The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-06/06/2024 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ---------------------------------------------7----------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York June 6, 2024 10:15 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 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Richard Fisher#7905 3-10 Diana Falkenbach#7909 10- 13 Christopher Masotto#7907 14-21 Erika and Christopher Wershoven#7910 21-22 Lauren and Russell Antonucci#7906 22-25 JSK Park Avenue, LLC#7913 25-29 Andrea D. Spinaris#7912 29-39 Joseph A. Gebbia and Teresa M. Dunn#7902 39-59 1420 Smith Drive, LLC#7916 60-64 Rocky Bluff, LLC; Richard Reisman and Dana Reed#7872 64-67 David and Elayna Kaplan#7917 67-70 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for June 6, 2024. Please all rise,and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter we have on the Agenda is the Resolution for SEQR : Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following : Robert Fisher, Diana Falkenbach, Christopher Masotto, Erika and Christopher Wershoven, Lauren and Russell Antonucci, JSK Park Avenue, LLC, Andrea Spinaris, Joseph Gebbia and Teresa Dunn, 1420 Smith Drive LLC, David and Elayna Kaplan, Rocky Bluff LLC/Richard Reisman and Dana Reed,so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#7905—RICHARD FISHER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first hearing before the Board is for Richard Fisher #7905. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 25, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool, 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) swimming pool is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 295 Youngs Rd. in Orient. BROOKE EPPERSON : Brooke Epperson, I represent AMP Architecture. June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at a rear yard setback of 17.3 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet and this plunge pool is not in a required rear yard it is in a front yard. Tell us what else you'd like us to know about the application. BROOKE EPPERSON : So we have as you said the two variances we are requesting and I'd like to talk about the house addition first.This is for a deck and habitable first story space.We do have an existing non-conforming setback and we are staying in .line with that with the deck, the deck is also less than thirty inches from grade which means that we do not need railing. As you can tell from the property, we are at a clear disadvantage being that the lot has three front yards, the two thirty foot right of ways and Youngs Ave. If you look at the back thirty foot right of way you have the septic over there, so really there's not much we can do on that side of the property. The one-story addition is also just to create more space for the homeowners. There's minimal space on the inside for leisure and entertainment space for the family. Second, I would like to talk about the pool,the pool is as you said a plunge pool, it is very small. It is 6 foot by 10 foot and it is only 5 foot deep. It's not meant for huge parties or cannonballs, it's more a leisurely pool. We are placing the pool in a portion of the yard where you do have large arborvitaes already so that portion of the property is blocked. We are proposing the pool equipment within a shed like structure meeting the required accessory setback for the property. However, the homeowner is looking at alternative means for the pool equipment, he's looking at sound preventing equipment, he's also looking at other locations to place it whether it could be potentially in a basement something other than the yard. I also have three prior ZBA approvals for Village Lane in Orient. One is the prior 7172, that is for an accessory garden shed in other than actually this one is in the front yard. I have another ZBA prior 7576 and 6942 also for rear yard setbacks.This one we actually have a site plan too; it is a very difficult lot just like my clients.The third ZBA prior is for 2898 an accessory building in the front yard. Lastly, my client Richard Fisher he couldn't be here today but he did provide a letter which I would like to read into the record. Dear Chairperson Weisman, thank you for taking the time to review our variance request for our home located at 295 Youngs Rd. in Orient. My wife and I purchased the home in 2018 after a long search and have made many improvements to the home over the past six years. At the time of purchase the home needed extensive refurbishment both inside and out and needed rehabilitation of the landscaping of the property which we have completed. During this refurbishment we have been thoughtful to maintain the charm and character of the home while remaining true to the spirit of Orient. In completing these renovations, I believe we have positively contributed to improving property values on the street. My wife's family the Townsends and relatives the Dorman's are long time Orient residents.We reside full time in Poughkeepsie, New York with our two grown children and we return to Orient throughout the year. We have never rented our home in Orient nor do we have plans to rent the home. The proposed small addition with patio and small plunge pool is for much needed additional first floor and outdoor space for family gatherings. The current first floor layout provides a single room for common area space including the kitchen which is really quite small. Thank you for your consideration and we are happy to answer any and all questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Brooke. Have you gotten copies of the four letters of objection from neighbors? June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON :We got one copy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There are four in our file,we can provide you with the rest of them. BROOKE EPPERSON :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Are you aware of any other swimming pools in front yards on Youngs Rd? BROOKE EPPERSON : We did not see any specific pools, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so the addition to the dwelling that you're proposing is fairly low profile and it's maintaining the pre-existing non-conforming setback. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So there's no greater encroachment on what is already there. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that a 38.5 foot front yard it's a 38.5 foot setback on Youngs Rd. okay so that's conforming from the it's a conforming setback from the principle it's the rear yard which is not conforming because that's the right of way that's on three sides basically. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct and it's also meeting the required setback from Youngs Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's 17.3 feet is that correct? BROOKE EPPERSON :The rear yard is 17.3 correct,existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright, let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES: Sure,so you have three front yards. BROOKE EPPERSON :Yes MEMBER DANTES :Then you determine that the part with the entry stoop is the primary front yard? BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct MEMBER DANTES :So where the pool is, is the secondary front yard? BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct MEMBER DANTES : Do you know what the code conforming setback oh you have it right here for a secondary front yard 35 okay.Then the pool then is farther than the secondary front yard setback. June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct MEMBER DANTES : Okay, I don't have any further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah, Brooke as an architect as a designer, did you give thought about placement of the pool in another location? I understand where the septic is which might be the most visually appropriate it's still a front yard, I don't know if one can relocate the pool but was there any consideration for other locations? BROOKE EPPERSON : Absolutely, we discussed placing it in the rear yard and as you can see from the 17.3 foot setback that leaves no room to really utilize the pool and it would put it closer to the property line in that location. Obviously, the driveway side is just not in the running, so really this was the best spot and also with the layout of the house the septic yard is right next to the garage so to utilize the interior space leisurely with the plunge pool and the deck this was the best location for everything existing at the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I guess you also cause you have a proposed dry well location if those two were reversed the pool would still be visible from Youngs Ave. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct and I just want to note that that dry well is solely for the plunge pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's pool de-watering. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Donna would you forward to the elevations please so the public can see them. I just want people to see what it's proposed to look like. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie were you asking about the pool's elevation? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no] wanted.to see the elevation of the proposed addition to the dwelling so that people can see what it's proposed to look like. That's facing Youngs, that's what's going to be most visible. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :While we're on that Donna, I'm sorry Brooke,the pool appears raised. BROOKE EPPERSON : It comes out of the ground less than I think I believe like eight inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the coping basically. BROOKE EPPERSON : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's see if anyone in the public would like to address the application, please state your name for the record. 6 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MARIANNE WEIL : My name is Marianne Weil and I live at 267 Youngs Rd. I've lived at this address for over forty-three years. I just want,to for the record, it's not Youngs Ave. it's Youngs Rd. Youngs Ave is here in Southold because several times the architects stated Youngs Ave. I have several points that I'd like to address to the Board. First off, I live to the direct west on a right of way.The right of way fronts this property Mr. Fisher's property on two sides and Youngs Rd. on the other side. They're not three front yards, to clarify there's one front yard. When this house was constructed not, I don't know probably twenty-five years ago by Sue Otts it was a small retirement home for her a cottage on this one third less than one third acre with a screened in porch. So just to preface my letters to the Board, thank you. Dear Chairperson Weisman and Board of Appeals Committee Members, last week I received a request from homeowner Richard Fisher for variances on Building Disapproval from Article III Section 280-15 and Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 25, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on the applicant's permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling and to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool.The applicant's home at 295 Youngs Rd. Orient is adjacent to my own. The proposed construction is located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet. The proposed swimming pool is located other than the code permitted rear yard, it's proposed in the front yard. The applicant's request disregards the Southold Town's zoning code. Our codes are in place and this is to quote your code book, "a set of laws used as a tool to govern physical development within our municipality.Zoning sets forth the standards that must be met and processes that must be followed in order to develop a parcel of land. The granting or denial of an area variance is based on a balancing test consisting of six factors dictated by the New York State Town Law used to determine if the benefit to the applicant outweighs the possible detriment to the health, safety and well-being and welfare of the community or visa versa." This from our handbook our Southold Town handbook. The health, safety and welfare of our community neighborhood on Youngs Rd. on our already densely populated street outweigh this applicant's benefit to construct a pool in the front yard or any other construction within a setback of 35 feet. I will just quote from the architect's previous note, this is a leisure pool and entertainment space, the need for the family to have additional leisure space and entertainment space, that's my footnote. I strongly object to this variance and ask our Zoning Board of Appeals to uphold the Building Inspector's already clear disapproval of this application and to deny this applicant's appeal. The applicant has not considered the quality of life in our neighborhood. Our Southold Town Code must be adhered to and unconditionally reinforced. Thank you for your thoughtful considerations of my request and your dedicated work on our community's behalf. I'd also like to note to the Southold Town Board, I am a full-time resident, our applicant was here Memorial Day weekend for eighteen hours since New Year's. So, eighteen hours Memorial Day weekend and this past weekend for eighteen hours just for the record for his leisure and entertainment space. In addition, I'd like to submit for the record the following written yesterday, again Dear Chairwoman Weisman and Zoning Board Committee Members Board of Appeals Committee Members, I'd like to bring to your committee's attention another issue related to Richard Fisher's application and appeal for the building and pool variance our neighbor's extreme concern for our well water safety. Not long-ago Mr. Fisher removed old growth trees and replaced them with an underground irrigation system and it's in his front yard. This is the same front yard where pool, deck and addition are proposed. His front yard is June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting pitched as you can see from some of the elevations, we no longer have them on the screen, his front yard is pitched to a degree that when the irrigation system turns on sometimes automatically sufficient amounts of water runoff into Youngs Rd. paved Youngs Rd. creating sand and gravel rivets already seen on Youngs Rd. as well as into our neighbor's yards. Unfortunately, Mr. Fisher's rarely home to observe this but those of us who are we are concerned about pools of standing water on Youngs Rd.,the wastefulness to aquifer and the fact that his irrigating system does not already absorb the water into his yard. I am particularly