking at installing a new sanitary system? ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : Yes ma'am we are. The application is essentially to renovate and add a second floor and partial ground floor addition to an existing non-conforming house. There would be a new IA Alternative System as part of this application it's already at the Health .Department. We've worked pretty hard with the client to try and make this as the least-non- conforming as possible if that makes sense. We tried to stay inside all of the existing setbacks, you'll see on the right hand side there's an existing 9.5 foot side yard setback and existing 13.1. So anything that we proposed has been inside of the setbacks and then we also worked to stay inside the sky plane and the GFA requirements. I'll answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has anything. As a professor of architecture this house is going to look a whole lot better. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just have a question, on the left side where it gives you the dimensions and it says minimum side yard it says existing is the 9.5 and 13.1 but then it says proposed 9.5 and 13.1. ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : So I think (inaudible) should be pointing to 13.4 at the backside there on the second one. That's the new proposed addition and then on the second floor there's an 18.5 T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right but it's just stated as 19 and 13. It should have been 13.4 and 18.5 (inaudible) proposed correct? ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : Correct T. A. MCGIVNEY : The legend is incorrect. I.just want to make sure that's just an error. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So the side yards are 13.4 and 18.5? ISAAC CLAY COFFEY So the proposed new addition the existing the total existing non- compliance stays the same. The 9.5 and 13.1 are the existing non-compliant side yards so they stay the same. The proposed are inset from that, it's still not compliant but they're not the most non-compliant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they remain unchanged and the addition is at 13.4 and 18.5?— ISAAC 8.5?ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : Yes ma'am. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, alright I don't have any questions is there anything from anybody on the Board? It's very straightforward. Is there anybody on Zoom? ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : Would you like us to update that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I'd like to.stamp something that's really accurate. MEMBER DANTES : If you can get it to us quickly we can vote on this at the next meeting in two weeks. ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : Sure you got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of an amended legend a corrected legend showing proposed side yard setbacks, existing and proposed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I second the motion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. Motion to recess for lunch is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. Motion to reconvene. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7845—SMB RE SERVICE, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon everyone, the next application before the Board is for SMB RE Service, Inc. #7845. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280= 107 and the Building Inspector's July 12, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a 24 ft. by 220 ft. building into six (6) single family dwellings each having no less than 850 sq. ft. in area located on a conforming 68,901 sq. ft. parcel in the Hamlet Business District at 1) length of building exceeds the minimum actually it's the maximum permitted 125 feet located at 56025 NYS Rt. 25 in Southold. Pat I just want to enter into the record that we have a revised Notice of Disapproval dated October 31, 2023, the building length is now 232 feet .2 inches instead of the original Notice which said that it was 232.2 no that's now 220 it was 220. PAT MOORE : (inaudible) correct all of that cause I have.a print that's big enough so I can read it now. We'll put it on the record so that if we need to have it revised again it's really just numerical the plan is the same CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, yeah it's just the length of the building which is the one variance here. PAT MOORE : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course it requires site plan approval by the Planning Board. I think you also said you needed sanitary credits from the Town Board. PAT MOORE : Yes we have applied. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you have applied. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : The numbers are still being worked on (inaudible) engineer and he knows for sure the number at this point (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you all know we've been out there and inspected the property thoroughly, we know what the surrounding lots are. We received comments from the Planning Board that were revised on October 31St basically the same comments but they corrected the length of the building to reflect what the new Notice of Disapproval says. They're in support of it, it supports the Comprehensive Plan as proposed and it complies with prior ZBA code interpretations for both Malon which determined constituted one use in a single building and I know you probably want to put something on the record about that. Then we actually had a more recent one that did the same thing in an HB Zone. Okay why don't you take it from here Pat. PAT MOORE : Thank you, you pretty much did my presentation but I will go into a little more detail. I have the architect here and he can review any of the design elements and we have the owner here. I just looked at the larger print and I'll give you after the hearing I'll give you the large sized print. The building itself if you recall the design has the storage on the'ends for the residential use and so the distance from (inaudible) the storage is 247 feet 7 inches, it has not changed. So I don't know why the numbers are a little different. The original the building itself the dwelling unit attached dwelling units or multi-family is 232.2. So I don't know if the Building Department when they looked at the storage units on the end as an accessory whether they were considering that as part of the length of the building. I got the amended Notice but I wasn't sure how she came to the conclusion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a good question because frankly the length is the length whatever the use is. PAT MOORE : It came in and I said okay. The design and all the legal reasons for it have not changed. So just some housekeeping issues, the main building in the front which is not part of this application has two rental apartments on the second floor. The Building Department went out today, they confirmed that we are eligible to get rental permits for the two units that are there. So they came back oh (inaudible) legible I mean I copied it, here is a copy for your records it was done today but very difficult to read. I'll give that to Kim for her file. I also yesterday delivered my outline that I was going to work off today for your benefit to have in front of you if there were any issues that you saw that needed further clarification. It has the legal points, we talk about the law and then I include the area variance standards which is for the most part what you already have from the application itself. So you shouldn't see too much you shouldn't see any surprises and