Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/04/2024 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York April 4, 2024 10:07 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member (Vice Chair) KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Kelinson,Josh#7878 (Decision) 3 -4 Christopher and Angela Jeffrey#7886 5 -8 Paul Toobian #7887 8 - 13 Barbara and Kimon Thermos/Tuck Realty, LLC/Alexander Kapetanos#7888 13 - 15 Stephen Dubon and Jacqueline Dubon #7890 16- 24 ECAE 149 LLC—c/o Anthony Geraci #7889 24—29 Sebastien Gagnon and Cheryl Han #7889 29-35 Stepane Segouin #7891 35 -36 Robert M. Vella Jr. #7895 37 -41 Diane M. Boucher#7908 41 -44 James Huettenmoser#7884 44 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for April 4, 2024. Please all rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm going to open up the meeting with the SEAR determination, 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: Christopher and Angela Jeffrey, Paul Toobian, Barbara and Kimon Thermos, Stephen Dubon and Jacqueline Dubon, ECAE 149 LLC c/o Anthony Geraci, Sebastien Gagnon andCheryl Han, Robert Vella and Diane Boucher so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have one application a draft in front of us for determination and that is for application #7878 that's Josh Kelinson. Has everybody read the draft? Let's review the should we just review what the essence of what this relief is? Nick, do you want to do that for us? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The applicant is seeking a number of variance actually five, the first being excessive lot coverage of 47.9% where the code allows a maximum of 20% lot coverage, a reduced front yard setback of 4.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet, a reduced side yard setback of .9 feet where the code requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, reduced combined side yard setbacks of 4.1 feet where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet and an excessive sky plane where the code requires all improvements be within that forty.five degree-angle of the lot line from ten feet up. They're substantial variances or substantial variances are requested. This particular lot is the smallest lot in the neighborhood on Oak Dr. it's a waterfront community on East Creek. The house was overdeveloped to begin with beginning with a prior Board relief that allowed the further expansion of the house so I think the development or the further development is compounded by the fact that this is probably the most densely developed lot in the entire neighborhood. In either case the relief 3 April 4,2024 Regular Meeting requested is substantial it goes against the LWRP, there's a variety of different issues including the neighbor I won't say a dispute but just for light and ventilation. The project is substantial. The draft as written is to deny the application however alternative relief is offered. By alternative relief and let me just one other footnote, above the garage there's a garage that has literally a one-foot setback from the road the applicant proposes a second story addition which is at the 4.6 feet. It's just a substantial massing from the road so really the effort here is to allow the applicant to modernize the house to meet family needs while still preserving the character of the community. So alternative relief is offered as follows, that the applicant is to maintain all prior setbacks as illustrated on the site plan subject to, that the applicant is allowed to expand the footprint of the existing residence in the southwest corner where they have a proposed cantilevered second floor which would allow them the access to have a front entry porch which is to remain unconditioned and opened in perpetuity. Secondly that the addition and the expansion of the footprint of the house between the existing garage and the existing bathroom which is an area of something in the range of 24 sq. ft. just to square off the house. So this should accommodate the applicant's need in expanding the house to meet modern needs in an interior level without impacting the neighborhood by expanding the front fagade or encroaching further upon the sky plane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In particular the second story addition over the garage which is so close to the property line. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's substantial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, does anybody have any other comments or questions on this draft before we vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would make a motion that we deny the variance relief requested however grant alternative relief as outlined. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll second it. All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. 4 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7886—CHRISTOPHER and ANGELA JEFFREY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first hearing before the Board today is for Christopher and Angela Jeffrey#7886. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 8, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling, 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 5875 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel. Good morning, state your name for the record please. CHRISTOPHER JEFFREY : Christopher Jeffrey CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking here at a single family home with a side yard setback of 3.13 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10 and a combined side yard setback of 10.5 feet where the code requires 25 foot minimum and lot coverage of 21.9% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. The lot width is only 35 feet wide; the lot depth is 250 feet which makes for a very, very long narrow lot. So, what would you like us to know about this application? CHRISTOPHER JEFFREY : I guess just three things, the deck when we purchased the house there was a pre-existing deck of roughly the same square footage I think maybe by a few inches here or there. The deck was in disrepair, rotting, no banisters we have young children so it was a priority to get a new back deck that is up to code as far as building wise and safer. As you mentioned, the property itself is very narrow, I think it was originally kind of part of the neighboring property and then one of the family members kind of split off and built his own house so it got grandfathered in as a you know lot size width below what would be standard today or I guess minimum. Then I guess third just as far as I know there's no neighbor dispute, both neighbors have expressed to me that they have no problem with the deck, the deck was already there so kind of there's nothing really changed for them. Those are my thoughts thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you had just replaced the top decking you wouldn't be here before us, it's because you needed to replace the structure underneath it that was rotting out also that's why you're here because it's no considered a new structure. Let's see if the Board has any questions. As you know we've all done inspections of the property. Pat, do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No I mean looking at the survey versus the architectural plans, the decks pretty much match and there is a C.O. for the deck in that location dated 1992 so it's pretty benign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I actually have two questions, what prompted the Stop Work Order?There is a Stop Work Order that was issued. CHRISTOPHER JEFFREY : Yeah so we did not get the proper permits and variances for that and I apologize. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But why was there a call from a neighbor or something or is this something that you went for an inspection and it was discovered? CHRISTOPHER JEFFREY : As far as from what I heard the.lnspector who came to the property said that somebody called, unclear if it's a neighbor or MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So there was some sort of a report made and that's how it was discovered. CHRISTOPHER JEFFREY : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then the other question was, the property card and what seems like the history of the property indicate that the deck was supposed to be 12 X 16 and you're seeking to replace a 24.5 X 16 so it sort of doubled the size. CHRISTOPHER JEFFREY : I am not sure as far as the property card I mean from what I remember the deck as when we purchased the property it's the same. I think we have pictures of it previously versus now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : At some point earlier it was expanding upon I expect. MEMBER LEHNERT :There is a C.O. for a deck addition from '92. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The 12 x 16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No, Nick asked my questions. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Well we should also acknowledge that site inspection showed that the side yard is screened all the way around in the rear with evergreens, very large 6 April 4,2024 Regular Meeting evergreens. You have a really big back yard so there's not going to be any visual impact on anybody. There's AG property behind you MEBMER PLANAMENTO : And the neighbors both houses are quite a distance on either side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so I think those are all of the facts. Let's see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application. Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Inaudible MIKE GLICKMAN : Hello this is Mike Glickman I'm building the deck for Chris and Angela. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, all that we were doing was noticing that on the drawing that we have which is stamped by Thomas Messick Architect MIKE GLICKMAN : Yes correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a table of setbacks and some of them are incorrect. The side yard setback is listed as 15 feet when it's supposed to be 10 and both side which we call combined it listed as 35, it's supposed to be 25 and the lot coverage is correct it's 21.90 and T. A. MCGIVNEY : The rear is incorrect too but that didn't matter for the variance it's just that this one down here the 50 should be (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The rear yard setback we don't need a rear yard the site plan is correct but on that table the rear yard setback is listed as 50 feet and I'm not sure if it's really we don't really need MEMBER LEHNERT : No as far as the site plan is correct it doesn't matter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I don't think we have any questions, it's alright. I just want to make sure I don't want to stamp a drawing that's not correct. The site plan is correct so that's what counts. Okay hearing no other further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye 7 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. CHRISTOPHER JEFFREY : Thank you. HEARING #7887— PAUL TOOBIAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Paul Toobian #7887. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 28, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" demolition (as per Town Code Definition) of a dwelling and reconstruct a single-family dwelling, 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 15775 CR 48 in Cutchogue. Would you state your name please? JEFF ZAHN :Jeff Zahn CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This home is being reconstructed with a front yard setback of 20.4 feet the code requires 40 feet. We have notes in here that say that there are no C.O.'s for that property on record, is that correct or do you have any C.O.'s? JEFF ZAHN : I do not have any C.O.'s and I was unaware of that. It could be because of the history of the age of the home it's probably over eighty years old. If you look it's pretty much the original house, it's never been improved upon, extended and even this proposed application we're not proposing to provide any outward additions to the existing. The footprint is remaining the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you the homeowner? JEFF ZAHN : I'm the architect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh the architect okay.` Is an IA system proposed for this renovation? JEFF ZAHN : Yes, in fact the application is in with the Health Department and it came back with some comments which we are addressing to get resubmitted. i April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, there was a Stop Work Order on this property because there were no permits obtained prior to JEFF ZAHN : That's correct and that's when my services were engaged upon the Stop Work Order to get the proper building permits. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the footprint is staying the same. JEFF ZAHN : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you using the same foundation? JEFF ZAHN : We're using the same foundation, if you notice in the rear there was a porch that it was constructed as a porch but now we're making it habitable space so that's where the new foundation is going in cause it was just on concrete piers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I noticed that, you have a block foundation I think. JEFF ZAHN : The existing foundation is block correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're building on the existing foundation? JEFF ZAHN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we inspected the property and you know there's a sort of wooded area in the rear of the property, a church to the west, two story single-family dwelling to the east. It's very close to the road but if you're going to be using the same foundation and you're constructing approximately the same size dwelling. JEFF ZAHN : The dwelling is if you went by today is going to be exactly the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The profile is the same, massing is the same. JEFF ZAHN : It's going to be the same,the walls are the same the roofline is the same. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's not a complete demo it's just a demo by code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right that's right. Okay I have no further questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No, if you look at the other houses in the area, a lot of them are all pretty close to the road too so it is characteristic of the neighborhood: MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My only question is more towards our Board or even Julie, the proposed front yard setback which exists is the 20.4 but there is an overhang with like a covered front porch entry so that's not reflected on the Notice of Disapproval. I'm confused, sometimes we have to you know the well the variance relief would be including that porch and other times it's not. Here it's not cited. MEMBER DANTES : It's not on the site plan or the survey either that's why(inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I don't know if that's an issue with the Building Department. It seems when you look at the framing of the structure as it is today you can see that there was a covered porch there, there's like shadowing. It's gone now of course so I don't know if he has the right to put it back. MEMBER DANTES : He has on the building plan just a landing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea it's like 4 x 3 feet and the landing I think is fine I don't think the Building Department has an issue with it, the question is more about the overhang this covered CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's got an open roof though. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But in other (inaudible) it's been cited that's the only reason why I'm asking this sort of administratively. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's got columns coming down. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Should be grant the relief allowing for that or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would. MEMBER DANTES : Yea MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It saves any problem with the Building Department. So, Mr. Zahn what is the dimension of that roof overhang? JEFF ZAHN : It is 4 x 3. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I thought and the depth is 3 feet? JEFF ZAHN : The depth is 3, 4 foot wide. April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the relief really should be at 17.4 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you include that but it's not on the Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER DANTES : I know but he has it on the architectural plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, put that in additional information and we'll just simply grant as applied for and stamp those as approved drawings and that should do it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Including the roof overhang. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea including is that alright with everybody?What is that, Liz? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : There's a possibility that the Building Department did not get the actual survey or whatever showing that overhang because the paperwork that I have here doesn't show it. MEMBER DANTES : It's not on the survey. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we do it as alternative relief? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe Amanda or whoever the Plans Examiner was on this just missed it and the weird thing is, if it was just the steps going up to a landing MEMBER LEHNERT : That wouldn't count. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It wouldn't be an issue but because of the overhang and you can clearly see there was a covered porch there. I think it's better BOARD ASSISTANT :This is what we received from the Building Department. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's shown right on it. MEMBER DANTES : I mean just one page doesn't have it but the other page does it's not a huge CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll just have to write it up to allow it that's all because that setback is the closest to the road, it's completely road ward than the rest of the fagade so we just want to make sure that there are no issues coming back with a de minimum request because they couldn't catch it. Okay is everybody clear on this? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? GAIL WICKHAM : Good morning, Abigail Wickham Mattituck, New York. My family was the owner of the property at the rear here and recently sold it to the Town and the County for :u April 4, 2024 Regular-Meeting open space. I did notify Lilly of Land Preservation because the notice was not sent to the Town of the County probably because the Assessor has not yet diaryed it into their records._I don't have any objection to the relief requested, compared to the deliberation that you just did which was like a ZBA training exam, this is relatively simple but I would ask one of the reasons for the preservation of that property which is thirty-two acres is because of the tree growth. We had a much more lucrative subdivision offer and declined it and at the rear of this property is also that tree growth and forest continues. So, I had spoken to the applicant's agent before the hearing, if the ZBA would consider because of the depth of this lot which is pretty long and narrow that at least the rear maybe fifty feet of tree growth be preserved. 1 do know that the Jefferson's Temple Church of God and Christ property which has been there for longer than I remember as a child so we won't go into how long that was but that has been developed and cleared in the back for many, many years and the other church I think a couple of lots over the Baptist Church has also been in process for many, many years and that is cleared but the rest of these properties do still have that rear border of trees which is quite extensive. So if you would consider that as a condition I'd appreciate that. The thirty-two acres of preserved land is not only preserved as an open space by the Town and the County but the acreage immediately behind this property is further encumbered by Peconic Land Trust easement that was donated years ago which further restricts the property so it's like a double protection on that property and I think it would be nice to preserve that border.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well given the amount of clear cutting that's going on in this town and the drainage issues and the other issues that are related to it it's a pretty good idea that there's no adverse impact the property owner at all to do that. There's lots and lots of open area in the back. Anything from anybody? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just curious Mr. Zahn did the applicant have any opinion about what Ms. Wickham just shared? Is he willing to the applicant is here? JEFF ZAHN : Yes JOHN GOLVARI : John Golvari from Roslyn Heights P 0 Box 474 Roslyn Heights, New York 11577. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're the property owner? JOHN GOLVARI : I'm one of the owners yes. .