HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/02/2024 PH 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
May 2, 2024
10:09 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
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Christopher Ross, Trustee of the Christopher Ross Trust#7896 3 -9
Regina Melly#7900 9 - 12
Heather Romanelli #7898 12 - 14
5295 Bridge Lane, LLC/Constantino Marra #7899 15 - 17
Stephanie Perl and Richard Perl #7901 17. - 22
Pine West, LLC/William Schilling, III #7904 22 - 26
John Lauretti #7903 26-36
Jennifer Wagner and Nico Schweizer/Breezy Shores (Cottage#14) #7850 37- 39
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7893SE 39- 67
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7894 39- 67
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7914SE 39-67
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7915 39-67
Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7897 39- 67
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the
Zoning Board of Appeals with Public Hearings for May 2, 2024. Please all rise and join me in
the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll first start off with the SEAR Resolution; 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 (SEQR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following :
Christopher Ross, Trustee of The Christopher Ross Trust, Regina Melly, Heather Romanelli,
5295 Bridge Lane, LLC/Constantino Marra, Stephanie Ped and Richard Perl, Pine West,
LLC/William Schilling, John Lauretti, Jennifer Wagner and Nico Schweizer/Breezy Shores
Cottage #14, Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC #7893SE, Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC #7894, Silver
Sands Holdings I, LLC #7914SE, Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC #7915 and Silver Sands Holdings I,
LLC#7897, 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.
HEARING#7896—CHRISTOPHER ROSS,TRUSTEE OF THE CHRISTOPHER ROSS TRUST
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Christopher Ross,
Trustee of the Christopher Ross Trust #7896. This is a.request for variances from Article XXIII
Section 280-124, Article XXXVI, Section 280-208A and the Building Inspector's December 5,
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 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%, 4) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I,
3
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 3340 Park Ave. (adj. to the Great Peconic Bay) in
Mattituck. Good morning, Pat do you want me to review the specific variances or do you want
to do that?The side yard setback is at 5 inches where the code requires 10 feet, secondly the
combined side yard setback at 1 foot 7 inches where the code requires 25 feet minimum, lot
coverage is at 46.5% of the buildable area of the lot and the code permits a maximum of 20%
and the roof pitch exceeds the sky plane. What else, LWRP inconsistent based on lot
coverage, it's in a Flood Zone X and I think that's the gist of the variances.
PAT MOORE : Yes thank you, I'd like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Ross who are the principles of
the trust and Pete Samuels as you know is the design professional. Just some bookkeeping, I
gave Kim my area variance list and I thought I was attached, I couldn't tell if it got attached or
not so I reprinted it and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Comps you're talking about?
PAT MOORE : Yes, good okay I wasn't sure if somehow it didn't copy into my packet but I'm
glad you have it. So, as you can see and you saw the house, the existing house its there, it's a
very unique piece of property, the parcel the neighbors are essentially it's a family compound
so I have some family here and there's other family but it's parents and aunts and uncle from
the Wickham family that's how this property ended up in the family in the three family
members. The existing house is pre-existing, the original portion of the house is pre-existing
then there were several additions over time but the proposed project was designed in such a
way that it is the most conforming portion of the house which is that "L". The house as you
also pointed out is in Flood Zone X so it would not require floor compliance, however for good
planning and for future avoidance of flooding the house is going to be raised two feet:So, the
existing foundation there are two parts of the foundation here, you have posts under the
original house which is the wider portion the one-story box that's on the northerly portion of
the house, that foundation the house is going to be raised and a full foundation is going to be
poured under that portion of the house. The "L" has an existing cement block foundation
which the cement block will be added two feet will be added to that pour so that the entire
house will be raised two feet. That means that the existing house will go up, the foundation
will be addressed and then placed back on the well conforming foundation it's a two-foot
higher foundation. The project has Health Department approval at this point, it's just waiting
for Zoning Board and Trustees before it will be released but it is with a new IA system all in
the front yard so that's progress that's an update to the progress of this project. We went to
the Trustees for a pre-submission just to get a confirmation of the buildable area and their
jurisdictional line, they pushed it up you have a letter from me they pushed it up somewhat
more landward which reduced our lot area and therefore our lot coverage was adjusted
slightly and you have my letter and the variance that now reflects the existing lot coverage
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
which was 47.1 and actually got reduced by 33 feet to 46.5 so while it is a large lot coverage
it's all existing. We made every effort to reduce it to the extent possible, so some sheds are
being removed by the fact that a new foundation and giving the basement access for storage
they were able to remove some of the accessory structures the two accessory structures.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they're taking the two sheds in
PAT MOORE : Yes they're to be gone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay
PAT MOORE : As to the LWRP response, Mark Terry's response is typical because it is pre-
existing, it's non-conforming and does not meet .LWRP requirements, so you see that
response all the time. The fact that the foundation is going to be raised and the sanitary
system in the front yard is all going to be compliant means that it's actually reducing the
likelihood of loss of life structures and natural resources from flooding and erosion but that's
not the way the recommendation came in. There is environmental benefit here by this
project, the fact that a new sanitary system is being installed is an environmental benefit. The
house all the drainage structures that are being added to the existing house and there's going
to be some drainage under the wood deck area so there is a benefit here in doing this project.
If the project were denied by this Board the house stays as it is, no new sanitary system
nothing essentially happens and it continues to be as it's been for the last seventy-five years
and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat you're going to need Trustees approval on this right?
PAT MOORE : Yes we're going back to the Trustees, we did it as a pre-submission just to get
an idea of their comments. One of the comments they had which we incorporated into this
application, the original plan was with the new foundation having enough space to have like I
think a gymnasium something some habitable space but they preferred to keep it as non-
habitable so we revised our plans and the plans to you is to keep it as storage, non-habitable.
Presumable when we go back to the Trustees they'll remember, essentially it was a positive
comment.
MEMER DANTES : But is it required for to have the flood vents in a FEMA? I don't really
understand the
PAT MOORE : No, no it doesn't this is because it's in the X we don't have to make the house
flood compliant but we are raising it 2 feet to make it potentially flood compliant. So I can't
say that we're raising it for FEMA compliance because we're in an X zone but we are making it
future flood prevention as part of this project.
5
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Okay
PAT MOORE : Does that make sense?
MEMBER DANTES : Sure you get a little higher that way
PAT MOORE : A little higher, if you're going to make improvements you're going to anticipate
the worse case scenario. In all this time they've never had any flooding, the topography of the
property when you went out and saw it does come pretty far out from the beach it rises,
there's actually kind of two mini dunes that are on the property that's why we weren't sure
what the Trustees were going to consider their jurisdiction line and of course they took the
most conservative and generous line being closest to the house, that's fine that's why we
asked for their input. I had inconsistent information on the back deck because it is we can
keep the deck as is, when it's being reconstructed it's the posts that are under it that would
have to be. reconstructed so to the extent it's staying it's staying. If the Board had no
objection to us upgrading it and improving it or replacing it, we would do that but that's why
it was shown both as existing and as some reconstruction because like I said
MEMBER LEHNERT : So you're just basically asking if you can take it off, lift the house and put
it back again.
PAT MOORE : Well that's the plan because it's structurally fine it just needs new supports.
MEMBER LEHNERT :Yeah it would make a lot more sense.
PAT MOORE : The existing structure everything has C.O.'s it was built all legally and the
proposed addition as you can see is probably in the best location for setbacks since it would
be a conforming 10 foot side yard. We're here to answer any additional questions that you
might have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's see if the Board has questions, Pat anything from you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric
MEMBER DANTES : No, I mean it's a complicated site plan but the actual zoning is very benign
I think.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like the lot line was stuck in there in the middle between
two real lots you know. Back in the day that's what happened, they put a cottage down and
that was that.
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat to that point just to clarify, the house is to the east or the land
to the east
PAT MOORE : Ross
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ross is owned by family members right that are here cause clearly
to walk around the house you're leaving the subject parcel over their parcel to get back to the
back yard etc. I can't imagine from whether somebody whoever the house lifting agency is
you know it's very difficult I think to get any equipment there.
PAT MOORE : Everybody is obviously family and cooperative so
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was just asking and I heard you say that but I want to
reaffirm.
PAT MOORE : Yes you can see Nancy and Pamela Charles, Nancy and Pamela are on the
northerly end and David and Elizabeth Revocable Trust are on the waterfront side. The
neighbors on the west side are all I mean they're longtime neighbors, everybody
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The house I would argue is a distance away on that's side, it's not
PAT MOORE : That has a more conforming I did notice because when we were reviewing it
back in deliberations you'll see that there's an air-conditioning unit that looks like it's over the
property line, there's a hedge so it's hard to tell visually because it's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's right on the property line.
PAT MOORE : Right on the property line and I did ask and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's also a fence.
PAT MOORE : Oh there's fence? I'm not sure whose fence that is, stockade fence. Is that your
fence?
MEMBER LEHNERT : It doesn't matter, you're going to have to go on their property to lift the
house anyway.
PAT MOORE : In any case, the air-conditioner is being relocated so we won't have that
encroachment,that's the only encroachment that I see that is (inaudible) house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay no I don't have any questions, it's pretty straightforward. It
sits where it sits that's all.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It can't sit anywhere else.
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : It's funny because you would have more room if you went towards the water
but you might have other issues then so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Nick, Rob?
PAT MOORE : Oh the sky plane you know the sky plane the only violation is on the one story
portion so there's no new structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah as soon as you elevate it I mean there's no way when you're
sitting on a property line you're not going to violate the sky plane it's just impossible.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have one question just for us, the deck allowing them to take the deck
off while they lift the house and put it back, is that something we have to write into our
decision?
MEMBER DANTES : Yeah cause otherwise they'll send them back for
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you take away the structure underneath then yeah which you
will have to do because it has to be elevated then it's going to be considered a new deck. The
decking is fine if you just replace that but once the structure goes that's extinguished so we
better include that in the decision that way you won't have a problem with the Building
Department. So you want to do it in kind, you want to do that same size?
T. A. MCGIVNEY : You said the sky plane violation is for the existing first floor?
PAT MOORE : Yes
T. A. MCGIVNEY : And none of that existing is there's nothing added onto the I'm just
wondering
PAT MOORE : The portion that is one story that's not changing.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's not changing at all?
PAT MOORE : Not changing at all, it'll change in the sense of two feet like I said would rise
MEMBER LEHNERT : It looks like the second floor is just soffits that it's clipping the sky plane.
T. A. MCGIVENY :The overhang.
PAT MOORE : The second floor is actually 10 feet from the property line so I think that was
considered conforming.
CHRIS ROSS : I believe the first floor violates the sky plane today.
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Yes it does.
CHRIS ROSS : (inaudible) by 5 feet when you go up a couple of feet.
MEMBER DANTES : It shows it on the title page drawing T-1.(inaudible)
CHRIS ROSS : Chris Ross the property owner. The first floor violates the sky plane currently as
the rules changed after the house was in existence, it will violate it by two more feet when we
raise slightly. There's a 14 foot privet hedge on that property line that actually is over the
height of the house today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Is
there anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay ready to close? 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.
HEARING#7900—REGINA MELLY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Regina Melly #7900.
This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
the Building Inspector's January 8, 2024 amended January 15, 2024 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family
dwelling and to legalize an accessory shed at 1) construction located less than the code
required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) shed located less than the code required
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 490 Northfield Lane in Southold. So, this is a
side yard setback of 10 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15, that's for a second
floor over the first floor and that's a side yard setback of 10 foot.The shed is side yard setback
is less than 10 feet they didn't specify what it was.
PAT MOORE : It's at 3.1 is existing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 3.1 feet. There's a letter of support from the neighbors.
PAT MOORE : That's the only measurement they gave me, oh I'm sorry it's 3, the surveyor
puts it in a very odd place but yes 3 feet on the Anchor Lane side of the shed and the 3.1 on
the opposite side.
MEMBER DANTES : If you move the shed to a code conforming location then you need a
Trustees permit don't you?
PAT MOORE : Yes, we'd be pushing it closer to the wetlands and also putting it right in the
middle of the property much too close to the deck the existing deck and pool. So it was really
this very small yard left after the wetland area is all cut out so that's the reason it's located
where it is. It's a shed that's under a hundred square foot so they thought they didn't need a
permit for it which would be accurate if it was setback at a proper side yard setback.
MEMBER DANTES : And if it had a I think once you're in the Trustee's jurisdiction you're in the
Trustees jurisdiction right?
PAT MOORE : True yeah.
MEMBER DANTES : So either way pick your poison.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to have to go before the Trustees for this?
PAT MOORE : Um they actually granted approval for the addition I have to go back and see if
the shed was included, I'd have to measure it out to see exactly the distance, it's close. It
might be an Administrative amendment because it hasn't changed it was there when they
issued the original approval.
MEMBER LEHNERT: It's landward of all the construction.
PAT MOORE : Yes it's landward yes of existing structures yes. We were actually surprised that
it needed a variance for the second story because the entire neighborhood is developed this.
way and we thought that it was one of the lots or I thought it might have been one of the lots
in the subdivision but it actually was a (inaudible) parcel and even the subdivision lots didn't
JLG
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
include building envelope so they're all most of the-homes are developed already but the
setbacks would be what would have been at the time permitted.