this is an outline to help. In addition I provide to the Board a copy of the Malon decision which is applicable in the sense that Malon was for B i November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting Zoning HB was then interpreted Malon is applicable in HB under Olde Colony and I provided both of those decisions for your file. The conclusion drawn by Malon and Olde Colony is that with respect to the bulk schedule it's the buildings that count. In both those applications it was a little shopping center, very small shopping center Malon is in Cutchogue, Olde Colony is in Mattituck the greatest empanada place is there. When they were going through the permitting process it needed clarification for Planning and the Zoning Board clarified that because the uses are in one building the individual tenancies for uses that might be food or personal service whatever the number of permitted uses under that zoning allows those individual uses if not in one building will have the bulk schedule applied and it can adversely affect an application because most of the developments in B, HB are smaller lots that the bulk schedule every use requires its own designated lot area. Those two interpretations were applied here, Mike Verity looked at it and he said if we don't for two reasons we need to have the one building as connected single family dwelling units. The reason number one is that these dwellings when attached meet the definition of multi-family and in my outline you see the reading of multi-family is that a building or a portion thereof containing three or more dwelling units. So the a building definition requires that the multiple dwellings be all part of one structure. So when we first met with Planning and with the Building Department I sat down with everybody and that was it took a while for it to sink in but I ultimately understood and said okay that's how the design has to be. I point out in my outline that we do have conflicting provisions in the zoning code because to meet the definition of multiple dwelling it has to be one building but the multi-family definition in the supplemental regulations require that your buildings cannot exceed 125 linear feet or length, you can't!have both. Or you can have both but again it impacts your bulk schedule so for the further reasons that I explain in my outline in this instance having the buildings connected one if you split them into two it wouldn't functionally look any different in that that you might have a little space between them but they are all in a linear development. Due to the width of this parcel that requires a certain setback from the side yards, adequate room for ingress, egress,fire access and parking spaces ultimately the sanitary system. There's a lot of infrastructure that is going to be required here and have to fit it around the structures. So design wise and construction wise one building works in this instance. Also, three of these six units are going to be workforce housing, affordables and when you're designing and this is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me Pat, are you using those terms interchangeable cause in your PAT MOORE : I say affordable CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : designated the units as affordable and workforce housing so November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I think we use it's the same provision that applies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it does too but I just wasn't clear because does that mean the rest of them are market rate? , PAT MOORE : Yes, they are six units three are market rate so when they're rented they'll be rented at market rate. The three that are affordable my terminology whether it's technically correct or not we have to follow the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : HUD guidelines. PAT MOORE : HUD guidelines CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The person has to be either be eligible for or on the PAT MOORE : Yes what typically happens is you have to go through the vetting process through the program rather than a direct rent to under the market rent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you indicate that the owner wants to do this as housing for his employees. PAT MOORE : Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So will his employees then have to go over to get on the housing registry to prove that they qualify? PAT MOORE : To the extent that they don't already have housing but yes I don't know that (inaudible) that question. So nobody has been vetted or (inaudible) on that. This is not exclusively for his employees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so it will be people that qualify on the affordable housing registry. PAT MOORE : Correct, employees of the town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that meant to be in perpetuity? PAT MOORE : In order to buy the sanitary credits it's a covenant so yes it is in perpetuity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they will need C & R's to show that these three units are in perpetuity. PAT MOORE : Yes as I said we are actually we just finished one with sanitary credits and before we can actually get the certificate from the Town Board we have to show that the November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting covenants have been filed and once they're recorded returned to the Town Board as proof that it's in the program. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can I just ask you, when did it change from six units to three being affordable. In the beginning the application said that it was going to be affordable. PAT MOORE : It was my mistake, it was when I was writing it I understood all and then when I spoke to Mark it was like oh I had written all of them and he said no, no,no three. So I sent in writing a correction of that because it was my mistake. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the approval would have to be conditioned upon obtaining sanitary flow credits and C&R's from the town. PAT MOORE : That's fine, that's the process. I mean in the alternative if it's,determined by the Health Department we don't need sanitary credits then they would be covenant Zoning Board covenants. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : with independently yeah. PAT MOORE : Yea either way. Since I don't we're not that far along on the other I you know you'll have covenants one way or another. I just don't want duplicating covenants if possible. So the other reason it's more economic and financial since we do have a development with the restricted rental. The cost of building a building when you have economic restraints obviously has to be done carefully so you don't go bankrupt trying to build something. So when you're building it's ideal to have one foundation, the HVAC, the plumbing, the electrical the whole construction cost is somewhat less if you have one building than if you were to create separate buildings. So for economic reasons this is a better plan as well for him to be able to pay because this is his own funds. If you're dealing with a large scale project, affordables the cost of building an affordable is kind of subsidized by market rate. So you have less impact but with only six units there's really well three units that are going to be market we have to be very contentious of the cost of construction. So his preference which meets the code and is what the Planning Board has reviewed throughout one building is the better design. Those are the points that I wanted to raise, I want to be able to answer any questions the Board might have. I think I've expressed oh, the architect very kindly and I know you're very familiar with the area here, as to our neighborhood here we have a vacant lot but we have a restaurant, we have east of the restaurant is boat storage. I think Albertsons is the boat storage, there's commercial all zoned the same but to the west is commercial property. The building in the front does screen this building from the Main Rd. so it's in the back yard. You just recently reviewed and what's going through the process is the Enclaves Hotel which I November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting have to believe the Board must have granted variances for the length of the building because you didn't have to do it for the motel? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not for the length. MEMBER DANTES : No PAT MOORE : It's a large building and it's longer than 125 so I don't probably because I don't know why they didn't site that as a requirement cause it's in the kind of generic in the zoning code but I didn't study it but you did approve a very large hotel complex. MEMBER DANTES : Because there was no Notice of Disapproval, they applied for a Special Exception they never applied to the Building Department yet. PAT MOORE : Oh so you might still have to deal with it? MEMBER DANTES : I hope not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd rather doubt it. PAT MOORE : Alright that's fine. We're here to answer I have the design professional if you have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one of the things that's pretty obvious and I think you did mention it in one of you're ,the Memorandum of Law of something, the way in which the elevation is articulated has broken the massing down using color and little portico entries and a little gabled roof and you know they look like row houses. They're very simple, very contextual, very much in keeping with the scale and materiality of the existing area so it's not going to look like one blank facade for the entire length. Circulation is also there's a little garage things it's going to help too with driveways. PAT MOORE : We don't have garages we have storage sheds. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes on the ends but I mean the driveways are PAT MOORE : Driveways yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That will break up the long you know okay yea thank you for bringing that up. Well my questions were primarily about C&R's and how many affordable units. I think the Planning Board was under the impression they were all affordable. That may have been corrected by now but in any case I just want to make sure we were accurate in what was being presented. Anything from you Pat? November 2,2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No you asked the questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Nick, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. PAT MOORE : Are you going to need the Building Department to do another of Notice of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what you entered into the record that the length on the amended Notice is referring to the dwelling units and not the storage. We can just roll it into the decision. I don't know why they didn't just say that's the length of the building, a building is a building. 4:1 November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting HEARING#7846—MICHAEL V. LIEGEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael Liegey#7846. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's September 16, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 105 Town Creek Lane in Southold. Member Planamento is recused from this application so he's left the room. Who is here to represent this application? MICHAEL LIEGEY : Michael Liegey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was on the Board at the time, I think it was when you were here before you had an application for an accessory garage when was it? MICHAEL LIEGEY : Basically the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And nothing ever happened there was no decision rendered you finally MICHAEL LIEGEY :The economy went south so we just shelved it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we actually sent you a letter saying we're considering it withdrawn because no action had been taken on it for so long. We never rendered a decision, we asked for some changes as I recall and nothing happened one way or the other so it was just considered withdrawn. Now you're back before us with basically the same thing in a slightly different location. MICHALE LIEGEY : Slightly different after twenty years of living there, I have issues with the driveway being flooded. My property does flood every few years and so because the creek rises into the street so I didn't want to put the garage in the way of and then also after living there for twenty years and I've been in the neighborhood for over thirty third generation living on that block and that's not going to change I even have relatives that are even more (inaudible). I have a 1640 house and looked at all the options I can build a garage where I don't need to come before you, this Board then it would be attached to the house it would take away I feel from the character of the 1640 house. So I'm trying to preserve that and keep that in tact by pulling the garage further away. Living in this house I have no basement, no attic, there is very little storage so I'm trying to get as much storage as I possibly can. I also run a contracting company and this is not by any means going to be a business location, it's not going to be anything more than it presently is or has been for the last twenty years. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a big garage 30 by 40 and it's actually up fairly high on a slope and you're going to have to probably dig into it. MICHAEL LIEGEY : I'm building into the slope so I'm trying to keep it as low in height as possible. It's going to be I want to build it into the slope up higher away from the creek so again don't flood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like you're in a there's a flood zone line that's Zone X what's the other zone? It's zone AE. MICHAEL LIEGEY : It's really the Youngs Ave. (inaudible) you can't even cross it to go to Calves Neck because it floods and it goes into my driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if you put a driveway as you're proposing off of Youngs Ave. all of that runoff is going to go onto Youngs Ave. MICHAEL LIEGEY : What runoff? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the driveway because you're building into you're going to have to be at some grade. MICHAEL LIEGEY : There will be drywells to mitigate any runoff from my property, it's really what happens is during the storms the water rises in the creek and floods that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to need to put if you put in that driveway and you put this where it's proposed you're going to need a retaining wall. MICHAEL LIEGEY : It shows it on the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea right and another cut. Right now that whole street is pretty well screened from view by existing you know trees and some hedgerow and landscaping and so on and it would certainly be more desirable not to have yet another curb cut although it's not a curb there's no curb over there but you know to actually continue to use your existing driveway and perhaps modify it somewhat. Put the garage in approximately the same location as what you're proposing maybe rotate it slightly. MICHEAL LIEGEY : Face it towards my existing driveway circular driveway? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea MICHAEL LIEGEY : I'm not opposed to doing that, I was trying to again November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think you'd be creating more privacy off of Youngs if you did it that way. You already have the driveway in place, you could possibly change the shape a little bit. MEMBER LEHNERT : You would remove one of the curb cuts. MICHAEL LIEGEY : I was just basically trying to mitigate if I got this garage I would take out that other driveway so I wouldn't have the circular driveway that was the thinking but I can do it either way. I was just basically not attach to the house which if I did that I wouldn't be before you or the Board and I could also put a breezeway. I was just again trying to keep it off the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood. That's a three bay garage is it not? MICHAEL LIEGEY : Yes, there are neighbors right north of me two houses have if not larger similar sized garages and one is a five car. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is strictly for your own personal use, you're not planning to run any kind of business out of there? MICHAEL LIEGEY : I've been running my construction business it's not I park my car that has my truck that has my signs on it. Other than that there's no deliveries going there, there's no guys meeting me there. Occasionally I unload stuff and put it off my truck for overnight, that's what I'm hoping to do in this garage occasionally but that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you will use that for some storage of construction materials? I MICHAEL LIEGEY : Right now I'm using the property for storage of construction material. I have some you know instead of throwing it away I put it there and pull it out for another job but I don't have anything delivered there, I don't have material (inaudible) for other locations stored there and that's the same thing that I've been doing for twenty years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's see if Rob do you have any questions at this point or comments? MEMBER LEHNERT : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Please state your name for the record. JIM FREDRICKSON : My name is Jim Fredrickson, I live at 195 Youngs Ave. directly across from Mr. Liegey. I think my main concern that you brought up is the fact that he indicated that there'll be a forty foot wide driveway there. I've driven all over Southold and I've lived here for thirteen years now full time resident (inaudible) a forty foot driveway in a residential area anywhere within the town limits. You can find them occasionally, occasionally on the Main Rd. certainly 48 but that's a commercial area. I measured the driveway at Ace Hardware which is approximately 36 feet. I measured the driveway at several other locations even the IGA driveway isn't a contiguous 40 feet, it's less than that. I'm afraid that Mr. Liegey is somewhat disingenuous because I believe that that driveway will ultimately end up as a storage facility or parking facility for multiple vehicles. I can't remember seeing a 40 foot by 40 foot driveway anywhere that wasn't some sort of commercial business like I said that's hard to remember where there might be one. It also looks to me as if the building could move further back so that it wouldn't be quite so far forward there because what that does even though I understand what Mr. Liegey's purpose there it makes it convenient to leave that garage facility and turn up Youngs Ave. Regardless it's a 40 foot wide driveway and I find that personally objectionable. Understanding now which I didn't before that the building will be cut into the grade it may mitigate some of the other issues we had which was the size of it but you know what, understanding the lot size determines the size of the accessory building so he's entitled to a building of that size but mitigating the size by a little bit to make it in the zoned area where it would be is not an impossible solution either. We lived through Hurricane Sandy, I don't live on Mike's property but the only flooding we've had in the thirteen years that I've lived there is when Hurricane Irene flooded the road going up to Calves Neck. I don't see where that location for a forty foot wide driveway mitigates that issue. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. MICHAEL LIEGEY : Can I readjust that? MEMBER DANTES : At the end. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what, why don't we let people speak and then I'm happy to have you come back and address anything you like. Let's hear what your neighbors have to say and then definitely respond of course. Who else would like to address the Board? ANNE SURCHIN : My name is Anne Surchin I live two doors down the street diagonally across the street from Mr. Liegey. He was here years ago I think it was in 2010 and I think you November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting rejected it right out of hand there's some people here that were at that hearing. This is a new project but the neighborhood itself is a neighborhood of small houses on small lots predating zoning and people have added garages to their property, two car garages in fact. In some cases the garage is directly behind the house on Youngs Ave. or you know off to the side where right across the street from me my neighbors they have a driveway where you come in the driveway it's wide enough for one car going in for about a car length and then it opens up to what is a two car gravel entrance in front of the two car garage. So you don't see this tarmac front basically. I think the size of this garage is befitting a manor house on a small state and I scaled the (inaudible) as well as I could and you know he sunk it down about five feet which is helpful but on the other hand the ridge of the house is 21 feet above grade so try to picture that in front of you..On the other hand it might look like it's more than 21 feet above grade if the floor of the garage is sunken down you know that's significantly. I just think it is out of keeping with our neighborhood, there is no three car garage in our neighborhood anywhere so that's one issue. Another issue is that when you look at the footprint of the garage it's 1,200 sq. ft., when you look at the footprint of this house it's over 1,100 sq. ft. and on the survey you will note that well I guess it's not this one it's another one no it is this one, there's a little addition that comes you know off of it in the back oh that was they're about equal in size so you have a garage footprint that is just about equal in size to the footprint of the house itself. There's something very disproportionate about that to me. I'm happy that you know he's doing some screening and I also feel like this is a self-created hardship. I mean when you buy a property you're looking you know the restrictions at the time of purchase so he's created in a way his own hardship here in terms of the rest of the neighborhood. So primarily I think it's out of keeping with the character of our little neighborhood. The houses have they have dormer additions, they're on quarter acre half acre lots and so it's an issue of proportionality and it's a very prominent place on the street. I didn't think about the runoff by the way. That's basically what I have to say and I'm not unsympathetic to his wanting to have a garage on the property but not this garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone else? DAVID PHILLIPS : Good afternoon, thank you for letting me speak I'm David Phillips, I live at 450 Youngs Ave. which is removed from this property only by- the property of Stanley Anderson directly to the north as you see there. So Mr. Anderson's home is between mine