Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/07/2023 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 December 7, 2023 10:06 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN —(Chairperson) PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member (Vice Chair) B KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney (Zoom) ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Roland Grant, President of SQuest, Inc. #7847 3-16 Dean Company, LLC#7849 16- 18 Michael V. Liegey#7846 18- 23 Indian Neck IV, LLC#7851 23 - 31 Kevin and Kelly Brigid Gillespie#7852 31 -33 John Forni #7855 33 -37 Pablo Leon #7853 37 -40 Fishers Island School District/Ferry View LLC#7854 40-43 411 Equestrian Avenue, LLC#7856 44-47 Fishers Island Union Chapel #7857 47 -48 1000 Sound Beach Dr., LLC#7858 48- 51 December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first item on the agenda is SEAR Resolutions 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: Roland Grant, Dean Company, LLC, Indian Neck IV, LLC. Kelly and Gillespie, Forni, Leon, Fishers Island School District/Ferry View, LLC, 411 Equestrian Avenue, LLC, Fishers Island Union Chapel and 1000 Sound Beach Dr., LLC 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 HEARING#7847—ROLAND GRANT, PRESIDENT OF SQUEST, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Roland Grant, President of SQuest, Inc. #7847. This is a request for variances from Article XV Section 280-62C, Article XV, Section 280-64B and 280-64C and the Building Inspector's August 4, 2023 amended October 17, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish existing buildings and construct two public self-storage buildings (A&B) with building "A" creating an accessory apartment on the second floor and to maintain the existing 26.8 ft. by 37 ft. garage/storage building at 1) buildings 'A and B' located in the HALO Zone more than the permitted 60 linear of frontage on one street, 2) building 'A and B' less than the code required minimum variable front yard setback of 70 feet, 3) buildings 'A and B' less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 70 feet, 4) building 'A' proposing a non-permitted accessory apartment use, 5) garage/storage less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 100 feet, 6) garage/storage less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 800 Horton Lane in Southold. So we are looking at if I'm not mistaken nine December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting variances and the tenth is the required site plan approval from the Planning Board. Pat do you want to review what those variances are or do you want me to just enter the numbers into the record? PAT MOORE : You can just I mean just refer to it to the Notice it's referred into the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Building A has a rear yard setback of 51.98 feet where the code requires a minimum of 70, Building B has a rear yard setback of 51.98 feet again requiring 70 minimum. Building A has a front yard setback of 38.57 feet, required setback is 70 foot minimum, Building B has a front yard setback of 25 feet where the code requires a minimum of 70 feet. Building A is at 86 linear feet of frontage where 60 is the maximum permitted. Building C is 73 feet of frontage where again 60 is maximum permitted. Number seven, the accessory apartment in building A is not a permitted use. Number eight, the existing garage storage building has a front yard setback of 29.1 feet, the code requiring in the LI Zone 100 feet and the side yard setback is 30.1 feet, the code requires 20 foot minimum. Finally this requires site plan approval from the Planning Board. Pat did you get comments from the Planning Board? PAT MOORE : I did thank you, yes. No LWRP but it may be exempt so it's a commercial property, not on the water so. Good morning, I have Roland Grant with me today as well. This application as you know we this is a second round, the first round was completely different building. It was designed quite frankly not as good as certainly this design is exceptional I thought. When I got it back I thought it was taking into consideration the aesthetics of the area of Hortons Lane and certainly just the combination rural character and commercial; commercial on one side rural on the other character of Hortons Lane. We presented the original site plan which is before the Board to the Planning Board but this again with the elevations showing so the goal on this application was to start with Planning right off the bat. To meet with them before we designed, I met with or I spoke to Planning staff Heather and Brian and Mara might have been on the phone as well on November 15th to get an update, if there were any comments yet from Planning. They had not been written yet but we got certain recommendations which I was able to have the architect implement the recommendations immediately into a site plan that is very basic. Obviously it's not a technical site plan, it would then have to go before the Planning Board for drainage and other things but primarily to try to address some of the comments that I got verbally from Planning. Ultimately the written description incorporated some of the things but a lot more that I was not aware of and was somewhat taken back by. Nonetheless, what we I want you to look at this plan that I submitted in front of you so that is our working drawing in a sense, it does not change the variances. Ultimately what we're going to ask is that the hearing remain open so it gives us an ability to go back to Planning, tweak if we have to tweak because we ultimately if Planning says well we want you to move this by a foot or two feet or whatever we'd be having to submit an 4 December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting application to the Board. So we don't want to do that, we want to try and work in a joint fashion so that when Planning takes a look at the site and our mitigation of certain issues that they raised that we can then come back to the Board and get the variances that are needed to implement the plan that gets worked out with Planning. I'm going to deal with some specifics because in a sense it addresses the variances that we've submitted and requested of the Board. The property as you know is one acre but it's mostly road frontage. It's a somewhat narrow lot and it has a lot of road frontage on Hortons Lane. So designing the building I was it was acknowledged by Planning that if we had to meet the code we'd have a ten foot wide building essentially a mobile home length on that property. That's not at all what would be in the character of the neighborhood or economically feasible for the applicant. One of the comments that Planning gave us was we'd like to create one access point and create a green space along Horton. We were able to redesign and eliminate they said could you eliminate the garage access. We went back to the drawing board and said you know what, yes we can do that. That garage has two doors, one on the inside and one of the inside of the property one on the street front and that garage we're very hesitant to accept the Planning .Board's recommendation that you place a condition to eliminate that garage for multiple reasons. First and foremost I have to go back to Mike Verity cause day one we met with Mike and Mike said if that building is used just for maintenance like for yard maintenance, snow equipment and so on for this property it's a permitted use it has a C.O. it's pre-existing non-conforming in its location but we have no plans to use it for anything other than maintenance of this property. Nevertheless they put it on the Notice of Disapproval and I honestly don't know why, I think my guess was because Tracey was writing it and I was working you know with Tracey directly, I think they you can't dictate the use specifically even though I told them it was for maintenance in my application for a building permit this is for maintenance garage for the property it still showed up in the Notice of Disapproval. So one it may not need a variance and I'd really like if that were the case even if it does need a variance for the existing structure where it is located. It would be aesthetically clad in the same material as the buildings so it will be visually improved aesthetically improved and obviously it is what it is, it's a garage. I've pressed Roland, I said Roland do we really you know I don't want the garage to dictate you know denial of the variance because it's for whatever reason. Roland pointed out that it is going it has been and would continue to be where snow equipment is stored, where lawn mowers are stored, where the snow truck is stored for this property. It is solely for the maintenance of this property and to eliminate it there really you know yeah you have two big storage buildings that you're building but that's you're taking away from the storage which is financially how one you know maintains this property. So a storage building independent of the storage buildings excuse me a garage independent of the storage building is important. In addition, he did invest a lot of money it has solar panels and it has an EV charging station. So it has a lot of value to it and it is it really is unnecessary to remove it because one, out design has shown we've December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting eliminated a driveway, we have the architect had designed a stone wall in the front but we could it could be a fence, it could be a stone wall with a fence and probably I couldn't download the code the computers were having a problem here from Town Hall. I don't recall if LI allows a fence a front yard fence to be above four feet but certainly it could be a condition of any approval of the variance that we provide for a higher front yard fence. I don't have an answer for that I can check once the code is available on-line. We have means of hiding for the most part this property almost in its entirety. So he also planted and you can see on the property presently, when he first acquired the property he planted evergreens that are now twenty feet in height. They are in the back, it's three rows of evergreens on the side of the railroad tracks it's a double row of evergreens and the three rows, one row was for the purpose of being able to replant and move those evergreens ultimately when this property got redeveloped. So we could plant very large evergreens, we can plant privet, we could create a fence; essentially this plan has eliminated the curb cut in all but one location. This curb cut is actually off set from the neighbor's front driveway. So if ultimately we have the surveyor plot where the driveways are and where this proposed driveway is it would the goal here it not to create any kind of nuisance for the residential property across the street, it doesn't do that now. I would point out that this property has been the curb cut has probably been here for at least fifty years and I took some pictures to help guide and I have a picture I took this morning from my car so you can see that the driveway for the Niki's house I forget their names they own Hampton Heart they're lovely people. That property has probably twenty five, twenty, twenty five foot privet hedge in the front and their driveway is open and it faces the Cube Smart entryway or actually yeah it's yeah but your driveway is further down. The house that is the Grattan's home that is from the Estate of Grattan the elderly Grattans, that house I took a picture from the side there's a vacant lot on the corner then the house that house has huge probably a hundred year old evergreens surrounding the whole house. It's completely enclosed with vegetation. Ultimately that house might be renovated and improved but right now it has it probably cannot see the street. I would also point out that Hortons is a throughway between the Main Rd. and the North Rd. It is a traffic light up at the North Rd. that is where a lot of truck traffic occurs, that's where a lot of vehicle traffic occurs, this storage facility is most likely like the other storage facility warehouse facilities open at eight in the morning and closes by five at night. So this is a very low impact vehicle use, so as far as the vehicle traffic out of the driveway I can't imagine it being more than what is the ambient traveled roadway of Horton for all forms of vehicle traffic. One of the other comment that I got on November 13th was to we had the handicap access parking space facing an opposite direction so we changed that. We changed a loading area in the back of the building A so that Planning said do you really need as many parking spaces as you've shown? We showed what would be code compliant and we said no we don't think we need it so it was reduced down to thirteen spaces so there is a lot of green space. The original submission exceeded the amount December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting of landscaping and open space that is required under the code. We have increased it even more so by elimination of all of the curb cuts that were originally proposed here. There were three that were two that are existing and one additional, that was all eliminated with only one central curb cut in. All the comments that I got on November 13th verbally seemed very reasonable, we were able to implement all of them and as far as rotating the building A in order to accommodate the loading area we didn't think we needed to do that and we didn't need to do that. Again, when we go back to Planning if they say well could you even though we've created all this green space in the front and we you know we have evergreens and so on they want us to tweak it and move it back a little bit that building A not building B has the parking in the back unless we flip it and make the parking behind building A. So there's a lot of options here, it's just a matter of tweaking. As far as creating additional setbacks off of Travelers St. again