MEMBER LEHNERT : And you're just going above what's already there.
PAT MOORE : Exactly directly above, it's actually a relocation of one of the bedrooms so the
existing sanitary system is conforming. We thought we were ready to go, submitted the
building permit and then we were looking for cause even Amanda I mean we're all looking
because why isn't this conforming?Then we just couldn't find it appearing on any of the maps
SO.
MEMBER DANTES : Wait what's not conforming?
PAT MOORE : So currently the side yard setback is 15 1 believe is the minimum.
MEMBER DANTES : Right
PAT MOORE : When the house was built it was all built with property permits, no variances so
some of the subdivisions include building envelopes that are less than what the code just
clustered setbacks. We didn't find it because it wasn't one of the subdivision lots it was a
described parcel. So, it all pre-dated the increased to fifteen but it didn't allow us to
MEMBER DANTES : So this lot was created by deed not by Planning.
PAT MOORE : Yea I couldn't find a subdivision lot number. You can see the survey doesn't
refer to a lot on the filed map.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric
MEMBER DANTES : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's a straightforward application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob
MEMBER LEHNERT: It's a pretty benign application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, is there anybody on Zoom?
tl
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : My client apologizes she would have been here, I think she was traveling today
so I said don't worry about it you won't be penalized cause she's not here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright very good, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a
later date.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
HEARING#7898—HEATHER ROMANELLI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Heather Romanelli
#7898. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's December 22, 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 50 feet located at 3535 Cedar Beach Rd.
(adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Southold. Would you please state your name?
ELIGIO LOPEZ : Eligio Lopez representing Romanelli.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a front yard setback of 30.4 feet where the code requires
a minimum of 50 feet on this lot which is in an R-80 zone a good sized lot. It's LWRP exempt
and you're proposing to replace an existing garage with a two story.
ELIGIO LOPEZ : Yes there's one car garage there on a cement platform so basically we want to
rebuilt on the same spot but now it's going to be called one car and a half with a breezeway.
u,
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A breezeway okay, you're going to have some sort of covered
walkway.
ELIGIO LOPEZ : Yes,from the garage to the main house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The additions to the house that you're doing don't require any
variances.
ELIGION LOPEZ : No just the side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's some tall hedges that screen the garage from the road
that exist and rear yards and sides yards are very large. You got an outdoor shower there, a
stone patio with a pergola overlooking the bay cause we all go out and inspect the property.
Let's see if the Board has any questions, Nick anything from you?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one question, looking at he survey you're discussing the
connection of the house to the future renovated garage that's containing a breezeway, what
are the dimensions of the breezeway? It's got the 9 by 15.
ELIGIO LOPEZ : Yeah 9 to 15, 9 by 15 I'm sorry in between the space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just open with roof.
ELIGIO LOPEZ : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's no one in the audience. Oh, Eric has a question, go
ahead.
MEMBER DANTES : Why not just turn the breezeway and then have the garage off to the side
and conform to code,why go through the variance process?
ELIGIO LOPEZ : Because it doesn't have the 50 feet.
MEMBER DANTES : I understand that but why not just turn the proposed scope of work and
then meet the 50 feet?
ELIGIO LOPEZ : Because then it would be like basically in front of the house. The way you
didn't go to the site?
MEMBER DANTES : I did but I still don't understand why not
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eric I'm sorry, to clarify your suggesting attaching the garage to the
house without the breezeway?
MEMBER DANTES : No you have the breezeway and you just turn it so that it's not to the side
and meet the 50 feet.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Well the driveway already exists so it's a circular driveway.
MEMBER DANTES : So that's the reason, you don't want to move the driveway?
ELIGIO LOPEZ : Well I think by doing that we would be putting the garage basically in front of
the house and we want to keep it like to the side. I know it's called the front yard but the way
the house is located is like wave, the front of the house basically to the back.
MEMBER LEHNERT: Yeah the front faces Paradise Rd. not Cedar Beach Rd.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not facing the street.
ELIGIO LOPEZ : No, the house is not located (inaudible) it's located the wrong way so we're
trying to keep the same location basically.
MEMBER DANTES : Oh ok then they didn't give you because the other thing is not a street it's
not a front yard that's why they're doing this, okay.
ELIGIO LOPEZ : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Got it, anything else from the Board? Is there anybody on Zoom?
Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. We should have a decision
in two weeks at our next meeting.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
:14
i
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7899—5295 BRIDGE LANE, LLC/CONSTANTINO MARRA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 5295 Bridge Lane,
LLC/Constantino Marra #7899. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15
and the Building Inspector's January 4, 2024 amended January 19, 2024 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" accessory in-ground swimming
pool at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 5295 Bridge Lane in
Cutchogue. Member Planamento is recused from this application. As you know we've
inspected the property. There was a Stop Work Order on this pool and its partially in a side
yard. It's a little hard to figure this out because there's this twin you know building on another
lot actually, it looks like it's one lot especially from the back. Is this pool going to actually be
used by just the subject dwelling?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, they're two separate lots, one's a corner lot the subject lot and
then the other one is a flagged lot. So, the original intention of the plan was to do a raised
patio so that the pool would have been attached and we would have had the rear yard
scenario and we actually my design was to have it going the other orientation of which way
it's going now. Dan and Dino which in just to be just full disclosure I'm also involved in this
project as an investor just so you guys know. They hired a landscape architect and the
landscape architect changed the orientation and didn't realize that that was going to create a
rear yard setback issue and it kind of got past my office and .that's what happened and that's
how it got here. With that said, I do think that the way that it's I mean and I understand
obviously being in a rear yard, I think one thing to really point out here is the main.structure
and I know that the garage is attached by a breezeway a closed in covered breezeway
essentially but the main house structure is the pool is behind that structure if you use Sound
Ave. as the front yard because it is a corner lot. So essentially, I believe that in a way we are
sort of behind the house essentially. The other thing I want to point out and I don't think you
guys have it on your drawing and I just I sketched it on here, I can show the Board but the lot
behind it the other one that we also own and are developing it's a flagged lot so there's about
a fifty-foot portion of that lot that is just for a driveway that gets you to the flagged lot and
then it's the neighboring home. So, there is a pretty big buffer between this lot and the
neighboring lot due to the flagged lot. I can show you just a I added it to that site but I'm sorry
that it wasn't on the (inaudible).
MEMBER LEHNERT : Oh other than the side yard you meet all the setbacks.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct, we are meeting all the setbacks. Another thing,
regarding the pool design and the house design, it's an "L" shaped design so the pool is being
basically blocked by the home. I think if you did put the pool in the rear yard which would be
:15
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
behind the main structure you would be like right up on the property of the back house
because the back house's front yard is basically in the rear yard of this house. So, I think the
pool makes sense in the location is what I'm getting at.
MEMBER DANTES : You have two front yards so it's kind of skewing where you can put things
by code but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's only partially too.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah it's only partially in-the side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just a portion of it technically.
MEMBER DANTES : It's a pretty benign variance.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Most of it is in the rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I presume that big berm is intended to be landscaped along North
Rd.?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yep
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then what kind of screening are you proposing between the two
lots, because there's absolutely no privacy whatsoever.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : There's going to be arborvitaes that go down that driveway that I've
illustrated on there and then they're going to come around the property line to basically block
the back home from staring into the back yard of the front home. So, we have a plan for
eight-to-ten-foot arborvitaes. I believe the buffer has.ten-to-twelve-foot arborvitaes on Sound
Ave. on top of that berm that we already have. Obviously, we want these properties to fill
secluded when you're in your rear yard and we obviously have Sound Ave. to deal with but I
just don't have it with me we have a like a said there was a landscape architect hired for this
project so we do have a landscape plan. I can hand that in for your guys review during the
closed hearing if you'd like to see it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because the only issue here really is privacy from the other
lot.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah and that was kind of my (inaudible) like if the pool was even
further back you'd be like right in the front yard of that rear house and I think having the
buffer of the driveway you're not like right on the side yard of the other house so I think it
makes sense in the location.
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Board do you want a copy of the landscape plane?
MEMBER LEHNERT : We should have something for the file.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that we can confirm that there will be buffering, visual.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : We'll send it over today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and they'll email it to us that's sufficient.
MEMBER DANTES : It's fairly benign.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so do you want me to close subject to receipt or do you
want to just close it and you'll just send it to us?
MEMBER LEHNERT : We can just close it and just condition it as screening it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later
date. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye, the motion carries.
HEARING#7901—STEPHANIE PERIL and RICHARD PERIL
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stephanie Perl and
Richard Perl #7901. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII
Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 1, 2023 amended March 26, 2024
Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct two additions and
alterations to an existing single family dwelling, construct an in-ground swimming pool
:17
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
addition and to legalize an accessory shed in a non-conforming location at 1) construction
located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) more than the
code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) accessory shed located in other than the
code permitted rear yard located at 2880 Minnehaha Blvd. (adj.to Corey Creek) in Southold.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I have a few things that I want to hand up to the Board. I'd like to touch
on the front yard variance first if I could. It's very common down Minnehaha Blvd. and you
can see from the map I provided, a lot of the homes are currently existing non-conforming,
some of them actually received a variance for additions to increase the non-conformance.
Our request for this addition is really for the garage. The neighboring home I guess that would
be the east which is the survey I provided you 2750 Minnehaha, they're kind of the same
scenario I feel like because their attached garage is 16.5 feet off of the property I,ine. Then if
you go to the other neighbor 2950, they actually have a variance that was received in May 11,
2006 and that file number is 5865 and I gave a copy to Kim. They did receive a ;variance of
16.2 on their front yard. I think that a lot of the reasons that these variances are needed in
this neighborhood is just because of how the homes were originally plotted and a'lot of them
are close to the front yard the existing home is non-conforming and again we're trying to get
a garage really that's it's a one car garage, it's not very massive.That's the reason on the front
yard and again I think the two adjacent neighbors basically have the same type of condition so
I don't think that we're outside of what's going on in the neighborhood.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah I'm very familiar with one to the north, I built it twice., so I'm the
one that did that application.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh okay, the lot coverage I think is very minimal, we're not requesting
it's a 1.4 over the 20%. We are able to show two different applications that are again on
Minnehaha, one received a 34% lot coverage variance, that's variance number 7348 and then
there was an approved 22% for 5200 as well. So, again the lots I think aren't that large, really
what's putting us over is (inaudible) wanting to put a pool in an above ground pool which I
think also is subject to the fact that you know we're at some ground water issues here so it's
not like we can sink a deep pool into the ground. I also think it's better that it's an above
ground pool for the fact that we're near wetlands. Obviously, that's our next trip is to
Trustees if the Board approves our application. The side yard existing shed, so again the
subject property the neighboring property adjacent has the same type of shed existing. Again,
think this is pretty common in that area being a boating community the sheds are put in the
side yard, they're closer to the property line and you know mainly used for boating
equipment and all like skis and things like that. Again, I think it's pretty common to see these
little sheds in the side yards and closer to the property lines due to the fact that even this
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
property you can see the lines are skewing, the house is sort of wide so it doesn't have much
of a side yard so I think that's the reason that it's there and again it makes sense for the area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's not enough room in a conforming front yard to really
put it would not be very functional.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Exactly and I think to put it in the rear yard it's just an eye sore, it's you
know being on the water and boating and those type of things it really makes sense where it
is and the property neighboring has basically the same condition which I show on the survey I
provided. If there's any questions that I can answer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the setback, I mean the side yard is the location, I
guess they didn't quote the setback because it's a non-conforming location anyway so
sometimes the don't do the setbacks.
ANTHONY PORTILLO :The shed, it's 1.2 off the side yard.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think that there's anywhere that the shed could go.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No there is nowhere else to put it but I mean I'm saying that
sometimes they'll say it's got a non-conforming setback but when it's in a non-conforming
location I don't think they bother with the setback.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's interesting, the neighbor to the south their shed is literally on
the property line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah it is.