and this and I'm sorry to meet my neighbor this way, I'd rather make friends and help you rake leaves or something but I do believe this is a disproportionately large structure for this area. I think that the two story building is out of character and requires as I read it at least two exceptions to the zoning code maybe more maybe less but one is that garages are supposed to be to the rear of a property which as Ann said that can't be done but he knew that when he bought it. Secondly is the distance from the neighbor's property I think that he doesn't November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting have the appropriate offset the way I read it. What's very interesting about that is that Mr. Anderson is a very aged and incapacitated, he can't get out of the house, he has a twenty four hour caretaker and I think it would be unconscionable to not at least go to him and ask him what he thinks. I know he would have the opportunity to send somebody here and do that but he's really not but to infringe on his property with a structure of this size and so close to his house which is going to ruin the nature of his property I think is not conscionable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just interrupt you for one quick second, I do want to just correct the record. The only variance before us is for the non-conforming location it's not in his rear yard it would have to be behind his house entirely in order to be in a conforming location which is where he's got his two sheds basically in that general area and he does have a conforming setback from Mr. Anderson's property it's 20 feet away. DAVID PHILLIPS : I misunderstood that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted you to we only have one variance and that's not being located in the rear yard. DAVID PHILLIPS : Okay thank you for correcting me but it brings me up to say that in my experience a Zoning Board anywhere should do as much as possible to honor the existing codes that were adopted with great probably forethought and deliberation. So I would ask you to honor the codes too. Just looking for faults because I oppose the construction of this great big building. I noticed that on the application number sixteen went unanswered, that is, is this in a flood plain it talked about that and that may, not be a difficulty but. So I hate to say this but I think the applicant may be disingenuous about it becoming a construction location because we've lived here one year, we're full time residents we moved here from Maryland to be near our daughter. We love Southold, we bought this location paid an awful lot of money for it, it was very hard for a house that the 1854 house on the other side of Mr. Anderson that is recorded to be one of the oldest houses in Southold. We like the character of the neighborhood and we're prevented by many restrictions from doing anything to the exterior of our house and we accepted that when we bought it. So with all the things that the other folks have said I would agree with everything they said and that you preserve the character of that little park there the parking area, the boat docks, the view, Mr. Anderson's view of that area and ask that you please deny this application. Thank you for letting me speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Come forward to the mic please. We record all of this and then we have to transcribe it so we need everybody who wants to speak to talk into the mic please. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting JIM FREDRICKSON : So our neighbor brought up our neighbor Stanley Anderson I have a letter from him which I would just like to read. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals, the granting of a variance to Michael Liegey to the property next to my house to construct an accessory garage would produce an undesirable change in the character of our neighborhood' of small lots and homes pre-dating zoning. The proposed garage, an accessory structure is huge with a first floor footprint 1,200 sq. ft. about equal to that of the first floor of the existing house certainly a detriment to my, property next door as it will overwhelm and impinge on my house. My neighborhood consists of single family homes, the proposed variance puts the garage too close to the property line in terms of setback. The proposed variance request is substantial, the 40 foot wide 30 foot deep parking pad in front of the building which stretches all the way to Youngs Ave. turns a pastoral setting into a commercial setting. It will really be a large parking lot something that doesn't exist anywhere else in the neighborhood. Mr. Liegey's difficulty is certainly self-created. He purchased this parcel after the zoning code was established and one must presume that he had actual or constructive knowledge of the limitations on the use of this lot under the zoning code in effect at the time of purchase. I don't want to look out and have to listen to the trucks, cars or machinery coming and going from his commercial business in a very residential neighborhood especially since my property is adjacent to his. 1 ask you to deny his application for the variance, sincerely Stanley Anderson. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for that. Do you want to submit that written copy for US. JIM FREDRICKSON : Do you want the signed one I have a signed one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, we'll just make sure all the Board Members get it and it'll be in the public record. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Please come forward and state your name. HARRIET ABRAHAM : My name is Harriet Abraham, my husband Ken and we live at 265 Youngs Ave. in between Ann and the Fredricksons and across the street from Michael Liegey. I just want to go on the record saying that I'm supportive what my neighbors have said here today in particular about the character of the neighborhood. In particular about that (inaudible) feels to us like a parking lot jetting out onto Youngs Ave. and all the traffic that might come as a result and the trucks that might come as a result of it and the building materials which I understand that Mr. Liegey says he's not running his business out of his house but he has to say that because it's. not zoned for him to run his business out of his house. He's keeping these things here as he said for another job so (inaudible) he already has told us that he's running his business out of that location and he has the opportunity to have November 2,2023 Regular Meeting a bigger structure which he calls a garage but we see it as a warehouse for materials or for a bigger driveway which might be seen as a parking lot. I would object to that as I said in agreement with the others. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anybody else? ROBERT MADDELINA : My name is Robert Maddelina I live at 510 Youngs. We bought the house in 1999 because the neighborhood was so attractive. I think the most important factor in this whole commotion is Town Creek park; joggers, bikers, walkers every day pass through there. I don't know of any other town park with a structure such as proposed right next to it and I think that's a big consideration. If you look at all the other parks in the town there's nothing like that adjacent to it. I walk my dog there every day and at times over the weekends Mr. Liegey has parked his trucks and trailers in the Town Creek parking lot. I have pictures of it and I call the town and I call the Park District but he has no regard, he has no regard for what he does in the neighborhood in spite of what he says. I'm speaking from experience and what I see go by every day onto and off his existing business property.