concerned about this runoff because it is compounded by the routine application of lawn herbicides and this poison subsequent runoff. Just two mornings ago, Tuesday morning that's when I wrote this started to write this, I watched the landscapers apply a broadleaf herbicide not only to his lawn but to town property on Youngs Rd. shoulder outside the homeowner's front yard privet hedge.The runoff from this herbicide application goes directly into our aquifer and water supply. All of us on Youngs Rd. have private wells by the way.This runoff combined with the application of harmful herbicides is a serious threat to our freshwater supply and to our fragile aquifer which we are all dependent as you well know. Clearly there already exists a serious problem with runoff from the homeowner's irrigation system, we can only speculate how the proposed addition, pool and deck construction removal of soil and berming of landscape for that one- inch coping whatever we might intend the reality will be very different will exasperate and damage our environment. I ask the Zoning Board Committee Members to please do not set a precedent here and allow a pool to be constructed in this or any front yard whatever the size may be.Thank you very much for your attention and consideration to my letters and I'd like to submit those for the record. -CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anyone else in the audience? ANDREA KING : Hi my name is Andrea King, my husband and I live to the north of the Fishers which because their parcel has an unusual layout. We're technically what I would consider their back yard, we're the only line that abuts right up to them and their pool is proposed to go pretty close to our line. We have been lucky to have good neighbors and we you know want to be good neighbors. So, for us our only real concern is the noise factor cause it will be so close. We've talked to the Fishers about trying to construct something to eliminate some of the noise since it's so close to our we have a wrap around porch on that side so that's our concern is the noise from that.That's it,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else? Is there anyone on Zoom Liz? No hands okay is there anything else from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I just have a point regarding one of the C. of O.'s and it's not really something that has anything to do with the application but the 1998 C.O. No. 25900 is signed by John Jarski, I don't know if anyone saw that. Why was the C.O. reissued? I'm confused, it says one-family dwelling with attached garage and screened porch as applied for and as per ZBA, blah, blah, blah. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Sometimes when there's corrections made on a C. O. Connie retypes them and then John is the Inspector so he signs them. Maybe it was a typo or something, I have seen that happen. June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT: It says corrected 12/5/2018 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It happened in 2018, oh sorry. MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at the landscape plan here and it says existing four foot high hedges and then it gets into twenty foot high arborvitaes, would the applicant be amenable to allow those four foot high hedges to grow taller just to give some screening so the neighbors BROOKE EPPERSON : Absolutely, he's willing to work with every neighbor to get everything that the property needs. MEMBER DANTES : Would another row of plantings on the applicant's property help screen the neighbor out? BROOKE EPPERSON : Where? MEMBER DANTES : Next to the arborvitaes. BROOKE EPPERSON : Additional arborvitaes to elongate that, absolutely. I also would like to say that the addition the one-story addition will be connected to gutters and drywells as per code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anything Pat, anything more? MARIANNE WEIL : Someone on Zoom raised their hand Jean Betancourt, said she has raised her hand but it wasn't acknowledged. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS :There's no hands, is she the phone number? MARIANNE WEIL: She might be, she's abroad. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS :Ask her to press *9 to raise her hand and then *6 to unmute. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe we got a letter from Manuela Soare also, I don't know if she wants to say anything but there's no hand up. We do have letters objecting to the application from you're saying that the phone number is Betancourt? We do have one from her and we have one from Ms. Soares also in our file. JEAN BETANCOURT : It's Jean Betancourt I do want to speak. I just wanted to reference my letter a little bit. I'm so sorry for the confusion technologically here. I just wanted to add that runoff problem is really a problem for me because my well is in the front yard and also the fact that Mr. Fisher has said you know how amenable he is to neighbors. I have asked him to change his light to his outdoor light to one that just goes on when something approaches and he hasn't and it you know it shines right into my living room and so this new addition the lighting is all going to come into my living room because it's closer to the road than any other house the addition pulls it up. I know we're not looking at the addition but I just wanted to bring up those two points and my biggest concern is giving you know the precedence are being built on precedence for what we can do on Youngs Rd. and in the village and it's June 6,2024 Regular Meeting just making turning our street into a whole other place. In terms of having improved the property a whole mini forest was torn down in front of this property and it's not the property it was when it was first constructed and yes, we need improvements and changes to suit people's lifestyles but we also have to think about the common good. I think the continuation of giving.variances and variances on variances is just not the way for our town to go and respect the fact that we have a zoning commission to deal with issues like this.Thank you for your attention. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Is there anything from anybody else? Board Members are we ready to close? 