MEMBER DANTES : It's 80 sq. ft. so you don't even need a permit technically.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's just the side yard variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, any questions from the Board?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I actually have two if I can relative to the pool Anthony. I get that
each applicant has their own design interest and things at heart but would the applicant
consider reducing the pool? While it's a negligible overage of the lot coverage, perhaps you
can reduce the size of the pool and that variance goes away. I don't know if somebody did a
15 by 30 or something well smaller if that would make much of a difference. Was there any
consideration in the calculation?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think the size of the pool was based on sort of the family size, you
know they do have kids, they don't want to have a plunge pool.They're looking for something
:19
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
that is an activity type of pool. Honestly, an 18 by 30 is really the smallest and then you start
kind of getting into these smaller plunge pools when you 15 by like 25, they get a lot smaller
and really not meant for like kid use in my opinion and that's we really went to the smallest
let's say activity type pool not a plunge pool.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the scale of the property I mean I was taken back by the
tightness of the road frontage and the narrow front yard that suddenly had this beautiful back
yard. The back yard absolutely with all the open space of the creek and the view to the bay
and then the other question and it's not before us, why wouldn't they rotate the pool to sort
of parallel the house? It just seems like more of a logical design.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think also it was more about like having the ability to like go down into
the yard and not sort of take up the whole entire frontage of the deck. So, to have the ability
you know to utilize the deck and the yard separate from like the pool space. I mean that was
the reasoning behind sort of bringing it more to the side of the deck area the existing patio
area that was really the reason. So, they have that covered patio area that's already existing,
so the idea would be like having stairs that you could just access your rear yard from and then
the pool was designed to really be in that other open sort of patio area and that's kind of how
we tailored it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know I got a question here just as a semantic, you just said
that this was an above ground pool right?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Partially above ground.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because the plan and the Legal Notices and the Notice of
Disapproval says in-ground swimming pool addition.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So I think because it is in-ground so if you look at SP-7 you'll see what I
mean by above and below ground. The reason I would you know if you kind of can see how
the grade sort of works itself out so like when you're on the further side of the pool you're
about two feet out of grade and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Partially above, partially in-ground.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah because of the grade. I think the Building Department would call
this in-ground pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They did call it an in-ground pool.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean that's what I figured the right definition for it but it is in line and
I guess a little bit above grade so
Zo
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're doing that cause of water table and all of that.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct and you can see where we show the water table on it
based on our test hole.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I just want to make sure that we're all on the same using the
same language here. Alright any questions Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT: I have no questions.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other question, I'm sorry, early on Kim gave us these two
documents, can you explain to me what this is.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm sorry it's just a tax map number a tax map of the neighborhood kind
of showing the distances of the other homes that are neighboring the house.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's hard to read cause it's kind of like light but the 16.4 is the
applicant's proposed garage versus the neighbor to the south with an 18.4.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right and then the other neighbor it's basically showing that all the
neighbors on that side of the road are encroaching on the front yard currently. (inaudible) But
then I gave you a blow up of the survey, that's the neighboring property that is basically the
same thing that we're proposing.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and then this area here is where their septic is is the garage
right
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's their garage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay everybody good? Anybody on Zoom Liz? Anybody in the
audience wanting to address the application? Hearing no 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 LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
?.a
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries.
HEARING#7904—PINE WEST, LLC/WILLIAM SCHILING, III
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Pine West, LLC/
William Schiling, III #7904. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and
the Building Inspector's January 2, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit to construct a new accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code permitted
rear yard located at 5445 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel. Good morning, would you please
state your name for the record.
JEFFREY SANDS : Jeffrey Sands
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is well they weren't quite sure what yard to call it out so they
just said it wasn't in the code required rear yard in the Notice.
MEMBER DANTES : It's an odd lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very, very, lots and lots of wetlands.
JEFFREY SANDS : It's over a two and half acre lot but one and a half acres are wetlands. It's pie
shaped and part of it goes into the Laurel Links Golf Course, there's really not a lot of
buildable area and we have kind of a flagged driveway (inaudible) location for the garage.
We're like two hundred feet from the street you can't even see the garage from the street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a little triangular buildable area on the whole lot and
very heavily wooded at the moment, looks very undeveloped. I don't really have, you have
D.E.C. approval I think.
JEFFREY SANDS : Yes we have D.E.C., Health Department we have building permits for all the
other planned improvements on the property so this is the remaining piece of the puzzle.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need Trustees for this?
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
JEFFREY SANDS : No we stayed away 100 feet from everywhere.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, no Trustees required. Alright, Pat any questions from you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is never going to be seen by anybody. Anything from you
Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have to ask the obvious, we had the application earlier where the
garage is attached by a breezeway, my question to you would be, why not attach the garage
in a conforming location attached to the house or accessed by a breezeway where it would
still be part of the house?
JEFFREY SANDS : It just wasn't part of the plan. My client purchased this property with this
plan already basically worked out so we had Health Department based on all of this so we
went with this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they obviously prefer a detached garage.
JEFFREY SANDS : Right, (inaudible) working on cars separate from the house or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything from you?
MEMBER DANTES : No, it could be attached but I mean it doesn't really I mean there's no
harm in putting the garage where it is.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing I would say, it is new construction so it's within their
purview.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you putting in an IA system?
JEFFREY SANDS : Yes, actually no this didn't require one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh no kidding.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'm surprised.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They didn't have a building permit yet and you have the Board of
Health approval?
JEFFREY SANDS : We have Board of Health and D.E.C.
MEMBER LEHNERT : They have permits for everything but the garage.
231
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES :Are you going to maintain the existing bedroom count?
JEFFREY SANDS : We actually went down to they had approval I-think for an eight bedroom
and we're doing five.
MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay so that's why.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So D.E.C., Health Department and Building it's just this variance.
SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : The plans show seven bedrooms though, five
bedroom proposed sanitary the house says seven bedroom. Should we change that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :And now you're proposing a five bedroom?
JEFFREY SANDS : On the site plan he calls out five bedroom on the side but the house is seven
bedrooms. We did leave it at seven bedrooms.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You are doing seven bedrooms?
JEFFREY SANDS : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you have D.E.C. and Health Department approval for the
seven bedrooms?
JEFFREY SANDS : Yes
SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Do we want the sanitary to match saying seven? Do
we have approval for seven?
i
MEMBER LEHNERT : The house is not part of our application we're just looking at the garage.
SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : But we're going to be stamping this.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Again, it's not only the garage is part of the application, that-would be
Building Department they've already issued him a permit.
MEMBER DANTES : You have Health Department approval for eight bedrooms.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seven
JEFFREY SANDS : I don't have that paperwork with me. I'd like to be clear with all that but it
seems like there's some different numbers on here regarding sanitary and the house. I do
believe it's an eight bedroom system that we have approval on.
BOARD ASSISTANT :The Building Department will have that paperwork?
24
i
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
JEFFREY SANDS : Absolutely, we have all approval for all of it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then did I understand you just to say the garage will not have any
plumbing?
JEFFREY SANDS : Correct
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay so the only other thought is when you look at the garage plan
there isn't a detail of stairwell to the loft attic storage, so I think in the past we've requested
pull down stairs or the stairwell to be outside.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's only when there's an apartment proposed.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You think it's sufficient that it should be just left in its unfinished,
unenclosed
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we can say unfinished, non-habitable
MEMBER LEHNERT : It can't be habitable the knee walls are only three feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no head clearance on the
MEMBER LEHNERT :The state code won't allow it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well you know it's certainly much more convenient for
storage purposes if there's a full stair if it's going to not interfere with potential misuse of the
structure. I mean I would certainly want that than a pull down. If it's unfinished space, its non-
habitable space I don't care if it's you know a staircase.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Again that would be a condition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we'll just condition it that way. Anything else from the Board
on this one? Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there
anybody on Zoom? 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
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries.
HEARING#7903—JOHN LAURETTI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Lauretti #7903.
This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
the Building Inspector's January 24, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit to legalize an "as built" covered porch attached to an existing single-family dwelling
and to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) "as built" construction is located
less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) swimming pool is
located other than the code permitted rear yard located at 295 Vista Place in Cutchogue. The
front porch is proposed with a front yard setback at 29.5 feet.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's an "as built".
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right we did see that actually, the code requires 40 and the
pool in a secondary front yard.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can start with the "as built" porch, unfortunately built with no permit
not advised by me but it was done. It is an open porch; it is not an addition to the existing
house. Just to mention the existing home is existing non-conforming it doesn't meet the front
yard setbacks. My argument if it wasn't built would be that it's an open porch really for access
into the house for a covering and you really wouldn't have no other way of getting a front
porch that isn't going to be non-conforming because the existing house is non-conforming. I
think it's a modest size, I don't think it's over done.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's two brick columns.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's a portico essentially so to me it's sensible and I hope the Board feels
the same way.
MEMBER DANTES : Plus there's other houses in the neighborhood I believe that have non-
conforming front yard setbacks.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Most of the homes in that area I was going to read one into the record I
was going to read one into the record that did receive actually a variance. August 6, 2015 File
No. 6865 a 20 foot front.yard setback was provided with a 40 feet required setback so very
261
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
similar to what we're requesting. I think that's a smaller ask but I want to talk about the pool.
So, one thing about this lot if you see that you know it's being called a corner lot but in reality,
I mean and I understand why in reality you can't access
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly, I don't even know why they called cause usually it's not
considered a front yard if you have no physical access to it, it's a dead end of the subdivision
it's all confusing. Half the time the GPS puts you on this side, you can't get through, you gotta
go around back up to get to where you want to get to.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So the only sensible that it's not really a front yard I mean again
understand why they're calling it a front yard but it's not an accessible road from Vista.
There's also like a land buffer between Glenn Court and this property. It looks to be like about
thirty to forty feet that can't be built on. My point is, I don't think the placement of the pool is
affecting any neighbors or creating any you know hardship to anybody. I do think the hardship
is more that they're calling it a corner lot in my opinion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a great big house across that other dead end but certainly
some evergreen screening makes sense.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm fine if you want us to propose that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would imagine the applicant would probably prefer that because
you know otherwise they're very open and exposed to the house across the street and
whoever drives there.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : We can provide the draining on our construction document plans to the
Building Department. What like eight to tens or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that'll be fine yeah.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Great
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eight to ten foot evergreen, you can do Leyland you can do
whatever you want it.doesn't matter.
MEMBER DANTES : We'll just close with the condition that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Evergreen screening that's all. So, we need to grant variances for
both the shed and the swimming pool. There is a shed that's also in a second front yard, do
you need a variance for that too? It's not a waterfront property.
MEMBER DANTES : Are you keeping the shed?
271
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's an "as built" shed on the property.
ANTHONY PORTILLO :The existing shed below the deck, it's below the deck yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're talking about the one that would sort of be on the Glenn
Court side of the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly, it's just sitting there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean it wasn't called out.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't think that was in our denial.
MEMBER DANTES : I think because it's below the deck, maybe the deck if it's below.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The second floor deck that's there but I don't think it was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know it wasn't called out.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Not on the denial.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can just forget about it I suppose. I just want to bring it up
in case there's something we can do to prevent issues with the Building Department later on.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean is there a way to put that into the approval without the
Disapproval letter stating that or do I have to go back to revise that?
MEMBER DANTES : It's so small Anthony I would just leave it alone.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's not in the denial so.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean they received this site plan and we clearly
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they didn't pay any attention to it.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Maybe they don't really feel like that's a corner lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you can't have it both ways.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No I mean maybe they missed it obviously but
MEMBER DANTES : Just bolt it to the deck and then it's attached.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean I could do that if you like.
Z81
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I just you know it's just better to get all the little details up
front now rather than having to wind up with de minimus or some amended. I mean I'm fine
with it where it is, I just don't want you to have to have a problem with the Building
Department when they catch it.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well I might fight with them and say they didn't catch it to begin with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll just leave it for now and
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I guess I should just mention this just on the record that the pool is
behind the house.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was a question that I wanted to ask and I'm fine with it too I
mean but you have a proposed garage, why wouldn't you put the pool between the house
and the proposed garage? You could have reorientated the driveway, the garage is not yet
built and you wouldn't have needed the variances.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The pool is because of that deck there's a staircase that kind of goes
into the yard there, so that's how they would be accessing the pool really.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I saw that, and it seems I don't know the floor plan of the house but
it looks like the whole house is elevated so the living space is reversed from a traditional plan.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The living room is off that deck.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah, I mean looking at the fagade it seems that that's actually the
front of the house that looks towards the Sound even though
ANTHONY PORTILLO : You get the view there, right.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right even though the front door is on Vista Place.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's an upside down house essentially and the living room is off that
deck and then you walk down the stairs to access the pool so I mean the planning of it was for
that reason.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone in the audience wanting to address the application?
DAVID SACH : I'm David Sach and my wife Stephanie, we live across the street from the
Lauretti's it's really not that big. We don't oppose anything the Lauretti's propose to do in fact
what they've done has been a tremendous improvement over what existed before. We just
wanted to go on the record to caution them because we're currently in litigation by the Board
the Association, the Board is really suing us for an encroachment issue that they caused
Z
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
because we were told when we constructed our home that we needed a retaining wall due to
the elevation difference between our home and the park property which is owned by the
Association which is why it's the Property Owners Association. We agreed to fund this wall,
we were told it would be put on our property and that wall (inaudible) where landscaping,
fencing, electrical boxes and what not went and then five years later we were told, oh you're
encroaching. We had no idea and we are and we don't dispute that. So, I mention this
because I don't want the Lauretti's to be in the same situation because they're proposed pool
abuts against association property too that was mentioned a few moments ago. So, that's
why I just wanted to state this so that they are careful not to encroach on that so that they
don't end up being sued as we were by being misled to build a wall that actually solved a
drainage issue. That's why it's not on our property it solves a drainage issue for the
association so we shouldn't have funded it, all of us should have funded it. Anyway, that's all
thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much, thank you for coming today.
STEPHANIE SACH : Stephanie Sach and I live at 445 Glenn Court and I just wanted to say that
think their front porch that the Lauretti's have done looks beautiful and it's a really nice
improvement to the house and they really have done a gorgeous job with the improvements.
