Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/07/2024 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK -------------------------------7------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York March 7, 2024 10:12 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Zoom) ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member (Vice Chair) KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Josh Kelinson #7878 4- 13 70 Deep Hole Dr., LLC/Brady Leifer#7880SE 13 - 18 Charles M. Curtis and Jane W. Harvey, As Trustees#7881 18- 22 James Huettenmoser#7884 22 - 31 David Burns and Rebecca Bausch #7883 32 - 36 Orient Acres, LLC/Eva Mallis#7885 37- 39 North Fork Project LLC#7859 40—48 Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7893 SE & 7894 (Adjournment Resolutions) 48-49 March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for March 7, 2024. Before we open up the Hearings section of the today's meeting I want to make a motion to amend ZBA Decision 7573 to accept finalized architectural plans and elevations for the principle restaurant as approved by Suffolk County Health Department. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries unanimously. Before we get to the first hearing I have to enter the State Environmental Quality Review SEAR Determination. This is a Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following: Greg Fegos which was withdrawn, Josh Kelinson, 70 Deep Hole Dr. LLC/Brady Leifer, Charles Curtis and Jane Harvey as Trustees, James Huettenmoser, David Burns and Rebecca Bausch, Orient Acres, LLC/Eva Mallis so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The first application on the agenda has been withdrawn by the applicant and it is now 10:10 so we can proceed with the second application. March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7878—JOSH KELINSON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for Josh Kelinson #7878. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-208A and the Building Inspector's November 27, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 5) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 560 Oak St. (adj. to East Creek) in Cutchogue. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board, Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture 10200 Main Rd. Mattituck. Before I start a lot to go over here but I did it wasn't in my original presentation but I wanted to just give something to the Board if I could. Looking at this I wanted to just I thought this was a good comparison to some of the neighbors so if I could just hand this to you guys. I first want to start by talking about the lot, the lot is a very small lot it's less than a tenth of an acre it's a tenth of an acre if you round it up. I looked at some of the other lots that are neighboring this lot and they're all basically about the same a little bit bigger. This lot is actually the smallest if you compare the other neighboring two lots. What I handed to the Board was looking 'at lot coverage at those neighboring lots and those lots that are neigh boring'this property are a bit bigger, they're like .14 to .2 of an acre. Again this lot is .1 of an acre. So if you look at the lot coverage at those neighboring lots you're at 39% currently 39%, 34%, 26%, 28% so I think if you take into consideration that this lot is smaller and those lots are a little bit bigger that the lot coverage is similar in that sense because of the smaller lot. Now the request the addition we're requesting they're all two story they're all on the second story, we're not requesting anything at ground level. We do need a supporting column to hold up the addition and then another part of the addition is over the existing garage which we also step back cause you know I don't want to bring it all the way forward on the street level. We're not requesting any more bedrooms, we're keeping it a two bedroom home. We're basically expanding the second floor to make a little more room for a primary suite and also a little bit bigger of a bedroom above the garage. Then there's some a little bit more family room space on the second floor. The owner does have kids and that's part of the reason why he wants to do this addition. The first floor isn't that large currently so there isn't a lot of space there for recreation so part of that family space is for that. In regards to our setbacks that we're requesting, we aren't requesting any setbacks more non-conforming than what's existing. The non-conformances are in line with the existing building if not less than March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting what's there so that's again due to lot size. I think it's very difficult home currently that any addition so we did try to stay in line with what's currently there. Another thing I just want to read into the record or maybe the Board is aware of, there was an action by the Board of Appeals and in this action looking for a date here, August 18, 1988. So there wasn't a decision rendered at that time, one of the things that the Board Members said is that the lot was substantially non-conforming originally when the house was built the house that was already there. The house was built prior to 1956, it does have a C of 0 existing building. Some other things that was requested and we're being mindful of is that any further additions permitted would be on the upper story and not to exceed past the building. So we didn't do that in our application, we didn't exceed past the building we are only requesting additions at the second story. So we were in line we're trying to be in line with what the Board asked in 1988 so I just wanted to let the Board know that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony when you speak to that decision in 1988 you're talking about the condition that no further additions to the structure or any further saturation be permitted correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And number three. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Number three is, any further additions shall be permitted if they are at an upper story and not extending past the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Number three is, no further additional construction or saturation which by saturation I'm assuming they must mean ASSISTANT T. A. MCGIVNEY : Mine doesn't say that, mine just says no further additions shall be permitted (inaudible) upper story. MEMBE DANTES : This is a thirty year old decision. ASSISTANT T. A. MCGIVNEY : Oh number two, oh you're referencing number two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No further front yard encroachment for any additional construction in any manner. You're proposing a second story over the garage. ANTHONY PORTILLO : But I'm not increasing the front yard encroachment. MEMBER DANTES : These conditions were written before the sky plane laws were in effect. I mean I don't know how much validity these have (inaudible) application. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well I mean the sky plane regardless one of the thing about the sky plane is the back of the yard does dip down so when you look at the average grade we're very March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting low so it's a little bit out of whack for that reason in my opinion. The current building would not meet the sky plane as well but you can see our average base line is at 9 feet and that if you look at our ZBA 04 plan so we're below the grade at the actual house. The reason why it slopes down towards the water so taking that into consideration. If we were at grade we really wouldn't be asking much over the sky plane in my opinion. MEMBER LEHNERT : So if you took the lower back yard out of the equation you'd start at grade and work up from there? ANTHONY PORTILLO : If we were able to start that line at grade MEMBER LEHNERT : Pretty much at the rear of the house and work up from there. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right you would see you can sort of take that line pull it up you can see that we're really not MEMBER LEHNERT : Most of it would be knocked out. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Most of it would be conforming that's correct, it would really just be like the gable portion of the roof. Again to repeat that you know the existing house doesn't conform and I think it doesn't conform for those reasons. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's enter into the record what exactly you're looking for. Number one, the lot coverage proposed at 47.9% where the code allows a maximum of 20% but you are already by prior ZBA approval a lot coverage of 42% relief that was in 1988 you were given a lot coverage approval of 39.1%. What is the current lot coverage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The existing lot coverage is 43% is the current which is non- conforming. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well 43% is the proposed. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're proposing 47.9%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) over the lot coverage that the ZBA granted? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How did that happen? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well it's 42.8% I'm sorry we rounded up to 43%, 42.8% is the current. What was allowed in,'88 is what's there. 6 March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Well my guess would be well it's waterfront so they could have either lost land or they could have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's a bulk headed property,they didn't lose anything. MEMBER DANTES : They take out buildable they used to calculate non-buildable land area for the lot coverage. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct, back in '88 they did they went to the lot line into the water. MEMBER DANTES : So my guess is like a change in code might have been the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's keep going so you're asking for 47.9%. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Front yard setback at 4.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet, side yard setback at .9 so it's less than a foot where the code requires a 10 foot minimum, a combined side yard setback at 4.1 feet where thee,code requires 25 feet, and you are exceeding the sky plane code. Those are all of the things you're looking at. As you know we did do an inspection, we understand the lots are small there. The house certainly covers that lot I mean the house and decking there's literally nothing but coverage on that property. MEMBER LEHNERT : So in reality the only thing bumping up your lot coverage is that open front porch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the second story addition the overhang. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The second floor addition on the front of the building and the front porch overhang is what's creating the increase in lot coverage. The rear there's already a landing there and staircase so we're not really increasing and the other portion of the garage is existing. The small little addition that we're showing to connect the second floor to the proposed second floor above the garage in regards to the setbacks just to state, we are not proposing anything that's more than what's already there. The front yard currently is at 1.1 feet, the side yard is .9 already cause the garage is .9 and then the other side of the lot has a 1.9 foot setback and we're asking for that second floor addition 3.2 feet. I know the numbers sound like we're asking for a lot but we are really looking at something that's existing and complying with what's existing in a sense. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony just to clarify, one of the combined side yard setback you're the Notice of Disapproval says 4.1 but you got 3.2 as you just pointed out ANTHONY PORTILLO : 3.9 plus the .9 March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but that doesn't add to 4.1 ANTHONY PORTILLO : But the existing house is 1.9 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right I understand the existing house is 1.9 but 3.2 plus .9 is only 3 feet 11 inches. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No it's engineering it's not architectural so it's 3.2 plus .9 is 4.1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you increasing the height? ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're not any higher than the existing building. The additions as you can see in the elevation are not exceeding what's already there. The one above the garage is actually lower. I mean one thing to maybe point out to the Board I'm sure you've already done your homework is looking at what we're proposing are interior. Again I don't think it's a lot for you know what regarding square footage wise. There really isn't it's not a large house so we're doing our best to get some more room on the second floor. We're really maintaining the first floor besides you know we're putting in this porch which right now would be to get just a covering to go from the garage into the front door and also to enter the house. So the garage currently you cannot enter from the garage into the home, it's attached but there is no real attachment in that respect so you do have to walk out the side door and then go into the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe you want to address the character of the neighborhood because observation showed that both sides of the street have very small one story dwellings cause they're small lots. This is already a much bigger house than most others. The one car garage that's there now is already much closer to the road than any other structure that I can see except for one adjacent accessory garage which has about the same yard setback but it is an accessory and not a principle it's not attached. There's a very large treks deck it looks like a new deck basically on there, which certainly is contributing to the lot coverage. So why don't you talk to us a little bit about how this is or is not within the character of the neighborhood. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well I mean I think that these building being built so long ago maybe a lot of them were preserved to be the one story. This one was already built to be a second story and I think that for this building in particular we're asking to really increase what's there in a sense right where the other buildings if they were going to approach this if the other buildings in the neighborhood were going to do a second story then I think that you know they would be in the same sort of boat. They would have to go into the zoning and figure out if they could even do something like this. I mean I would say characteristic wise is that what I showed the Board is that lot coverage seems to be an issue for everybody. It doesn't seem that we're any more of a special lot than someone else. We are the smallest lot so our lot 8 ii March 7,2024 Regular Meeting coverage might be a little bit more for that reason. Also speaking to the size of the lots which I did earlier, they're all very, very small so I would say that in terms of height maybe that there's not a character there's as much but I think when it comes to lot coverage and what's being proposed in that respect is probably is in character of What's there. I can't really speak to that cause there isn't a lot of two story homes there but I do believe that over time that is probably going to happen. I would imagine people wanting to get more space in these one story buildings they probably don't have a lot of space seeing that they're not that large. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if the Board has any questions, Eric anything from you on this? MEMBER DANTES : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually I have two sort of points, one is just a design observation and I know you're the architect but where you're proposing the second story addition which is I guess on the west front fagade there's a column so couldn't you just redesign the entry hall so that that would become the porch which would be a I natural entrance to the house instead of having the front porch which thereby it would reduce the lot coverage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well I think it was the connection to the garage which was more what we we're looking for. I mean obviously adding the coverage into the front was important. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You would still have access to the garage it's just not covered. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right, the idea was to have a covered walkway into the garage I mean that was the reason for the proposal. To answer your question yes I think if you were looking at it differently in that sense you could have coverage using that to go into the building sure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Instead of side entrance to have a front entry. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean not as organic of a you know architecturally having a side door instead of a front door you know we obviously MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but you could the way you got the return gables sort of an aesthetic feature above the door you can do the same thing just it reduces the lot coverage. So that was just one observation. The other thing is, I believe, Town Code requires you need on-site parking, there's no on-site parking illustrated on the actual property. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The garage would be considered our parking spot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that's one but don't you need two? March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean the C.O. was granted for the building the way it was there was never any other parking besides the one that was there at the garage cause we have a C.O. 1979 to provide you which basically was you know for an "as built" because the building was built prior to'57. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thought would be though that there's an alteration occurring so I think that parking needs to be illustrated. I don't know how the other Board Members feel and I could understand that the one car garage could achieve part of the parking but you still have the second ANTHONY PORTILLO : This was given to the Building Department and we were given this Disapproval so I don't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They don't usually do the on-site parking. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So we received a Certificate of Occupancy in July 5, 1979 for the dwelling being existing prior to April 23, 1957. So I mean this obviously would you know being built at that time I mean maybe those parking requirements weren't in place but MEMBER LEHNERT : Well the only way you could possibly do on-site parking is to move the driveway which wouldn't make any sense because you're moving it away from the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No there's another way, what you simply, have to do is take you know a kind of gravel area from the edge/of the property going towards the house and just pull in. It doesn't even have to be this way it can be parallel to the street but that would provide one more additional space. I mean what do you do if there's a guest? If somebody comes to the house even if the homeowner only has one car which is unusual these days. ANTHONY PORTILLO : (inaudible) on your property that's not on your property. So the suggestion is to possibly put a parking space on the right hand side with a gravel driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean you can just pull in you know if you want just for one car (inaudible) be parallel to the ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well it sounds like he uses the driveway that's not on his property to park in front cause that's the street line there. Again I.think that's pretty common on the street, I know that's not on this property. I think we can show we can propose that on there that's fine to the right of the walkway putting a car space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I think you've covered everything on this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? Please come to the mic and state your name. JACKIE MORLEY : Good morning I'm Jackie Morley, I'm here from Twomey, Latham, Shea, Dubon, Quartararo out of Riverhead. I'm here on behalf of the neighbors at 600 Oak St. and actually as part of what I'm going to talk about I have pictures I guess I'll hand it up right now. I'm here on behalf of Doug and Anne Mendocha and they're also here today too and they would like to speak as well and we have two letters one is their corner of they can't be here today (inaudible) into the record and then (inaudible) as well. Just a couple of concerns that we have and I think some of them were addressed. One was it wasn't necessarily clear at first the access to the second floor of this garage it seems like it will actually be going through the house as opposed to some kind of street access. My clients will speak to this as well this really does bring this new height and mass very close to the property line and as you can see from the photos we provided. Our client's house is that tan house to the left there and we acknowledge obviously the existing garage is extremely close to the property line already but moving this mass from the main part of the house into this front portion over the garage does cause them some concern. I think because of that they would just like to speak a little bit more about that would be the main concern we have moving from the interior of the house with the most of the mass (inaudible) as it does bring it close over to their side of the property. I'll have them come up now and speak too. I'll pass letters to you now too. ANN MENDOCHA : Good morning, my name is Ann Mendocha, I grew up in Greenport and my parents Emily and Christianson bought the Cutchogue house in 1971 moved from Greenport as to they had retired from their careers. My father was an oysterman and my mother was a teacher. On their passing my brother Paul and I inherited the house and we have enjoyed the peaceful retreat that it has provided. Our daughter Karen Schubert represents the next generation to enjoy the house. She loves coming from her home in Pennsylvania whenever she gets a chance. My main concern is the garage next door. It is very close to our property line. If a second story is added it will dwarf the front of our house and our front yard. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address the Board? If there's no further questions or comments should we just close? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'd like to say one thing here, I can appreciate the comment I just want to state that the second floor addition proposed above the garage is really secluded to that :1:1 March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting area and where the main mass of the house is like the main building there's actually a lot more side yard there. Also I believe the residence actually on this map here, 600 they also have a garage that is somewhat in line with this garage that's there. Again the second story I think is forward and it's not really you know adding any over (inaudible) to their building onto the house cause the house itself if you compare the two there's a pretty large two side yards there that I think you know this mass isn't really interrupting the living of the home or the house itself. I think again just looking at it on a map (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Anthony thank you. Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to oh sorry come back. JACKIE MORLEY : I should have handed him a copy of the photos can I do that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please do that. Alright I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. JACKIE MORLEY : I apologize can we ask that the record be left open for comments on this for just (inaudible)for additional comments? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want written comments the right to submit additional written comments? JACKIE MORLEY : Yes if possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can make a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting and then close it at that time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could we close subject to? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can subject to additional comments but then of course the additional comments will have very little bearing because we wouldn't have had a chance to talk about them. So much of it depends on what additional comments we're going to get as to whether or not it's going to affect the process. I think what we should probably do is adjourn it to the Special Meeting in two weeks, that way if we don't have any questions or anything we'd just accept the comments close it then and write a decision. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No objections. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is that alright with everybody then? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So we're adjourning to the Special. March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on March 215c MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye BOARD ASSISTANT : I have an announcement, the Justice Court is going to have an arraignment at 11:30. HEARING#7880 SE—70 DEEP HOLE DR. LLC/BRADY LEIFER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 70 Deep Hole Dr. LLC/Brady Leifer#7880SE. Applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280- 13B(13). The applicant is owner of the subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 70 Deep Hole Drive (adj. to Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. BRADY LEIFER : Hi, I'm Brady Leifer and my engineer Nick and my dad Roger are on the Zoom and yeah we're just requesting to put an apartment above the garage structure for my parents to stay when they come to visit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did inspect the property as you I'm sure are aware and the building does conform to a code acceptable 538 sq. ft. so the livable floor area proposed is conforming. It is totally contained within the existing structure which has a Certificate of Occupancy for more than well since 1994. Do we have any evidence you said you're going to rent this to your parents for occasional use, what does occasional use mean? March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting BRADY LEIFER : They're not going to be living there full time that they visit every few weeks in the summer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me explain, it's a dollar a month you're talking about. First we know that you live there, we know that it is your,property. The purpose of this code was to allow for one of two things to happen, either for a family member to live full time at an affordable rent primarily an aging parent you know who wants their kids to live in their house and they're going to move into an apartment or the other way around their grown kids can move into the apartment cause they can't afford to buy anything or rent anything out here that was for kind of family use. It was meant to be full time occupancy cause otherwise it's a guest house. The other thing was it could be used exclusively by someone who was on or eligible for an affordable housing the list of affordable housing occupants which has to do with HUD established income levels. So if in fact you are to proceed with this that means a couple of things, I just want to make sure that you're clear because people don't always understand what they're doing with this. It means that you cannot rent your house, it doesn't matter how often you're in it but no one else can be it's for your sole use. It means the apartment cannot be occupied by anybody other than your parents and if they're not there you cannot rent that out or use it as a guest house for somebody else either. No bed and breakfast may be ever established on this. I mean you know the whole idea was to limit multiple uses of the property and multiple streams of income. I just want to make sure that you understood that. BRADY LEIFER : Yep understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We probably need if we don't have I don't see it we're going to need to have some confirmation of the relationship between you and your parents like a birth certificate. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie the birth certificate is in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in there oh okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO It clearly illustrates Brady's lineage. The only thing I would say about the birth certificate Julie if you agree it was kind of hard to read the Xerox copy that I had was kind of hazy. I could put it together but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to find it. BRADY LEIFER : We can submit a clearer copy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking, looking, looking and March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I've got it. It has mother and father and the names match. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is because you just want her to have some privacy when she's out here and BRADY LEIFER : Yes and we (inaudible) dogs and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where does she actually live most of the time? BRADY LEIFER : They're in Miami Florida. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come back up here and get away from the heat. It shows on your floor plan the existing garage to remain, one of the things that the Board looks very carefully at is these apartments are only allowed to be one floor. So when we see stairs to a second floor which is for storage I mean that's where the apartment is in this case the garage is going to continue to be used. If you look at your existing it says existing floor plan you're proposing to put a new door in on a wall and you have a door to the garage there what we want to do is block off access from the garage to the apartment so that it doesn't wind up whether you do it or some future person as a two story. So that's a simple fix cause if you look at your floor plan who did this oh Nick Mazzaferro see what I'm saying Julie. MEMBER LEHNERT : Close off the door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but there's a door that goes right into the garage from just let it be from the exterior up into the apartment. Take that door out you do have a person sized door on the garage anyway and then at least in order to access the second floor storage you'd have to go outside from the apartment and then up. We've been doing that consistently just to avoid winding up having two stories on an apartment. This looks like it's going to be sort of a studio apartment. BRADY LEIFER : Yeah CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I don't know does Nick want to say anything about what I just said? Did you hear that can you bring him in? MEMBER DANTES : Should the floor plan be labeled studio apartment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could be but I don't know that it matters. It doesn't require having a bedroom. The maximum is two bedrooms now. Hi Nick, did you hear what I said about the floor plan? March 7,2024 Regular Meeting NICK MAZZAFERRO : Yes the interior door was simply put there so you can pull your car in and go upstairs. It's a convenience so if it's raining you can pull your car in the garage and you can go upstairs without getting wet. We can it's no problem we can change that into a solid wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I mean because the assumption is that the garage is going to be empty and not used unless your mother is there and dad there from Florida they're bringing their car? BRADY KEIFER : There's two spaces in the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a two car garage okay. So I think we need to do that. We need to be consistent in the decisions that we make about these structures otherwise it's just not fair. Why would we make an exception here? NICK MAZZAFERRO : I will modify the drawings before we go for the building permit. MEMBER LEHNERT : We can just condition that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I don't want to hold it up so. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Don't we need it to stamp it in order to give it to the Building Department. NICK MAZZAFERRO : I will update the drawings and give you a brand new set without the door there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright good enough. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have just one question Brady, right where the proposed exterior door is to the apartment, presently there's some sort of like water pump or some device, what is that? BRADY LEIFER : I'm not sure, Nick may know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nick do you know what that is? NICK MAZZAFERRO : Yeah I think it was I think an old well or something like that an old pump and it's definitely going to get removed. I know exactly what you're talking about Nick but I don't recall what it's for. It's not even functional right now because the design we're going to get rid of that and the design actually calls for a sewer eject to be put in the front of the garage. March 7,2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was going to be my other question, where would the septic hookup be? NICK MAZZAFERRO : It would be the front of the garage left hand side below the floor in the area where the walk in entrance door is, it's going to be alsewer ejection pump, with an underground pipe pressurized that goes to the existing septic system. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The existing septic is on the waterside behind the house. NICK MAZZAFERRO : No,the existing septic system is towards the main house underneath the ground I think it would actually be south of the driveway. You see where that curb in that little wall is that's showing there that's where your arrow is right now the septic system is actually between that curb and where it says 41.6. 1 inspected the septic system, it's relatively new it's within the last year or two. It's got a new brand new Capri cast concrete septic tank and a brand new leaching field. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you're going to hook up to that. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Yea under pressure it's a pressurized system. We're going to use a sewer ejector. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so as long as Suffolk County Health Department approves it that's fine. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Well it's not conditioned on that Suffolk County Department of Health is not they've already approved the septic system as is and it's rated for a total of four bedrooms with the additional apartment there will be a total of four bedrooms on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay can we have a copy of that? NICK MAZZAFERRO : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When you submit the plans with the amended with the door removed can you just send us a copy of that Health Department approval? NICK MAZZAFERRO : I don't think I put it in the original packet I don't remember. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think I saw it. NICK MAZZAFERRO : No it's not in there I have it in the Building Department package ready to go so it's not a problem. :17 J March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so when you submit the amended plan floor plan also submit that septic approval. NICK MAllAFERRO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That way we can see what the sizing is on it okay that'll do. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Excuse me Leslie, we have Mr. Roger Leifer had his hand up. MR. LEIFER : No, I think Nick took care of it, I have no problems. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, is there anybody else on Zoom that wants to address the application? Is there anybody in the audience? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended floor plan and a Suffolk County Health Department approval. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#7881—CHARLES M. CURTIS and JANE W. HARVEY,AS TRUSTEES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Charles M. Curtis and Jane W. Harvey as Trustees #7881. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 26, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 220 Reservoir Rd. (adj. to Fishers Island Sound) on Fishers Island. March 7,2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Good morning, my clients might be on Zoom I think they were hoping to connect. So you're familiar with this property in that the Board has previously granted a variance for the deck that's in technically in the back of the house. The parcel this is a subdivision it looks like it was approved it was called the Robert W. Brooks subdivision. Three lots were created and I'm sorry I can't read the date but the building envelopes for each of these properties is somewhat unique because it's a triangle and this house it was built originally it looks like it's an original house built outside the triangle so pretty much anytime when there's construction proposed on this property it's going to need a variance since Reservoir Rd. the existing house is very close to Reservoir Rd. and Reservoir Rd. it's actually Silver Eel Cove and Reservoir Rd. the subdivision kind of it's a "T". This property is surrounded by either the water of roadways. It's a typical Fishers Island very unique properties. The application is to build on the second floor over the existing covered deck a master suite and if you have any questions, I know you're getting ready for a hearing the criminal court might start so I'm trying to be as efficient as possible. You have the plans they pretty much speak for themselves. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to put in the record, what's proposed is a front yard setback of 25 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. PAT MOORE : Yes, it is technically in the back of the house and it is over an existing setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the addition is over an existing setback. Are you decreasing the setback at all? PAT MOORE : No it really didn't make sense design wise. I got the architectural there on the plans, it is I don't know if I can call it gabled it's a barn design so there is some tapering back but not really a step back. MEMBER LEHNERT : It looks like they're just extending the lines of the existing house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a gambrel roof. PAT MOORE : Yes thank you, gambrel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks nice. PAT MOORE : It's a beautiful addition, well designed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As I recall just one or two houses that even access this. March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : As I said it's an original subdivision of three lots and they all its kind of a common design plan, all the houses are all connected in the sense of how the design of all the homes are situated on the property. It's a beautiful spot. MEMBER DANTES : Here's a question, the variance itself is pretty benign to me as far as maintaining an existing setback for a second floor. Then you have a little bit of an overhang coming out so would that increase the non-conformity or I just don't want you to come back later and do this again. PAT MOORE : So it appears that the overhang it's not an overhand it looks like it's the staircase. MEMBER DANTES : No the soffit I'm talking about the soffit. PAT MOORE : Oh the soffits, I don't know that answer to that. MEMBER LEHNERT : The soffits or the walk out bay?The walkout bay is not shown on the site plan. MEMBER DANTES : Right but the walkout bay meets the conforming setback cause that's in the area it's 35 feet I'm talking about the little soffit area. I mean it's such a tiny little think I don't want to make an issue but PAT MOORE : Certainly we could have the architect. MEMBER LEHNERT : Do soffits really count? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They can. PAT MOORE : Yeah sometimes it depends on MEMBER LEHNERT : I think that soffits are pretty benign to any application. JARED SEDAM : This is Jared Sedam, I'm the architect on the project. PAT MOORE : Thank you Jared, would you answer the issue of the soffit and its JARED SEDAM : The bay window you are correct it does not show that projection on the site plan but that bay actually is inside of the setback. PAT MOORE : I don't think that's the area, they were looking at if you're looking at JARED SEDAM : They're looking at the overhang I believe. PAT MOORE : Overhang of the soffit. March 7,2024 Regular Meeting JARED SEDAM : The soffit is you know it's like another one foot or one foot two overhang. MEMBER DANTES : Write in the decision including soffit they'll figure it out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not touching the ground it's you know and it's not impacting any neighbors that's for sure so it's totally benign. We just don't want to be bothered have the Building Department ask us for a de minimus or you have to bother to do that. MEMBER LEHNERT : While we have the architect, can we get,a revised site plan showing the walkout bay just for our records so that doesn't come up again in the future? JARED SEDAM : Sure of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that way we stamp it. PAT MOORE : I apologize, what are describing? MEMBER LEHNERT The site plan doesn't show the walkout bay that's shown on the architecturals. It's not going to make a difference but it just keeps all the records straight. JARED SEDAM : Sure and I'm happy to provide that and if it PAT MOORE : If you can point to that cause I'm not following. MEMBER DANTES : If you look at A-0 there's a bay window on the rear yard the rear of MEMBER LEHNERT : In the front see this okay that walkout bay is not shown on that site plan right there. PAT MOORE : Ah okay thank you. JARED SEDAM : Just to be a hundred percent clear, it's you know I hear it being referred to as being a walkout bay but it's basically a little bench, you can't walk out into the bay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you'll resubmit the site plan? JARED SEDAM : Yes MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't want them to go to the Building Department, build this thing all of a sudden now they get an inspection and now we're back again for a variance for a half an inch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then I think that's where Leslie said that would be a de minimus. March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a good idea to clean up the paperwork now, it saves everybody headaches. JARED SEDAM : I'm happy to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience here who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think just as a reminder there were many letters of support. PAT MOORE : Yes we did submit those, yes there were. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Three letters of support I have from the immediate neighbors. I'd still will never know why and how these lots were ever developed on Fishers Island. It's just nuts you can't believe it, it's a triangle. So hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended site plan. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7884—JAMES HUETTENMOSER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for James Huettenmoser #7884. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207, Article XXXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's November 8, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new two-story single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) located less than the code required minimum 22-T March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting i combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum average building height of 35 feet, 5) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 6) gross floor area exceeding the permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area, 7) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 2235 Cedar Lane in East Marion. JAMES DELUCA : James Deluca I'm the architect for the Huettenmosers. CHAIRPERSON'WEISMAN : So we have let's just see what we've got here, demolishing a single family dwelling building a new two story single family dwelling front yard setback of 31.2 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 35, 2) side yard setback at 7.8 feet, the code requiring a 10 feet minimum, 3) combined side yard setback at 20.6 feet, the code requiring 25 foot minimum, height at 37.9 feet, code permitting a maximum'of 35 feet, 5) lot coverage at 33.4%, the code permitting a maximum of 20%, 6) the gross floor area is 4,617 sq. ft., the code permits a maximum on this sized lot of 2, 425 feet so it exceeds the permitted gross floor area by 2,191.25 sq. ft. and 7) it exceeds the sky plane. The existing basement is to remain? JAMES DELUCA : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did not see in the application any reasons given for any of these things in particular so if you'd like to address that now. JAMES DELUCA : Well basically the Heuttenmosers are going to make this their permanent residence moving from they're in New Jersey now and they're going to make this their permanent residence. Right now it's their summer not an all year round residence. We're increasing the size of it to accommodate his extended family. The variances that we're asking for are I don't myself don't believe that they're extensive ;for one reason. First of all I'll address the side yards, the side yards now that they have we're almost maintaining exactly the same side yards that is existing except we're extending the non-conforming of those two side yards. There's one thing thought that I want to address that I saw a comment from the Planner about the floor plane, the entire structure as it exists today and the proposed structure is totally out of the flood zone. None of the house is in the floor area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're addressing the LWRP is that what you're referring to? JAMES DELUCA : Right, so that's incorrect. You can see where the floor line is the X zone there the house is totally out of it and the additions that we're putting on are even more out of the two garages are even more out of the floor area. As a matter of fact the finished floor area is 15.7 and the flood area is (inaudible) it's almost 9 feet out of the March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Sorry right but what is he mentioned the flood area in his report? JAMES DELUCA : Pardon me. MEMBER DANTES : Where does he mention the flood zone area? JAMES DELUCA : If you go to the he talks about the on the second page it talks about it increases the area that can be damaged if you look on the second page. MEMBER DANTES : Oh C4 okay but he doesn't actually state that it's in a flood zone. JAMES DELUCA : Well he intimated that it can get damaged and it's so far out of the flood zone that no possible way for that to happen. The other thing I want to address in that form, I just included some pictures that I took of the neighboring houses across the canal and on the other side, these properties are very unusual because of the slope of front to back. The height does exceed 35 feet because it's the average height, when you take the back yard plus the front yard into consideration and then you take the mean height of the building it does exceed it but if you take the front elevation height it's under the 35 feet, it's 34.5 feet and that's really the height you see from the front elevation. MEMBER LEHNERT : But that's not the height we use in the code. JAMES DELUCA : It's below the height, the reason it's 35 feet is because the elevation dips down very severe in the rear yard so when you take the mean elevation naturally it will exceed it but from the road side it doesn't exceed the 35 feet it's 34.5 when you approach the building from the front elevation. MEMBER DANTES : What are the you eluded to these pictures that you gave us, what are we looking at in these pictures? JAMES DELUCA : Those are adjoining structures and they have I'm addressing about the character of the neighborhood. Those structures are right across the canal and one is directly in front of this proposed residence and you can see they have the same existing condition. From the back the buildings are much higher than the 35 feet because of the sloping towards the MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) variance relief for height? JAMES DELUCA : I didn't go that far I was just showing to compare the character of the neighborhood that these three story houses exist on other properties from the rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is currently on the floor plan for the lower below grade elevation from the street side the water side that you walk straight out?What's in there? March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting JAMES DELUCA : What's in there now walk out, they have a garage and then they have a basement area it's about eight to ten years ago we raised the I had the house I did the architectural work then too we raised the house I think with three courses of block I think it was two feet. We had a permit on it and we added the deck on it to make it the height in the basement more usable. That was completed and we have included the C.O. on that. The two story that we want to add it's very difficult to renovate the existing first floor to accommodate the second floor that's why we're taking the whole thing off right down to the deck the basement deck and we're going to build a second story but we're going to truss it without any interior bearing walls (inaudible) floor trusses and roof trusses to carry the loads out to the outside because that's why we didn't want to renovate the first floor cause it was