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`