I just want to say that the land that abuts what makes it a corner lot is in fact community
owned land and again I caution it for them because I don't want anyone to go through what
we've been going through and that their pool and fencing gets very close to what is
community land and any landscaping that they would put would have to go on the
community land and I just want to caution you guys it's a hell of a nightmare it's just a really
tough situation that the neighborhood will probably will not go with them in their favor. It
also goes against the Covenants would need to be changed because our neighborhood
Covenants state that you can't put a pool on the side of the yard and so when we asked for a
boundary line agreement to help resolve the situation that the Board put us in, they said that
they would never ever change the Covenants. So, again I just wanted to put that out there
because I don't want these lovely people to go through what we've gone through.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you talked with them about it?
STEPHANIE SACH : I have not, I don't see them that often so they're out once and a while. I
went over and introduced myself to them, also I don't want to be the neighbor that's like, hey
don't get sued like we got sued so you know I'm just trying to cautiously but I'm here to
support them in any way that I can and I'm
30
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what I think what we can do to help avoid that because the
code is going to require that they put up you know a fence around the pool, presumably
that's on their property.
STEPHANIE SACH : It's shown it's just very close to where their property line is and so I just
don't
MEMBER DANTES : The surveyor marked it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what, we'll put down that any as a condition of
approval that any additional evergreen screening must be on the subject lot.
STEPHANIE SACH :Just for their own safety. I know I think that the Covenants also (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know exactly you don't know where the boundary is.
STEPHANIE SACH : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You go out there and you see this great big huge grassy area
STEPHANIE SACH : Exactly, so again for their own benefit I would just do that and have them
put all fencing and everything on their property so that it would be in (inaudible) and I know
that our Covenants also say that pools must be screened entirely by evergreens. So, you've
already proposed that so that'll be lovely.
MEMBER LEHNERT :The Association should have been notified if they are a direct neighbor.
MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I mean they would have gotten a copy of this.
STEPHANIE SACH :They did, I mean I know I did cause I'm their neighbor so I received one too
also.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Do we require the Association?
STEPHANIE SACH : I'm part of the Association.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible)
STEPHANIE SACH : The Lauretti's are part of the Association are part of the Birch Hill Property
Association even though they're not on
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh they are because we don't have any C& R's in our records.That
is a civil matter though, that is not something the Board gets involved with, that's among you
31L
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
and your Association members but usually we ask if there are any C & R's on the properties
but did they check the box yes or no?We have to look and see because we ask that question.
STEPHANIE SACH :They are part of the Association that community.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Looking at the tax map it seems like they're all residences I don't
see,there's a right of way that is east of your house which is the beach access.
STEPHANIE SACH : To the east, no that's not our beach access.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh that's not your beach access?
STEPHANIE SACH : No, we have a park that is open land
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's like plot number three or something oh no it's the one right
next to you, sorry.
STEPHANIE SACH : That's part of our community and that one has beach access. All of our
neighborhood owns that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So where is that other community land that abuts the Lauretti
house?
STEPHANIE SACH : I can show you, I have it on my phone.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Is Glenn Ct. a private road?That would be the only thing that I could see.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So I have to provide the C& R's?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, would you come to the podium please.
JOHN LAURETTI : I'm John Lauretti, I own that property and I'm going for this variance. It's
weird property line, it is very tight the pool is very tight but I have I signed some paperwork
that I'm assuming liability for anything I went to the Board the community, I told them I want
to clean up all the property it was all overgrown trees, weeds and terrible so they said yes, no
problem just let us know what you're going to do. So, I said OKAY I'm going to put a line of
new privets, new trees, new screening close the property in and they said you're going to
plant on the association property,that's okay but you're going to assume liability if somebody
gets hurt on that property cause you're planting and I said no problem. So, I assume liability
on any section of that property that I'm going to put screening cause the screening has to go
on the association property, it's very tight. So that's some paperwork that I just signed I don't
know if you guys if they sent it to you.
N
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you've already addressed the problem?
JOHN LAURETTI : Yes, somebody (inaudible). I'm not going to go on their property with the
pool or anything but the trees have to go on their property a little bit. So, I'm going to put
nice big arborvitaes across and that's your side cause (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I think you're just getting into the (inaudible). Excuse me
you guys can talk outside to each other but here you have to address the Board.
MEMBER DANTES : So then how do we condition the decision, evergreen screening from the
street and then whatever happens on the property line is something else, it doesn't concern
us?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's all we'll just basically indicate evergreen screening, you two
can work out exactly where you want them to be, it's up to you. The idea was to protect your
privacy as well as everyone else's and now we hear there's C & R's that require pools to be
screened. So, obviously you're working with the Association, that's not something we really
concern ourselves with but when we have the reason why things are in back yards usually is
cause they can't be seen. So as soon as they're not there then we have to look at impacts,
including visual impacts and privacy. That's why we'll often screen like even if it's on a
conforming waterfront property in a front yard we usually ask for some screening of the front
yard because nobody wants to have their swimming pool you know subject to traffic going
back and forth so that's where this all came from. So as long as you two can work the details
out we're fine with it, we'll just word it in a way that doesn't complicate it. Thank you for
letting us know.
MEMBER LEHNERT : What is the name of the Association?
STEPHANIE SACH : Birch Hills Property Owners Association.
T.A. MCGIVNEY : Why aren't you planting those trees on your property?
JOHN LAURETTI : We have to get the pool in and we need that I have the whole front already
planted.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We saw the privet.
JOHN LAURETTI : The next phase is the other end.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the question is, why don't you put the privet hedges on your
property, you have ten feet between the pool and your lot line?
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
JOHN LAURETTI : It's very tight to the property line and I wanted to get away from that angle
and just make it square to mirror the other side of the street.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : If we provide cause I can provide from the Building Department
Homeowner Association approval that he's allowed to plant on that buffer that's there from
the Building Department (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He just wants more room around his pool,that's all.
JOHN LAURETTI : Make it straight so it's not on that angle.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Actually there's one other point too, if this does not abut to Glenn Ct.
and there's property between you and Glenn Ct. how is this considered a front yard?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That has been my argument but the Building Department looks at it
because I guess that's got a single and separate lot.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah if you look at how the tax map the whole area that's now the
brush that he cleared was implied to be paved as the road,they just didn't pave the road.
MEMBER LEHNERT: They didn't pave the road.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's supposed to be like a turnaround I guess like a cul-de-sac
essentially.
MEMBER DANTES : Technically it's part of the road I guess.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll look into it Kim, I can provide that to the Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they should have checked off the box that there are C& R's.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That was our mistake.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I think the Building Department didn't do the research which
sometimes happens. If there's like a private right of way, the whole idea we once had a
through lot that was you know at grade at the street level but in their back yard there was a
right of way that led to another subdivision and it was literally 6 or 7 feet below the grade of
the subject property. There is no way either than a kamikaze mood there was no way that
they were getting and they still called it another front yard. We overturned the Notice of
Disapproval because it was so egregiously wrong to call that a front yard instead of a rear
yard.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Didn't we do that in Nassau Point next to a right of way?
34
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There was a right of way there too.
MEMBER LEHNERT : A walking path.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a paper road and they're calling it you know it's a walking path
and they're calling it another front yard. It's sometimes an association beach access, we see
them all over the place. We just want to make sure that this goes smoothly for everybody.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can provide those.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you guys work this out.
MEMBER LEHNERT: Provide the C& R's.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Not a problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, let me do this, let me just close this subject to
receipt. I know you can get it altogether soon that way when we write a decision, we can
incorporate that information. What that means is that we're going to hold this open for two
weeks to our next-hearing date but the second if we get this in the next two or three days, we
can start writing the decision we don't have to wait and we can vote on it then as well.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : We'll get it over as quickly, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so is there anybody on Zoom? Okay, I'm going to make a
motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of additional information regarding Covenants
and Restrictions and evergreen screening. 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
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Board would you like me to show the screening on the plan and provide
an updated.
35
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I think so, it'll work. Just indicate what the property lines are,
what the Association property is, where they're going and
MEMBER LEHNERT : And also if you can provide a copy of your agreement with them that
would be.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : We said there's no pools allowed in the side yard.
MEMBER DANTES : It's not a side yard it's a front yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's considered a front yard.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It might not be a front yard if they don't have access to Glenn Ct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but that's how Building called it out. We have to address it
that way otherwise we have to go back to the drawing board and start disputing their, it's just
easier to say okay fine it's a front yard.
MEMBER DANTES : We don't enforce private C & R's anyway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No they don't those are civil matters you know among
homeowners and stuff we don't really have the jurisdictions do anything even though we can
recognize what you're saying as truthful we don't really have any authority over Covenants
and Restrictions. That's why we ask in our applications if there are any so we're just aware of
it that's all.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So the C R's the revised plans, (inaudible)
MEMBER LEHNERT : A copy of the agreement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And where the evergreen screening is going and the agreement
that it could go there then we're good. Does that make sense to you too? Alright then. It
seems like they're trying to avoid the hardship that they're enduring. Motion to adjourn for
lunch.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye
361
i
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING # 7850 — JENNIFER WAGNER and NICO SCHWEIZER/BREEZY SHORES (COTTAGE
#14)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jennifer Wagner and
Nico Schwiezer/Breezy Shores (Cottage #14) #7850. This is a request for a variance from
Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's July 25, 2023 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for a permit to construct alterations to an existing seasonal cottage at
1) a non-conforming building containing a non-conforming use shall not be enlarged,
reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming
use located at Cottage #14 Breezy Shores 65490 Main Rd. (adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in
Greenport. Is there someone here to represent the application? Please go to the podium and
state your name for the record.
JENNIFER WAGNER :Jennifer Wagner
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've had I'm sure you're aware of many renovations and
alterations proposed on that property and that is really they're all residential uses which are
really conforming to the zone but because they're multiple dwellings on one lot that's what
1-71
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
makes them non-conforming. This is considered LWRP exempt, I believe you're on the
landward side of the right of way of the private road. I think you're proposing a cathedral
ceiling over an existing sun room. Is that correct?
JENNIFER WAGNER : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The porch is going to be reconstructed?
JENNIFER WAGNER :Almost as is, it's just extending the roof.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are increasing this by 17 sq.ft. is that correct?
JENNIFER WAGNER : The footprint isn't changing it's just the height yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a precedent a long standing precedent of permitting as
almost a de minimus change anything that's three percent or less as long as it doesn't violate
the C & R's about exterior decks and so on. It would appear from the•application that your
increased volume is less than three percent, is that correct?
JENNIFER WAGNER : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else you would like us to know about this
application?
JENNIFER WAGNER : No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob let's start with you.
MEMBER LEHNERT :The last ones we've seen here were had to be FEMA compliant, does that
affect you at all?
JENNIFER WAGNER : Not to my knowledge, no.
MEMBER LEHNERT :That was my only question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric
MEMBER DANTES : No, seen this application before for the other cottages so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat
381
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone in the audience wanting to address this application?
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
HEARING#7893SE,#7894, 7914SE, 7915&7897—SILVER SANDS HOLDINGS I, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Planamento is recused from the next applications so
think Nick if you want to, you can just go. Good afternoon we have five applications from the
same property owner, all for Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC. I think because all of these
applications are so interrelated to each other, I'm going to open up all of them at once so that
we can talk about it and whatever way the applicant wishes to proceed. I will tell you; my
suggestion is and there are, five, the last one is a request for. a Code Interpretation for a
Certificate of Occupancy, I'm going to suggest that we look at that one first because I think it's
driving several of the other applications. Let me open all of them by reading into the record
what they are. The first one is #7893SE which is a request for a Special Exception pursuant to
Article VII Section 280-35B(6), applicant requests 1) to convert an existing accessory
boathouse to a freestanding restaurant with office and storage space for restaurant
operations and 2) permission for an accessory seasonal outdoor bbq/bar area located at 1135
Silvermere Rd. in Greenport. The next application is #7894, this is a request for a'variance
from Article VII Section 280-36 and the Building Inspector's January 10, 2024 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a freestanding restaurant with
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
office and storage space for restaurant operations at 1) located less than the code required
minimum side yard setback of 15 feet at the same address. So that's a setback variance. The
third one is#7914SE, this is a request for Special Exception pursuant to Article VII Section 280-
35B(6) and Article VII Section 280-35C(1) applicant requests 1) to convert an existing single
family dwelling (30'4" by 26'4") to a commercial kitchen to be utilized in conjunction with
converted restaurant on the same lot (Lot 15) and 2) upon conversion said commercial
kitchen will be accessory to the principle use of the converted restaurant located at 1135
Silvermere Rd. in Greenport. The fourth one is Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC #7915. This is a
request for a variance from Article VII Section 280-35C (1) based on an application for a
permit to allow an existing in-ground swimming pool located at Lot 1000-47-2-15 to be
utilized solely as an accessory sue for motel and cottage overnight guests on Lots 1000-47-2-
11, 1000-47-2-12, 1000-47-2-13 and 1000-47-2-14 same address. Finally, Silver Sands
Holdings I, LLC#7897, this is a request for an Interpretation pursuant to Chapter 280-146 D of
the Town Code and the Building Inspector's November 16, 2023 Certificate of Occupancy
based on alterations (diner and bar areas for motel guests only) to an existing motel building
to wit, 1) whether the newly issued Certificate of Occupancy issued under Section 280-35 C
inappropriately limits the use of the diner and hotel bar areas to "motel guests only" and 2)
whether the use allowed in original Certificate of Occupancy No. 142 dated May 28, 1959
remains as a permitted use, parcel located at 1400 Silvermere Rd. (adj. to Pipe's Cove) in
Greenport. So those are the applications before us, I will tell you before we get started,
because we are not Lead Agency on any of these applications that is something the Planning
Board is handling we cannot make a determination without a SEAR decision a SEAR
determination first so we will have the hearing and listen to everything and anything that
anyone wants to tell us and we will be adjourning because we can't make the decision until
Planning acts and does it's SEAR and we have to then review the findings and adopt their
findings. They're going to have their hearing in June, I was just informed by Planning it was
supposed to be a bit earlier but it's now scheduled for June. I don't want the applicant to have
to pay any more money or go through any more postings or mailings so we will adjourn it with
a date rather than adjourn without a date assuming that Planning can get the job done by
then. I'm going to make a motion at the end of all of this to adjourn it to August of 2024
which should give the Planning Board two months after well just about because they're in the
beginning of the month to make their SEAR decision. Is there someone here who would like
to begin representing the application?