it didn't make much sense to me because it seemed like they hadn't seen what's there today and the photographs again I took this morning from my car. The first photograph is from Travelers St. looking at the client's property, so Travelers you have a berm with trees that MTA has the right of way, then you have the railroad tracks that kind of indents and then you have my client's property which is again elevated up to about the level of the berm with a double row of evergreens that are not going anywhere. They've been planted to be permanently there for any development of this property. The first picture that I gave you is what you see from Travelers St., Travelers St. has as you know the corner is Academy Printing they sent us a letter in support that we emailed to you very kindly the Hagermans sent that. There is the open area that the town acquired and eventually might be a Town Hall and as you know Town Hall doesn't have to follow any zoning regulations or parking or site plan and you could pretty much build anything that they want on that property. Realistically when you're coming when you're on Travelers the MTA, the green space all of that area when we every time you drive and you kind of think about it for yourself if you ever drive that way you're concentrating on the south side of the road cause that's where the pedestrians are, that's where the cars are, that's where the activity is you better not be concentrating on the MTA and this property because otherwise you're going to hit somebody. Another picture that I took is showing the corner the MTA corner which again is a busy corner and you can see that the client's property and the MTA right of way has those the little trees and so that is additional green space that is not our client's property that's where the property indents somewhat by a few feet. That is part of the MTA right of way or land I think and they just continue their berm and their trees as part of that area. The other comment that regarding the garage that Planning made was, oh the garage is too close to the property line, we can't put vegetation of we can't create a buffer. I took a picture the Fast picture is the picture of the brick commercial complex next door with Cube Smart it's all one property I believe they have no they have grass. We have the ability to put in a fence, we have the ability to Out evergreens, evergreens will clearly in thirty years will go over the property line but the building is set back and it's all grass. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting So they're imposing a requirement on us that the adjacent commercial property never had to apply or never had to implement. It was different codes but the site plan review process was undertaken for that project as well. There is plenty of room to keep the garage and keep it viable for the use of this property. Again I really would prefer to site plan the property and make aesthetically pleasing and hide it but not lose it since it is a valuable structure. Let me see if there's any other comments that Planning certainly you canask me if you see anything that Planning came back with that you want me to address. The variances are needed because the property is as it is and we've tried to be very sensitive to this development and make it the best development possible which will require these variances. Do you have any particular questions regarding Planning's recommendations? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not regarding Planning but I want to know I know it's commercial property which is very different in terms of bathrooms and sanitary flow gallons per day and all of that, you have a lot of bathrooms proposed. Not only is there a full bathroom in the apartment that's proposed but there are several others in both buildings. Is that all necessary, is that PAT MOORE : I don't know that we've I mean the inside is kind of Rolands' ROLAND GRANT : I'm Roland Grant the owner of the Hortons land property. I believe the architect was looking at the code and thought that as a building as a commercial building you needed to have a bathroom each one of them for people to use if they came into the building and were storing their items that they had access to some kind of bathroom facility. I think they're all half baths they're not a full bath in each building. The apartment is the accessory apartment above for the person who is going to run the complex that we have a full bath. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a totally different kind of(inaudible) PAT MOORE : I'm seeing in the building there's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just wondering about the septic but it would have to be approved by the Suffolk County Health Department anyway. PAT MOORE : Exactly right and I was speaking to the architect today we haven't done the analysis on sanitary. However this property does have increased sanitary flow grandfathered flows based on the C.O.'s that are present so it gives some leeway with respect to the flow criteria and it will be based on square footage and the use. This is going to be a dry use so to that extent the flow is you know it's storage space it's not occupied space. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What kind of storage, what's being proposed? Usually we're familiar with the residential storage units with individual you know kind of locker areas and this is clearly open storage, what is being proposed to be stored there? PAT MOORE : Well unfortunately as I said in my written presentation we can't pin down a particular tenant because they would be waiting as long as it takes to get through this process. The code allows different types.of warehousing. We had I think a winery that was interested, others that had storage you know they just they're in the business of having storage buildings so when a business is looking for a`place to store there's just a lack of storage space throughout the town. I don't know I mean it's too premature ROLAND GRANT_ : The building was designed so it would be flexible for a tenant that came in and needed either store material or store retail items that were dry something they could leave there for a period of time and then distribute to their stores let's say where they would have a retail outlet. It was designed strictly for storage that's all. PAT MOORE : I think that probably the most viable just from the farming community that I know that I've spoken to and I mean you have brokers that know I mean you know what is out there and what is potential tenants are out there looking for. I know I've spoken in the past to wineries, I've spoken to farmers that need storage space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Pat to that point, is it'each building, each floor is in theory will be dedicated to a single tenant or PAT MOORE : We don't know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : have ten tenants? PAT MOORE : Honestly we don't know what to a certain extent the Building Department will rule on that because I think that they MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Doesn't it impact the parking? PAT MOORE : Well no because you have there's nobody staying there. A truck will load and unload and take their stuff out so I mean it could be a private individual that has car collection you know there are some of those. I know somebody who is trying to sell a building of that magnitude and she was asking too much money so I think it hasn't gone anywhere but it was privately used as a car collection. So there's all kinds I mean I'm not in that business so I don't know what you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the intent to sell this property to somebody else who will manage and own this storage business or will you be? December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting ROLAND GRANT : There's an option there but I plan to develop it myself and in fact live on the property there to make sure that it's maintained and taken care of. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're'plan is to move into the apartment? ROLAND GRANT : Yes that's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you will be the owner/manager of the business? ROLAND GRANT : Yes that's correct. If you look at Cube Smart that is next door, I talk to them every day, they have about ten or fifteen cars that come in for about fifteen, twenty minutes each day that's the extent of the travel. They have probably twice the size of my property and their lockers go from six foot by ten foot to a garage size. So the traffic flow I think in most of these storage areas is extremely (inaudible). PAT MOORE : Cube Smart now I know is leasing space for RV's and other large things that you know in a residential area people can't comfortably store so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So both of these buildings are obviously conditioned space? PAT MOORE : Well it will have to be yeah it will I mean just for any kind of storage you need CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just asking, and did I hear you say correctly that you assume the operating hours are going to be maybe like 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or more? PAT MOORE : I'm assuming for a standard I don't want to place extreme restrictions on it because we don't know who the tenant is but I don't know if any business out here I mean we kind of close we shut our doors and turn off the lights and there's no activity other than a restaurant beyond normal work hours so. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat to the building we're talking about the use, there's a full basement there's no outside access there's just the elevator and stairwell, is that also proposed leased storage space? I know in the earlier plan there was an application to have garage excuse me car storage. This elevator obviously wouldn't accommodate that but ROLAND GRANT : Not for a vehicle but it's large enough it's commercial elevator large enough to take two or three pallets. PAT MOORE : So yea I guess the answer is yes the basement would also be available. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leased storage. PAT MOORE : Again through the elevator. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just have two questions to clarify, I'm a little confused, as far as the open space in either building A or building B, how will you segregate and keep people's stuff secure? Like if you say a retail business like a winery are they going to store boxes and boxes of wine how will it be separated so that it's not going to be taken or something? Am I missing something here that's going to work? ROLAND GRANT : I would imagine that for those areas they would take the entire space or divide it with some kind of caging or fencing, that's normally how it's done. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Okay and then the second question I had was about the hours because I mean during the summer landscapers are from dawn to dusk and so those during the spring, fall and summer those hours seem that they're not going to be consistent with anybody who is a contractor who is doing any type of landscaping or building businesses. PAT MOORE : I'm glad you asked that question, I think that what we were trying to address is the nuisance lighting that might occur from vehicles so wintertime you have mostly normal you know dusk to dawn hours. Yes if it was a contractor that was leasing the space you might have dusk to dawn that would be closer to eight, nine o'clock as far as a landscaper goes. I don't know whether this really lends itself to a landscaper, it's quite a large space. T. A. MCGIVNEY : But they have multiple vehicles that's why I was just thinking about that as far as the hours are concerned. PAT MOORE : Yea you know these are use questions that it really is very use specific to that particular tenant so I don't know how to answer that one because we don't know. I think economically the use of the space maybe more what type of tenant leases because a small contractor generally is allowed to work from home, he usually runs his business from home and probably the only ones that I see presently are like electrical contractors that have a lot of trucks those are some of the larger companies are buying buildings or leasing large buildings for their multiple vehicles but it depends again on the type of contractor. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Okay thanks. PAT MOORE : I mean we have the zoning code that dictates what we can't and can do and to a certain extent the Planning Board may dictate if we have a tenant that wasn't anticipated through the site plan process, they might ask us to come back and address certain issues through the site plan review because that to me seems to be the more site specific, use specific. Once the buildings are there now we have to work around who the best tenant will be for that building. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Okay thank you. xx December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANANMENTO : Pat to that point and I kind of sense that you will not or the applicant doesn't even have the answer to this but we were talking about Cube Smart, outdoor storage of boats or RV's or trailers and what not, are there any proposed outdoor storage uses? PAT MOORE : That's why the building is what it is to be it all to have it inside. There's really no place to store. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's why I was going to comment cause the original proposal that we were reviewing showed twenty three parking spaces and the new one is reduced down to thirteen. So if you have that electrician with five vans then there's no parking. PAT MOORE : They'd be parked inside. I mean that's not a bad option if you have valuable trucks having parking. No we don't anticipate but again that would be the site plan review process that if Planning because we do have room for additional parking spaces but Planning said, do you really need it? Based on what we anticipate here which would be dry storage with not a lot of vehicle use we don't really think that there's a need for parking which is more of a park and go in scenario rather than park and to operate from here. If it turns out that we end up with let's say by example, you have some big corporate plumbing operations that are buying up all the little guys by example and they need a facility. They would be the type of larger umbrella, plumbing supply that would want to use such a large space and then you know again Planning we could dictate how many vehicles we can't exceed the number of vehicles parking spaces that are there without going back to Planning. That's when we might increase the number of spaces that are in the back. We have plenty of room for them but we don't I think we all -would prefer green space than parking. I mean remember we are contiguous to Cube Smart and that's all black top the entire area is black top. You won't see the back of these buildings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think maybe unless the Board has any immediate questions I want to see if there's anyone in the audience who MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I could just ask one other question. So Pat one other question, based upon the new site plan that you presented it illustrates a loading dock. PAT MOORE : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Does that loading dock run like seven eights of the length of that building? I'm not sure what I'm,looking at, a recessed area like a trailer would somehow back up along the rear of the building to the loading platform? .z December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yea the architect actually he and I were talking today cause I said do we have flexibility in moving the building back towards the back because of the loading area and that would take some effort on the design and so on. What he described to me as you see how you have the parking spaces along the back you would have a truck come in the entrance, turn to the right and back in to what is one is an upper loading area the other one is a lower loading area. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So when you say loading bay that's the one that would have the ramp that's graded into the earth so that the tail of the truck would be able to access the loading platform? ROLAND GRANT: I think that's how we designed it. PAT MOORE : Yea you have to put it on the record cause one is called the loading platform and the other one is called a loading dock right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One is a loading bay and the other is the loading dock. I'm assuming the loading platform is fixed on the building. ROLAND GRANT:Yes,so the loading bay comes down and you're able to access PAT MOORE : Oh the driveway is the loading bay. ROLAND GRANT : Yea, able to access I believe the basement side and then a loading dock is the first floor able to load onto that directly that platform. PAT MOORE :So there is a ramp in the basement so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just to clarify it's not a loading bay it's a ramp and you said it leads to the basement? PAT MOORE : Yes so the basement will have access yes but I don't think either one of us remembered that. ROLAND GRANT:Yes I believe that's the way he designed it like that for that purpose and we took that away from the front of the building and then covered that with you know with evergreens PAT MOORE :A fence MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then the second part of the question is, your current rear yard setback for both buildings A and B is 51.98 feet but if you're extending the building with this loading platform your setback is changing. PAT MOORE No the loading bay is not a structure and the loading dock is not a structure so the MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The loading platform is the structure. PAT MOORE : The platform is like on grade isn't it it's like a so it's not typically a platform cement platform is not a setback I don't know. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay so maybe this is where I'm mistaken, I thought the loading platform for a lack of a better description is like a deck off the rear of the building that the truck can actually back up to so they can access the bay. It's equivalent of a handicap ramp I think typically it's like it's either going down or it's going slightly up. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's usually set at the level of the truck so they can walk right off. PAT MOORE : Maybe it depends on the level that you're entering so it's not generally a structure it's a part of the driveway. MEMBER LEHNERT :Yea it's usually treated as a set of stairs. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know it's just a thought. PAT MOORE : No, no thank you because if it's considered a setback then-obviously we need a variance. MEMBER LEHNERT :The code usually treats them as stairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that yea they're treated like landings. PAT MOORE : Landing yea thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Usually it's a certain amount of square footage isn't it? PAT MOORE : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Residential it is. MEMBER LEHNERT: Commercial it's usually treated like stairs or.landing. PAT MOORE : Right as part of the driveway. MEMBER LEHNERT: Driveway it's not habitable space it's a loading dock a raised platform. PAT MOORE : Like a handicap ramp. MEMBER LEHNERT: It's treated the same way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd like to open this up to anybody in the audience who wants to address the application. PAT MOORE :They're all here for other hearings so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's a complicated application so we don't want to give anybody short (inaudible) I'd rather is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay no hands and nobody else out there, you're all waiting for somebody else okay. MEMBER DANTES :We should comment on we did get one letter of opposition. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Oh I didn't get it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We did get a letter of opposition from a neighbor. PAT MOORE : Do we know where that neighbor is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know where it is? PAT MOORE : No I never got that letter so I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We just go it so we can give you a copy of it if you'd like. PAT MOORE :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anybody else at this point have any questions? You wanted us to adjourn without a date? PAT MOORE :Yea why don't we,we can put a month or I want to save a spot if possible because I don't want to prolong this in Planning too long, I'd like to get it back on a discussion calendar in Planning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think they're going to move that fast. PAT MOORE : We hope they do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we just let's try for February,we'll put it on for February. PAT MOORE :That sounds and if you need to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And if we need to adjourn it again we will but you know that takes up a space that some other applicant could have so I don't PAT MOORE :That's what I'm hoping. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :want to do this too capriciously. PAT MOORE : Keep our foot in the door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the February 1, 2024 Public Hearing. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER ACAMPORA: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye PAT MOORE : If there are any other documents that you need from us know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay HEARING#7849—DEAN COMPANY, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Dean Company, LLC #7849. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 21, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a front porch and legalize an "as built" rear deck attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) proposed construction less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) "as built" deck less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 180 Teepee Trail in Southold. Good morning would you state your name for the record please. RICHARD DEAN : My name is Richard Dean. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The proposal is to construct a front porch and legalize a deck right? RICHARD DEAN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The porch will have a front yard setback of 34 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet. RICHARD DEAN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A rear deck attached to the house has a setback rear yard setback of 32.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet. RICHARD DEAN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This porch is proposed at just about 72 sq. ft. and the lot is very irregular let's have a look. You don't really have an adjacent neighbor. RICHARD DEAN : That was one of my points, yea. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do make site inspections of every property before a hearing, all the Board Members do and you have there's a sort of large evergreen screening in the front yard and I don't really see any visual or physical impact of the deck or the porch. You have a very large vegetated buffer in place and the ground is pretty flat, views from the deck are open.The spans to the water is'very private over there, you're going to need Trustees approval for this are you not, because of the setback from a waterbody?You're on the water. RICHARD DEAN : I don't think so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No? MEMBER LEHNERT : He's not on the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that's my notes no you're not, no you don't. MEMBER LEHNERT :The neighbor is but not him. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) cause they've got that cantilevered second floor over the entry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's pretty benign. Pat do you have any questions on this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions on this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No comment MEMBER LEHNERT : No comments it's pretty benign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? 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 December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. You don't have to be there, there's no testimony taken we're just discussing draft decisions. We'll have them prepared, you can listen in on Zoom if you want to or you can attend. It's over in the Annex building at 5 o'clock for the public or you can just call the office. You'll get the decision mailed to you in any case. RICHARD DEAN : So I don't have to justify anything? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it did it itself unless you want to. I mean if you've spent all this time to make your case and argue it so if you want to do that you can feel free to do it or did I miss anything. RICHARD DEAN : Well no and you're probably very familiar with this but if the lot I have a 21,000 sq. ft. lot, if it was less than 20,000 sq. ft. even more non-conforming I wouldn't even need any variances because the setbacks are only 35 feet at the front and rear yard versus 50 in the rear and 40 in the front so that seems to me like a really (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : on the edge as it were. RICHARD DEAN : Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a good point. RICHARD DEAN : That was really it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I think we closed it but that's okay, Liz make sure you put that in the transcript anyway. Alright thank you, thanks for your time. HEARING #7846— MICHAEL V. LIEGEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are now hearing an application that was adjourned from November 2"d, 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 since we asked you to consider making some changes the last time we met. We have received an amended site plan. So the garage now is December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MICHAEL LIEGEY : Orientated towards Town Creek. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and there's the existing driveway that's been extended back somewhat. So you will be building and you now have a 40 foot front yard setback with evergreen screening along Town Creek Lane or Youngs Ave. MEMBER DANTES : I believe the 40 foot setback meets the code required principle structures 40 foot setback right? MICHAEL LIEGEY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it does. MICHAEL LIEGEY : So basically if I just move the house up to 40 feet MEMBER LEHNERT : You wouldn't be here. MICHAEL LIEGEY : I wouldn't be here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and you know have from the adjacent residential property a 20 foot 5 inch setback and 20 feet on the other side and that's all screened already with evergreens. Let me think what else we want to talk about MEMBER LEHNERT : You're using the existing curb cuts, meet all the primary setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing too is that, that part of the property is a little bit higher isn't it so you're going to be digging into the ground and that's going to lower the ridge substantially. MICHAEL LIEGEY : Correct so I'm going to try and make it pretty close to what a foundation in a house would be. MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) MICHAEL LIEGEY : I'm trying to not have the structure that's crazy next to a 1650 house that's what I'm trying to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I don't have any further questions but anybody else on the Board have any comments or questions? MEMBER DANTES : Yea, I just have one it's really not related to the variance but I know the house has a substantial history, have you ever thought about land marking it or to be in the land marking it? December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MICHAEL LIEGEY : Then I at this point it handcuffs me a little bit but yea at this hearing my other options are to move the house. MEMBER DANTES : I see what you're saying. MICHAEL LIEGEY :Then I wouldn't be here at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if there's someone in the audience who wants to address the application. Please take the microphone and state your name. DAVID PHILLIPS : Good morning I'm David Phillips and I live at 450 Youngs Ave. and just up the street from this. I can't tell from this presentation this morning if this garage is still the gargantuan three bay building that we saw when we were in November. Is it a smaller structure because much of the opposition that many of my neighbors expressed was the lack of proportionality in its size that was one thing. So is this a very large three bay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it's the same size it's 30 by 40. MEMBER DANTES : It's the same size but it's set back further and it's lower into the ground so it should be lower than the original proposal. DAVID PHILLIPS : Lower than the original proposal we saw before. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's going to be built into the hill so the mass will look a lot smaller. DAVID PHILLIPS : Okay thank you, so shortly after that last hearing I went to the property and remembering that the applicant had repeatedly said this is for his retirement projects of woodworking and auto mechanics saying that he did not intend to run a business out of that but the four photos I have with me that I can either show to you or briefly explain to you belie those statements in that are huge amounts of debris, construction material, water heaters, upturned unused plastic trash bins, a dilapidated fence. There's an approximately a four foot by four foot by foot tile of cobble stones stacked up. There are a couple of water heaters,there are traffic cones thrown in the debris. The fence to the property is not maintained its dilapidated and repeatedly there are two and three trucks parked in the parking lot. So I would ask that you be realistic about what the applicant has explained has professed to be his use in the future when it is not the future that he is showing us now. If the place is poorly maintained and there's an incredible amount of debris and construction materials. MEMBER DANTES : We're approving a building with a code permitted use, we're not approving non-code permitted uses. DAVID PHILLIPS : My argument I'm sorry I can't hear you at all. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : If your point is that he's going to use the property improperly then that would be a Code Enforcement issue cause I mean if he uses it per code then that's permitted but if it's a non-permitted use then Code Enforcement would be entitled to write a citation. You're saying he's going to use the building improperly, that's not really an issue before the Board. DAVID PHILLIPS : Well I'm just asking that you be aware that he has repeatedly in the last testimony in November there were a number of people who responsible members of the neighborhood and community who I use the word applied to his testimony as disingenuous. That word means it's not believable and that's what I think is the case here that this gentleman is very combative and he's ignored all sense of propriety in the use of the property to this point judging from the pictures which I can show you or you can drive by. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've seen the property a number of times. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea I mean neighbor disputes really aren't our purview. MEMBER DANTES : We view it based on standards, based on what his code conforming options are, what else in the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood, what the environmental impacts are and those are the three main criteria. We don't judge it by maybe he'll do something illegal in the future,that's not really our purview. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's the point, the Board of Appeals has six state statutes that we actually have to look at in granting an approval or denying something and we always have to stick with the merits of the application itself and nothing about the applicant. We cannot legally personalize any sort of decision and that's fair. I mean you know you like somebody you don't like somebody what does that have to do with the fact that there's a setback here. You either look at it in terms of what the law requires us to do or it would be very unjust. I do have a question for Mr. Liegey though, there's a shed right in the corner there that does not meet the setback requirements, are you planning MICHAEL LIEGEY : First off I want to address one thing, this person moved in this neighborhood less than a year ago and is basically calling me a liar okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir, sir please, you just heard MICHAEL LIEGEY : aside from that if he doesn't have enough brains to understand he's complaining about cobble stones, cobble stones are there for a driveway that I want to build. I get stuff, material that I'm going to use on that property. I'm in the construction that's what's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you two are not excuse me, excuse me Mr. Leigey ZI December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MICHAEL LIEGEY : so welcome to the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to address the a Board not your neighbor, we are not going to go that route okay. We're going to talk about MICHAEL LIEGEY :They already laid the groundwork for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are not paying attention to personal issues okay. We're paying attention to the setbacks MICHAEL LIEGEY : I don't like somebody who doesn't know me call me a liar. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sure you don't but that's something you can discuss with him in any way you wish outside of this courtroom, not here. So I'd like you to address the shed. MICHAEL LIEGEY : It will be I have plans to take down all those sheds. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So both those two sheds will be removed. MICHAEL LIEGEY : Will be removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MICHAEL LIEGEY : I don't want them I just need storage. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Exactly what you were saying Leslie, this hearing should be closed at this point. If it's a dispute between the neighbors it's not relevant to address that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MICHAEL LIEGEY : Can I make one other point? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's relevant to the variance. MICHAEL LIEGEY : I want to clean up the yard, I want this I don't want to have basically a waterfront property with crap all over it but I have no place to put it. I use this stuff for the construction, a lot of the stuff is sitting there waiting for me to start building. One way or the other that's happening, it's just the location of this garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I get it point taken. Anything from the audience, anything else? MEMBER LEHNERT : Just one more thing about work trucks, he's allowed to have a work truck on the property as per code everyone is. Contractors run businesses out of their houses. They're allowed a commercial vehicle. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting DAVID PHILLIPS : So again will ask that you before you approve this application you consider the obsessive size of this property of this building for this area and that MEMBER LEHNERT : The size is not before us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The size is conforming, on his size lot that size accessory building is permitted. If he didn't need variances for the location he would just have a building permit and he's be doing it. If the law allows it we don't have an alternative we're here to uphold the law and grant relief when the law is unreasonable. Thank you for your comments. DAVID PHILLIPS : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7851—INDIAN NECK IV, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Indian Neck IV, LLC #7851. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's September 8, 2023 amended September 21, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize "as built" demolition as per Town Code definition and reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 60 feet located at 3375 Indian Neck Lane in Peconic. I have a question here because it says the reconstruction single family dwelling has a front yard setback of 11.3 feet where the code requires 60 but your application says 15 feet, a 15 foot front yard setback. MEMBER LEHNERT : Fifteen from the face of the building into the front stoop that's what his latest December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : 10.3 from the front stoop, portico. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 10.3 ANTHONY PORTILLO : The corner of the building is 15 feet from the front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The corner of the building. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The corner of the building but we took it from the portico. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know the building is going to quote the shortest distance not the longest. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The portico is a roofed structure so. So I just want to start by saying that there was a permit granted for the construction so there was a Stop Work Order issued but I just want to make it clear that there was a permit it wasn't being worked on without a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why was a Stop Work Order issued? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's what I'm going to get into, when we the building probably dates 1880's we're not really sure but just from the construction I gave you guys some photos there, basically you can tell from the type of lumber and then the connections that it was pre nineteen hundreds because you know early nineteen hundreds you'll get into less notching of the timbers and more nails. In my opinion it's probably 1870's, 1880's. So the original applicant or architect abandoned the project per say, they could not get a hold of them and they approached me to help out and the builder got into the construction and was kind of following the plans and basically started seeing that there were a lot of problems with the structure. We started doing some more removal of sheetrock or plaster and basically started exposing that the structure needed to be enforced or basically sistered and you can see that's what we did and that was the main reason for opening all the cavities. So I think in conjunction to that it allows us to rewire and kind of make sure the building is safe and also insulate. That was happening while we were sort of working on the amended drawings and once the framing was completed and the drawings were submitted to the Building Department at that time the framing inspection happened and basically John deemed it the Building Inspector deemed it basically a reconstruction. In my opinion I didn't think the reconstruction I didn't think it was going to be a reconstruction cause we didn't really add we didn't add anything to the building. The footprint is the same, the structure is the same, it really was more of a gut job and some rearrangement of spaces. We did leave some of the interior walls and we did not remove like the floor structure or ceiling structure, the roof rafter they're all the original lumber. This is basically a non-conforming existing building that pre-dated zoning. I think that if you look at December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting the map I provided there are other homes in this area that are pretty.common to being that close to the front yard, I was showing you guys three different examples. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You just mentioned that what you're handing out is three examples, are those properties that also have Board relief or are they just homes? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I didn't find I think they're just older homes that pre-dated zoning. We did run FOILS on those and that's where those numbers actually come from the surveys that are front yard setback. This is also a corner lot, I mean I'm not suggesting that the other side of Indian Neck Rd. is the primary but I just wanted to say that that secondary front yard is 373 feet you know in that direction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a letter of support. ANTHONY PORTILLO : You have a letter of support? I believe the Board has received it, I have a copy of it as well. It's basically saying that we're in the characters of the neighborhood. So again just to repeat myself, we didn't change the footprint, we didn't change the structure,'it's basically a gut rehab in my opinion and it turned into a reconstruction after our submission of the amended drawings. The other thing I want to note is the owners are putting in an IA system so we are complying I guess with a reconstruction on the Health Department side as well. It was intended anyway because of the system that was there just wasn't meant for the capacity of the building. Do you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure that the note is correctly says 11.3 foot setback. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sorry about that, I think we used the corner of the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why you have a hearing, we clear these things up. Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Excuse me Leslie, do you have the latest amended Notice of Disapproval dated September 211t that one does say 11.3 feet. We also have a hand up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I do but Anthony's application filled out application said 15 feet. Okay let them in and see what they have to say. BARBARA COHEN : Hi my name is Barbara Cohen, I'm a resident at 3100 Indian Neck Lane opposite the site. I have several questions and a couple of concerns.'One was that as of December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting Tuesday there was no sign posted as far as the hearing was concerned. I don't know when the Board visited the site if it existed or not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was a sign out there. MEMBER ACAMPORA : On the corner not in the front of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was not smack in front of the house. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I had to post two signs on each street. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think there's some construction and material on the side by the driveway access. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Something might have been blocking it Barbara it was there. BARBARA COHEN : Okay I just you know process details. So I'm only purview to what's downloaded from the Laser Fiche and in the application on page seventeen of the pdf there was no this was the what should be four pages regarding the owner corporation the LLC description and Exhibit A which would have been page four is missing which relates to what the membership is of the LLC which also then brings me to the fact that this as the plans say it's the Indian Neck Farm guest house that its really part of a much larger commercial operation that involves the adjacent site which is the Indian Neck Farm which I think the last time it was before the Planning Board had to do with the horse farm and allowing groom quarters. Since then with the new ownership it is being advertised and you can go on their website we can share the screen too as a wellness retreat, fitness, accommodations, I know there's a sort of glamping. So obviously I'm sure you noticed the golf course that exists on this subject property that it's all part of the larger you know plan here and I wondered the golf course situation, does that fall under the Section 280 B(7) which has to do with membership clubs because this and even the owner has said that the golf course was not "a public golf course" but it was for the owners and their guests. If you go to the website it's all password protected so it's obviously a membership you know requirement and ultimately really a commercial operations with all these sites. The other thing is that since the variance goes to the property itself I wondered why the survey you know didn't show the golf course. I know in the architect's summary page which is really just an update of the official survey shows the new "barn" which I know has a permit but it's not clear what the use is, it's certainly not a storage barn and I don't know if the Board got access to look at that but shouldn't we be talking about all the pieces of what's on this subject site and yes give recognition of that it's really part of a much grander commercial plan. The other concerns of course is that Ernest Scalamandre passed away recently and his you know this is one of four major properties in the area totally almost a hundred and thirty acres and also concerned with the potential selling off December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting of everything now that he's passed and how all of the next guy that comes right. So that's you know those are sort of my concerns in terms of one that golf course why wasn't it before the Board right, why isn't it not even part of you know what's on this property and the confirmation of obviously the other accessory building you know to put it in context. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments and questions. Anthony do you want to address any of those things? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, so it's not a golf course it's three putting greens. We did go to D.E.C., we did a SWIFT because we disturbed more than an acre of land and that was approved and that was all that was required for us to put the three putting greens on the property. MEMBER LEHNERT : Glorified landscaping. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Exactly, it's green space it's actually a good thing I think cause they're not building more and there's no plan to build more obviously there, using it as green space. The barn is approved storage but applicant understands what he's allowed to do there and what is allowed to be used for and that's their intent. That actually has had final inspections and all that so I don't think we have the C.O. yet but we will. Again I mean not that I think it matters but just to touch on this the property across the street is owned by both people or whoever the LLC but it's a separate property and the intent is to finish this house even with Ernest being deceased now. So that's why we're here, we want to finish the house. That's basically it, I don't think the other property has anything to do with the fifteen acre property that we're talking about. This before any I'm maybe Ms. Cohen has something else Ito say but I just want also to mention I forgot to mention that I've been in conversations with Mike Verity, the vapor barrier that's on the building currently has been exposed to the weather for a while and we been sending letters back and forth so Mike called me a couple of days ago I think Monday and said, look you're going to the Board on Thursday I'm okay with you guys putting the siding up see if the Board is okay with it. The owner understands it's at their risk that if you guys decide that you're not going to grant the variance that they would have to do what they have to do but you know it's getting colder and if we're going to be waiting till like the end of December for a decision I would just ask if the Board is okay with it. Mike is the one that asked to ask the Board so just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we have any authority over it to tell you the truth. MEMBER DANTES : We'll give you a decision in two weeks. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I appreciate that. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no we'll let you know we meet in two weeks we don't delay these unless they're extremely complicated. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I've just been trying to (inaudible) to put the siding on at least we're not allowed to work inside but at least cover the membrane that's getting exposure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. MEMBER LEHNERT : This is pretty benign and in the scale of things I mean if you were 60 feet back you wouldn't be here. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Exactly, I personally think you know in my opinion they're doing the right thing, they're keeping a historic building they're not trying to change it. It actually I think it's almost a landmark there on the corner. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The character of the road, absolutely going down Indian Neck. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Like if they said oh we're going to demolish it and build a new building MEMBER LEHNERT :The wood you exposed is gorgeous. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're going to keep the ceiling beams, I mean the idea is to preserve the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The (inaudible) is just a little more contemporary I think than the character of the structure. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We might be running a little more modern but you know listen I think it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's your aesthetic choice it is not a landmarked building. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Rob's saying they're going to go to cedar shake. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh so you're changing from the application plans to do a more traditional exterior? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think it's cedar shake now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It looks like a historic cottage I think in cedar shake. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The scale would be better. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Listen I think adding a little modern twist to some of these older buildings looks (inaudible). I did it in Cutchogue and it came out really nice. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Anthony just responding to Barbara Cohen's sort of statement, I wasn't really familiar with the website and everything and what's going on in the big picture within the ownership and everything, will this property be lived in by a farm worker, is it a guest house, will it be rented? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll tell you what my understanding is but maybe Rob might want to speak to that a little bit more, but my understanding is that it's probably more going to be for guests but also could be used when needed for farm you know farmers need a place you know cause the business gets busier in the summer and sometimes they bring in more people. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the house ultimately needs a rental permit for a minimum of two weeks. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea that would be correct. I would be though it's not like used to rent to the public, that's not the intent. The intent is it would be like a guest staying there or maybe the farm workers on the busier seasons but I mean Rob I don't know if you want to ROB DICKERSON : Rob Dickerson I'm here as owner representation. The goal is a little unclear at the moment because as was mentioned the owner did pass recently but essentially there's no plan to rent it to the public for any fee it's just another housing for the property for the owner's relatives, guests that would come someone that would want to come and enjoy the property with the golfing aspect of it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just trying to understand I never looked at the website before I wasn't aware that that existed but it indicates that there's a hospitality business on site. It looks like there's a fee. ROB DICKERSON : Potentially it was something they were working on and that may very well go away at this point. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's a free guest space. ROB DICKERSON : They were looking to have members of the property or investors of the property that all sort of owned it together but again that was sort of in the works it was something we were working on with the owner and I don't know how that's going to change at this point. Essentially we're really just trying to renovate an existing house and keep it from dilapidating any further since it's been sitting there at this point and moving forward if a rental permit was needed we would certainly do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't theorize about you know what will or won't happen, it's an old historic house and it's being renovated and it's a setback issue. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting ROB DICKERSON : For now that's all we're looking to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there's a proposal to do something that is not conforming to the code, Code Enforcement is going to shut it down we hope. ROB DICKERSON : That's fine and we'll work with them to do whatever we need to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as the code is adhered to in terms of who lives there and what they do there it's allowed. Okay thank you.Anything from anybody in the audience? BARBARA COHEN : Look the larger parcel which I know is not the subject of this application has unapproved uses on it right and it does relate to this parcel and I guess in the end it's up to all the neighbors to watch and so on. I didn't I guess I didn't understand how the golf course and the fact that it was part of a membership thing didn't fall under membership clubs under the I guess Section 280 B(7) but MEMBER DANTES : He hasn't applied and he testified that they haven't set up a membership club it's something they're thinking about which it's not part of our purview. BARBARA COHEN : The website says it exists and you can apply. Okay I guess yea otherwise the house is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Barbara if you really think there is something illegal going on there, your recourse is to right on line you can find an application to file a complaint with Code Enforcement and they'll follow it up. BARBARA COHEN : Right I think someone has actually done that so that's fine. Yes this application as in its more minimal form is pretty straightforward in the setback is what it is I understand that fully. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thanks Barbara. Anything else from anybody, anything from the Board? 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 December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7852— KEVIN KELLY and BRIGID GILLESPIE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kevin Kelly and Brigid Gillespie #7852. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 9, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to reconstruct a front porch attached to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 295 Fanning Rd. in New Suffolk. KAREN HOEG : Karen Hoeg on behalf of the applicants. The applicants Kevin Kelly and Brigid Gillespie purchased their one story home in March 19, 2018 and they are in the process of making renovations to update the home. The existing house was built in the 1960's and the most current C.O. on record for the house was dated January 16, 1998. There was a July 10, 2013 C.O. for the generator and an open building permit was issued well a permit was issued in February of 2023 for the pool pavilion. The project is pretty benign, it's to replace some siding and eave detail on the existing house, replace some garage doors, windows, some minor interior alterations and to renovate an existing porch area and steps with a new raised front porch with mahogany decking and entry steps with the dimensions of 28.8 by 7.5 feet. The current width of the front porch is a little over 4 feet and 7.5 feet is proposed which is a standard width and to allow the homeowner to place some outdoor furniture such as chairs so that they may comfortably enjoy the benefit of their front porch. The property is non- conforming at 16,503 sq. ft. in the R40 district. The home is a corner lot on Fanning Rd. and Fred St. There's frontage on Fanning Rd. of 150 feet and 100 feet wide on Fred St. and 120 feet wide on Fanning Rd. The existing home is 1,334.08 sq. ft. and there's going to be no change in the footprint proposed. The existing front yard setback to the existing front porch area is 34.7 feet where the required front yard setback is 35 feet. We are proposing the front porch at 32 feet thus requiring the 3 foot variance and the need for the variance is for the creation of what we would deem a real front porch. I have some photographs to submit showing what the existing front porch area looks like and what a color rendering is proposed. As you can see the existing front porch area is not really much of a front porch, there's some gravel some slate squares, there are some chairs placed, that square footage is roughly 151.13 sq. ft. and we're proposing to increase the porch area by roughly 72.64 sq. ft. The proposed project complies with all other dimensional regulations in the code. In terms of the various standards, there's going to be no production of any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or 32 1 December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting detriment to nearby properties. Many properties in the neighborhood on Fanning Rd., Fred St. and Grathwohl Rd. are non-conforming to the R40 zone and several residences have additions, front porches or access steps to the house with an existing front yard setback. If the Board has any questions I'm more than happy to answer anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it's going to look a lot nicer. KAREN HOEG : Yes a nice update. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible)to keep it just a roofed over colonnaded open KAREN HOEG : Yes that's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : sitting area entry and sitting area. Okay, I don't have any questions and we have been there we've seen the site we know what a huge side yard or second front yard really the applicant has. The houses vary in sizes and there's a lot of them that are similar to the applicant's house, there's a very large one across right straight anyway anything from you Pat, any questions about this one? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No it's pretty benign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions I would just say I can't even imagine that somebody can build an overhang like that in the back in the 1960's to use (inaudible). KAREN HOEG : It will look a lot nice when it's all done. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's definitely going to enhance the neighborhood. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : how it's dark and you have no light going into the windows, it's a strange overhang. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It sure is. Anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay motion to close the hearing, reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries, we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7855—JOHN FORNI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Forni #7855. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's September 27, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 2240 Bay Shore Rd. in Greenport. KAREN HOEG : It's me again, Karen Hoeg on behalf of the applicant. The applicant John Forni is proposing an 18 by 44 swimming pool. There's also proposed a conforming 346.3 foot pool house and a 12 X 12 foot shed at the property at 2140 Bay Shore Rd. in Greenport. By way of background an new tax lot was assigned to this property as the prior tax lots 25 and 26 had merged as being held in the same ownership that was recently done in the end of September so the Notice of Disapproval and the application was updated to reflect the new tax lot number which is 26.1. The Tax Assessor for the town has informed us that the new street will be 2140 Bay Shore Rd. The applicant's had purchased the property in 2019. Due to the merge of the property the lot frontage on Bay Shore Rd. is now 179.01 feet and on the easterly side of the property is 130.70 feet and 125 feet on the westerly side. It's one of the largest CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a double lot for sure. KAREN HOEG : The widest lot on Bay Shore and even on August Lane. It's not as deep as the parcels which are immediately across the street which are all Bayfront properties which are mainly smaller in lot frontage, they're all about 50 to 75 feet wide and much narrower. I have a tax map which I thought might be helpful for the Board just to get a sense of the overall neighborhood in terms of the double size lot compared to (inaudible). The property even though it's a double sized lot it's still non-conforming at 22,800 sq. ft. in the 1140 zoning district which states that accessory buildings and structures must be in the rear yard. The swimming December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting pool is proposed in the side yard. All other proposed accessory structures are in a conforming location. The property has a pre-existing C.O. dated July 31, 1991. There's also a C.O. dated July 31, 1991 for alterations to the second floor of the house and also the rear deck addition. The house is setback 36.3 feet from Bay Shore Rd. and the existing house and garage are 1,921 sq. ft. and the rear wood deck is based on the survey, 442 sq. ft. So with the proposed additions we're not increasing lot coverage where we need any kind-of coverage variance and the way that the house is currently constructed which is mainly on the I would say the easterly side of the property doesn't leave a lot of room in the rear of that house to site any accessory structures without the need for any variance relief. Rather than create any density and divide the lots into two lots and do a subdivision the applicant would just like to have some additional outdoor living space in order to enjoy the property. The proposed pool is located over 50 feet from neighboring properties and over 37 feet from the rear property line. It is also 44 feet from Bay Shore Rd. so it is proposed to be setback further than the existing house which is 36.3 feet from Bay Shore Rd. It's been cited as far from neigh boring.properties as possible and closest to the existing house and being roughly 51 feet from the westerly property line we hoped that that will minimize any type of noise or visual impact to the neighbor. There is also a proposed fencing and some landscaping as noted in the architectural plans dated October 24, 2022. In terms of the location in relation to the neighbor's property on the westerly side of the property its closest to the driveway not to the house. The applicant is proposing the pool closest to his driveway which will allow for easy access for service and maintenance of the pool. The pool equipment is proposed in a conforming location. We are also proposing a dry well that is located just to the west of where the proposed pool is. In terms of the variance standards under Town Law Section 267 'B(3) we don't believe that this will produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties. Many properties in the neighborhood are non-conforming to the R40 zone and several residences, two have swimming pools which is a common accessory to residential properties. The pool will be screened from the adjacent properties to reduce visible impacts and we also believe that the way it is sited will reduce any noise, impacts to neighboring properties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to ask you about landscaping because there's an existing hedgerow on one side but this would be very visible to Bay'Shore and so landscape screening for privacy along the front property somewhere along the front property line or set back wherever you want it would be most appropriate. Do you have any idea how the applicant feels about that or? KAREN HOEG : I know that they're on the proposed site plan from October of 2022 there is some landscaping that is proposed along the December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This one right here? Hang on let me look at the date. MEMBER LEHNERT : 3/23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one we have is a stamped survey MEMBER LEHNERT : Of'23 J CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have a site plan. So we have this which shows the proposed structures but no landscaping screening. KAREN HOEG : There should have been also a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have it. MEMBER DANTES : I didn't see that either. MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't see any site plan. MEMBER DANTES : Do you want to just submit that one? KAREN HOEG : Sure I can submit this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause that was my only concern, I mean it's a huge site there's nothing no room in the back and I don't have a problem with it, it just has to be screened from the street. KAREN HOEG : Right but this is it should be the exact same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have that. MEMBER DANTES : We can just put a condition on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did one in Orient very similarly in the side yard we just required evergreen screening along the front property line. This is just in the corner, it's not going to block anything the pool from I would assume that people would want it anyway. I mean you don't want to be that exposed to cars driving by. KAREN HOEG : I can talk to the applicants about that. MEMBER DANTES : We just add the condition that they have to screen behind the fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a kind of standard condition of approval anyway but if they want to say something by all means. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : They may be on Zoom. JOHN FORM : Hi John Forni, I'd be fine with the landscaping in the front that wouldn't be a problem. That was what we were thinking about cause again as you said we wouldn't want to be exposed to the roads. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course, okay good enough. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Karen if I can just ask, relative to the landscaping there's a proposed pool fence that really covers that entire lot around the pool not just the pool area but there's a limitation to 4 feet along the front just as a reminder. KAREN HOEG : Yes MEMBER LEHNERT :That complies with a pool. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well just to verify that's 4 feet and they're not doing something other who knows. MEMBER LEHNERT : The Building Department has to bless that. JOHN FORM : I don't know if you can still hear me but we are planning on putting the fence up and again fencing the whole area in cause in addition we have a dog and we want to make sure that he's safe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you can put the landscaping inside it or bury, it in landscaping or whatever way you want to do it or move it back just a little bit and put a little landscape buffer in front. I think all of those are okay, it's just a matter of privacy and complying with the height fence requirements. MEMBER LEHNERT : The Building Department is going to make him comply with the height. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Karen gave that to us for the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I have no further questions, does anybody on the Board have any questions? Is there anybody in the audience? I 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 December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7853—PABLO LEON #7853 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Pablo Leon #7853. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's September 20, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 1400 Salt March Lane (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Peconic. So we're looking at a bluff setback of 45 feet 9 inches. PABLO LEON : Yes about right with (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires a minimum of 100 foot setback and you're putting on a second story? PABLO LEON : A second story right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing is changing with the existing footprint. PABLO LEON : Nothing footprint will remain as is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're sitting adjacent to its LWRP exempt but you are going to probably need Trustees approval. PABLO LEON : Yes I am, we put an application back in August and they said you have to go through Zoning first. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have the application in? PABLO LEON : Yes MEMBER DANTES : Is this project going to be a code conforming demolition or you plan on saving enough of the house so it's not a demolition? December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting PABLO LEON : First floor will remain as is, there's going to be a second floor above the first floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're not going to go any closer to the bluff than what you already are? PABLO LEON : No I'm not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm confused by this one cause the second floor addition is actually cantilevered over the existing first floor isn't it? PABLO LEON : It will be cantilevered about 4 feet out. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the existing footprint is at 50 feet 9 inches and you're expanding closer to the water 45.9 by cantilbvering the second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's true. They're going to count the second I mean the footprint is staying the same but if the second story overhangs it's going to be closer to the bluff. It's not on the ground it's in the air but it's still going to be considered that's why the Notice of Disapproval said 45 foot 9 inches where your house the first floor of your existing house is setback a little further from that. PABLO LEON :That is correct. l CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's an enormous house right near you that's under construction. PABLO LEON : Yes next door correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know it very well, but there are other houses on that little road that have been enlarged along PABLO LEON : It's a beautiful area. MEMBER DANTES : We (inaudible)the cantilever is for a deck it's not for the house. PABLO LEON : The cantilever is not for the house it's actually for a deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) PABLO LEON : It would be open to the environment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN It's an open deck. PABLO LEON : It is an open deck, yes. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I guess my question was based on the cantilevering is, why couldn't you work within the existing footprint of the house? Just push it into the room I don't know 4 feet. PABLO LEON : Two reasons, one is to provide some shade below and also to have a bigger terrace that we can enjoy to put come chairs and relax and that's the reason why I have a rear bathroom and a walk-in closet and our bedroom. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea the piece that sticks out is only going to be deck, they're actually cutting the second floor back (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see this as a very egregious proposal. MEMBER LEHNERT : Not at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any further questions, anybody want to say anything else? PABLO LEON : We also have a memorandum from the you probably have a copy from the LWRP. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you are exempt. PABLO LEON : Exempt right, we're not touching any ground or anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing on the ground, yes. Okay is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Anything else from the Board? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks. PABLO LEON : Thank you, thank you. It will look good you thing? December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea, we'll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. We meet twice a month. It will be over in the Annex building you know where our department is upstairs in the conference room. You can listen in there's no testimony the hearing is over but if you want to listen in you can do it on Zoom or you can come in person but you'll get a decision the next day I'll go in and sign it and you will get a copy in the mail. PABLO LEON : Have a nice day, thank you. HEARING#7854—FISHERS ISLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT/FERRY VIEW LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Fishers Island School District/Ferry View LLC #7854. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14, Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's August 11, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling and an accessory garage at 1) dwelling is located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 60 feet, 2) dwelling is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) garage is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at Reservoir Rd. on Fishers Island. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant Ferry View LLC. My client is a contract vendee of this property, she's going to be purchasing it from the Fishers Island School District a property that is of no use for the district and an opportunity for the district to get some needed revenue. We're seeking variance relief to construct a home as Leslie pointed out which is a pretty standard four bedroom home. This property is a wide property on Reservoir Rd. which is a private road and because of its width and lack of depth and that is attributed to the fact that it's right on Fishers Island Sound and with the location of the coastal erosion hazard line there's constraints as to a building envelope that could you can't have your kind of traditional kind of box building envelope here. There's this sort of meandering stretch where the house could fit in so in order to construct the house you know which is of standard proportions we're here seeking some relief. The effort was to minimize the bluff setback relief with the waterfront property, I think the effort was to pull it forward. I mean obviously we could push it back into and not need front yard relief but I think the placement of the house was just intended to be at the least impactful environmentally with the construction. As we point out here, Reservoir Rd. is a private road that sort of meanders through all of the properties there. The improved portion of it actually is some 20 feet from the front property line so while we are asking for relief from the front December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting property line visually if you're out there it's really not going to look like the house is only 40 feet from the road it's really looking more like it's 60 feet and conforming. As to the garage, again with a waterfront property you could have it in the front yard, we don't really want it in the front yard because of the shape of the property but the location was really again to be respectful of the bluff setback as much as possible. There doesn't seem to be any reason to push the garage into the rear yard and invade that setback. The project is otherwise completely conforming to GFA, Sky Plan all other aspects of the bulk schedule. I would note that we have letters of support unanimously from all four neighbors well I should say the fifth neighbor is the Town of Southold the property next door and we're obviously hoping that you guys will write that letter of support for us. Architecturally the design of the house is to try you know match what you see on Fishers Island, this is a very visible piece of property it's right up there off the ferry, it's one of the things you're going to see. I think you'll agree that what's proposed is a beautiful home that is going to be respectful of architecture in the area. Not so much the character of this neighborhood because we don't really have a single character of the homes that go along Reservoir Rd., they're all spread out they're all different locations, pushed back in front you know it's not one of these things where we can say hey it's going to look like everything else but it certainly is evocative of the styled home that is prevalent on Fishers. With that I can just briefly address the criteria, as I said as to character, while it may not be consistent with every other house or look just like every other house it certainly is with the character of homes that you'll find on Fishers. I think with the letters of support we have a consistency determination with the LWRP. I don't really think there's going to be any undesirable impact or detriment to nearby homes here. The front yard setback relief is to have a 40 feet setback again, visually it is not going to be a 40 foot setback and it's really as tight as it can be with a bluff setback, it's only a 10 feet relief from that. I mean if the Board feels like we should push it back you know the applicant is open to moving it back and asking for greater bluff setback but there really didn't seem to be a need to do that so that's where we are with that. We do believe that the variance relief is necessary to be able to have you know a functional four bedroom home that's consistent with the style and architecture of waterfront homes on Fishers. The side yard relief for the garage is really just seemed the most sensible place to put that and keep it out of the bluff setback. It's not a massive garage, it's just a standard two car garage. It's not an imposing structure it should have no impacts. As to substantiality, we need a thirty three percent relief for the front and ten percent for the back, again the garage is just respectful of the bluff setback. On balance, we would submit that it's not substantial relief being sought here today it really is the minimum relief necessary to achieve the benefit. There are no perceivable environmental impacts from the proposed construction. Again we are respectful as we can be of the bluff setback keeping away from there. We understand that Mark had recommended a buffer obviously no issue with that in December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting the LWRP consistency review. Again we have unanimous neighbor support and we would respectfully request that the relief be granted. I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just would like to know whoever drew up these property lines on Fishers Island. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Especially there. MEMBER LEHNERT : With a pen. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Seriously, I mean there's not even anything close to a square or rectangular or anything especially everything it is squiggly lines. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I presume an IA system is MARTIN FINNEGAN : Absolutely, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know I did have a question though, you submitted drawings that are labeled conceptual elevations, what does that mean? It means you're not sure that's what it's going to look like? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, no I'm pretty sure actually I believe that (inaudible) might be on Zoom there but that's it I mean they're stamped. MEMBER LEHNERT : Probably just design drawings. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a stamped version? The version that's in my packet doesn't have a stamp on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have stamped drawings. MEMBER DANTES : It looks like he has them in his hands. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The site plan has it but the drawings don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The architectural drawings don't seem to have MEMBER DANTES : I see the ones in Martin's hands that have the stamp. MARTIN FINNEGAN : We did submit I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He probably submitted copies that weren't stamped. MEMBER DANTES : You have stamped version then? I December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The weird thing here is which I was going to comment, the floor plan doesn't have a scale. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I have an extra set if anybody needs it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Martin while they're doing that I have one question, while appreciate like a (inaudible) accessory structures and everything why wouldn't you attach the garage to the screened in porch? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Again my understanding is that the architect felt that it was not architecturally consistent with what you see. Attached garages are not a big thing, could it be yes but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The house looks like it's built in the 1900's the concept of it, it fits the character of the neighborhood (inaudible) but just MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean if could it be of course it could be it just was not MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I prefer accessories I just you know here it's just a tough one cause (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) if you start adding you know and it's not in character of the neighborhood really. This is a better proposal. There's no adverse impact in the side yard. You need Trustees right? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes a little bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A little bit, hahaha. Okay, anything else from anybody? 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 MARTIN FINNEGAN : Thank you and Happy Holidays. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to adjourn for lunch. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene the meeting. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7856—411 EQUESTRIAN AVENUE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 411 Equestrian Ave., LLC#7856. This is a request for variances from Article X Section 280-45C(2)(f), Article X Section 280-46 and the Building Inspector's September 13, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing commercial building (inclusive of expanding a second floor accessory apartment) at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting 25 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 40%, 5) apartment comprises more than 50% of the principal building located at 411 Equestrian Ave. on Fishers Island. Sam are you there? SAM FITZGERALD : I am can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can. So the good news is because we were on Fishers Island for the annual meeting we got to inspect the properties for a change. SAM FITZGERALD : That was a nice visit and great to have you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Yes it was. So we're looking at what a second story deck and exterior stairs, front yard setback at 10 feet the code requires a minimum of 15 and secondly a side yard setback at 1.9 feet the code requires a minimum of 10, a combined side yard setback at 3.5 feet the code requires a 25 foot minimum. Number four is lot coverage at 49.6% where 40% is the maximum permitted and finally the apartment it at 70% of the principal building, the code permits a maximum of 50%. 