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 MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries,thank you all for your time. HEARING#7909—DIANA FALKENBACH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Diana Falkenbach#7909.This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 28, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a single-family dwelling 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 55 feet located at 3650 Eugenes Rd. in Cutchogue. Welcome again, so this is additions and alterations with a front yard setback at 10.6 feet where the code requires on this sized property 55 feet. It is LWRP exempt and it's a corner lot. BROOKE EPPERSON : I'm Brooke Epperson again for AMP Architecture. This is a one-story addition to an existing non-conforming setback. I do want to point out that the 10.6 feet is for a basement stairwell. So, the habitable space would be 16.4 setback where the existing habitable space is 14.3 setback. We are also renovating an existing one-story (inaudible), that existing space is 732 sq. ft, we're putting an addition onto that space of 322 sq.ft.The site plan we handed in we had that dotted line added that's where the existing is and we are proposing a one-story addition with a flat roof where a hip roof exists. June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've all as you know inspected the property and so the house is already considerably non-conforming relative to Eugenes Rd. I did observe that that side of the house that's facing Eugenes has some pretty massive evergreen screening already in place along the road's shoulder. BROOKE EPPERSON :Any addition is further within those trees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a long driveway that's near there also. So, this is the revised this is the one you submitted that revises the rear yard lot line and half of the other stuff. BROOKE EPPERSON : It wouldn't have any affect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Any questions for you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Come back to me,there's a couple of comments perhaps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Eric any questions on this one? MEMBER DANTES : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA: No,questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're certainly in scale with the rest of the house and what you're proposing to do and you're changing the roofline which will make it a little more low profile. BROOKE EPPERSON : Exactly T. A. MCGIVNEY : What does this mean, I didn't go out to the property, it's a one-story framed pool house and a garage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They exist. T.A MCGIVNEY: Right but MEMBER DANTES :What do those buildings C.O'd as do you have that in here? BROOKE EPPERSON : I'm sorry. MEMBER DANTES : The pool house and garage,what is it C.O'd,what does it say on the C.O? BROOKE EPPERSON :Sorry I don't have the C.O. here. 1 1 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO :That was actually a question I was going to ask Eric so thank you for bringing it up. I didn't see in the packet anything that would indicate pool house and it seems like there are further improvements. BROOKE EPPERSON : So, the C.O. they have a in-ground pool C.O. and then there's a Pre-existing C.O. for an accessory structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wonder if that's the shed or the pool house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is Liz able to respond to that? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I am looking it up. There is a Pre-C.O., the dwelling has insufficient front yard facing Eugenes Rd., there are accessory buildings in the side yard facing Bay Ave., private two-family dwelling with attached screened porch, one accessory barn and three accessory buildings. Is this the right property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is 3650 Eugenes Rd. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT:This says 3650 and 2500 is the Pre. Do you have a Pre in your packets? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah the Pre-C. 0. says an accessory barn, accessory buildings, an outhouse, a potting shed and a beehive shed,there's no mention of a pool house. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I don't see anything for a pool house even in the Building Department records. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a C.O.for the pool? MEMBER DANTES :Yes and a fence. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :So maybe that's just something we MEMBER DANTES :We can condition it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Condition it that there's a C. of 0. that the applicant illustrated C. 0. on the accessory garage pool house. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : There is no C.O.for a pool house. BROOKE EPPERSON : We will look into that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there one for the garage? MEMBER DANTES : My guess it's probably the barn. MEMBER LEHNERT: It's probably the barn. MEMBER DANTES: I can see labeling a barn as garage. j. June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but it appears that there's plumbing and other stuff going on there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was probably converted then to something once the pool was in. Can you just look into that for us and find out what's going on in there? BROOKE EPPERSON :Yes T.A. MCGIVNEY : How is it a garage/pool house? It's either a garage or a pool house. BROOKE EPPERSON : Utilization of one portion to keep as a garage and the other CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably become a one car garage with a pool house on the other part. If you can provide us with more information so that we don't forget to look at everything and include it in our determination. BROOKE EPPERSON : Okay,we'll get that to you right away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Are you saying something Liz? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Yes, Brooke are there any open building permits do you know? BROOKE EPPERSON : Not that I'm aware of but we will definitely address this and get it taken care of. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Is there anything else from the Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye, the motion carries. I mean I closed it because this is not before us but we will want to look at it so I didn't close it subject to receipt but just get it from the Building Department as soon as you can. I want to make sure we can include that in the decision so if you want the decision in two weeks we need it. BROOKE EPPERSON : Okay we'll get it to you by Friday. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay perfect,thank you. June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7907—CHRISTOPHER MASOTTO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christopher Masotto #7907. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124,Article XXXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's January 31, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish per town definition and construct a new single-family dwelling 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 4) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 5) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 6)the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 55915 CR 48(adj.to the Long Island Sound) in Greenport. PAT MOORE : Thank you, before I start I want to introduce everyone who is here, Chris and Heather Masotto, also I have Charles Kuehn who is the architect on this project. I'm sure I know you're familiar with this property and this house, I pass it almost daily and I call it the "shrink wrap house" and the reason for that is they've worked very hard to try to preserve what is there. If you need Charles on the record he did go by today again and make sure that everything is still in tact as the last time that he saw it and everything is still stable and in good condition. You know from the application and the history that this was Lynn Lasko, the Lasko house she and her family were longtime residents here. I think they bought the house in '64 and sold it to Chris and Heather in 2020. They did a good job maintaining the house, the most recent major improvements to the house were done in 1995 when they raised the house