GAYLE POLLACK : Good afternoon, my name is Gayle Pollack I'm an attorney with Morris and
Cohen. I'm here with Charles Cuddy representing Silver Sands, the applicant Alexander Perros
one of the owners of the applicant is actually going to represent substantively the
applications for the ZBA and then we're happy to answer any questions the Board may have.
40
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi, introduce yourself please.
ALEX PERROS : Alexander Perros, hi. So, I prepared I know there's five applications and like
you said we can talk about them all fluidly. I prepared a statement to kind of summarize and
put a little context around anything and I'm prepared to address,questions with each
application depending on how the Board would like to approach it. I'm here on behalf of
Silver Sands which is a beloved motel, local motel resort complex that's been an interval part
of the community since it was established in 1957. The property which is situated across
twelve lots south of Rt. 25 and both sides of Silvermere Rd. as well as a fifteen-acre riparian
lot in Pipe's Cove holds historical significance with some of the structures dating back to
1930's. In April 2022 nearly two years ago to the day, after sixty-five years of family
ownership I acquired Silver Sands with a lifelong friend. We knew we were inheriting a
property that needed a tremendous amount of work to preserve and update the historic
structures and uses. Instead of pursuing denser developments that the property might allow
we chose to maintain, restore and rejuvenate all of the existing buildings. We started work on
the rejuvenation the day after we closed, it was April 14, 2022. In the last two years we have
collaborated with nearly every town department to close out dozens of building permits and
Trustees applications. One thing we perhaps didn't fully realize from the start was that we
also inherited a property that had (inaudible) had incomplete property records. It's
understandable though considering that many of the structures here date back almost a
century and that's way before zoning codes even existed. The lots that now comprise Silver
Sands have had numerous owners over the years and ownership changed hands multiple
times before we purchased it. While the tax records have been kept up to date, records of the
property usage have consistently lagged behind and remained incomplete. When I was doing
research in the town's microfiche files, I actually found transcripts from the 1960's, the
original owners the Jurzenia's before the Zoning Board this very Zoning Board talking about
the very same issues of aligning uses with zoning code. In 1989 the Town of Southold rezoned
the Silver Sands lots south of the railroad to Resort Residential to match the existing non-
conforming uses and reflect its character. This change aimed to align the zoning with activities
like tourist lodging and other services however the property records were not fully unified at
the time and that's why we're here today. Since 2023 we've been since December of 2023,
we've been diligently collaborating with the Town Attorney, Zoning and Planning
Departments to finalize this process. Our aim is to achieve a comprehensive alignment of all
records guaranteeing full compliance with zoning and use regulations for the property. This
not only streamlines the operations of Silver Sands but it enhances the positive impact of our
community and ensuring its continued contribution. To shed light on the complexities of our
current applications and the property records I want to take a minute and talk about Lot 15 as
an example. Lot 15 is what has the boathouse where four out of our five applications are
4
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
concerned. It includes nearly a century old boathouse, a cottage and a commercial swimming
pool. Despite being the oldest structure on both the property and the neighborhood the
boathouse is classified as an accessory structure to the cottage. Since the late nineteen
seventies or early eighties the boathouse has the original bar from Porky's which is now the
Lin Beach House. Along with a certified commercial kitchen and a stand-alone loft apartment.
However, these updates weren't reflected in the records after the 1989 rezoning.
Additionally, the cottage has served as transient housing for over forty years but the property
records still label it as a single-family residence. Another important thing that I'd like to point
out is that our applications have garnered a tremendous amount of support from our
neighbors and the community. I have letters of support that I submitted along with all the
applications
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have them.
ALEX PERROS : that go into detail and I think this is an important part about Silver Sands that
we try and have good relations with our neighbors a couple of who are here today and I
welcome them to speak and I'm sure they will, but we try to be good neighbors and we
realize that we are a resort residential property that neighbors from R40 lots. I think this
widespread backing is evident and it you know its absent in some other applications that
we've seen in the town especially relating to hotel developments. Lastly before we dive in, I
did receive the Planning Board comments before coming here today and I look forward to
addressing it with them in the next Work Session. If we stick to the facts of the matter, I'd like
to kind of address two things that they raised in those comments. If we stick to the facts of
the matter, I think all the comments that they raised are very resolvable and I expect that
they will be resolved at our next meeting but I can touch on them for a moment. So, one is
related to Greenport sewer; so Silver Sands property contacted with the Village of Greenport
in 1987 to be a part of the sewer system. In response to the letter that Greenport Village
submitted, we submitted an engineering-analysis which Nicholas Mazzaferro performed that
clearly shows that the usage from when we took over the property in April of 2022 compared
to today including the proposed restaurant will result in a significant reduction. To be specific
it'll be a seventeen percent reduction in the flow. This is because we've reduced the number
of rooms across the property as well as converted overnight dwellings into day use only
spaces. All of that analysis the details of all of it is available in Nick's report. In November and
December of 2022, we had multiple site visits and inspections with the Head of the Village's
Sewer Department. Then in a letter to the Southold Building Department and Suffolk County
Department of Health Services, Suffolk County Department of Health Services from Kip
Skrezec who has performed all of the sewer work for the Village of Greenport for the last fifty
years with his father as well as did the maintenance work at Silver Sands confirmed that the
existing condition of the sewer system was documented and the Village produced S-9 letters
4Z
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
as a result. In February of 2023, there was a correspondence between myself, the Village and
the Suffolk County Department of Health regarding our diner application and the approved
restaurant use. In fact, Suffolk County Department of Health would not have approved the
application had they not received confirmation from the Village that the use and flow were
approved by the S-9 letter. All of these letters have been submitted to the Planning Board. In
April of 2023, despite the fact that the sewer contact stipulates that the Village is responsible
for maintaining the sewer pump on the property, we spent over sixteen thousand dollars in
materials alone to replace and repair the system that broke down due to neglect so we've
taken it upon ourselves to maintain the sewer system to do the right thing for the
environment and to continue you know to continue this process. In our opinion we don't
think that there's anything that's not resolvable here and it's unfortunate that we're having
these delays. Regarding parking, the Planning Board does acknowledge that we've taken
proactive steps to satisfy the parking requirements and really the parking issue comes down
to development times versus you know the zoning regulation implementation dates. Because
Silver Sands is a business it pre-existed any zoning regulations on that basis a variance for
parking should be granted especially since the major efforts to satisfy the regulations are
being done by the owners. The purpose of having variances in the first place is to address the
impacts of the new zoning regulations on the pre-existing properties so we fully expect that
variances will be granted and that we've also satisfied the parking requirements. With that we
look forward to kind of having those meetings and pushing through that. You mention
wanting to start with the motel C.O?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes actually there's one that might be very easy to deal with, the
initial application for the swimming pool, our records show that there's a pending for review
request for a demolition permit for that swimming pool in the Building Department, is that
correct?
ALEX PERROS : That is correct and actually so, in an effort to satisfy some of the parking
requirements as we
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I was assuming, so basically if that's going to be the
case then you're not going to really be proposing the use any use for a swimming pool there.
ALEX PERROS : That is absolutely correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that application we can just dispense with, is that correct?
ALEX PERROS : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to formally withdraw that application?
43
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
ALEX PERROS : Yes I will after this meeting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and if you would state that now in the record and then just
send an email saying I request withdrawing that application, that'll take care now we're down
to four that's pretty good.
ALEX PERROS : Right, trying to simplify these things so yeah we do believe that that will
positively kind of contribute to you know (inaudible) through these applications in the
ongoing efforts to you know enhance Silver Sands and complete the historic and intended
alignment of uses so we will be withdrawing that application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good, before we get started on that I'd just like to make one
comment about this business with the Greenport sewer system, we got all the records we got
all the letters back and forth, the Zoning Board has no jurisdiction or authority over sanitary
flow. So, as far as this Board is concerned that's something that you work out, we got Mr.
Mazzaferro's calculations and so on but that's something really for the Health Department,
the Building Department and you to work out with the Village of Greenport and Planning so I
just want to let you know that we're not going to take any position or do anything about that,
we're just going to assume that you're not adding as far as I can see there are no new pipes
being put in anywhere.
ALEX PERROS : Correct, I understood that I just wanted to provide context.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I'm glad you did, we want to have a fully complete record of all
of the various moving parts in this jigsaw puzzle so we can get a complete picture. Alright, I'll
let you resume, you want to look at the C.O. issue first?
ALEX PERROS : I'd be happy to. I actually think this is the easiest one to talk about to be
honest. So, the request is for an Interpretation as you mentioned about the Certificate of
Occupancy that was issued in November 16, 2023 based on alterations and whether the
newly issued C.O. inappropriately limits the use for the diner and hotel bar areas to motel
guests only. So, I originally submitted a letter to the ZBA pursuant to Article 267A which
specifies that the ZBA shall hear and decide upon matters appears from reviewing any order
of requirement decision, interpretation or determination made by an administrative official
charged with the enforcement of any ordinance of local law adopted pursuant to this article.
After reviewing this the Town Attorney, we were instructed to file this Interpretation
application. The original C.O. I would defer everyone to the letter which goes through
painstaking detail of everything but I can summarize it here, the original C.O. for the motel
building which was issued in 1959 explicitly designates motel with restaurant, that's a quote.
In the original floor plans it shows that this restaurant is in the exact same location as it exists
441
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
today. When we purchased the motel in April 2022, we relied on this underlying C.O. to be
able to run the business as it had been for so many decades. When we took over the property
all of the original equipment, exhaust systems and the dinning counter were functional and
remained in the same place as they were first installed over sixty years prior and I submitted
photographs of this in my application. Furthermore, plenty of historical photographs portray
that the property's vibrant history in continuance operations as it relates to cookouts as well
as the diner. In the summer of 2022, we applied for alterations permit to the underlying C.O.,
I think that's the most critical component, we were altering the existing C.O. The amended
C.O. stands in direct contradiction to the unconditionally granted 1959 C.O. which faithfully
reflects the property's approved use. I'd also like to note that on April 2"d I requested the file
April 2nd of this year I requested a file from the Building Department underlying their decision
to curtail the C.O. for the diner and restrict it to motel guests only. Under 267 A Section B,the
Building Department is supposed to provide this to the ZBA. Quote, the administrative official
from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the Board of Appeals all the papers
constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken, end quote. I just
want to not that I haven't received any of this documentation. Lastly, before answering any
questions you have, I just want to say that Silver Sands is one of the most well-known and
scenic establishments in the area. Restricting access to the property solely to overnight guests
contradicts the town stated goals particularly hindering our year-round business that relies on
the local community. We have found a tremendous amount of pride in rejuvenating-the
historic property so that residents and out of town visitors alike can enjoy the best of the
North Fork for the generations to come. It's not an exaggeration to say that on a weekly basis
multiple people who live in the area would drive by, walk the grounds or stop in the lobby to
compliment us on what a wonderful job they did and I think it would be improper to simply
limit that to out of town guests.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Let me just ask a couple of things, the Town Attorneys Office we did not
instruct you to file this, we said that based on what the Disapproval was or based on what you
were looking for this is how it would have to go so it wasn't actually an instruction to file it
this way, we just told you that this is what would have to be done. Just to go back for a
second you said the original equipment is still there from the fifties?
ALEX PERROS : Well it's not there today, it was there in 2022 when
T. A. MCGIVNEY : All the original equipment?
ALEX PERROS : Sure, I submitted photographs.
4511
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yeah I see them I just wanted it clear about the all the equipment from the
fifties still being there, without an inventory I don't know how we can how can you accurately
say that all that equipment is still there, it's just a question.