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the owners. No objection to leaving a depth of around a fifty foot buffer of trees. April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting JOHN GOLVARI : That's no problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO So how would we condition that, would it be Covenants and Restrictions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN No we just put it down as a condition of approval based upon preserved land that surrounds it and so on. Is that alright? Okay is there anybody else in the audience? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING # 7888 — BARBARA and KIMON THERMOS/TUCK REALTY, LLC/ALEXANDER KAPETANOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Barbara and Kimon Thermos/Tuck Realty, LLC/Alexander Kapetanos #7888. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's December 4, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a lot line change, to split lot no. 1000-99-1-20 and adding equal parts to two adjoining lots. 1) two lots measuring less than the code required minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft., 2) two lots measuring less than the code required minimum lot width of 150 feet, 3) two lots measuring less than the code required minimum lot depth of 175 feet located at 355 Sound Beach Drive, 405 Sound Beach Drive and 455 Sound Beach Drive in Mattituck. Good morning, Pat. :13 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Did I have an LWRP on this cause I haven't got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we have an LWRP on this. PAT MOORE : Oh okay so I guess it wasn't required. Okay, this is really straightforward two property owners got together they together bought the parcel between them in order to split it evenly and give each parcel improved parcel additional land. They didn't want to see another house built next to them for one and then secondly it would also give them some flexibility the one house doesn't have a garage and the other is a smaller house. So, it'll give both property owners the ability to make modest improvements to their house without impacting the other. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just enter into the record then what the details are just so it's in there. Proposed Lot 1-19, number one the lot size is 11,250 sq. ft., the code requiring 40,000 sq. ft., lot width is 75, the code requiring 150, lot depth is 150 the code requiring 175. Proposed Lot 21, lot size is 11,250 sq. ft. the code requiring 40,000 sq. ft., lot width 75 the code requiring 150, lot depth of 150 code requiring 175. Now are these lots merged? I think in order to PAT MOORE : Not yet. We had to do this in two steps, so they bought the lots together since ,they both invested in it and then once the variance is granted, we'll go to the Planning Board to get an approval for the lot line modification and once that's done then we'll do the deeds that a conveyance and then perimeter deeds. So, there's several steps along the way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's what I figured but I just wanted to enter the fact that we gotta go through those hoops to do this. Did you get comments from the Planning Board? They are basically not objecting is what they're saying. I suspect any time a building lot is extinguished and one less septic system is proposed it's probably a benefit but we do have those comments. There are some priors here, they're really not relevant to this though. PAT MOORE : This is Captain Kidd Estates which is an older pre-zoning subdivision well conformed to zoning at the time but it's very small lots. Both parcels the home parcels were single and separate and then the prior to purchasing the property we did do a single and separate search to make sure that we weren't buying a pig and a poke and it would have been a developable parcel had the two owners not purchased it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a pretty flat un-treed lot it'll allow both homeowners to do additional things on their own property probably with variance relief but should they chose to do that in future. PAT MOORE : Probably. 14 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this will require Planning Board approval and I don't have any further questions. We know the neighborhood well of course. PAT MOORE : It is on the landward side of the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Landward yes. Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm fine thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7890—STEPHEN DUBON and JACQUELINE DUBON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the.Board is for Stephen Dubon and Jacqueline Dubon #7890. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXXIII 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 front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) existing shed located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 5605 Stillwater Ave. (adj. to Eugenes Creek) in Cutchogue. PAT MOORE : I do have Stephen and Jacqueline both here so if any issues come up that I need to address with them I have them here with me. This has been a project that has been a long time in the planning design stage. It started as a completely different project with two stories similar to what the neighbor to the east well to the right I don't know if it's east, west. They redid their house, the put a second story and it's a completely different house. This one they started with an application to the Trustees for a second floor and so on, it was my opinion that by the time they were all said and done that they would have ended up with a demolition by definition. We then talked about their needs and ultimately this is the project that has been proposed. It is bare bones, it's the existing house, raising it above flood elevation. Because of the degree of work, they wouldn't be obligated to under the code because it's not a demolition but in reality, they need to raise the elevation of the house. For the first time ever last night the storms they left the house because the storm tides went so high. So it is absolutely imperative that this house be raised. In doing so again there was not an obligation to change the sanitary system but they are changing the sanitary system, there's an IA system being proposed here and they have the application to the Health Department but they can't complete the process without Zoning Board and ultimately Trustees for this project. The result of raising the house obviously impacts entryways, ingress-egress and the existing deck so that the height they have to be replaced and brought up to the height of the elevation of the house. The front stoop a previous application you had here and there was a question of whether the stoop was included or not included. I can tell you just from my experience with the Building Department on something like this, if the stoop is the minimum the code requires, they won't call it out but if you change it by one inch even though aesthetically it may be more appropriate it will be called out. So, in this case Michael Hand is the Architect and the clients the stoop that is there is very, very small so for aesthetics just for giving this house a little more character the front was changed slightly with a slightly larger landing but slightly larger being maybe 25 sq. ft. over the code requirement so that brought it into the variance application. The deck in the back is identical it's just because again it's being raised it is part of the variance. The rear yard setback is called out on this. Again, if you go back to the :.,6! April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting subdivision map well,this house pre-dates everything but the property line and the mean high-water mark changed slightly so we have a non-conforming rear yard based on the mean high water but the location of the house hasn't changed at all. I know from prior applications the Board wants to see that they are parking spaces on the property so we did add that on the southwest actually northwest corner of the plan. So that's why you received plans somewhat later on a couple of plans afterwards and this is the most recent plan you received was the done by Tom (inaudible). by Young & Young surveyors. That includes the parking spaces, the drainage, the sanitary it shows all of the infrastructure that's going to be required on this property. The only difference in expansion of the house is that there is a mechanical it has been a mechanical room architecturally it looks like it was an add on when the house was made a year-round many, many generations ago. They're incorporating the mechanical room into the house and in order to get a washer/dryer and mechanicals the space was being expanded by a foot. So it's a very, very, very small expansion to this house just to make it a little more comfortable. It is their year-round house; they've been living here in a year-round house in a very small cottage but it works for them. What we've proposed is a very reasonable modest request. I'm hoping you'll find that to be the case. The shed has been there all there is no storage on this property, there's no garage so there's a shed and logically you don't want to put the shed by the water and the shed happens to be technically in the side yard so it was called out for a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let me just look at some of the details, we're looking at a front yard setback of 11 foot 2 inches, that's not to the steps. PAT MOORE : No that's to the stoop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To the stoop right and the actual beginning of the first riser or tread is 2.3 feet from the road. PAT MOORE : 2.2 is what the surveyor marked. MEMBER LEHNERT : 2.2 PAT MOORE : We've had different numbers, I think based on elevations. MEMBER LEHNERT : You have to use the survey. PAT MOORE : Yeah that's whey I'm referring you to the survey because the architect MEMBER LEHNERT : Cause even the parking pad changed, disregard the site plan. PAT MOORE : Disregard it because yeah the sanitary the parking had been over where the sanitary was it made no sense so we had the survey updated. Given the fact (inaudible) 317 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting elevations are involved here where the finished floor so everything is slightly off and now we have a more accurate depiction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the shed is in the side yard, there's extensive wetlands all in the rear. Have you applied to Trustees or are you waiting for us here or what? PAT MOORE : Well the project when it was two story there is an application that was submitted to the Trustees but that project then was on .hold when you came to me this is definitely going to