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else? TERRENCE FLOOD : Hi Terrence Flood, I live at 950 Calves Neck Rd. I recent just went on the (inaudible) project up there and everybody is saying there's no three car garages, I hate to tell you but I'm one of those guys with a three car garage and it was approved by the Zoning fits in fine with the neighborhood. The other thing is, I think what they're listening to the people there's two separate issues here. One is the garage which can get built regardless if he puts it within the setback without going for a variance. The reason why we're here today is because we're discussing the setbacks so we want to stay focused and on point as to the point that we're talking about here is the setback to the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually that's not so, we're talking about the location. It is located in a front yard where the code requires it to be behind his house in a rear yard. TERRENCE FLOOD : You're also on a corner lot with the house that was built CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, yea we have two front yards MEMBER LEHNERT :That's why we're here. TERRENCE FLOOD : So the point is, either way the house (inaudible) now a couple of things that I heard were that people concerned about the aesthetics to the garage and I'm not trying to make enemies I'm just clearly citing facts of things that I've seen over the past couple of years. One, you're approximately one eighth of a mile from the IGA Supermarket. Across the 491 November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting street from IGA right behind the service station there is also a commercial building that's located on that road. So anybody who wants to come and tell me that there's no commercial businesses on Youngs Ave. that's clearly not an accurate fact when in fact there are commercial buildings. This particular garage is not being used from my understanding is going to be used commercially. As far as you're talking about flood plains, the reason why there's a difference between an X zone and AE zone it's strictly when you look at what's going to be the base flood elevations. An X zone has a higher less propensity to go and flood than an AE zone. If you look at the elevation of the house, the house is much more elevated than where the driveway is so that offsets and that's why there's an X on there. So I'm personally not opposed to it, I think if anything it's going to go and enhance the neighborhood to some degree because we'll be able to go and shelter some of the items that might be there will be able to put the cars into garages where people are not looking at it. You have the ability to go and remove one gravel driveway that's there and possibly go and enhance the area how it looks to the park. So I think the point a lot of people are missing is, is that regardless this particular structure can go and get built if so here we're talking about how big of a driveway do you want? If he has to put it behind the house now you're making it a bigger driveway. I'm just pointing out the facts. So you gotta pick which way you want it to go. I'm not particularly opposed to it, I think if anything it would enhance it. People are complaining about garages, some of the people that are sitting here complain about big garages have properties have big garages on their property so I don't think what they're saying would much (inaudible) with the size of garages that they have on their property and that includes Mr. Anderson he probably has at least MEMBER DANTES : Okay please don't personalize the TERRENCE FLOOD : I'm not personalizing it I'm just saying there are garages of that size on that street a couple of houses away from the IGA, across the street which you have a commercially zoned building (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I do want to point out again in fairness and certainly respecting what you have to say, the IGA and the Hairdresser on the other they're not zoned residential. This property is zoned residential so the various different uses are permitted in these different zones. He certainly has the right to build a garage that's an accessory to a principle dwelling. I think the question here is that you know the applicants have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood and the size of it, which is quite large I would suggest probably others that are built at a larger scale are in a conforming location rather than in a front yard on Youngs and those things all add up. I mean when the Zoning Board makes a decision right in the application those are the six standards that we have to look at and in the end it's called a balancing test. We have to actually weigh every one of those November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting standards, is it substantial in its nature. The environmental impacts, what is the character of the neighborhood all of those things are things that we have to basically it's it self-created as a hardship and in the end we have to ask ourselves is the benefit to the applicant does that outweigh any potential detriment to the community or the other way around. That's how we make decisions. It's never about the applicant, it's always about the merits of an application, we don't personalize anything here. TERRENCE FLOOD : I would agree with that. I think what you should also that being said exactly what you just said is to take into merit the other structures that are on that block as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do, we do. Thank you for your testimony, come forward please. DAVID PHILLIPS : I'm David Phillips again, and about the other garages that are large on Youngs Ave. I have one of them, it was there when I bought the house. It is as my friend Ann talked about it she lives right across the street and looks at it. We have a narrow entrance into our driveway, it goes back and the garage facing the street is a two car door garage and then it has an L-shaped it goes back sort of almost behind the house and it,does go two stories but it's not obtrusive to anybody anywhere. The property that is directly between our property and the proposed garage has a very large garage that we kind of wish were a little smaller but and it has a from the street a narrow entrance driveway, a two car garage door that's visible from the street and then you have to actually jog a little bit toward the house to get to a third garage door and it is a large garage but it's not visually inappropriate actually to anybody else in the neighborhood. I appreciate that there's a friendship here with the gentleman from Calves Neck Rd. but that's certainly a neighborhood far removed from all of us who have testified who live directly next to this property and we would be grateful if you would take our concerns into consideration when you vote. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, please come to the mic. JOANNE MADDELINA : My name is Joanne Maddelina and I live at 510 Youngs Ave. I'm a member of the Southold (inaudible) I volunteer there. One consideration I have not heard is the historic nature of this property. As Mr. Liegey said it was built in 1640 and at one time it was a (inaudible) house. That's such an important valuable piece of property to this community and it's integrity should be preserved and that's all I have to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? JOHN SKOBLICKI : Hello,John Skoblicki 560 Youngs. I object to the variance primarily based on the size of the building. I think a building can be accommodated more tastefully on the November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting property. To address the issue of Youngs Ave. which is probably a block and a half long from the IGA (inaudible) involved property. I bought my house in (inaudible). I understood that the IGA was on the corner okay. We do have a tremendous volume of truck traffic already on Youngs Ave. everything from early morning sanitation of the IGA which starts at 6 a.m. and we're all very familiar with it's our wake up call. Additionally there's become a very high volume of traffic on Mechanics as the Einstein Square accepts all its deliveries in the back and trucks have access and egress through a one lane driveway to the back of that retail property. Trucks sometimes often have problems navigating in and out but between Einstein Square and that new traffic pattern as well as the IGA traffic when deliveries come they have two bays to accept deliveries at IGA. If two trucks are in progress of delivering other trucks come and typically come down turn around in the park marina and idle until their spot opens up. We bought knowing that but I just want to say we already have plenty of traffic on Youngs and therefore my objection. I just think the scale of the building can come down significantly or recite it just so that we don't have that huge (inaudible) further commercialization of our block and a half. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, I think there's somebody on Zoom with a hand up. DENNIS EULAU : Hi this is Dennis Eulau I live at 1150 Calves Neck Rd. I do feel I agree with all the objections that have been stated here. I just think it's just too big and too close to the road. I think there's plenty of room on the property to put a residential sized garage that could be designed in a way to fit a 1640 house. That necessarily be our problem and I don't think there's any reason for a garage to be accepted in a variance in this size. It just begs the question of will it be used for construction materials which I think is again not our issue for the residents around problem. So again I won't go into all the I agree with all the objections I just think it's too big and I think a proper sized garage can be put within the variance allowed on this property attached to this house or not attached whatever is allowed. That was it, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Is there anybody else who wants to? MICHAEL LIEGEY : First off, my mistake for when the surveyor drew this garage I have no intention of making a 40 foot that whole width of the driveway. It doesn't even pay for me to do something like that, it's just because I'd have to cut a lot of dirt and move it I wouldn't want to do that okay. So that is not an issue, I mean I would only want one car lane to go in. Second thing is, a lot of talk have been said about me operating a business out of here. I have five properties in the Town of Southold, I would not buy a waterfront house to operate a construction site there. Occasionally do I have my trucks, yes I do have trucks that have my name and stickers all over it and a dump truck that I use to haul debris away. I work on my November 2,2023 Regular Meeting house and I work other houses down Town Creek. When I'm there I don't park on the private road, I don't park on Youngs Ave. I park in the town when there's no one there. That's the only times that I've been there with my trucks. So I want to clear that up. Again, I own the house next door to this house with my family, I have letters of support that it's 195 Town Creek which is the adjacent property. We've been there for almost forty years okay. Our children are living in the community, we want to keep the community nice. I would not buy a waterfront house and pay money for water view to run a construction site out of. I would operate out of any other my other properties. I have two Main Rd. properties, my address for my business is in the Main Rd. property 53840 and 50 Main Rd. is that location. That's where my office is, that's if you want to meet me that's where I'm at not in my house. So I'd like to clear that up that there's no extra there would not be one change of trucks going down there that hasn't been there for the last twenty years. Would I like to store you know a truck to work my car, yes. The other point I'd like to make, if I was twenty years younger I'm sixty two why would I go through the expense of trying to do this if I'm trying to run a business out of there? I'm going to be retiring soon but I do like to tinker on cars, I do like to do woodshop stuff and that's what I'm looking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Liegey we have drawings that you submitted for this you know three bay garage, the ridge height is 21 feet to the top and these were drawn actually I think they are the same drawings by Eileen Santora that you presented to us on March 16, 2006 that's what the date is on these drawings and they are the same drawings that you are submitting with this application. MICHAEL LIEGEY : Basically the same. As we all know I could withdraw this application and put this house right on top of my other house and not be before any Board with any CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean the garage. MICHAEL LIEGEY : The garage on top of my house I can get 15 foot I think is the breezeway distance I can attach it with a breezeway I'm trying not to deter from the historic look of the house. I'm trying to be sensitive to that but if I have to you know I would like to have a garage that's that size because I'm planning on using for woodshop stuff, I'm looking to retire soon, I'm looking to be doing those things in a garage. Right now I have no storage I can't even put Xmas lights away in my house, I have no attic no basement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we do take into consideration the fact that you have two front yards. This is not uncommon in the Town of Southold where people have very small rear yards if they are on a corner lot. We need to be open and transparent about the things the Board grapples with. November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting MICHAEL LIEGEY : The other thing I could possibly do is move the house. Again the house was put there a long time ago before they started cutting up property the way they do. I have the house located all the way to the eastern side of the property right on the eastern edge. It doesn't give me a lot of options. If I gotta move the house-or attach the garage to the house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well some of the other comments you've heard have been make it a little smaller, make it a little lower, put it into the ground, keep the driveway located off the I'm just repeating to make sure that it's clear. Are you willing, you did say you didn't mind rotating the garage, you didn't mind reducing the entry to the driveway, modifying the existing driveway instead of creating a new one off of Youngs. So those are all things that would certainly create potentially a much less intrusive proposal. I'm not telling you how big the garage should be but certainly you can rotate it. You don't have a lot coverage issue so it's not that that is too big for the size of the lot as one of your neighbors said. If you're willing to entertain making some of those changes to improve the potential impacts I'd like to suggest to perhaps we hold this open for two weeks. We have a meeting in two weeks to give you some time to think about it perhaps talk to the surveyor and see what you think you can come up with as an amended application based upon some of the things we've talked about here and come back to the Board and present it. If you don't have it by then and you're willing to make the amendments we can just adjourn it for another two weeks to the next meeting until you submit to us any alternative that you feel you're okay with that incorporates some of the thinking you've heard today. How does the Board feel about that? MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we calendar it for the next meeting so we can have another you know keep the hearing going? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can. MEMBER LEHNERT : That would probably be the easiest. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can. That would give the public a greater window of time to look at any amended things. By the way, all this stuff is on Laserfiche you know so if you want to access anything at all that's in our file. The public has the right to do that, you don't even have to come into our office anymore and fill out a FOIL you can just go to the website and if you have trouble knowing how to use Laserfiche by all means our staff is very helpful. You can call our office or they'll email you directions, they'll tell you how you can find this particular file and if Mr. Liegey puts in an amended survey, some amended drawings then you can look at them. Go ahead, did you want to ask a question? JIM FREDRICKSON : I very much appreciate your understanding of the applicant's situation and your being gracious to him and trying to accommodate him. I would ask that about this November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting particular application that it is has so many difficulties and such extensive opposition that you please go ahead and vote and to deny it or approve it but I think deny it so that he has time then he can resubmit with an entirely new plan which might be more acceptable. Amending this application which has a huge structure and moving it that is not in my mind really an amendment that's a whole new application and I'd be grateful if you would consider it that way. Although I appreciate that you're being considerate MEMBER LEHNERT : I would urge some caution cause what he can do as of right you might like even less than what he's proposing. MICHAEL LIEGEY : You're a hundred percent right, I can even make it larger. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, you can't you have to address the Board and you have to be at a microphone. JIM FREDRICKSON : That sounds like it would be kind of a spiteful non-neighborly thing to do as is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no, no; no JIM FREDRICKSON : huge accumulation of debris between his driveway and Youngs Ave. that is barely partially hidden by weeds and brush. MEMBER LEHNERT : That's not the issue in front of us right now. The issue in front of us is the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Front yard. JIM FREDRICKSON : It's indicative of whether he's being honest with you and whether he's being considerate of his neighbors in Southold. MEMBER LEHNERT : We have all visited the site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have heard all of that. What I do want to say is that it is not at all uncommon when testimony has been received and the Board has had questions to grant the applicant the right to amend a little or a lot of what their original application was. What that means is they don't have to spend a lot more money and wait another four, five months to get back on the calendar. That is why we do it, that is fair. If someone is willing to consider their neighbors and what this Board is questioning, we want to give them the opportunity to do that. By what we're talking about now is a month from now and we will if we adjourn it then you'll have all kinds it's still open. If you want to submit any more comments you have the right to do that, anybody can even if they weren't here they want to send in anything, any November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting thoughts that's allowed. If we close the hearing it's not so if we keep it open then what's being amended would be presented in December. If Mr. Liegey is not ready he has the right to say I'm not prepared yet please adjourn again and we can adjourn it to the following month so that he has whatever time he needs. To burden an applicant who is willing to cooperate with yet another series of months and another application fee is not the way this Board particularly likes to operate. We think it's punitive to a neighbor and that's the last thing we're here to we're neighbors too. I mean we don't all live very far from each other. I shop at the IGA every day, I live in Southold. So just so you understand how it works. It doesn't mean that the conversation is over, it just means we're going to be looking at something that incorporates the concerns that the neighbors and this Board has. If he's willing to do that if he said if he came and you said to my face right now I'm not doing it period this is it take it or leave it I want you to make a decision we would but that's not what I'm hearing. So we're just trying to be fair to everybody. December 7th is the next hearing date. ANN SURCHIN : I just have a procedural question, the hearing on December 7th at what point in time would we be able to view the proposed changes? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As soon as he gets it into us and he can submit it beforehand hopefully because we'd like to be able to look at it before we have another hearing. There's not a deadline, if he's not ready we'll adjourn it again or he has the right to even submit it at the time of the hearing but I'm not going to rehear this if there's no changes. So at some point he's going to have to submit them. Again it will be immediately put onto Laserfiche, we started doing that a while ago cause it's just so much easier that way. That way we can also have it up here because for years we're sitting here with the plans and the audience doesn't know what's going on and unless we put a copy out there and then ten people come running up to look at you know an elevation or something. So it's much easier because while we're talking about it we can look at it up on the screen. So that's what will happen. Anybody else questions or whatever? Anything else from the Board? Okay I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the December 7, 2023 Public Hearing date. I don't know what time it will be on yet but it'll be on our agenda and we'll see you all back then probably. Thank you for your cooperation. I'm going to ask if there's a second on that motion. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Okay we have some Resolutions here. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 9:00 am, so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on October 19, 2023 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one year extension for #7436 Alison Byers at 10075 Nassau Point Rd. in Cutchogue so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye November 2, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to rescind condition 3 of decision rendered for 7835 Kathleen Walas and Thomas Sarakastsanis. I'm going to make a change to that, that's going to be a Resolution to amend the condition to read as follows: on site drainage shall conform to Chapter 236 of the Town Storm Water Management Code. That's what I'm making a motion for, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay so we will amend that condition. I think that was it right? Motion to close the meeting, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye November 2,2023 Regular Meeting i 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 : IY Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : November 16, 2023