ALEX PERROS : All I can say is, when we purchased the property and acquired the property on
April 13, 2022 and I documented with photographs I have historic photographs
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Are those of the clambakes outside?
ALEX PERROS : No there's photographs of the original owners cooking in the diner and
compare those with the pictures that I took in April 2022. 1 had no idea that I would have to
inventory every single piece of equipment simply because I had an underlying C.O. that
documented the motel restaurant. So, I'm fortunate that I took some of those photos but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Certificate of Occupancy would still be in force and effect if it
had not been discontinued for a period of time. In other words, once a Special Exception is in
place as long as that use is continuous the inherent Certificate of Occupancy remains in effect.
It's extinguished if the use is not if the use is discontinued for a period of two years or more.
ALEX PERROS : Understood I contend that it's been in continuous use and so photos also show
from when I did my inspections of the property as we were acquiring it, food that was being
prepared for guest or for somebody so it was not discontinued use for a period of two years
however feeble it was the place was falling into a state of deep disrepair it was not
discontinued use.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : The discontinuous has to be from the original C of 0 issued not from the
time that you purchased it.
ALEX PERROS : No I understand that, what I'm trying to say is it was in continuous use, let me
be clear, it was in continuous use up until from the C.O. till the time I purchased it and the
time I purchased it in April of 2022 we reopened the diner within two years.
T. A. MCGIVENY : So, I just want to ask then to be able to verify the continuous use, do you
have any other sort of documentation that we can look at?
ALEX PERROS : I have submitted photographs.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right but continuous use that really it would essentially mean continuous
every year between the time it was issued I'm just telling you
ALEX PERROS : Respectfully, how am I supposed to find out how from 1959 which is years
before I was born
4,6
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
T.'A. MCGIVNEY : I know, I understand that
ALEX PERROS : till 2022? What I can prove and what I did prove respectfully is ,that food was
being produced and served there up until the day that we took over, we took over on April
14, 2022.
MEMBER LEHNERT : If there was a valid Health Department permit from the previous owners
then you guys got one,they only allow one year before you lose the use.
MEMBER DANTES : When did the Health Department start, in the early seventies?
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yeah they should be able to verify that with their approvals.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can do that through the Health Department.
MEMBER LEHNERT :They wouldn't have issued him an approval if the use had gone away.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Why?
MEMBER LEHNERT :They wouldn't.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : The Health Department wouldn't have?
MEMBER LEHNERT :They never would have.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm going to need an affidavit from like a resident or someone who lived
near the area who might have some local knowledge for the years or things like that.
ALEX PERROS : Sure I can absolutely obtain plenty of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also have in our packet of in I'm sure you have it as
well, email correspondence back and forth about the subject motel and diner with Amanda
and Mike Verity talking about again expediting obtaining your Department of Health approval
for the motel by referring to the rest of it as storage and then coming back later after you
have Health Department and then kind of going through this again for the restaurant. Can you
address that?
ALEX PERROS : Sure I mean that's outlined in detail in the letter that I submitted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah it is but I just want you to put it in the public record.
ALEX PERROS : Sure I mean if you'd like me to read the letter I'm happy to, it goes through the
section of the letter that goes that explains that. I'd be more than happy to it's fairly technical
so I'd rather not do it off the
471
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I mean anything in written correspondence is also part of the
record so it isn't essential for you to do that but I just wanted to get your point of view about
that process that communication and if it made sense to you and if you think it had any effect
on any of the other applications you're proposing. For example, you are now requesting
basically two public restaurants on the premises.
ALEX PERROS : These are separate lots.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it is true that technically they exist on separately labeled tax
map numbers however it is equally true that the property is now and has always been
operated as one enterprise, one business enterprise, all the cottages all the structures on all
those lots were part of Silver Sands and still are.
ALEX PERROS : I'm not sure that's exactly true. So, Silver Sands Motel was built in 1957, the
white cottages on Lot 14 date back to 1930 those were part of a different company called the
Silvermere Beach Houses. The houses on Lot 13 which is house 28, 26, 27, 29 and the house
on Lot 34 which I'm sorry Lot 9 which is number 34 were part of a separate enterprise that
was called the Windermere or something like that Cottage Colony. Silver Sands over the years
slowly acquired these properties, so it has not functioned always historically as one. So, the
boathouse that was originally built it was a functioning boathouse, I have the railroad ties that
took the boats down into the water. There was an apartment upstairs so it has not always
historically acted as one unit and as one property, those were acquired over the years and
that's part of why there's all these incomplete property records.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and this Board would agree completely with you at least I think
I can speak for myself if not everyone else that the goal is to get everything clarified and
properly permitted so that you can operate your business.
ALEX PERROS : Understood
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We understand that goal there is just that this has a lot of moving
parts basically and we have to figure out how to piece them together. What else did we want
to pursue? Is your intent now as Silver Sands LLC to operate all of those structures as one
enterprise?
ALEX PERROS :That is our intent.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is your intent.
ALEX PERRO : We are open year round, we are trying to be an interval part of this community.
We employ ninety percent of our employees live in the Town of Southold. In the winter we
4
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
employ over twenty-five people. Those are real jobs and I can only do that if we are able to
operate as the underlying C.O.'s when we acquired the property that we can have those
permitted uses, that's exactly what we're trying to do.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think the purpose of the Interpretation no one is disputing that you can
have the diner, that's not in dispute, the Interpretation is to see whether or not you can use
the diner for outside people. So that's really what that one application is about.
ALEX PERROS : No I understand that, this is why I mean again just I think I actually think the
motel diner application has very little to do with the remaining applications on Lot.15. The
motel diner application is simple, we have a C.O. from 1959 that is an underlying C.O. that
says we are permitted use for motel and restaurant. It was continuous use and the November
2023 C.O. improperly adds a restriction onto that when all we did was alteration permits.
That's the critical component, we have an underlying C.O., we have a series of alteration
permits to the underlying C.O. and then there is an improper restriction put on top of that.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : The code requires that it has to be continuously used and that's what we're
trying to figure, if you can establish that,then that's really a game changer.
ALEX PERROS : I'm happy to get other affidavits if that satisfies things.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I mean people have to be able to verify that they know and were there and
worked there something like that. It's just to be clear it has to be continuous and it has to be
something that is verifiable and that is unfortunately
ALEX PERROS : I need to prove every single year from 1959 till 2022?
T. A. MCGIVNEY : It needs to be proven that it's continuous, it's on your it's required from you
as the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Obviously there would be some discontinuance temporarily while
you're under construction and renovation. That's perfectly understandable and I don't think
anybody would argue with that. That is what the standards are for Special Exception are,
we're just trying to assist in figuring out how best to document that there has been
continuous use. I know that it was in very shabby condition, I mean those of us who are local
know Silver Sands very well and many of the people that were involved in owning and
operating it as well. So that's what we're really trying to look at. Right now it's written as
though that diner is an accessory to the motel use pretty much and you want it to be open to
the public.
47!R
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
ALEX PERROS : I have a different respect about it, I don't share that same perspective,
respectfully I don't share that same perspective. I have an underlying C.O. that says motel
with restaurant. It doesn't say whether it's restricted to guests or not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was the original one yes, understand.
ALEX PERROS : So, as it's written it is not written notwithstanding the November 2023 C.O.
which I think was the improper restriction. I'm saying that's not the governing restriction, I
think that was improper.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand what you're saying, we're just trying to establish that
there was continuous use because if there is then that absolutely is correct it would be
written improperly because the original would have still been valid. Your C.O. was for
upgrades and improvements you know a lot of the building permits you have were for
upgrades.
ALEX PERROS : Is this the town's position that the use has been discontinued?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pardon
ALEX PERROS : Is it the town's position that the use has been discontinued?
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Building Department told you it was discontinued for a period of time that
ALES PERROS : The Building Department didn't tell me that,they Building Department
T. A. MCGIVNEY : You went to the Building Department.
ALEX PERROS : Of course I've been working with the Building Department for a couple of
years.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : No I understand, we're not against you, we're just trying to figure out
everything that is required to be able to
ALEX PERROS : I don't believe the Building Department has told me that it's been
discontinued.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm sorry.
ALEX PERROS : I don't believe the Building Department has told me it's been discontinued. In
working with the Building Department when we inherited a very difficult property that was
falling apart working very closely with Amanda and Mike Verity and John Jarski which those
conversations started in June, I have all those emails. It started in June of 2022. We started
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
talking about the diner right away, it was always accepted that the diner was there, they
guided us through the process and recommended we do this piece meal. We started with a
windows and doors permit and because the property was in such a state of disrepair every
time, we opened a wall we found something new. So further guidance they said you should
call it storage so that you can get your C.O. for the motel operation up and running first. The
irony is that I got my diner C.O. before I got my motel C.O. so all of this was in collaboration
with the Building Department and at their direction. If they were leading me into a position of
backing me into a corner which where we find ourselves now then that's a different story. I
am following their direction. We went to work right away, we had so much work to get done
in fourteen months so that we can get open last summer that we had to work closely with the
Building Department and rely upon their advice on how to do this. Whether it was called a
storage unit or not is administrative, it's semantics. Nobody really believes it was that was
their advice so that I can get up and running with the motel first.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Well the town is not going to able to give you an opinion as to whether it's
our position or not only because this is an opportunity for you to tell us things that you want
us to know and for us to ask questions of you.
ALEX PERROS : Understood
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there any questions or comments at this point from any of
you?Should we just continue then?
MEMBER DANTES : This is me personally, I'd like just to see an affidavit from some local
person with some local knowledge just to establish and then the Health Department records
regarding the use. Cause then the Health Department has been active for years and they've
been (inaudible).
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right it's just a matter of requesting verification that's all we're doing.
ALEX PERROS : I'll do I'll get affidavits from as many people as I can, as you know there's a lot
of supporters of ours here and there's a lot of people that were longtime guests that continue
to be our guests so I'd be happy to try and establish those. I think one thing to note just again
for the record if we're talking technicalities, the fact that the Building Department issued
alterations permits suggests continued use. I didn't have to go through you know they were
alterations permits,they were alterations to the existing use, the existing structures.
MEMBER DANTES : I mean you are correct in that there isn't any document that formally
discontinues the use that we have in our file.
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
ALEX PERROS : Absolutely and again when we purchased the property we are relying on that
documentation.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) a requirement to supply it so I just want to keep the record
straight you know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we have a look at the where the swimming pool is
withdrawn and why don't we have a look at talking about your proposed Eddy's Restaurant
the conversion of the boathouse to an interior restaurant year round open to the public in
connection with the barbeque/oyster bar, Eddy's Oyster Bar that has been in existence and
operational for a very long time. I think there's a food truck on that now when food is
prepared for that oyster bar, is it just limited to that barbeque? I think there was a pizza truck
there or something. Where is the food coming from because when we although we didn't do
an interior inspection, it looks as though the boathouse is still full of storage and stuff but it
looks as though the house itself or the framed cottage which is now just a building had a lot of
kitchen equipment in it already.
ALEX PERROS : There's no kitchen equipment in Cottage 33. There is a sink, there is no ovens,
there is no exhaust systems, there's no kitchen equipment in Cottage 33. We cook out of the
diner, last summer we cooked out of the pizza truck, the menu is available for anybody to see.
It was either out of the pizza truck it was either pizzas or grilled food outside. Plenty of people
here came to visit, plenty people on the Board came to visit and that is what it is. If you want
to talk about the applications that we have in front of us I suggest we go one by one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please.
ALEX PERROS : Let's start with the boathouse side yard side yard variance which hopefully is
one of the simplest ones first. So, the request for a variance from Article VII Section 280-36
and the Building Inspector's January 10, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on the application
for a permit to construct a freestanding restaurant with office and storage space for
restaurant operations, the variances requested because it's located less than the code
requirement minimum side yard setback of 15 feet. The actual setback is between four and
five feet I believe. As mentioned, the boathouse building is believe to be ninety plus years old
which means it pre-dates the existence of zoning and all the other neighboring properties to
the east of the boathouse that was built in the nineteen sixties I believe. The purpose for
having variances is to address the impacts of new zoning regulations for pre-existing
properties. The boathouse is a fixture of the neighborhood and part of the existing character
of the neighborhood. As mentioned before in our application there is also a six-foot stockade
fence and significant evergreen screening that's fourteen feet high that separates Lot 15 from
the neighbors to the west. In fact, we put this up at the request of one of our neighbors. The
52
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
benefit sought by this variance cannot be reasonably achieved by any other method other
than this variance since it's one of the largest buildings on the resort and it was constructed
before zoning codes existed. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environment because we're not requesting any expansion, we're not doing any
construction. To minimize any exterior impact the exterior has previously been finished to
blend in and to match with the existing siding on the adjacent structures throughout the
Silver Sands properties.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you know we've done site inspections and you know we're
very aware of the mature evergreens and the fencing and so on and that's a structure that's
been there forever and it can't be moved, it's not even feasible to discuss that. It's just it is
where it is and I don't think as you said this is probably the simplest it might be the swimming
pool withdrawal is the simplest this is the next simplest. This is something that is typically
what would happen when there is a pre-existing non-conforming building pre-dating zoning
everybody built wherever they built and there was no building envelope, it was a lot you put
it wherever you wanted. I don't have any questions about that, let's see if the Board Member
do, any comments or questions on that one from anybody?