1 think that covers it. SAM FITZGERALD : I think that's right, we are non-conforming in most every respect. This is primarily an expansion of an accessory apartment in a retail building. The building was built over a hundred years ago and as far as I can tell the second floor and attic have always been an apartment all be it small not very livable by today's standards. I don't believe it's been touched for decades. A big problem that we have on Fishers is a lack of affordable housing for the year rounder's. Just real quickly there you know five thousand or so people only two hundred and fifty year rounder's and that number is so low partially because there's nowhere for folks to live and we need more people on the island. We need sort of a younger generation to step up and help with the essential services, Fire Department, Public Works, Health Clinic, School all that stuff apart from all the other businesses here. So housing is a big deal and it's a big campaign to get more affordable housing. The owners of this building Heather and David Burnam have realty roots on Fishers, they're year rounder's, between them they own several businesses and they employ quite a few people and they're just trying to make this into a viable apartment for a year round person. Even with expansions the apartment you know will be 895 sq. ft. or so not huge. It's a one bedroom so a suitable for a single or a couple or young family. With this proposal even with all our non-conformity we are not proposing to expand the existing footprint at all. All the expansion will happen on the second floor but still within the existing footprint. We're not increasing the building height and I believe that these expansions will fit within the scale and the character of the downtown area. So I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just remember going in the rear yard and saying what? Nothing is conforming there, it was absolutely bedlam back there. That's where most of the additional construction the deck and the stairs and all that, that's all in the back. SAM FITZGERALD : That's right in the back that's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is like the only commercial strip in the area. SAM FITZGERALD : That's right, there's three or four stores. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The island SAM FITZGERALD : That's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a good plan. I don't really have any questions to tell you the truth. MEMBER DANTES : I think (inaudible) cause I think we need another application just like this that was one of yours wasn't it? SAM FITZGERALD : Well I don't know if it was quite like this, no this is the first actually mixed use one that I've done. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eric I think you might be thinking about the one on Peninsula Rd. it was a residence that was expanded with like a gable and a reverse gable on the side of the house with a very tight CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, yea. SAM FITZGERALD : You got it yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a whole lot better, I mean the stairs will be parallel to the fagade instead of sticking out. When you're just filling in what that existing deck is basically. SAM FITZGERALD : Yea exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alrighty, there's one person in the audience, do you want to address the application? No she's passing on it. Anybody else on Zoom? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are they upgrading the septic or anything? SAM FITZGERALD : No so it's actually going to be a reduction in the number of bedrooms I mean you know it was a rabbit (inaudible) of rooms in that existing apartment but we're J December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting cleaning it out. We're expanding the space so there's no increase in the bedrooms and also the septic system was put in fairly recently and is in real good shape. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, very good. Is there anything from anybody? Okay motion to close 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 HEARING#7857— FISHERS ISLAND UNION CHAPEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Fishers Island Union Chapel #7857. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's August 25, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling (parsonage) at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 60 feet located at Crescent Ave. on Fishers Island. I wish you didn't even have to be here on this but I don't think that works quite that way. We have a front yard setback at 46 feet where the code requires 60 feet. Putting on a one story vestibule/mud room addition. I think you also put in the application that the front yard setback is greater than most of the other houses on the street. SAM FITZGERALD :That's right, that's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The lot coverage is going to increase for a 77 sq. ft. addition by .04%. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's not even going to make a dent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we should write you a deminimus. 4,71 December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) parking to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand the (inaudible) of the law but sometimes it just seems like a waste of property owner's money and our time but we have to do what we have to do. I'm going to make a motion to close this 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 HEARING #7858— 1000 SOUND BEACH DR., LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 1000 Sound Beach Dr. OOC #7858. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 31, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1000 Sound Beach Dr. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. MEGAN CARRICK : Hello everyone I'm Megan Carrick and I'm from Chuck Thomas's office. I'm here representing our client who came to us with the desire to build a detached garage for some additional storage. When we first (inaudible) to the project we were immediately kind of limited due to the existing structures and lot features with where to located the project. After some further thought we thought the most reasonable spot was on the northwest corner of the block. We feel that the neighborhood is kind of an eclectic beach community and having the garage in the proposed location doesn't necessarily detract from its character. As required we did the mailings and postings and did not here any qualms from the neighbors about the .project. We are aware that the garage is in a flood zone and due to being on Long Island and December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting what we do we often build in flood zones and we are prepped and prepared to build a structurally flood compliant garage in this area. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's do this, let me enter into the record what the actual variances are. We're looking at an accessory garage in a code conforming front yard because it's waterfront. It's proposed with a 29 foot front yard setback where the code requires 40 feet because it has to meet if it's the front yard the setback for a principal structure, number two the lot coverage is proposed at 25.1% where the code allows a maximum of 20% . There are a couple of prior ZBA decisions on here. MEGAN CARRICK : Yes it was a while ago to my knowledge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Second story which was in 2004 and 2005. Well let's see, the site inspection my notes say the front yard is screened with approximately a five foot high privet fence. MEGAN CARRICK : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like most of the other houses on the road have conforming J front yard setbacks and they don't have accessory garages. Is there any possible way to attach the garage to the house? MEGAN CARRICK : Due to the interior layout it would kind of difficult without really getting rid of some of the bedrooms and such but I thought of something that you guys would like we can discuss further with our client. I don't want to make any decisions on his behalf. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand I'm just bringing these issues up just so you can explore them because it's pretty much not very characteristic along there to have the lot coverage is also usually excessive a lot of those are small lots and it's not that uncommon to have a lot coverage issue over there. That's a pretty small front yard setback and MEGAN CARRICK : It is, it's only five feet off of the house that we're proposing the detached so we got it as close as we could cause we really didn't want to eat into that front yard anymore. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Funny cause there's one right next door as you're facing your houses to the left and that's attached it's right on the side. I was trying to figure out if there was a way to change the configuration of a driveway and attach the thing or MEMBER ACAMPORA : Can they do a one car garage instead of a two? 491 December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEGAN CARRICK : That can be something I can discuss, I know that they were really looking for a two car garage for storage and use of the garage at the same time but MEMBER ACAMPORA : The house has just been added onto and added onto so much it's very deceiving when you go looking at it because it looks like a small ranch house and then you go to the back of the house and wow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the front yard setback of the house? MEGAN CARRICK : I have my survey here. It's 57.5 feet to the northwest corner of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's conforming, so attaching something wouldn't make it conforming in every way it would still be conforming you might have to have a side yard variance you know to fit it in. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe turn the garage parallel to the roadway so you would pull into the circular drive and instead of the doors facing the road it would be on the side if it's attached to the house. MEMBER ACAMPORA : (inaudible) circular driveway after that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh maybe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think you're going to have to have room to come oh if it was a single car. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would.just be a rectangle annexed to the front of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you might actually have room to attach a single garage. What about the rear yard, is that totally off totally impossible. MEMBER ACAMPORA : That's impossible. MEGAN CARRICK : The only thing is that's getting really close to the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then it impacts it's in a flood zone it's not very good. You know what we're trying to let them have some storage but we're also trying to figure out what the least variance or the least you know impactful would be. MEMBER DANTES : I think a one car garage would probably really lessen the impact. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to do this, do you want us to maybe adjourn this to two weeks to the Special Meeting so you can talk to your client? December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEGAN CARRICK : Sure that would be great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then you know if you let us know or if you want to change anything and if you need more time we'll just adjourn it again but if you can let us know what the thinking is, are they alright with attaching or are they alright with at least a one car or attaching a one car. MEGAN CARRICK : Okay, I will talk to them. I think pulling into the side of the garage will be a little challenging as there are steps up but I can discuss I'd be happy to discuss it with them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only way they can do that would be if in fact they moved it really close to the street then they would have room to go in and out this way. But you know having said that making it smaller and possibly attaching it are two other options. They still might need variances but depending on what the outcome is but they'd probably be lesser variances.it'll also reduce the lot coverage so it would decrease that variance somewhat. There's nobody on Zoom or is there somebody on Zoom? No okay, nobody else in the audience. Alright I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on December 21. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? f MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay just call the office and let us know what's going on and if we're ready to close it we don't have any further questions we just close it in two weeks and then we'll have a decision two weeks later.- MEGAN ater:MEGAN CARRICK : Okay sounds good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we have a couple of resolutions here. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday January 4, 2024 at 9 a.m. so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from Special Meeting held November 16, 2023. 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. Resolution to grant a one year extension for 7368 Roberta Alifano 1500 Grand Ave. Mattituck beginning on February 20, 2023 to expire on February 20, 2024 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to close the meeting. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye December 7, 2023 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : December 18, 2023