completely, they raised it like lifted it not raised it like demolished it but raised it, moved it over, put in new piles that had deteriorated by that point the house was as I said pre- existing there's a Pre-C.O. in your file. At that time, they did some general maintenance of the house, they updated the electric,they updated the plumbing and the house was you know livable and I think Lynn lived there year-round more or less maybe less so in February when it's very cold but it was a lived-in year-round house. It had started in the Pre-C.O. identified as a seasonal cottage or a seasonal dwelling but it had been updated and it has heat and electric. At the time in 1995 also the sanitary system was replaced, so that is the last time that there was a significant alteration, renovation of the existing house. Chris and his wife after they bought it, they wanted to re-shingle, replace windows, update because again 1995 it's about the time frame you need to do some maintenance work and renovation work. They got all the required permits, they didn't need Zoning Board because it had existing setbacks, pre-existing. They did get Trustees, they got D.E.C. and the Health Department was not involved again because the sanitary system was for a three-bedroom house and they was no change to the number of bedrooms. So, they went ahead and hired a licensed, insured contractor, they got all their permits and as you've seen over the years unfortunately you have a contractor that doesn't know what he's doing and puts the family in jeopardy in that they removed too much and it became the threshold went beyond the permits that were issued and the project stopped. It stopped in the condition you see it today which is the house is there, the plywood the exterior walls are there, not the siding, the roof is still intact, the pilings are still in place. When we talked to the Building 14 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting Department they said, no and they supposedly and I don't know this but this is coming from the Building Department that they warned the contractor. We went rogue, he didn't follow the architect's drawings, not this architect but the prior architect's drawings. He did not follow the building plans; it was really a very it's heartbreaking to me when I see a family that is taken advantage by a contractor who shouldn't have been in the project when he didn't know what he was doing. That's the past, we are now current in the future, to reestablish to rebuild this house. They're going to keep everything that is possible to keep. The structure is still intact, it's in good condition. The last time I spoke to Mike, Mike said if it's demolition you can demolish and rebuild. For the purposes of trying to preserve everything we have I've always encouraged the client that's not the best way because even though technically that's what we're here for a demolition, reconstruction the reality is that financially they're trying to keep everything they have and to the extent that it needs to be replaced because of weather damage or whatever we'll have to deal with it piece by piece. Again, because it's demolition all the prior permits have to go back to the drawing board.The Health Department has to be involved at this point because of demolition. They have an application submitted to the Health Department. Charles, you can give us the update on the Health Department cause I think we're pretty far along, they obviously need wetland permits, the D.E.C. and the Zoning Board because any time you have other agencies they will not release their permit until the other agencies are in place.This is all information; you know the process but we do have an application in the works and an IA system being the replacement. I do have a Health Department and just for your record it's not the it's the last version, it's not quite correct, the surveyor or the engineer has to do a modification but I will give it to you for the record.Just for your file is a (inaudible)oh no, no I'll explain then in a sec. BOARD ASSISTANT:The one with the Health Department stamp on it? PAT MOORE : No, no we haven't gotten final approval yet, no. Just to clarify, this has been submitted to the Health Department, they can't give approval until all the permits are in place but the sanitary design is shown. The sanitary design is correct,the survey or the house itself has a it doesn't have the most recent alternative so we'll talk about that but we are pretty far along with the Health Department. Any difference is not going to impact the sanitary design, it's still a three bedroom and it's designed as such. What I gave this Board I don't want to rehash everything that you already have in writing, I did give you a very thorough application I think with a lot of information. I did do some additional research. I went through and looked at essentially the entire tax map designation of the waterfront of this area. You know many of the Board Members have been on the Board long enough that you many of these applications you're familiar with. I listed one by one and I did it based on tax lot number from 44-1 and then 44-2 are the two sections of the tax map. I listed every variance that's been granted for this line of homes. This area is pre-existing non-conforming no doubt about it. The coastal erosion line falls either on the road or it bisects the property,this area all the homes here were most likely developed well prior to zoning but a lot of the homes have expanded, there are lots of application variance applications, they're all listed by name and application number and the year. Probably the most similar and unfortunately, I was involved in it, back in 2007 which is tax lot number 44-1 lot 5,that's the Avdoulos application, 6060 on August 16, 2007.This application went three times to the Zoning Board of Appeals, exhausting for everybody involved. The first application was for 1, June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting additions and alterations. The contractor did what unfortunately happened here which is took down too much. As a result, a new application had to be filed for a demolition, that application was submitted. Then the third application was a small modification thank God but it was still an application, I had to come before the Board again because it was not considered de minimus. The foundation more of the foundation was defective, it was a block foundation I believe at the time and it needed to be altered, we came back. That application that was one of the very long properties that the Avdoulos property is one that where the road the waterfront is pretty far out,they're long bowling alley style lots and there was a jetty and there was a bulkhead so it was a protected property very close to the water. In that instance we took the existing house second time around with a demolition and the existing foundation that was still usable we converted to a patio it could be filled, it was a foundation that was like a crawl space. They didn't have pile, we don't have that we have piles but, in that application,they came in they built the house landward of the existing foundation, converted the foundation to a patio.Then the third application,when they had to come back to the Board the owner expanded the house on the landward side which was not a problem because they had tons of land. In any case, based on that application I went to the clients and said, the only application I see of similar to the one we have today is the Avdoulos application, everything else that appears on this is additions and alterations. Many of the additions and alterations are huge additions and alterations but it was before the fifty percent rule came into effect. So, I listed all of them but probably the Avdoulos is the most comparable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat I would like to enter into the record exactly what the relief requested is. First of all, a front yard setback at 25.