very difficult to do the framing in it so that's why we were taking it off and through truss design and carry everything out to the outside walls which was done about nine years ago they were reinforced to lift the house up so they can accommodate the whole second floor. MEMBER DANTES : Here's another question then, why not design a house that meets code where you don't have to be here to get a variance? JAMES DELUCA : We're on the existing the only thing that's outside of the existing building is the garages but the structure itself goes right up on the existing floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's going on in that basement, is that habitable space, is it conditioned? Is it a rec room or how is it JAMES DELUCA :They have a rec room down there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a habitable JAMES DELUCA : Yeah, but the proposed dwelling is on the existing footprint. What's out of the footprint is the garage areas it's exactly the way it is now. The only thing that's outside of the existing footprint is the front porch, covered porch and part of the south garage and the proposed north garage. Everything else is in the existing footprint except for the deck and the entry foyer which is on the deck but we're in exactly the same footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that front porch is 12 foot deep right? JAMES DELUCA : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That certainly can be reduced to increase the front yard setback. JAMES DELUCA : Well the front yard setback is taken from the garages. Z March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : In all honesty looking at your plans, there's a lot you can do to achieve your goals while eliminating variances. I mean the combined side yard setback if you redesign the garage you can figure out a way to have a two car garage while not needing the combined side yard setback. Changing the roofline and the roof pitch you could figure out a way to meet the code conforming height. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the sky plane. MEMBER DANTES : That's kind of where I would go with this because I mean a lot of the if you work with the aesthetic design you could achieve a lot of your goals. JAMES DELUCA : Well we can't reduce the square footage I mean if I'm staying over the same envelope I changed the roof pitch you can lower the roof a little bit MEMBER DANTES : And you'd eliminate the need for one variance. JAMES DELUCA : Yeah and the side yard if you look at the proposed side yards MEMBER DANTES : The single side yard I understand but the combined side yard is created by the garage. JAMES DELUCA : One is at right now it's at 8.1 and it goes out to 7.9 but that's existing, the addition would put cause the existing garage is right there now. MEMBER DANTES : I know. JAMES DELUCA : That one would basically remain the same and the other one right now we have a deck that we can if you wanted we can reduce the size of the garage a little bit to increase the combined side yard. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) code for the combined side yards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if you reduce the size of the porch you can also reduce the lot coverage. I mean the point is it's very difficult for the Board to entertain seven variances when it's considered new construction. I know you're working off of the existing lot, there's a lot of things that can contribute to lot coverages. There's a lot of stone stuff, there's a lot of decking, there's it's really packed with lot coverage I know that but anything you can do to reduce it. When the Board grants variances we are required by law to grant the absolute minimum necessary. JAMES DELUCA : Well we're 5.7 over existing, 5.7% over existing. Z6 March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean already, what are you talking about? The lot coverage you're proposing is 33.4% JAMES DELUCA : Over existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, so the lot maximum permitted is 20%. What's the existing lot coverage? JAMES DELUCAN : The existing lot coverage is approximately I just gotta take it off here, it's about 28%, 27. something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So existing is 28 alright. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think to Eric's point though I mean there's many alternatives you don't have to build such a wide house, sky plane is an issue, I think the gross floor area I don't understand why you can't remain within the code. You talk about the square footage of the house, you have a footprint so you'd rather go up or you go out but you can't do everything. JAMES DELUCA : Well by going up we automatically increase the square footage of the building that's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then keep it under the allowable square footage. Why would you need to exceed? JAMES DELUCA : If I go up straight it's still over the allowable square footage that's why I kept the second story in the existing envelope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what this basically says is it's overbuilding on the size of the lot. That's why the codes were put into place so that wouldn't happen. So the question is to what extent is it reasonable to do that and where can you cut back to at least be a lot more conforming. I understand that people have wants and needs but we have to work within what the law allows based on the size of the lot and character of the neighborhood. The homes you showed us we observed when we were there inspecting the property. I'm not sure that you would certainly the slope is similar on both sides of the pond but it doesn't that's not necessarily the neighborhood, the neighborhood is the street. So you know there's a lot smaller houses along that street. Anyway, I think what's probably going to I mean you have finished basement, technically it's only because of the slope that that's not considered a third story what you're trying to do. JAMES DELUCA : Exactly March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a lot of house on a lot that's quite small for that kind of house. So I think you know we're going to wind up with an arraignment in about two seconds and I really hate to disrupt this. I want everybody to be sure to say anything that they want to say and have the time so what we can do is continue until they kick us out of here and then we can either just adjourn temporarily and come back and everybody can wait. I'm thinking that you should really talk to your clients and see what you can do to make this a little bit less based upon seven variances cause it's clear there are things that you can do to reduce some of the massing, to reduce some of the lot coverage, to reduce the gross floor area and even if you still need some variances they should be lesser variances right. I do think we probably have somebody here who wants to address the application. MEMBER LEHNERT : Before we do that have we addressed the septic system? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not yet. JAMES DELUCA : We're going to put in a brand new septic system. MEMBER LEHNERT : An IA system? JAMES DELUCA : Yeah, we're already working on that we're putting in the FUJI system in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the front yard somewhere I presume, we need another five minutes I just want to make sure that people get to say what they want to say JAMES DELUCA : If the Board wants to adjourn the hearing, I'll sit down with the clients and redesign and resubmit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good, but I think since we have a few more minutes they've taken the trouble to come here let's hear what they have to say and then I'm going to wind up this isn't over, I'm going to propose that we adjourn it to next month. That'll give you time to rework things, to come back before the Board and show the neighbors what the new plans look like and we'll see if we can't work something out. Please state your name for the record. KAREN KLEIN : My name is Karen Klein, I live at with my husband Sean Knoll at 1165 East Gillette Drive in East Marion and we're here to discuss this property and hello unfortunately we're here talking at a hearing. We had submitted earlier this week and to Donna and I'm hoping CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got them. KAREN KLEIN : you acknowledge the petition that we shared with you from eight neighbors in the community. For the sake of time I'm not going to go through the details of that you have March 7,2024 Regular Meeting all the details of the reasons why we object to the appeal. There is one more recent submission from Dr. Joe Pagano and I'll share it with you, he got it notarized and if I can read it I would like to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, did you get a copy of that? JAMES DELUCA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we should give them a copy of sure let them know what your thinking is. We can actually make a copy for the architect if you'd like. KAREN KLEIN : I think Joe's letter to the Board describes the concerns. Dear Board, Unfortunately I am unable to attend this meeting due to prior commitments. However I write this letter to express the importance of this matter to me. I live on lot 37-4-8 which is adjacent to the property under appeal. Years ago the Huettenmoser's house was raised and doing so they now have a fully finished walk-in living space in their basement as well as an elevated deck on their first floor. In doing so their elevated house created a privacy concern for our house. We tried to mitigate that problem by planting Leyland Cypress trees. With the requested variances under appeal they want to create a home that is well over the lot coverages as well as the sky plane. This will affect the quality of our life. Of particular concern is the elevation which is only exceeded because of the previous lifting of the home. If this elevation variance is granted it will create the highest elevation in our community as well as three full levels of living space. It will tower over all of the neighbor's houses. A renovation to improve their home is a good thing, however it should be obligated to respect and adhere to the expressed provisions of the town code and not impede on the quality of life of neighboring properties. Sincerely,Joseph Pagano. I just want to add that I had sent Donna just like forty five minutes ago a picture of a view from our home'and Sean is going to talk about our specific concerns that shows that current their current elevation is in line with Dr. Pagano's house at this point and Dr. Pagano has a two story home. SEAN KNOLL : Hi my name is Sean Knoll I'm Karen's wife I live at 1165 East Gillette Drive as well. I'm a full time resident here I work locally as well and part of our objection really is we really feel this will impinge upon our privacy in our yard. The height of the building as well as encroaching closer to the road it's.really, really close to our back yard alright. I don't really see a need to put a twelve foot porch as you already indicated in there and you can already see from our back yard they can get a direct line of sight in our back yard..You elevate that house even higher they'll be looking directly into our back yard and there's little vegetated screening in between the two homes as it is. That's not our property, we can't plant, I would love to put trees there and we tried to but it was rejected. We would love to put some plants in and have some vegetated screening but it was denied. So our big concern is that an addition as you 9 March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting already indicated we feel that such a large home is really not in character with both the neighborhood that we live in, in Marion Manor and Gardener's Bay Estates as you already indicated. Such a (inaudible) large home is just out of character with both neighborhoods in East Marion.