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