MEMBER DANTES : The existing building in an existing location.
RICKY STEINMULLER : My name is Ricky Steinmuller I'm the owner of the property directly
adjacent to that boathouse that you're talking about. It's not four or five feet it's three and
half feet from my property. I'm concerned about exhaust fans and I'm concerned about the
smell and odor. I'm not even concerned about the noise because (inaudible) is fine but I am
concerned about a very noisy exhaust fan. I've been talking to Alex and Alex told me that he
was going to do everything in that structure next to it and I take him for his word but I am
concerned about certain smells and noises. You think that a building that was there a long
time ago there are people now living behind that that never had to deal with noise and smell
and now we do. Please take that into consideration.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely, would you like to address that?
ALEX PERROS : Sure, I'm glad Mr. Steinmuller voices concerns and these are things he and I
talked about over the months and that's exactly why we're not proposing any exhaust fans or
anything of that sort in the boathouse building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so the intent here is to put all of those kinds of mechanical
systems in the so called cottage and not in the boathouse.
ALEX PERROS :That's correct.
531
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
RICKY STEINMULLER : Could that be noted for future use,for future possible ownership where
that boathouse cannot be used as a kitchen?
T. A. MCGIVNEY : It hasn't even been decide what they're going to do with it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well first we have to write the decision, we can only put a
condition on something that is approved and it has to be reasonable. He's not proposing it in
the boathouse, he's proposing it in a different building so we will have to address that
building for that use. The boathouse's interior seating basically is that correct?
ALEX PERROS : Correct, it's consistent with how it's been used for forty years so the bar from
Porky's has been there since the late nineteen seventies.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's been used as an event thing, parties things like that.
ALEX PERROS : Correct
RICKY STEINMULLER : I've been living on that property for twelve years now and that
boathouse was never used for seating of food or anything like that. The only time it was used
was when they rented it out for two weeks for the theater groups and they went there to
socialize in the afternoon and they were very lovely people and they ended the day around
five or six o'clock and they went back to their rooms. So that beach house was never used as a
(inaudible).
MEMBER DANTES : I guess the answer to your question then is, he's not applying for it so we
can't put a condition on something that he's not applying for but we're he to change his
application to apply for the like the mechanical equipment that you're specifying then he'd
have to come back here for a new hearing and then the neighbors would have the
opportunity to object at that time.
RICKY STEINMULLER : Well I'd like to object now before we have to go any further then. I'm
just letting you know
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's noted, it's important testimony that's why we have a public
hearing, we want to hear from the public.
RICKY STEINMULLER : I did have to deal with and Alex has been wonderful but I had to deal
with the pizza truck and there was a smell and it wasn't pizza it was the smell of the chimney
okay. So, it wasn't a pleasant he tried his best to correct it but it wasn't corrected but he did
try his best. I'm just letting you know, I'm concerned about the future of Silver Sands and the
neighborhood property and my property because it's so close to the beach house.Thank you.
5,41
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome.
KATHERINE HEARST : Katherine Hearst, I live at 1195 the one by the water right next to it. I
just wanted to say that the boathouse was used but only by the people who stayed at the
motel. They would sometimes bring their drinks to the bar that was in the boathouse but
they're the only ones that ever used it and you never really saw anybody. I mean I've lived
there for twenty five years, you never saw anyone really in the boathouse. That's all I wanted
to say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, come to the podium please.
KATHERINE STEINMULLER : Hi Kathy Steinmuller, Alex has been wonderful he really has to all
the neighbors. I just want to clarify, what is a freestanding restaurant?What does that mean?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It means it's a separate building and he's applying for that building
to be used as a restaurant that's open to the public not just motel guests.
KATHERINE STEINMULLER : Right but doesn't restaurant mean kitchen?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes
KATHERINE STEINMULLER : Does he have to apply separately for a kitchen for that building?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically restaurants would contain a kitchen but in this instance
he's applying for the conversion of the framed building called the cottage into a commercial
kitchen.That kitchen would then service both Eddy's outdoor bar correct as well as the indoor
boathouse restaurant.
KATHERINE STEINMULLER : Okay, one more question, future okay he sells it somebody else
buys it, they're not making enough money there's a lot of investors could he turn around and
put a kitchen in that freestanding restaurant?
T. A. MCGIVNEY : We can't address that,that's not something that's in front of the Board right
now. We can't talk about what may happen in the future.
MEMBER LEHNERT : They would have to come back here.
KATHERINE STEINMULLER : Alright so just freestanding restaurant doesn't mean you
automatically get a kitchen?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You have to have a kitchen
T. A. MCGIVNEY : at a restaurant.
ss
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the question is where?Typically, they're inside a restaurant.
KATHERINE STEINMULLER : So right now if that's a freestanding restaurant he can put a
kitchen in there.
MEMBER DANTES : Let me explain it this way, to get his permit this time he needs to apply for
a Special Exception then he needs to go through Planning Board review. He's applying for the
kitchen in the is it he yellow structure that's on the map up there. So, for him to go put a
kitchen in that restaurant he would have to reapply and re-go through the process and be
reevaluated.
KATHERINE STEINMULLER : The freestanding restaurant for the boathouse?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct
MEMBER DANTES : It's not an automatic approval, it's just he would have to go through the
process and then a future version of this Board cause this Board can't mind a future version of
itself and then make a decision.
KATHY STEINMULLER : Okay, alright I'm satisfied thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome.
ALEX PERROS : Just to clarify, just for everybody, the way we've made our business plan and
wrote the applications was specifically designed to assuage these concerns. Specifically, it
says in our Special Exception for Cottage 33 which is a separate application, it says that that
would be used as the commercial kitchen in conjunction with the converted restaurant. So, I
know it's unusual because this is an unusual property and it's unusual to have two separate
buildings but that's how we wrote it and we wrote it specifically to alleviate concerns from
the neighbors and to get activities like that far off the neighbors.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should mention that you do have Trustees approval by the way.
ALEX PERROS : Yes we do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was I guess for Edy's primarily for the oyster bar but I think
they did take a look in a pre-submission at the actual proposed new restaurant.
ALEX PERROS : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Health Department approval I guess that was for all the structures
on the property.
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
ALEX PERROS : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That includes the freestanding kitchen?
ALEX PERROS : and the diner, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is unusual to have a kitchen you know you want to operate year
round so you'd be running through the snow with food from the kitchen into the boathouse
restaurant building so there's trying to figure out the logistics of how you're going to do that.
ALEX PERROS : Those are business problems I'd say and you're right they're logistic issues.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as long as Health Department approves it I mean typically if a
restaurant contains a kitchen it's a commercial use but it's part of the restaurant use. This is
almost being applied for as another use.
ALEX PERROS : The Health Department only requires that there's a covered awning that if you
were to transport food from a kitchen to the outdoors they don't require any covered awning.
If you are to transport food let's, say from Cottage 33 to the boathouse it has to be through a
covered awning, it doesn't have to be a permanent structure, it doesn't have to be walls, it
doesn't have to have anything like that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right it's unusual but that is what their regulation is.
RICKY STEINMULLER : Richie Steinmuller again, why not call it something other than a
restaurant then, like a dining hall?
MEMBER DANTES : Cause it also has to also be a use that's considered in our code.
RICKY STEINMULLER : And a dining hall doesn't have to follow that code?
MEMBER DANTES : No there's a list of definitions in our code, so for him to make the
application he also has to make the application within a use that's specified in our code and
defined.
RICKY STEINMULLER :That's the best name for it?
MEMBER DANTES : I'll defer to you, I don't know them off the top of my head.
ALEX PERROS : I'm not sure how to answer that question.
RICKY STEINMULLER : Are there other names to call it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well he's proposing a restaurant.
571
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
ALEX PERROS : I'm proposing a restaurant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know why you'd call it anything other than a restaurant.
He's going to use it that way if it's approved.
RICKY STEINMULLER : But you just mentioned that the restaurant could have a kitchen and I
know he's talking about the other room having it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He does not want to put the kitchen in the boathouse for the very
reasons you're concerned. He does not want to have exhaust systems and all of that right up
against residential properties so he's moving it as far away as he legally can into another
building to avoid those adverse impacts on his neighbors. Did I say that correctly?
ALEX PERROS : Yes, thank you.
RICKY STEINMULLER :Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Alright, moving right along let's see
ALEX PERROS : So should we move to the boathouse Special Exception or Cottage 33?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure let's do that.
ALEX PERROS : Okay, so boathouse Special Exception #7893SE. The relief sought is to convert
the existing accessory boathouse to a freestanding restaurant with an office and storage
space for the restaurant operations and to. (inaudible) for an accessory seasonal outdoor
barbeque area. This requested special exception is an allowed use under 280-35 use
regulations for a freestanding restaurant on a resort residential property. The boathouse
building as I mentioned before and I'll repeat it again, is the oldest building in the
neighborhood and has been restored to its original state. It would not be detrimental to the
neighboring properties because this building pre-dated all of the neighbors and because there
is no new construction or exterior alterations taking place. This type of use is a commonplace
in areas zoned for resort residential. There is a long history of pre-existing non-conforming
use on this building. As I mentioned, it houses the original Porky's bar from the nineteen
seventies or eighties. As you can see from the interior photographs it has approval from
Suffolk County Department of Health. It had a residential loft upstairs that was used for
transient housing. There's precedent for us converting that loft to office space. I believe the
Board recently approved something similar for the Old Mill building that was under file 7859
that approved a restaurant office for exclusively restaurant employees to be located upstairs
from the restaurant. I did submit I don't know if it's the record, a letter from Darlene Duffy
talking about pre-existing non-conforming uses. Darlene Duffy is Eddy Jurzenia, Eddy's who
sal
May.2,2024 Regular Meeting
we named the restaurant after his widow. Darlene submitted this letter to the Building
Department on April 24, 2023 it's almost a year ago, it's short so if you don't mind, I'll read it
into the record. She says to Miss Nunemaker and the Building Department, I write this letter
to help clarify facts around the historical use of the building structures on Suffolk County tax
map 1000-47-2-15 which include a cottage and boathouse that are co-locally referred to as
units 33 and 35 respectively. I have relevant first-hand knowledge since my husband Edward
Jurzenia born in 1944 spent his entire life at the motel and was an owner and operator up
until his passing in December 2019. Edward's parents built the original motel in 1957 and he
and I have been together since 1975. 1 inherited my husband's ownership in the motel and
surrounding properties which I sold to the current owners in 2022. 1 also served on the
Southold Town Assessor's as a Southold Town Assessor from 1991 to 2014 through which I
have intimate knowledge of real property and its taxable status within the Town of Southold
including the Silver Sands properties. To the best of my knowledge the boathouse was built
sometime before or around the mid nineteen forties as it was present for Edward's entire life.
The original property owner stored his boat and marine equipment on the first floor of the
building while maintaining a dwelling loft upstairs which included a full bathroom and a small
kitchen. In fact, the black and white photo on the property card clearly shows that the
second-floor loft windows clearly shows a second floor loft windows that are still present
today. Both structures on the property meaning Cottage 33 and the boathouse have always
been used as independent dwelling units which would have been allowed at the time since
they pre-dated any zoning regulations or the existence of the Building Department. Edward
personally owned this property when I met him in 1975. He was living in the boathouse loft at
the time and he rented Cottage 33 as part of the motel so he can cover the mortgage. When
Edward and I got married in 1985 we moved out of the loft which Silver Sands then rented as
transient housing along with No. 33. Silver Sands also used the first'floor of the boathouse as
a meeting facility with a bar and kitchen area for the last fifty years as it was Edward's dream
to open up a bar (inaudible). Silver Sands continued to rent both dwelling units as part of the
motel as well as the first-floor meeting facility until the property was sold to the current
owners in April of 2022.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you for that entry. Is there anything else that we want
to ask about this conversion? Do we have a copy of that? I don't recall seeing it, I have to say I
did not read every single one of the form letters I just counted the number.
ALEX PERROS : No,this letter was I definitely submitted it with the Planning Board application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not sure that we got it.
MEMBER DANTES : Can you email that to our office and then they'll distribute it?
sq
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
ALEX PERROS : Absolutely, I'm happy to give you a hard copy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can make copies and she'll make some copies and we'll do it
that way. I think basically that's the kind of collaboration of use that council was suggesting
based upon expert knowledge and history. I mean I remember Darlene and her husband very
well as both an Assessor and the person who sold me my house. She worked for Albertson's
Realty.
ALEX PERROS : Again, I'm happy to provide those, the only reason I didn't provide it for the
motel C.O.'s I didn't think it was necessary but absolutely happy to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Zoning and Planning obviously have concurrent jurisdiction
and we're working together in a very collaborative way so we all have the same information.
think some of them are listening into this but they'll certainly have transcript of all the
proceedings of this hearing to consider prior to their hearing. Is there anything else you can
think of at this point? I think we've covered all the various applications?