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Do you want to submit that letter also, the new one you just read into the record? I just want to make sure that you get copies of all that and you can look at it. KAREN KLEIN : Yes I submitted MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ms. Klein maybe give her copy to the architect. KAREN KLEIN : Of the letter? I will give you this copy this is mine but I will give it to you. In addition I will submit I also received an additional signature for the petition by Erick Stein who is at 2535 Cedar Lane that you do not have in your packet so I will also share that with you. CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : Okay well this hearing is going to be adjourned so you can submit additional information, things are still open so you can submit other comments as you obtain them. MEMBER DANTES : Can I say one thing real quick, just so you guys do understand he does have a lot of code conforming rights that he can avail himself(inaudible) KAREN KLEIN : Absolutely and I'll just for the record state that there have been several variance applications on behalf of other neighbors and one actually on East Gillette, Demitrack I think that you finally made a decision on, we have not objected to any of the variances that have been filed by our neighbors and I think Pagano's house is an example of how he worked pretty within and created a beautiful home that is in character with the community. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You submitted that in your and you submitted those priors. KAREN KLEIN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Today's code is more restrictive though than those other renovations so in theory and I can't speak to the (inaudible) of what the Pagano house looks like or another property but you do have to maintain the existing sky plane, the building height etc. the gross floor area. The side yard setback I think if it exists you know we're going to work with that but the other issues need resolution. i March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting JAMES DELUCA : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason the code changed was because people were overbuilding on lots, people just wanted more and more and more out of lots that were not really designed to accommodate them. So the Town Board changed the code to you know restrict reasonable expansions on properties and we're going to have to adjourn this. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Excuse me Leslie, I don't know if this pertains but you did ask about the basement, I did some research I do not see any permits for a finished basement, building permits. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so we will have to if you have a C.O. you want to address that we'll deal with that. Okay I'm going to make a motion now to adjourn this hearing to the April 4th. We will let you know exactly what time when we have the agenda sorted out and it will be legally posted as well. You'll know we're going to be back here then and hopefully you can work out some things that incorporate and Kim will give you the letters for you to look at. Motion to adjourn is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to adjourn for the arraignment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye r CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7883—DAVID BURNS and REBECCA BAUSCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David Burns and Rebecca Bausch #7883. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 14, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) more than the code permitted lot coverage of 20% located at 50 Breitstadt Court in Southold. 'DAVID BURNS : Hi my name is David Burns, I'm the owner and the applicant/architect for 50 Breitstadt. We're not there full time we live in Dobb's Ferry but we're here a lot of the summer and weekends. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is let's just put into the record what you're asking for, you want to have a rear yard setback of 32.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet on the size property you have. Then the lot coverage as 22.3% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. This is a swimming pool addition, it's there already but. DAVID BURNS : The swimming pool is not there, it's a proposed pool and proposed additions of about 813 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yes, corner lot. March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting DAVID BURNS : Corner lot and just over the 20,000 sq. ft. threshold which pushes us into that 50 foot rear yard requirement. So there's an existing concrete pad on the back of the house that is above the 12 inch kind of requirement so it does fall into existing lot coverage so that's the rear patio listed on the survey at 1.8% of the coverage. So that's an existing condition so that 32 feet 8 inches is existing, we're proposing to put a roof over it but keep it open as a porch. Then the other condition is trying to extend the house with the same roofline on the eastern edge, the current house is approximately 44 feet from the eastern property line it would be extending that condition for the addition. Again that's shy of the 50 foot requirement that's again in attempting to keep the existing rooflines. MEMBER DANTES : What's shy of the 50 foot requirement? DAVID BURNS : Fifty foot requirement would be on the right hand side of the plans for the east side, that's our rear yard where the pool kind of over the pool. I mentioned there's a 40 foot MEMBER DANTES : Oh, oh, oh I see what you're saying. DAVID BURNS : And because we're 500 sq. ft. over the 20,000 we would otherwise have a smaller rear yard requirement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's one of those on the cusp DAVID BURNS : (inaudible) in the sixties you know all these houses are kind these low (inaudible) houses sixties ranch houses so that was also a desire to keep that with the neighborhood and one story. MEMBER LEHNERT :Just following the line of the existing house. DAVID BURNS : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you're proposing landscaping also to screen the pool which is something anybody would want particularly cause you're on a corner lot. DAVID BURNS : Yes and there's already considerable landscaping from both us and our neighbor to the east on lot 17 along that fence line. MEMBER LEHNERT : The pool is what kicks you over the lot coverage. DAVID BURNS : The pool kicks us over the lot coverage, you can take either the additions would also you know it's a combined effort we're about four hundred and some square feet over the lot coverage but yes. March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : You also have a covered porch that you're adding too. DAVID BURNS : Correct, so we're taking a patio that's currently lot coverage and adding a roof to it. It's currently considered lot coverage cause it's over twelve inches above the grade we're proposing to cover it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think the roof is going to add to the lot coverage. DAVID BURNS : It should be the same,the calculations it's part of current lot coverage. MEMBER LEHNERT : But that puts you into the 32.8? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 22.3 MEMBER LEHNERT : It makes the setback 32.8 instead of 44. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes DAVID BURNS : Right because otherwise it would just be it's about a sixteen inch bulkhead, patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob any questions from you on this? MEMBER LEHNERT : No it's pretty benign I don't have any questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a couple of questions relative to the pool, we're talking about the lot coverage I mean I think a 20 x 40 pool is reasonable but is there any possibility to reduce the size? It would reduce the lot coverage negligibly but bring it down. Can you give us a compelling reason? DAVID BURNS : It is possible, we were trying to get you know a reasonable size but it's very likely we may have to pull it in a little bit just for simplicity of building so we were targeting 20 x 40 but I think we can look at shaving it. We were aligning it with the outside edge of the southernmost addition to be behind the house but it could go down. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What would you be willing to reduce it to? DAVID BURNS : That's a good question, we haven't had that conversation but I would assume we would you know we can go down an extra five feet you know if that helps to the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the other size, 16 x 32? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 18 x 36 something like that. DAVID BURNS : We were trying to do a standard so March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to take a little bit of time and let us know, we can adjourn this to the Special Meeting? Or we can just condition it based upon the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think that's a pretty quick decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know what it's going to reduce the lot coverage to. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's going to be negligible really negligible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm wondering why bother? If it's not going to reduce the lot coverage MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's why I was a 20 x 40 or 25 x 50 but you know it's just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know if you were ripping out a deck that's one thing. MEMBER LEHNERT : I mean a pool is not habitable space, it's a pool. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it's at grade MEMBER LEHNERT : You don't see it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would argue that the yard is already beautifully landscaped. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is, you got a wood fence, solid wood fence back there with evergreens. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other question I had sort of two is proposed dry well and pool mechanicals. DAVID BURNS : Correct, so we are proposing they're not located yet but we are proposing the (inaudible) drywells. The current cesspool system lives just north of the pool which is why we're also citing the pool where it is. So we're looking at the possible locations for the drywell. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the other thing and you might already know this but I believe a pool cannot be any closer than a minimum of 20 feet to the outside sort of perimeter of a septic system. DAVID BURNS : Okay MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know where the waste line is and where the septic is but that may impact the size of the pool ultimately. March 7,2024 Regular Meeting DAVID BURNS : It very well could, I know the cesspool is well out of the 20 foot range but there is an overflow tank that migrates south of there, closer to the pool so we'll have to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the septic is sort of in that corner it's off screen right now but right below page 1 of 9? DAVID BURNS : Correct, and I only know that because we had to replace the line to it last summer. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I think from a pool mechanicals standpoint they're typically in a sound deadening enclosure or ideally I mean if there's a way it can be placed somewhere like where your proposed addition for that bathroom/office is somewhere farther away where it wouldn't impact the neighbor. DAVID BURNS : Right, you're concerned about the exposed equipment (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly DAVID BURNS : Understood, yep. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright there's somebody on Zoom are they interested? People want a decent sized pool, it's one thing if it makes a big impact. It's just going to be just for the sake of you know half a percentage it just isn't worth it. It's punitive then, it's not helpful. Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7885—ORIENT ACRES, LLC/EVA MALLIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Orient Acres, LLC/Eva Mallis #7885. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 17, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and an accessory pool house at 1) swimming pool is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) pool house is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 32625 Main Rd. (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Orient. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. in Mattituck for the applicant Orient Acres. Yes we are here for relief from the rear yard requirement for accessory structures. You've been there, you know this is a very spectacular nearly ten acre parcel stretching from the Main Rd. up to the Sound in Orient. The applicant is simply seeking to add an accessory pool and place it in an area that is respectful of.the adjacent lot lines and neighboring properties. There's really no way to place the pool in the rear yard without you know really invading or getting too close to the coastal erosion line and the top of the bluff there. This location there's substantial native vegetation on the eastern property line, the next closest house is about a hundred and, some feet southeast of where this pool would be with the limitations of the size of a pool house it's really kind of a real annual structure with a pool. So as far as the impact on character of the neighborhood again we have a nearly ten acre parcel with a relatively modest home and they're going to seeking to add a pool. We don't believe this will have any impact on the character of the neighboring properties which (inaudible) structures not anywhere nearby it'll be almost invisible to the neighbors with these improvements. Unfortunately we can't do this without a variance because of the rear yard requirement but locating the pool in the rear yard seems to be environmentally the best I mean I'm sorry the side yard seems to environmentally the best option here. We would argue that it's not a substantial variance in light of the fact that the location is respectful of neighboring homes and the coastal erosion hazard line. Again, as to environmental impacts the design is actually a net positive environmentally, it is a Type II Action but there are no perceivable environmental impacts related to placing the pool in the side yard here. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions I feel like it's pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It certainly is. Did you get this was this the one where the neighbor was objecting? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes MARTIN FINNEGAN : No March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an undeveloped lot and the neighbor said he's objecting in the event that someday he builds a house it will be too close to this, it will cause noise. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well if(setbacks) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just informing Martin in case he wants to address it, that's all. The neighbor says his lot is undeveloped but he plans to build a house in the future and he's looking at you know impacts of noise cause it's in a side yard instead of the rear yard. MEMBER LEHNERT : How do we address something that doesn't exist? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the other thing is you could have put in the front yard and it would have been conforming instead of the side yard because it's a waterfront property. MEMBER LEHNERT : But it's the same setback from the side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but it would be the same impact if anything MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) there would be an impact. MEMBER DANTES :The pools are a code conforming use therefore they can't be nuisance. MEMBER LEHNERT: Correct MEMBER DEANTES :The noise is permitted by code. MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) to the extent that there would be an abuse but I don't (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : But again we're basing it on the neighbor that has an empty lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I just wanted to enter that into the record cause it is part of our record and I wanted you to be aware of it. You also are looking at you know a 46 foot side yard setback which is for an accessory structure very substantial. That's for one corner of the pool most of it is farther away than that. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pool equipment there, pool house with storage. Okay what's going on in that pool house, I think it's just MARTIN FINNEGAN : Not a whole lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I got nervous when I saw the well the footprint just cause of the outside sort of covered space, I thought it was all interior at first. March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, no, no it's just like a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pergola CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, any questions from the Board? MEMBER DANTES : Do you need Trustees for this or are you outside? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's outside. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Outside,that was the other reason to just keep it back and you know. MEMBER DANTES :This is a benign request really. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin I do not have any questions. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Thank you Nick. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom that wants to address the application? No hands okay, then there's no one else in the audience unless there's anything else from the Board. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to adjourn for lunch is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye March 7,2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7859—NORTH FORK PROJECT, LLC/OLD MILL INN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The application before the Board now is for North Fork Project, LLC/Old Mill Inn #7859 reopened from January 18, 2024. Request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-121 and the Building Inspector's August 15, 2023 amended October 4, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct interior alterations to an existing non-habitable accessory tower structure to be used as conditioned habitable space with storage at 1) proposed use as conditioned habitable space is not permitted located at 5670 West Mill Rd. (adj. to Mattituck Creek) in Mattituck. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant, North Fork Project. Obviously we were here before and I believe we're back because there was a question raised by the Board regarding why office space is needed. When I got that I was scratching my head cause I was not aware that the last stamped set of plans in your file had three offices on the second of the restaurant and I was like where is this coming from. So we have now submitted that was sort of a blip in the process when the new architect came on and in conjunction with back and forth with the Building Department everything that was never the intention obviously historically there were always bedrooms on the second floor of the Old Mill. It was somehow that iteration got before you so we have corrected that by submitting a revised set of plans which has the bedrooms which sets us back as to why we are here in this application to create this one small office space on the second level of the tower. March 7,2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me let you know that based upon reviewing those plans and lots of backing and forth'ing and lots of talks with the Town Attorney, Assistant Town Attorney and I made a motion which was unanimously approved during the Work Session this morning which reads as follows : Motion to amend ZBA Decision 7573 to accept finalized architectural plans and elevations for the principle restaurant as approved by Suffolk County Health Department. So that's done. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay so the plans we submitted yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will stamp them as approved and MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay cause we need to get them to the Building Department A.S.A.P. so thank you we appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause they won't do anything till we stamp them anyway. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly that's been the rush. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we'll take care of that and then I will work on an amended draft decision that will basically only thing that will be changed is that the drawings, date and so on MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : will be changed and then we'll have one decision, amended twice but will reflect (inaudible) hopefully the last one. Now we're looking at the use of the tower. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes and we had closed the last hearing I thought without questions when we presented the application on the proposed uses so as the Board is now aware this is intended just to be a small office space available for restaurant operations since there is no space available in the main building for that. You're well aware of the interconnection of these two parcels and how the structure is essentially accessory to the Old Mill. I hope that you've all had a chance to go down there and check it out cause it's pretty spectacular what Anthony has done down there and just hoping that we can get it opened up for the season. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's review from previous hearings some of the things that Anthony volunteered to do. One was C&R's to treat them as one property the two lots. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : cause they are I mean if it weren't for that right of way they would be one lot. 411 March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Honestly there is absolutely no way that they could ever be sold separately. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the septic (inaudible) cannot operate the restaurant without that lot MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly so that has been memorialized that is not an issue. We can if you want to condition on that we can certainly prepare that and submit it for Julie's review. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It'll just be subject to approval of Town Attorney that's standard. I also remember talking about the use of the office just employees of the restaurant only, the bookkeeperthe MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly, or the owner or bookkeeper. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Employees only. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know you need conditioned space for the foot locker I mean the storage locker you just have to you can't operate otherwise. MEMBER LEHNERT :The removal of the shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going remove that shower so that you just have a half a bath up there. MARTIN FINNEGAN : If that's what's required that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is I might as well get all this out into the record, well you know habitable space mean office space there won't be any cooking they're won't be any MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't care if you have a coffee pot and a microwave for God's sake it's an office but MARTIN FINNEGAN :There's barely enough space for a desk it's very small. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very little a one person office.The plans are as they are right? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those are accurate, the tower and now one thing that Nick and I both noticed, the storage shed on the property that originally was going to be for storage for U March 7,2024 Regular Meeting the restaurant but then it was like well I think we want to make it as a wood working you know workshop because that was a side hobby and we said no it's a storage building and you're going to have to move or not install glass sliding patio doors but there appear to be glass sliding patio doors on that building. Is that correct? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No the doors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The doors. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My understanding was the wall was supposed to be closed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's supposed to be a closed wall. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So presently when I turned my car around at Strong's you could see next to the Old Mill Inn the little shed that we're talking about it has doors. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It has doors? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the waterside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's shown here as sliding doors on this plan. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but I think didn't the variance relief say it had to be a solid wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It had to be a solid wall. ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : It is a solid wall, those are purely decorative and fully fixed, there's no latch behind them it's a fully unconditioned space. They are the doors that when I built it I was planning on putting up, it used to just be covered in that blue skin fabric it was an open opening and those are the doors that when I needed a quick fix to cover it from the elements cause all of my cooking equipment and everything in there wei literally screwed them into the framing of the building and you couldn't even open them even'if you tried. I have no intention of using it as a woodworking space or for anything else other than storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because the Building Department will go out to do an inspection and this is not just in an application like yours but when there have been multiple variances on properties with conditions of approval if there's more coming like there is here we will always say ensure that all conditions of prior approvals are in compliance. So I bring it up now because that's helpful for us to know that they're not functional doors. ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : On aesthetic from the outside it's just the aesthetic they're just big old barn doors that were on my grandmother's barn and I happen to have them in storage March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting and they were going to fit in that space. I was going to keep it open and when you guys said not to I said absolutely not and there is wooden structure behind them there unable to open, there's no hinges, there's no sliding mechanisms there's nothing. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Obviously the Building Department will when they do the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I just wanted to get it all out there cause there's obviously an answer. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is kind of unique because you know we don't typically grant an office is clearly an accessory to a restaurant but we don't typically grant offices in accessory structures. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Understood CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have denied many on residential properties and particularly if it's on a different property. So we have to back track and look at the uniqueness and the history of this property because.it is that's why the C&R's are important, it is one property totally interdependent. MARTIN FINNEGAN : A hundred percent and C&R's I don't think anybody can come in and say my property is like this one. I mean it is so incredibly unique in the town for so many reasons but completely understood and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so we're going to approve these just so you know we looked at them. The second floor now of the restaurant is proposing three bedroom spaces and three and a half bathrooms with one of them being a full bathroom, the others are all half bathrooms. A recreation room and kitchenette it's called a recreation room now. I don't know what you're going to recreate in there but that's what it's called. Just on the record, how do you intend to use those I'm just curious because all I've ever wanted is for you to say what you want. This is how we're going to use it, this is what we want to use it for. Who is going to be sleeping in those bedrooms? Are they going to be rented, are they just going to be owned by the restaurant and just used at your discretion I mean what are you going to do with those bedrooms? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well I guess we'd like to have the option to use them for any of those things. I mean primarily the intent was to as consistent with your determination was for staff, for personal use by ownership, management but you know if you look at the historic use of the Inn it was the Old Mill Inn. Those rooms were used for occasionally now look it's largely a March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting seasonal type restaurant. I don',t it's certainly not any type of hotel in you know type of use or anything like that but I think primarily it would be for use by staff, ownership and guests you know of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well guests become then back to the boarding room or you know it's not the Inn operated that was an apartment, somebody lived up there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was going to say, it was like one person or a family. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They weren't renting out rooms as an Inn like North Fork Table and Inn that actually has an Inn and they advertise rental rooms that's a business they're operating for income. That is not what was before that would be considered a second principle use. I just want that in the record finally to be cleared up, we don't need an affidavit I just need you to tell me how you're going to use those rooms and then we can move on back to the office in the tower. MARTIN FINNEGAN : That is it is not intended to be a hotel or a motel or anything. It is for the use of as in the original record for staff or ownership. If they have a guest come and stay I mean the distinction is I guess is if are you charging for that or are you going to advertise and charge for people to stay there versus allowing people to stay. It's not intended to be a hotel use of any kind. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there will be on rent for those rooms? Is that what you're saying? Guests can come? ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : My employment attorney said that if there are employees living up there I have to charge them rent and it has to be a part of their contract. So I can't say that I'm not renting them out but there will be no advertised hotel rooms whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or guests ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : Or guests. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Transient guests. ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : Yes for transient or nightly guests. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do realize if you do that which is what your attorney has advised, you will need a rental permit. ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : Yes and we have done everything up to code to allow that from fire exit signs 451 March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see you have egress marked on these plans. ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI : We have egress marking, we have exits, we sprinkled the upstairs everything that we needed to do to have anyone. I'm just trying to do everything that I can above board on this whole project and there's three bedrooms each with their own bath and a shared kitchen, that's the whole upstairs. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So just to clarify, the space is not going to be rented in any capacity to outside people, no promotion but it's for employee housing which the employees (inaudible) workforce housing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Workforce housing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and they have basically just a single room? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea MEMBER DANTES : I mean you're getting into like (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't want to get into ANTHONY MARTIGNETTI It's not just workforce housing, my wife and I will definitely be keeping one of those rooms for ourselves. If my sister comes to visit and there's no employee living in one of the rooms she'll definitely be staying there. We might if it's our apartment or if it's our it's smaller than our house, we might even move there ourselves while we redo our house on Old Sound Ave. It's just a living space is how I see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's not to be charged for or it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not for transient roomers. MARTING FINNEGAN : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm done. Well because there was so much back and forth (inaudible) for everybody. It's to clean up everything at that property to legalize it all and have a happy life. MARTIN FINNEGAN : We are so grateful, so grateful. ASSISTANT T. A. MCGIVNEY : The questions about the bedrooms pertain because you requested March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because of the office. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Understood CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause typically an office would be right in the same building because it would be easier. Many, many times you see managers or owners running back and forth between their office and the kitchen or whatever, they're okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So two things, one out of the conversation we just had about the bedrooms versus an apartment, because they're being rented to employees do they need a rental permit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then we have to make that as a condition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just said that we don't MARTIN FINNEGAN : We don't know if it's going to be rented to employees and if we do we'll get a rental permit then. I don't think it needs to be conditioned on a rental permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also I just want to make it clear, we are not taking action on those plans or the restaurant. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly, we're talking about the tower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just said we would accept the plans. I just simply went through it because I wanted to verify it's residential use as opposed to an office cause it would be very easy if no one is in that room to take a computer up there and put it on a desk and use it anyway you wanted. I mean it's a space okay but you know we have to people do what they do you know but we have to be squeaky clean about what's allowed for people to do. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Understood CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright we're okay with all this? I don't think that I have any other questions, I think it's you know the plans are very clear and anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions at this time? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything further? March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Thank you all very much, I appreciate you taking quick action on the plans cause it's vital to getting us (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I saw it 11 o'clock last night, you're welcome thanks a lot speedy Gonzales. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye MARTIN FINNEGAN : Thank you and Happy St. Patrick's Day everybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I got a couple of Resolutions here and a couple of motions. Motion to adjourn Silver Sands Holdings #7893SE to the May 2, 2024 Public Hearing. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Member Planamento is recused. Motion to adjourn Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7894 to May 2, 2024 Public Hearings. Is there a second? March 7,2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, April 4, 2024 at 9:00 am so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on February 15, 2024 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Kim I don't have the updated with the extension for Greenport SV, I don't have the agenda where you added that Resolution. Alright Resolution to extend time limits on variance relief, expiration date March 15, 2024 for Appeal No. 7137 SV Greenport LLC. This is a one year extension beyond the six year allowable time frame but the Board does have powers and authority that would enable us to do that based primarily on March 7, 2024 Regular Meeting comments confirming difficulty with the entire signage on the subject property. So the Board can do that but this extension will make it extremely clear that this is the final, this is the fourth extension and absolute final that if it cannot be accomplished within a one year time frame the Board will require a re-hearing with notices on this application prior to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : fee CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes with an application fee if they wish to proceed with the sign painted onto the wall of the Halyard Restaurant. Okay so that's the motion to extend, is there a second on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye 1 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I think that does it. Motion to close the meeting. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Eric, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye Q March 7, 2024 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 : March 13, 2024