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet, a rear yard setback at 13.1 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet, a side yard setback at 6.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10 feet, a combined side yard setback at 23.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet, lot coverage at 63.29% where the code permits a maximum of 20% and it exceeds the sky plane. Now, I believe the reason why the Notice of Disapproval and the survey differ in lot coverage,the survey dated October 12, 2023 indicates the house is 800 sq.ft. and it 20.3% of the total lot area and the Notice of Disapproval says 63.29%, is that because there's a difference between what the total area of the lot is and the buildable area of the lot? Could that be what that discrepancy is coming from? PAT MOORE : I did ask I mean I'm looking at the survey and Nat Corwin did provide existing lot coverage between CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause you're proposing to replace in kind. PAT MOORE : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So, it's gotta be the same as what PAT MOORE : It's going to be the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to understand why there's such a huge discrepancy. If it's relative to buildable area i. June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Come on up. CHARLES KUEHN : I believe the original application was submitted and the entire lot the tax map lot was included in the calculation that's why it was 20%. Once we deleted the seaward portion of the property or the non-buildable part of the property it reduced the size of the buildable square footage and that's what upped the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what I just stated,thank you for the confirmation. PAT MOORE : It's funny, the surveyor I guess didn't include that. Usually, I do ask that but did he include it in one of yours? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the site plan this is the survey. PAT MOORE : Okay so our site plan reflected it,okay good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The site plan is different than the survey. PAT MOORE : Okay thank you for that clarification. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean both are legal documents I just wanted to clarify if for the record. PAT MOORE : As you state, it is exactly the same house that is there now. So, what I was leading to regarding the Avdoulos and my client's willingness to consider cause I always get from the Board,what can you do, how can you make it better? I've heard that for over thirty-five years, I think I've got it in my brain. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you say you have prior Trustees approval but that was then extinguished when the PAT MOORE : What the Trustees are going to do with it, I think it hasn't gone back to the Trustees. When I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to know whether it was originally approved by the Trustees. PAT MOORE :Yes it was originally approved by the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For a renovation, in place and in kind. PAT MOORE : Correct, it was approved by the D.E.C., it was approved by the Trustees. MEMBER LEHNERT:They had a building permit. PAT MOORE :They had a building permit yes,yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright,that's what I want to know. 171 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : So, what we are offering certainly we'd love to have the house we have but we have the alternative because it's first you, then I have go potentially to the Trustees which they might even though it's the existing exactly the same footprint I don't know what they're going to do with the coastal erosion law because it is in fact the same structure that'll be each Board will make their own determination. My clients have proposed that the original plan shows the entire house including an enclosed porch to be habitable space,that's what they have now and that's what the original plan was submitted as. They are submitting today for the Board to consider as an alternative plan which I think addresses LWRP and all the other comments that we anticipate along the way which is to take to use the core house as the livable space as is and take the enclosed porch and just like Avdoulos convert that to a deck. It would be an open deck, the second floor would have just a small canopied balcony cause the original plan again tried not to expand the footprint they were going to put the deck on top of the roof and only have a deck on the second floor, second floor of the habitable space, it would only be cantilevered. So, what I have I have sealed plans here the full scale, I also have a reduced version for the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does this change any variance relief? No, amended architectural drawings. PAT MOORE : What we did is, when we discussed this alternative I went to see Mike Verity and I said Mike will this change our fifty percent and he's like no, sorry. So, our hope was the fact that we were reducing the square footage of the house so therefore the fifty percent it had fifty percent of one square footage and now we're reducing the square footage it seemed to me that there should be an adjustment but Mike said no and we already have this hearing scheduled. So, it didn't change the Notice of Disapproval in any way so that's why it's still the same Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So basically it's the existing screened porch which will become an opened deck. MEMBER DANTES : So then your setbacks MEMBER LEHNERT:They all stay the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I wanted know, there's no relevant change for us. We want to make sure we stamp the right ones.Alright let me see if there's any questions from the Board, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA: No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I often wondered what was going on with this house, I mean I think everybody in town drives past by it multiple times during the day. June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It's very stressful.So, I can give you just my involvement which has been now for at least a year I think that I've been waiting. You know when it's a demolition now you've got to start over with the surveyor, start over with the architecture, start over with the Health Department, everything starts over so unfortunately, we had to get everybody to reactivate and the surveyor of course takes months. We wanted to verify our definitely confirm with both Nate Corwin and I think Mr. (inaudible) had done one of the surveys verifying the flood elevation cause that's extremely important