change so the application still shows up on the Trustees calendar but it's really at this point CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have to resubmit these plans. PAT MOORE : It's a resubmission exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you need Trustees approval. I had another question, PAT MOORE : They do have D.E.C., they had D.E.C. for the two story project so this is going to ultimately they're going to submit this as an amendment to the original application. So the D.E.C. approved it as a larger project so we don't anticipate any issue on a reduction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have LWRP on this? PAT MOORE : Yes you do. LWRP called it out as MEMBER LEHNERT : Inconsistent PAT MOORE : Minimize loss of life structures natural resource from flooding and erosion but it didn't make sense to me cause we're actually raising the house to make it flood compliant so I don't know if he was looking at an old project or that's what he calls out for any CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's probably the standard policy in the LWRP that is usually reference when you're looking at a flooded area. Then the other question is, is it possible we have I think you may have even been involved with this, there was a property I think in East Marion same situation being raised and the steps wound up really close to the road. We looked to the possibility of doing you know scissor back stairs so that it parallels the house you know rather than coming straight out into the road which is probably safer actually than walking out into the road in order to start going up your steps. PAT MOORE : Well I would point out though still water in this case you actually have about fifteen, twenty feet before you actually get to the road so there's a large green or non- improved roadway so there is a lot space there so they would not be walking straight out to April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting r the road. So we were kind of we talked about that because I think it was one of my projects that I recall CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it was. PAT MOORE : change the front staircase you know they want this project to move forward. Obviously it's a prettier you know nicer entrance with stairs that come forward and it's trying to give character to a house that is very simple. If the Board insists CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's going to reduce a variance substantially reduce a variance which we always are looking for because that's what the law requires, variance relief has to be the minimum. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the variance relief is for 11.2 not 2.3 MEMBER LEHNERT :They're not counting the steps. PAT MOORE : They're not counting the steps but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But look at what the visual appearance is going to be MEMBER PLANAMENT : I understand that. PAT MOORE : They should have probably counted the steps because again the steps are CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a structure. PAT MOORE : Well because the stoop is slightly wider MEMBER LEHERT : Well the last one the one we were speaking about, they did that's why you were here. PAT MOORE : Yes it's somewhat but it depends whose looking at it. I'd like to put it on the record because if it wasn't included but it should have been, as long as we discuss it'at the hearing the Building Department says, oh well the Board did consider it whether we called out for it or not so I'm hoping MEMBER LEHNERT : There's one more discrepancy between you know the denial and the plan you gave us,the rear yard the 29 feet. It shows here there's a 25 and a 22. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The survey is 25.9 MEMBER LEHERT : Then it shows 22 over here 22.8 over there, so which number April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I did give this plan to the Building Department to be sure. I think they were operating under to scale rather than precise. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well even if I look at the old one it shows 29.1 but then below it to the existing house it shows 25.9. Again, we're bringing it up on the record. PAT MOORE : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what we need to do is make sure that we reference the MEMBER LEHNERT :The survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : variance relief yeah. PAT MOORE : This was last dated March 13, 2024 cause that's when we added the driveway information yea March 13th and it was stamped by you guys. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible)for the relief of 22.8 MEMBER LEHNERT : 22.8 PAT MOORE : Yes the deck is 22.8, the house is 25.9 MEMBER LEHNERT : If they did high water this morning it would probably be inside your living room nine o'clock high tide in New Suffolk. PAT MOORE : As I said that was the first time that they woke up and said we better leave. MEMBER LEHNERT : 22.8 is what is shows to the deck, that's the smallest number. Hang on 25.9 is to the property line, 22.8 is to the wetlands line. PAT MOORE : Right that's the difference. MEMBER LEHNERT : So we're,using the 25.9 PAT MOORE : That is the smallest setback to the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : let's use the survey. MEMBER LEHNERT : So we're using the 25.9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just put in additional information that the Building Department's Noticed used the site plan, we are referencing approval based on a survey stamped by a licensed professional and we will site those setbacks so that we're consistent with the drawings that get stamped. 20 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that make sense to everybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Pat going back to Leslie's question about this covered entry and perhaps changing the stairs from (inaudible) entry where you've got in theory a setback of 2.3 feet from the lot line, would your client consider having the stairs run parallel and just running from the parking area going up to the landing? PAT MOORE : Well you would actually most likely have stairs'that come in from both sides. MEMBER PLANAMENT : Well that too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's fine. PAT MOORE : Are you okay with that? Reluctantly yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You'll look like a palladium villa that way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well they have the same sort of double stair on the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that makes sense. You want to then resubmit like a site plan or rather than a survey or do you need, would we have time to get that on the survey can they update the survey just to change the stairs and therefore the setback? We'll do it as amended relief. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we just grant the setback and then put the stairs in as a condition? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as we know exactly what that setback is going to be. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can't we use the 11.2 and then just require the stairs go PAT MOORE : I don't think it's a problem either way, I can either have just the detail of the staircase of the Young &Young (inaudible). Either way they'll still need CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) applied for one thing and we're going to wind up with an amended, I'd rather do it as amended and alternative don't you think? MEMBER LEHNERT : That's what I would do. PAT MOORE : Also we would end up using it for the Trustees, D.E.C. and everybody so it would make sense to have a one clean final version. z:1 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So should we just adjourn this to the Special Meeting and give you time to submit it? PAT MOORE : You can just make it a condition. MEMBER LEHNERT : Why don't we just condition it that the stairs run parallel to the landing and be no wider than the landing and that keeps the 11.2 on the Disapproval and then we don't have to go through the whole rigamarole of new plans for now which could take.you know who knows how long. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're still going to need to have Pat can get just a stair detail. PAT MOORE : I don't want to design for the architect because I don't know there's 2 feet, there's 3 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the problem, we start doing that and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What Rob pointed out which is true, we're not looking at the stairs right now other than as a discussion point. MEMBER LEHNERT : They're not in the Disapproval. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you put the stairs on the side we're still allowing the porch (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree and it might wind up that way but I think it's appropriate to let the professional design it and then come back to us Pat's willing to do that. It's not going to delay the process particularly and do it in a simple way and then we have basically amended relief which is a lot better than alternative relief they offered it other than we required it. PAT MOORE : I have no problem because I'm looking at how it would be done, we have the stairs that would essentially I don't know how they come off of the landing parallel to the house I guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it would run across the front fagade basically. PAT MOORE : Okay so it's a landing and then steps down, okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The landing is the same but the stairs are going this way instead of that way. PAT MOORE : Come off the landing I was drawing it wrong. April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob is probably right, if you want to keep that size landing that's probably where your stairs are going to go. PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However I would really rather you submit that detail and we stamp it and it comes from you rather than PAT MOORE : Yea because I think I'm going to have to (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There might be a couple of inches off you know what I'm saying? MEMBER LEHNERT : So we can close pending receipt of a new plan? PAT MOORE : Regarding the steps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's all we can close it you're right we don't have to adjourn it. We can close it subject to receipt it that okay with everybody? Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We didn't discuss the shed, I don't know if there much to discuss other than what the applicant stated. There's really no location CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's sitting there. PAT MOORE : We have no place to put it. MEMBER PLANEMENTO : It's an existing shed, do you have any plans of altering it in any way or expanding it? PAT MOORE : Nope CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean you certainly don't want it any closer to the wetlands, it's going to flood and you don't want it any closer to the road. It's fine where it is as far as I'm concerned. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Leave it there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is that alright with everybody now? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended front yard setback stair detail. Is there a second? 23 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7889— ECAE 149 LLC-C/O ANTHONY GERACI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for ECAE 149 LLC — C/O Anthony Geraci # 7889. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Chapter XXXVI, Section 280-207, Chapter XXXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's October 31, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code Definition) an existing single family dwelling and construct a new two story single family dwelling, 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) gross floor area / exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area, 4) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 520 Snug Harbor Rd. (adj. to Gull Pond Inlet) in Greenport. We have received your amended drawings and your Memorandum of Law on this one already eliminating apparently the sky plane variance. Could you just explain cause we were trying to figure this out, is a chimney exempt from the sky plane? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant ECAE 149 LLC. Yes, I actually I have submitted these revised drawings to Tracey just to review it. I asked that question just to confirm and she said absolutely it is not part of it's not considered within the sky plane in a chimney. Just to reiterate what you referenced there Leslie, we have submitted revised plans, I have two signed and stamped copies for the Board. It's really 241 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting Sheets 4 & 5 that are changed the balance, everything else is exactly the same but what was done was to simply bring the roofline in, decrease the mass of the house to the extent that We could eliminate that variance because we recognized that as you went through this and you got to the part about feasibility of doing it without a variance that we could make that happen. So that change was made thereby eliminating that fourth variance for the sky, plane and I'll submit the request for the refund later. Just to go through what's left.here, this is an existing home on a 14,817 sq. ft. parcel on Snug Harbor Rd. in the Cleaves Point subdivision. This is a rather constrained parcel, as your aware prior relief was granted for the original construction for lot coverage just in recognition of the fact that the lot was constrained so we really start with that 22.8% lot coverage. The additional lot coverage that you see is really attributed both to the pool which at the time pools. were not part of the lot coverage calculation and now they are. The proposed this is a deemed demo as Leslie mentioned by Town Code but essentially it is a demo and reconstruction in the exact same footprint there is no new ground disturbance proposed. No increase in the degree of the pre-existing non- conforming lot coverage, GFA or the rear yard setback. They are as a matter of fact we're going to be decreasing lot coverage by about 3%, the GFA will also go down and the rear yard will just remain as it. As I mentioned we're in Cleaves Point where there are many similarly sized one- and two-story waterfront dwellings mostly on substandard lots. The neighbors in Cleaves Point are no strangers to this Board, there have been many applications and many determinations granting relief for some form of lot coverage . or setback relief for construction. I've cited too, a number of earlier decisions in my Memorandum of Law for the Board to reference. As mentioned, this parcel itself was also granted lot coverage relief back in 1978 for the existing structure which as I'm sure you've seen is kind of the eyesore on the block there. It's in some state of disrepair and the applicant looks for to completing the project as do many of the neighbors. As far as character, we would submit- that what is proposed is completely in character with the surrounding neighborhood. The,resulting home will actually be somewhat shorter in stature than what is there because there's this third-floor kind of observatory structure that is there so height wise we're coming down. The second floor will fill out within the existing footprint but as I said it was brought in to eliminate any invasion of the sky plane. All of the proposed reconstruction will not extend as I said any of the non-conforming,setbacks or GFA, as a matter of fact it will be an improvement and will enable the applicant to eliminate what is a dated and dilapidated structure and replace it with something that's more aesthetically pleasing. As to the need for a variance, unfortunately because it is a deemed demo and all of these non-conformities have existed since the house was constructed in 1978, we have to get variance relief from you to proceed with the reconstruction. I would note that and I have cited in my memo to a couple recent decisions. Obviously the GFA law is new and your variances under that law are not many but I did site two, three decisions where relief was granted for non-conforming setbacks and GFA in recent April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting determinations. As to substantiality, again the rear yard setback will remain unchanged from the existing setback the GFA is going to be reduced by 143 sq. ft. and lot coverage will be decreased by over 3% so on balance I would submit that the relief requested is not substantial. As for potential impacts, the granting of relief will permit construction of a home that is entirely consistent with the character and size of other homes in the Cleaves Point community. The applicant is proposing to install an IA system and obviously will comply with the Town's Storm Water Management Code so on balance I would submit that there's a net environmental benefit here and with these improvements particularly the IA system should mitigate against the inconsistencies withing the LWRP finding. That is essentially it, I'd be happy to answer any questions, I am joined today by (inaudible) who is the project architect and Dave Bergen who is going to be presenting this to the Trustees once we're done here. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a question, maybe I missed it, when you brought the sky plane down that also reduced the proposed GFA or the proposed GFA isn't affected by the change in the sky plane? MARTIN FINNEGAN : It really was within the I don't think it would be it did not change the GFA. MEMBER DANTES : Okay my next question is do you plan on doing any sort of non-turf buffer off of Gull Pond or vegetated buffer? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I have no doubt that the Trustees will have us do that whatever they require. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a new bulkhead it look like. Dave, do you want to speak? DAVE BERGEN : Dave Bergen, Cutchogue also representing the applicant. As you just alluded to there was a new.retaining wall in front of the pool, actually it's double wall and in obtaining that retaining wall there was a non-turf buffer required by the Trustees and put in. So there is already as of withing the last year a substantial non-turf buffer between the pool and the bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will you need Trustees approval again or are you alright now then? DAVE BERGEN : No we need Trustees approval for the house and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The house but the bulkhead you took care of. DAVE BERGEN : The bulkhead and the retaining walls including the retaining wall to the north between the two properties have all been approved already. April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Dave can you submit a copy of that Trustees approval for the bulkhead just for our record? DAVE BERGEN : For the non-turf buffer? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, yea with the.buffer. DAVE BERGEN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to have it in the record that's all. We know you'll need to go back for the house. MEMBER DANTES :Those were my only two questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Martin thank you so much for first reducing or removing the sky . plane variance. As a Board Member whenever I see these situations, I question why couldn't someone miter the roof or just set it back as you've done so thank you. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I had anticipated that you were going to ask us to do that Nick so we MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, the question that I have though I'm a little puzzled you offer the sky plane for the east and west elevations but not the north and south. When I look at the north and south elevations and recognizing the lot lines, I'm just wondering how the house conforms to the sky plane on those sides. Now I understand the house is a structure that exists but it would seem that given the close proximity to the lot that the existing house is encroaching upon the sky plane. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well the Building Department didn't believe that was an issue so we're here MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the information is not on the application so they I don't think would have caught it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Nothing changed with respect to those elevations, it was just the east and west, the north and south did not change so that's already a part of the plans so I don't MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So what you're saying is the north and south cause of the existing structure 271 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Nothing is changed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but then it doesn't need to meet the existing sky plane? I would think that because there is an expansion of the house the sky plane should be shown, no? MARTIN FINNEGAN : The plans were submitted and reviewed by the Building Department and we don't have a Disapproval Nick so I don't think that's an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I got a question, more out of curiosity, the swimming pool that's there now that's pretty neglected obviously full of algae and so on, is that going to be retained? It looks like it is based on the MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : you're just going to clean it up and MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Liz is there anybody on Zoom who wants to address the application? Is there anybody in the audience? MEMBER DANTES : How did they calculate the sky plane on this? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They always go ten feet out and then at a forty five. MEMBER DANTES : Right but it's ten feet from the average grade right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea ten feet from the average grade. MEMBER DANTES : Average grade here at elevation 2 ah okay so the average grade it's just showing it differently on the one side than the other. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea cause I think the property slopes slightly. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah that's why.I'm getting confused. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I don't think we need to close this subject to receipt of the Trustees prior approvals just give it to us. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay no problem April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with everybody? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#7892—SEBASTIEN GAGNON and CHERYL HAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sebastien Gagnon and Cheryl Han #7892. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's November 15, 2023 amended December 7, 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) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 80,000 square feet in area located at 1115 Arrowhead Lane in Peconic. KAREN HOEG : Good morning, Karen Hoeg from Twoumey, Latham, Shea. Here with me today are Jeff Butler from Butler Engineering and Jonathan Paetzel from Marshal Paetzel Landscape design who are working on the project.,I want to just go over some brief background on the proposed project and then discuss the variance standards and Mr. Butler and Mr. Paetzel are here to answer any questions as well. So, the applicants purchased the property in September of 2020 and they're seeking a variance from GFA pursuant to Section 280-207 and a rear yard setback from the requirements of Town Code Section 280 Bulk Schedule in connection with renovations and additions to the existing single-family home. The subject parcel is a subdivision lot in Arrowhead Cove and is conforming at 46,389.69 sq. ft. in the R40 zoning 29 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting district. The second-floor additions are proposed entirely within the footprint of the existing structure. There's no proposed change to the square footage of the first floor. The proposed second floor will increase from 706 sq. ft. to 1,961 sq. ft. proposed to accommodate a proposed office and additional bedrooms including a primary suite and bathroom. The existing ground disturbance and I don't know if anyone has been over by the site is related to the installation of a new IA sanitary system. The variance relief needed for a small portion of decking; 41 sq. ft. of the proposed rear deck is located 44.�9 feet from the 50-foot rear yard setback. There's also a 98 sq. ft. portion of proposed deck setback 47.7 feet from the rear lot line. The hardship and the reason we are seeking a GFA variance of 336.52 feet overage is due to the enactment of the Town Code Section 280-207 in October of 2022. The maximum permissible GFA on this lot is 5,419.58 and with the proposed construction there is a calculated GFA of 5,756 sq. ft. At the time of the code change architectural plans had already been finalized and an application was submitted to the Health Department on October 24, 2022. Suffolk County Health Department approval was received December 3, 2022 and I have a copy of both the application and the permit just for your records that you can get a sense of the history and the time line. Since our initial submittal we have modified the plan for the rear deck to include an outdoor cooking area to be located on a portion of the deck 47.7 feet from the rear property line. Yesterday I submitted the revised plans showing that location as well as correcting the lot area on those landscape plans. Briefly touching on the various standards, the neighborhood is characterized by similar sized dwellings one- and two-story homes many of which are constructed on similarly sized lots most of which are about an acre in size. Here as I said construction to the second floor will take place within the footprint of the existing structure and ground disturbance is related to the installation of the new low nitrogen sanitary system. The proposal to add additional living space on the second floor is to encompass bedrooms, primary bathroom and office space. The proposed application complies with lot coverage, we don't need a height variance, we don't need a pyramid variance or sky plane variance. The rear deck is proposed to be 56 sq. ft. and only a portion of it extends into the rear yard setback. A portion of the deck is compliant and the additional square footage is proposed that the homeowners can comfortably walk around on their deck and enjoy their outdoor living space. A sampling of other two-story homes in the neighborhood includes 1430 Arrowhead, 1190 Arrowhead, 1495 Arrowhead which just received Health Department approval for a five-bedroom house, 1650 Arrowhead which is a single-family home with six bedrooms. Since the variances will essentially allow for maintenance of the status quo of the property neither an undesirable change or the character of the neighborhood are a detriment will be created by granting of this relief. We did receive a letter from an adjacent property owner, Don and Bert Marcy the neighbor to the north at 825 Arrowhead Lane which I will submit also for the record. 30 April 4,2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this a letter in support I presume. KAREN HOEG : Yes this is a letter of support yes,they've expressed support of the project.The benefit sought to be achieved by the applicant can't be, feasibly achieved by some other method. The variance relief for GFA is necessary to allow for the additions to the second floor and as I previously explained due to the town code change in October of 2022 relative to gross floor area, we must seek a variance. The house plans were developed with the architect several months prior to submission to the Health Department on October 24, 2022. As I said the Health Department approval was obtained December 3, 2022. One thing to comment, in terms of the existing property there is a concrete patio which will be removed and replaced with this rear deck. While a variance for the GFA of the 336.52 sq. ft. which seems substantial in this instance which is not substantial in this instance rather since it will be contained within the existing footprint and similar in size to the other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. The deck expansion is located in the rear yard heavily shielded by vegetation and only requires a de minimus variance. The Town Zoning Board your Board has granted similar GFA variances on other properties. In ZBA Decision 7809 from October 19, 2023 the Board granted relief for GFA in excess of 966 sq. ft. for a proposed addition to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of alterations to a resident consisting of an expansion of the footprint. In ZBA 7813 dated August 17, 2023 the ZBA granted a variance for GFA exceeding the maximum by 668 sq. ft. The applicant testified at that time that the house was designed prior to the new GFA requirements and the additional GFA does not affect the character of the neighborhood. The Board also found that the difficulty for non-conforming GFA is not self-created because the GFA requirements were added to the Town Code.after the home was designed based on the code that was current at that time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What number was that? KAREN HOEG : 7813 dated August 17, 2023. MEMBER DANTES : How big was that house? KAREN HOEG : I can pull the decision and check in a moment. Another recent decision in ZBA 7877 recently dated February 15, 2024, the Board granted GFA in excess of 486 sq. ft. for additions proposed within the current footprint and this Board found that additions to the second story would result in a dwelling in keeping with other homes in the neighborhood. A condition of that approval was that a sanitary system be approved by the Health Department. In this particular case we've already received Health Department approval and have installed a low nitrogen system. 3:1 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Karen as you're going through whatever papers to answer Leslie's question, could you remind me of the first variance relief that you cited? KAREN HOEG : Sure I cited ZBA 7809 dated October 19, 2023 and I also referenced ZBA 7813 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly and then finally 7877. KAREN HOEG : Right and then also there was a decision ZBA 7830 where there was variance relief granted for 484.61 sq. ft. for proposed two bedrooms and one bathroom where the Board found that the architect was in contract for the reconstructed dwelling when the GFA code was approved. In that particular case there was also no need for a height variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Karen did you submit those priors yet or just I don't seem to recall seeing them in packet? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think she's presenting them here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm saying. KAREN HOEG : Yes right I could submit those as well I have copies of all of those so I can submit those to the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That will help. KAREN HOEG : So based on these reasons we feel that the variance relief should be granted and what we're asking for is minimal but we're happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know we did the site.inspection and it's clear they're several large two story homes right in that area already right on that street. It's a very large side yard, it well screened by mature evergreens pretty much the whole property. Let's see if anybody has any questions, Pat I'll start with you do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO Yea I just want to clarify that what you had said was that the -submission to the Board of Health started prior to the code change, correct? April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG No, the architectural plans were done prior to the code change, the submission to the Board of Health was done October 24, 2022 and I believe the code change was enacted October 18th and was then after filed with the Secretary of State the Local Law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was very close. KAREN HOEG : I think it was just a couple of days. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While the law might have been filed I don't think it went into effect until the later date. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Until we received it back as filed. In other words, you have to send it and once its stamped in Albany they send it back and then we receive it and then it's applicable,then it's codified. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In the interim they've already made the application to the Board of Health at that time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this is still in that gray area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I mean we knew that when that code was there's going to be that time for a while where things were in process prior to that code being enacted and this is one of them which is why we granted some degree of flexibility in recognition of the fact that it's a pretty dramatic code change. KAREN HOEG : Yes and as you know the time it takes to get architectural plans together and finalized and getting it into the Health Department and getting a response is you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Time consuming and it's expensive. KAREN HOEG : It is expensive yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob is there anything you have in mind? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz is there anybody on Zoom with a raised hand? You want to say anything or just leave well enough alone. JEFF BUTLER :Jeff Butler, Engineer and Architect for the project. Just related to sky plane from the last application when asked about front and back, we're fine with too. The setbacks we'd have to be a sixty-foot-tall building to have that. We demonstrated it works on the side yards. 331 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting We generally don't do that in any other town of village, we're looking at sky plane from side yard but in the future here I'll make sure we demonstrate that when we go to the Building Department cause that's evidently in your code. The house was designed, the addition was originally designed even before this code came into effect to not increase the volume of the existing volume of the existing project and house in the way it sits just to enhance the architecture and the curb appeal while accomplishing the need for the growing family to grow within the house.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? MEBMER PLANAMENTO : Karen I just wanted to clarify, off the living room where the bank of sliders are that's the deck encroachment at 44.9 but it's really just an access point, it's a narrow deck at that location. KAREN KOEG : Right, Jonathan do you want to speak to that? There is when you come out of the sliders the decking on both the right- and left-hand sides JONATHAN PAETZEL : Jonathan Paetzel, Cutchogue Marshal Paetzel Landscape Architecture. Correct, with the new large sliding doors the client just wants to be able to walk out of those doors and make a connection to the other main part of the deck and he just wanted a small space on the left hand side of that door so he can set a chair and watch his kids in the back yard with young children. So that's the extent of MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't recall a walkway or a runway but it's just long and narrow at that point. JONATHAN PAETZEL : It's only 4 feet wide for the most part just to get around from door to door. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it 4 that's what I wanted to actually ask, when you're at that landing it looks like I thought it was 7 x 8. JONATHAN PAETZEL : There's a small section on the left hand side of that staircase where we're asking for a little bit additional relief of 3 additional feet rather than a walkway just to have a little bit of a chair. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think aesthetically it looks better too I mean just from the standpoint of the stairs just go right out to the lawn it kind of adds balance. I just wanted to verify that's what we're speaking of. JONATHAN PAETZEL : The 7 x 8 section is on one side and then that gets reduced to 4 feet off of the house which is a 2 foot 5 inch relief request for the remainder of the deck. I will also 341 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting add that the client has installed drywells to capture roof runoff. I don't think we were required to do that as part of the building permit but he's done that anyway. MEMBER DANTES : You're not required drywells but you are required to contain runoff on y our property so there needs to be some system. JONATHAN PAETZEL : Correct, right we've added drywells for roof runoff into the gutters as wells as drainage for the driveway including a French drain by the street, two catch basins in the driveway so we'll be grading the property capturing all the runoff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good, anything else 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 ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We should have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7891—STEPHANE SEGOUIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have had a request for an adjournment Stephane Segouin I guess it is 7891 they want to adjourn to July 11, 2024. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn to July 11, 2024, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye 35 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I'll do the other one when we get to it on the agenda. Motion to recess for lunch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 36. April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7895- ROBERT M. VELLA JR. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board for Public Hearing is for Robert M. Vella Jr. #7895. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 12, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for-a permit to legalize an "as built" roofed over on grade patio addition attached to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 60 Gagens Landing Rd. in Southold. State your name for the record please. ROBERT VELLA : Good afternoon, my name is Robert M. Vella Jr. I'm here with my wife. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and thank you for hearing our application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at we had been out to the property, we inspected your premises as we do with all applications before a hearing and you're looking for a rear yard setback of 27.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet and this is for this piece of the patio that you've got the slate patio that's near your swimming pool that's providing some shade and it's attached to the dwelling and the reason it's considered a structure is because you have two columns coming touching the ground. ROBERT VELLA : Understood, I was unaware of that I apologize for not having filed for a permit. We had replaced an older structure that was pre-existing and didn't need, I sent pictures as part of.the application it was an aluminum structure that was not attached to the roof but was attached to the back of the house. So, I apologize for not having filed a permit initially it would have avoided a lot of unpleasantry but here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that's clearly why you got the Stop Work Order on April 7th ROBER VELLA : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO When were the pictures..sent or that was to the Building Department not to the Zoning Board? ROBERT VELLA : I sent it to the Board as well. I have other copies here, I sent it to Ms. Westermann. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have them in our MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He said he had pictures of ROBERT VELLA : The old structure I have as well. 371 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry I thought you said that you previously submitted those. ROBERT VELLA : I did with the packet to the Board these were submitted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh alright let's have a look. G ROBERT VELLA : That structure was an aluminum structure that was fully enclosed. It had those louvered glass panes with screens. Again, that's simply by way of explanation for not having applied for the permit, I apologize. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that was demolished and you put this in its place? ROBERT VELLA : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay sure, triple track windows we call them, that was there for a while. ROBERT VELLA : Yes it was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here you go this was what was demolished and MEMBER DANTES : Oh God. ROBERT VELLA : That was my reaction as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While they're looking at the pictures we briefly touched on the Stop Work Order, how was that issued or what prompted the Stop Work Order. ROBERT VELLA : I think they we were really close to completing the project and one of the Building Inspector's came to stop the job. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What prompted that, was it a complaint or they just drove by? ROBERT VELLA : I don't know maybe it was a complaint, I don't know I have no idea. I will say that the job progressed very quickly and it was going swimmingly well and then right before they were ready to put the columns in, we got the Stop Work Order which we haven't obviously haven't touched it since. MEMBER DANTES : So basically you had an existing structure including your new covered porch where the existing structure was ROBERT VELLA : That's correct MEMBER DANTES : and you're here because you technically demolished the existing structure therefore you need to get a (inaudible)for the new structure. April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting ROBERT VELLA : I think the reason why I'm here is because the new structure is too close to my rear neighbor even though there's a pool and a patio in between we have some setbacks MEMBER LEHNERT : 35 foot setback ROBERT VELLA : Correct and we're at 27 MEMBER DANTES : I understand that but you're replacing what was already a pre-existing setback. ROBERT VELLA : Oh yes absolutely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Eric my thought that the house was built and then the aluminum covered whatever was added. I don't think it was anything that was ever acknowledged or recognized. MEMBER DANTES : That's an old Pre-CO I don't know. (inaudible) is pretty old. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the point is, we don't know what that setback was, we don't have records of C.O.'s on it so I think it's just moot. It's just that something was there, it was demolished, a new structure was built and it doesn't have a conforming rear yard setback. ROBERT VELLA : And again I only added that by way of explanation for our,not applying for a permit. I thought I was just replacing an existing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, you have a six foot high solid vinyl fence in your back yard running all the way around and the side yards. There are huge evergreens, I think they're planted on your neighbor's property. I don't see where there's really any visual impact, you're not going to see it from the street. I don't think you're going to see it from any other lots either. Your lot is very wide, big side yards and so on. I don't have any questions, Eric do you have any? MEMBER DANTES : No I think we covered it all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, none at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have to ask, the structure that came down had these Jalousie windows in, do you have any plans of enclosing this covered porch? 39 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting ROBERT VELLA : Not permanently like that was, if we do something it'll be either retractable screens or some sort of modular system but no not MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you have no plans of conditioning it, heating or cooling it? ROBERT VELLA : No, no, no, no, fan ceiling fan you know maybe a space heater to keep us warm in the fall but nothing permanent to heat no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because there's a difference between an enclosed room and a roof with a fan in it. ROBERT VELLA : I completely understand that, anything that would go would be removable and seasonal anything that I would be. We would be able to either remove it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well like I mean I don't care about mosquito netting that you can roll it up and you can drop it down or roll it back up. If you start putting in framing for windows and things like that but (inaudible)then you would have to apply for a room. ROBERT VELLA : Certainly and we have no intention of doing that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just so you know the difference that's all. Anything Rob from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom Liz that has a raised hand or anything? Anyone in the audience wanting to please come to the mic and state your name please. FREDERICK STAPON.: My name is Frederick Stapon I can't really talk, I'm his rear neighbor we share the rear property line. I prepared a letter for you because I can't really talk, I'm recovering from laryngitis so, can I? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, do you want us to read it into the record? FREDERICK STAPON : Sure if you want to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well all I really need to do at this point, I'm just going to indicate that the neighbor who shares the property line in the rear yards has submitted a letter indicating that you have this string of Leyland Cypress on your property that creates a visual screen and you have no objection to this setback variance. We have this now for our file, thank you. ROBERT VELLA : I could add for the record, I had not yet received the two notices that were mailed via certified mail. There were two that were undeliverable and they're supposed to 40 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting come back to me. I went on the USPS website yesterday and they're still somewhere in the system. I haven't received them,yet and when I do, I will certainly bring them in to the office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just a legal requirement that certain people be notified which is only fair you would want to if someone was going to do something next door to you. ROBERT VELLA : Perfectly understandable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'll 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 ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We should have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. ROBERT VELLA :Thank you so much, I appreciate your time. HEARING#7908—DIANE M. BOUCHER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Diane M. Boucher #7908. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 8, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a 144 sq. ft. accessory shed that does not require a building permit 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 5645 Pequash Ave. in Cutchogue. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Board. Yes, its just everything complies bar the lot coverage of the 1.7% and I don't feel it's excessive. The 4:1 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting pictures that were sent in there are vegetation on the back and side of the property so it won't produce an eyesore to any of the neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know we've been out there, it's behind the garage, it's screened with evergreens, it's not visible to the street and the lot coverage is 1.7% beyond the maximum permitted of 20%. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : And it's not like it's a lot because the lot itself is small anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the dimensions of the lot? It's 50 by MEMBER LEHNERT : 199 NIGEL WILLIAMSON : .9 MEMBER LEHNERT : by 50 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 9,975 sq. ft. Do we know what the existing lot coverage is? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The existing dwelling and garage will be 16%, there was or is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at the thing here, total NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Madam Chairwoman do you have a survey or you want one? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do, I'm looking at existing dwelling and garage is 1,598 and then the proposed is so it's already what .2 over the lot coverage? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : It was .2 over, there was a building permit that was issued for an addition on that and that is now included with the proposed shed and even if you add those up it comes to 21.6 but the way the numbers come out they round it up to 21.7 because it's not exactly 21.6 the surveyor told me. MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No this is an easy one. Do you happen to know if there are any other priors in the neighborhood for excessive lot coverage? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : That I do not know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think for something as small as a shed I'm not sure that we really need to have that kind of information but if the Board feels it's useful we can ask Nigel to have a look. 421 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No but I just had one thing I want to comment, I just saw which I didn't see when I did the review earlier, I think the reason why she's here really is cause of the rec room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That pushes it to 20.4 we're really not discussing the shed although with the shed which I don't understand why they're even adding it up to higher number it's really relief I think at like 20.4%. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No 20.2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 20.2, existing is 20.2 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You got existing dwelling, proposed rec room so 16 and 4.2 oh 20.2 sorry that's what I was trying to say. MEMBER DANTES : He already got the permit for the rec room so it's already MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but they should have been here already for the cause they're .2 over. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think they must have considered it de minimus or not caught it. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I'm not (inaudible) anyone in this but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) of one percent I mean you're going to make somebody pay for a variance that's criminal really criminal. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then it should be de minimus. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes NIGEL WILLIAMSON : That was a call by the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, well you remember we cannot grant a de minimus for something we haven't approved so the Building Department could not ask us to do that, that was their call their judgement. Alright, is there anything else from the Board, comments or questions or anything like that? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Anyone in the audience who wants to speak? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second 431 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, May 2, 2024 at 9:00 AM. What oh thank you, well let's just finish with this Resolution this is for the Regular Meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7884—JAMES HUETTENMOSER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to adjourn James,Huettenmoser#7884 to July 11, 2024. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye 44 April 4,2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held March 21, 2024. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to extend time limits on Special Exception for Appeal No. 7082SE, Roman Watroba Country Car Wash NYS Rt. 25 and to extend time limits on variance relief (expired on October 19, 2020) for Appeal No. 7084 Roman Watroba again same location_ on Rt. 25 in Mattituck. Both decisions to be extended to September 24, 2024 so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to extend time limits on variance relief (to expire April 25, 2024) for Appeal No. 7267 Fisher Island Fire District on Crescent Ave. on Fishers Island, so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye 451 April 4, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to adjourn the meeting, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 461 April 4, 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 :April 10, 2024 4`