ALEX PERROS : We haven't talked about 33 Special Exception application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've been talking about it but you know do you want to
specifically address the well with the boathouse and it's kitchen conversion applied for on the
same lot
MEMBER LEHNERT: They're together.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : so they're really being applied for as one application.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I think we addressed that and the concerns with the neighbors.
MEMBER DANTES : Really one is useless without the other.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a question actually, should this restaurant be fully
operational with its own kitchen and its own interior space and then your outside place,
would that use of the food truck be discontinued?
ALEX PERROS : Potentially, I mean they should be independent, quite frankly the food truck
makes great pizza, people like the pizza so unless I put a pizza oven you know in the house I
think I'd like to continue making pizza. I have committed to the neighbors of moving it, I heard
their concerns last year, I share their concerns. I went over to Kathy and Richie's place and
experienced what they were experiencing and I committed to moving that pizza truck. We
added chimneys to it and I committed to moving it not in the position that it was last year.
May 2,2024 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just curious because if you have your own ability to provide
food in a more robust way it may or may not be necessary and there were some comments
and concern about noise and odors and so on and I'm just wondering how that would work if
this thing is going to replace it or just be an addition to the food truck.
ALEX PERROS : So right now the way I don't know if I'd want to commit one way or the other
to be honest.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay
ALEX PERROS : Right now the way we're thinking about is look Edy's is basically a seasonal
(inaudible) restaurant right I mean it's questionable whether from a business perspective the
town can maintain you know or support a year round restaurant. There's a lot of restaurants
here, Edy's is a large place etc., etc. We have the diner which is a small place and is an
appropriate place for a year-round restaurant. I think having everything supported to the
outdoor, summer restaurant is really where our business focus is to be honest. So, I think
keeping the pizza truck at some place on the property would be appropriate for that because
pizza ovens are actually quite expensive so building another one seems imprudent.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Edy's is currently as it is now a seasonal obviously a seasonal
use. Are you suggesting that the proposed restaurant, kitchen in tandem with each other may
wind up seasonal or you're not sure or you're just thinking out loud or what?
ALEX PERROS : We'd certainly be open to it, I mean that's our primary use is as a seasonal
structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, that's primarily a seasonal structure, it may wind up open year
round.
ALEX PERROS : Correct but right now our business plan is seasonally.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good to know and that certainly makes a difference.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you plan on using the kitchen for catering events off premises?
ALEX PERROS : No
KATHERINE HEARST : Katherine Hearst, the neighbors concern is odors and things like that,
my concern being right next to it also is noise. If you can allow the restaurant are there
certain times that a restaurant closes?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a business model and this Board doesn't have any control
over
63.
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Well that would also be the noise ordinance,the Town of Southold has.
KATHERINE HEARST : I don't know the noise how does that work?
ALEX PERROS : I think that it's after 10:00 PM.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's either ten or eleven o'clock.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The noise generated on a property after ten has to be a certain
decibel level and it's quite low. In other words, that code was enacted I mean it could be a
residential property you could be having a wedding next door to your house. The idea is if you
got a DJ there or something they have to be quiet after a certain point because people need
to sleep and the same rule would apply to a restaurant. They can't have outdoor you know
they can't have outdoor music, it would have to be indoors, it would have to be acoustically
contained so that you know you aren't disturbed.
KATHERINE HEARST : Outdoor lighting also?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They will to comply with dark sky lighting and that's all downward
so that there's no ambient light going up into the air. Those are again town wide codes and
they would be required by the Building Department and Planning to abide by those codes.
KATHERINE HEARST : I mean they've been very good at turning the lights down at ten o'clock
and things like that, I was just wondering you know
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would have to continue.
KATHERINE HEARST : Okay
ALEX PERROS : I think it's important to note just for everybody that it's a hotel, we have
families that are staying at the hotel, we're not interested in running a night club. This is a
place where people get dinner, it gets dark out and people go to bed. This is not Sunset
Beach, this is not Claudio's, this is not one of those establishments. I'm not knocking those
establishments I'm just saying that's how our business model is.
RICKY STEINMULLER : I love you.
ALEX PERROS : Gee I couldn't tell, Richie and I are friends. So, it is a motel property and again I
think the reason I did my little talk up top is I wanted to be understood how restrained we're
being and have been. You don't have to believe me you can look at the development that
we've done. We could have knocked it all down and built something fancy or stayed seasonal
or done whatever, we didn't do that. We're trying to continue the legacy of Silver Sands, it's
close to our hearts. I think it's reflected in all the work that we've done and even though I'm
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
happy neighbors are speaking up for themselves as they should we do have all the letters of
support and that's because we take pride in being good neighbors. I'm there every single day,
I'm not sitting in some office building in New York City, I am there literally every single day
and when Richie or Kathy have an issue they come to me, they call me right away and I go
over to their house. Our guests do want to go to bed, we're not planning on, we have no
plans it's not our business model, we are a hotel where people go and get rest not it's not Las
Vegas where they go and party.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's very appealing to know that something that has
historically been for our local community will continue in that vein and not necessarily
become a conflated enterprise like disco balls.
ALEX PERROS : I think the last application which is same but different if you want to move on
to the next one, the Special Exception for Cottage 33, #7914SE. I'll read it just for everybody
so they're clear on how this cottage interacts with the boathouse proposal. The request for
Special Exception pursuant to Article VII Section 280-35B (6) and Article VII Section 280-35 C
(1) applicant requests 1) to convert an existing single-family dwelling to a commercial kitchen
to utilized in conjunction with converted restaurant on the same lot, Lot 15 referring to the
boathouse, 2) upon conversion said commercial kitchen will be an accessory to the principle
use of the converted restaurant. Again, just reiterating some of the similar points, the
requested Special Exception is an allowed use under 280-35 Use Regulations for a
freestanding restaurant on a resort residential property. Cottage 33 has been restored to its
original state. This would not be detrimental to the neighboring properties because this
building pre dated all the neighbors and because there is no new construction or exterior
alterations taking place and this type of use is commonplace in areas zones for, resort
residential. Putting a commercial kitchen in this dwelling would be preferable to the
boathouse because it's further away from the neighbors, maybe we should have talked about
that one first. As it relates to some of the general standards, the adjacent properties to the
east of course are zoned resort residential. The adjacent properties to the west are residential
and there's a six-foot stockade fence and significant evergreen landscaping separating the
properties. Again, as mentioned this proposed use is an allowable use under the Special
Exception section for resort residential property. There's also a dedicated existing dedicated
right of way access to all the structures on this property and we installed a new private
hydrant, fire hydrant on the easterly side of the property line so that should alleviate I meant
to say that for the boathouse application as well but we're talking about them altogether.
That should alleviate any concerns related to access which I know is a Planning Department
purview but I just wanted to put it out there for here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, any questions Rob, comments? Eric, Pat anything from you?
631
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : No I don't have any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? No hands raised, okay. Is there
anyone in the audience who wishes to address any of these applications further?
ALEX PERROS : Can I ask one question if we're wrapping up? Related to the motel diner
application, can that go forward since it doesn't require SEAR review? I know at the beginning
of this meeting you mentioned adjourning some things because of Planning etc. but the motel
diner application was always filed separately from these Lot 15 applications, so my question is
if that can continue to go forward because it's,not
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well a Code Interpretation doesn't require SEAR determination,
well it does, anything we do has to have a SEAR determination but whether I'll tell you what,
if you can submit additional you know information regarding continuous use as we discussed
earlier, Health Department, testimony from people who were there more recently let's say
and basically say that it was still operating as a diner we'll look into it. If we can expedite it,
we will. I will have to find out further whether or not we can do that. We have the authority
to consider something a Type II Action meaning it has no large to moderate impacts at all
which is what we do at the beginning of each hearing, we list and say that these are all Type
II. They're typically dimensional kinds of issues rather than like this but we will look into it, I'll
assure that we'll do that.
MEMBER DANTES : Maybe adjourn that to the Special and then we'll make a decision there
whether to adjourn it to August?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't know how long it's going to take him to get the
records, you know for the Health Department,they don't move too quickly.
ALEX PERROS : I'm in constant touch with our examiner at the Health Department, I'm happy
to supply affidavits within the coming days.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what then, does that make sense to you and then we
can just make a decision at the Special Meeting whether or not we need to you know whether
we can rule on that or we can't.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Then what we said that we were adjourning the others and you need the
Interpretation to decide on the others.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's true, she's right I meant these parts are all so interrelated
cause they all add up to X number of uses. Even though they may be on separate lots the
property is actually by most of us people aren't really aware that they're separate lots, it's the
64
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
Silver Sands. We actually have in situations like this and that included the Old Mill that you
were citing, required the applicant to sign Covenants and Restrictions that say you agree that
this is even though they're separate lots (inaudible) and the lots cannot be sold separately as
separate uses. Now I know that may sound like a big ask, it would make certain problems go
away that's for sure because you can't have an accessory use on a lot that has a principal use
that's different than another principal use. It has to be accessory; an accessory has to be on
the same lot. So, if we had I'm not saying you have to merge them I'm just simply saying they
should be considered one entity and that all of these things are interrelated uses on Silver
Sands properties.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Would you ever consider merger of the properties.
ALEX PERROS : Sure actually this is I'm just smiling because it's actually one of things that's
been like the biggest challenges as we've gone through the last two years so, part of it is
getting ping ponged between when these are considered individual lots or when they're
considered one lot and I've requested any number of times give me clarity on which one it is
and unfortunately we continue to get ping ponged back and forth. We certainly have
considered it and it's something potentially we absolutely want to do in the future. Our reality
was simply when we bought it we had so much work to do just to get this property quite
frankly saved from falling apart and being demolished and condemned by the Health
Department that we just had to get going on the renovations and rejuvenations so like I
mentioned upfront this is like that final step for us to kind of get the paperwork and the uses
aligned with historical and intended uses and then yes I think absolutely I need to understand
it better but considering merging those lots. That was always anticipated as being the next
step after that. You're correct, functionally this operates as one lot, there are interrelated
utilities and obviously the sewer and electrical systems and water systems etc., etc. and we
operate it functionally as a motel/resort.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : The problem that we had with the Old Mill was that there was a road
separating the properties, that's not the case here.
ALEX PERROS : Actually there is a road but it doesn't separate it only separates one building,
actually now that I think about it there's only one building on the east side of Silvermere Rd. it
would be Lot 9 but otherwise Lots 11 through 15; Lot 11 is the motel all the way west to the
boathouse Lot 15 is all one lot. Lot 9 which you can see right there kind of diagonal it sits on
the salt marsh that's the only building that's separated by the road but again it functions as
one resort.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they're interdependent, well that was with the Old Mill, this
lot was literally a non-building site there's a tower on it and the sanitary system for the
65,
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
restaurant is on that lot and they couldn't merge it so we asked them to put together C & R's
saying they must be sold together because the sanitary system for the restaurant is on that
little lot. Then they're also using it for food storage a locker, walk-in cold storage locker. So, I
think we wanted to bring that up to see what you thought about it, if you would have, we've
often done this so that there's time as a condition of approval of something that the lots be
effectively C & R's provided or a merger. They both have the same impact you know; merger
is actually legally a little bit clearer and cleaner because then it's filed with the County Clerk
and then we know it's one lot. They change the tax lot number and that's the end of that. So,
v le can look into it, we have time to think that through. Why don't we do this, get us the
information relative to the continuous use as soon as you can. Meanwhile if we adjourn then
there's no problem because we can always render a decision just close it, we can just say yeah
we can do this so we'll close it we don't need any additional public hearing. If we have what
we need from you and then we look into it more in detail and find that we can in fact make
that decision independently of the others that's what we'll do. Otherwise, we're going to
have to just move through the process as swiftly as possible because I know you've been
eager to clean all of this up and you've invested a lot of time and money in making this a very
beautiful property. I don't have anything else to say, does anybody else? Okay, I'm going to
just adjourn everything, so I'm going to do this by number. We're adjourning it to August 15t
which is when our next meeting is in August, that doesn't mean we're going to have another
public hearing. I don't see there's nothing else to be that we can hear about it, it's just that by
then we'll have a SEAR decision we're hoping and then we can write our decisions. We have
sixty-two days in which to render those decisions but we never take them unless its
absolutely essential. We try and have something by the next meeting.
MEMBER LEHNERT : If we get SEAR earlier do we have to wait till August?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, if we have but they can't do it till after their public hearing in
June but if they give us a SEAR decision in July we'll move in July. We just adjourn it then so
you don't have to re-notice and pay again and post and all that stuff. If we adjourned it
without a date you'd have to do that which is why we just picked a date.
ALEX PERROS : Understood, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that clear, everybody's alright with that?5
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we'll just adjourn all of them and then we'll look into whether
we can do the Code Interpretation more quickly without their SEAR decision. So, I'm going to
May 2, 2024 Regular Meeting
make a motion to adjourn to August,1, 2024 application No. 7893SE, No. 7894, No. 7914SE,
No. 7915 and No. 7897 so moved. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Thanks for your time. Motion to close the
meeting, is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
671
May 2,2024 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 : May 14, 2024