here. We do have to raise the house, one of the things that this process will and I can have Charles explain what's being done but it was part of the original plans that were submitted, that hasn't changed. It's taking the existing piles, you cut the piles then put with cement block core you raise it on top of the exiting piles.So that's how with extender am I saying it all correctly?Then you're extending in order to raise it to the level that FEMA now requires. Remember in '95 it was raised to FEMA standards but unfortunately with the remapping FEMA changed it by 15 inches, 18 inches or so. L CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom Liz who wants to address this? MEMBER LEHNERT : You answered my question about what was going on with the piles cause the plans show them basically being removed. PAT MOORE : Do you want it on the record from the architect? MEMBER LEHNERT:Yea are the piles going to remain there during the construction, are you lifting the house and gutting it? CHARLES KUEHN :So,the existing piles are going to be cut down just below grade. PAT MOORE : So we do have to raise the house. CHARLES KUEHN :Yes we have to raise the house to meet the new FEMA height. PAT MOORE : No raise like in lift. MEMBER LEHNERT:Yea you have to lift and work under it. CHARLES KUEHN : Right it's a house raising yes. PAT MOORE : Less intrusive than the '95 because in '95 there was a permit to lift it, move it over.The Blasko's were very good friends with the neighbors so when I did get calls from the Corwin side, I said no we're not touching your property don't worry nothing is going on there. I actually represented Candon because they wanted to replace their sanitary system, they did some foundation work; they got stopped because they needed a permit for the foundation work even though it was all storm damage. A lovely family and unfortunately Mr. Candon right in the middle of our project died then his son took over. So,we have to keep utilizing so MEMBER ACAMPORA: Didn't we have a letter of opposition wasn't there? PAT MOORE : What on Candon? 19 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : On this. PAT MOORE : Currently? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Yea PAT MOORE : I don't know, I haven't received anything as far as opposition goes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we have anything, I don't think so. MEMBER ACAMPORA: It was from the neighbor from the west. PAT MOORE : Is that the neighbor from the west is nothing written,the guy Corwin it's the vacant lot, it's the only vacant lot. MEMBER ACAMPORA: Maybe PAT MOORE : So,Stanley Corwin who is the co-owner and Trustee of a trust just checked with me and wanted to make sure everything you know that what he saw he understood. There was really no comment as long as we don't bother his property. At first, he thought we were the house to the west of that lot which had renovations done, stone work and so on but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we've covered everything and in the interest of getting on with other people PAT MOORE :Sorry it is a complicated I apologize it's a complicated application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's complicated and it's also very simple, it's both. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think am I correct in stating that the shell that's there is the original home CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :that everything precedes current zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It all pre-dates zoning, everything along that whole stretch of 48 pre-dates zoning. MEMBER LEHNERT:And they have to raise it meet the current FEMA requirements. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : None of them have (inaudible) and half of them are in the water. PAT MOORE : Well what's interesting is, I would also point out us that go by that road every day that these homes and their bulkheads and jetties and so on are protecting the North Rd. If they weren't there it would be like Orient and the state would have to create huge revetments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? 0 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We should have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. HEARING#7910—ERIKA and CHRISTOPHER WESHOVEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Erika and Christopher Wershoven #7910. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 5, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish as per Town Code Definition and construct a single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 3150 Ole Jule Lane (adj.to James Creek) in Mattituck. So,this is a front yard setback of 34.3 feet where the code requires 35 feet and a side yard setback at 8.9 feet where the code requires 10. It's considered LWRP inconsistent and basically the non-conforming setbacks exists, you're not changing any of that. The footprint is to be the same. The front yard setback is absolutely de minimus it's less than (inaudible) and I presume you tried every which way you could to get rid of that couple of inches BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and could apparently not do so,why was that? BROOKE EPPERSON : This is the existing footprint, we are keeping the existing exterior walls, the existing roof,the only things changing are interiors and windows and doors. MEMBER DANTES :What triggered the need for the variance request then? BROOKE EPPERSON :This is considered a demolition so it would be a reconstruction. zJL June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those are the value, the house is in disrepair it needs a lot of work so it's the value of what their going to replace but it's, there's a big great grassy lot next to it there's no nearby structures really at all so I don't see much impact you know to the character of the neighborhood or any adjacent properties. Rob,do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT: I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it was very clear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No, no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA: No it's straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is'there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#7906—LAUREN and RUSSELL ANTONUCCI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lauren and Russell Antonucci #7906. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280- 207A (1) (b) and the Building Inspector's December 14, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting 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) gross floor area exceeding the permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 square feet in area located at 195 Marys Rd. in Mattituck. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. This is I think maybe not as straightforward as the last one but I hope a pretty straightforward application. This property is 11,460 sq. ft. in the R40 zoning district located on Marys Rd. it happens to be my neighbors so I can actually speak to the character of the surrounding community with firsthand knowledge. So, seeking relief here to construct a rear addition a two-story addition to this house,this is obviously rather constrained property probably the smallest house in the neighborhood. Just a little background, this property had been larger but back in 1992 the McBride's and the Steltzer's got together and decided to transfer 6,000 sq. ft. from this parcel to the property next door leaving this property being pretty small. I wasn't sure why they did that;they didn't really do anything with it. As of today, that 6,000 sq. ft. is undeveloped and visually it actually still appears to almost be part of this property. I mention that only because with respect to the GFA, had we still had that little strip of land we'd have more than enough room here but you know in terms of impacts from that variance their hard to perceive just because of the way that the properties are laid out. Anyway, so what we're looking for here is a side yard setback, the proposed addition is in the rear, it's just going to stay along right now the existing footprint of the house is at 6 feet from the side yard and looking to just add on straight back there. As for GFA, the current GFA of this house is only 1,517 sq. ft.,we need a GFA variance to allow an additional 397 sq.ft. above what would be code allowed under the GFA regs. So that's we need 2,680 and the maximum per code is 2,283 but that's between two floors. I have a little visual here that just you know this is where this line right here is the current footprint,this is what we're permitted and so really it's just this little portion of the back on two levels that is what we're seeking the variance for GFA. All of that in the rear yard not visible to anybody. I would note that the I don't know were photographs submitted with the application? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Yes MARTIN FINNEGAN :There were okay, the copy I had did not. So,there's a good-sized rear yard there but the Berkoski house and the Bringham house happen to both have their garages you know right there along the property line so there's sort of this screening that occurs because of those structures. So, in the area where this addition would be it would barely be visible to, I mean the second level would be slightly visible but to the neighboring land owners. We do have letters of support from all three of the surrounding neighbors who have no objection to the relief sought here. Just to briefly address the criteria as to character of the neighborhood, as I said this is all in the rear of the existing home. It's going to result in a home that is similar in size and character to most of the homes on Marys and Pike St. right around there.As I said this is kind of a real small house as it exists. MEMBER DANTES :You're saying that the averaged size house on Marys and Pike St. is 2,500 sq. ft? June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't know the exact square footage of every house on Marys but I'm talking in terms of the most of the houses are two-stories and they are much larger than this house. So, that's really my point. I honestly don't know how you get to know the square footage of a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very difficult, the Assessors Office we have to depend on and it's very difficult to really calculate the allowed for averaging when the code was changed but it's difficult to find out what the GFA is on other"as builts". MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'm just saying, visually and because I live there I feel like this is consistent with the size of the other houses in the neighborhood. Yes, we need a variance because of the recently adopted GFA restrictions and the pre-existing non-conforming side yard setback, there's no way we can do this addition without variance relief. The architects did try to see what it would look like, it's just kind of wonky to go kind of jut in back there with that 4 feet so that's why the relief is being sought. As to substantiality, yes, it's a 40% variance to stay at the 6-foot.mark but I would argue that its not practically substantial because this is just staying consistent with the pre-existing 6-foot setback. The second floor too is noteworthy that that is going to go in compliance with the pyramid law so there's no problem there. The GFA variance is only 17% relief from the code so arguably insubstantial in light of the size of the other homes in the neighborhood that I've alluded to. Again,we are within well within the rear yard setback, well within lot coverage and I did site to a couple of decisions, recent decisions of the Board where GFA has been varied for similarly sized lots and with 26% and 46% relief granted for GFA where here we're seeking only 17. 1 don't think there's any indication that this would have any adverse impact on the neighborhood, obviously we're a Type 11 Action. The rear yard addition as I said would be substantially screened by existing structures on neighboring properties. They are going to be upgrading to an IA system obviously complying with Chapter 236 so I think there will be a net positive environmental benefit to the neighborhood. So,that is really it, if you want me to answer any questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Okay, let's see, Eric do you want to start? MEMBER DANTES: No I do not have any further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin, no questions. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Come on Nick. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT: No questions. 24 June 6,2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#7913—JSK PARK AVENUE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for JSK Park Avenue, LLC #7913. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13A(1), Article IV Section 280-17A(1), Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's January 8, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to merge two adjacent lots and to demolish three (3) existing single-family dwellings, keep one existing single-family dwelling and construct an additional new single family dwelling, an accessory in-ground swimming pool and an accessory detached garage 1) proposed lot is less than the minimum lot width of 150 feet, 2) one-family detached dwelling not to exceed one single-family dwelling on each lot located at 2150 and 2200 Park Ave. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Mattituck. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning again, for the record Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants JSK Park Ave. LLC. As Leslie mentioned we are seeking a lot width variance here to merge these two parcels are currently improved each of the existing parcels are improved with two single-family dwellings all of which benefit from C.O.'s they're legally existing.As Leslie mentioned,the plan is to demolish three of the four homes, maintain one of the legally existing single-family homes up on the road side and construct one new single-family dwelling on the waterside.That ends up with the removal of two sanitary systems and the replacement of a third with an IA system. So, the variance relief that we're seeking with respect to lot width you know we're merging these parcels, right now they're each about 50 feet in width although it's impossible to achieve full compliance for 150 feet we're obviously achieving much more compliance and as to lot area it would create a conforming 1.37-acre parcel. So, just to address the criteria with respect to lot width clearly, we're Z June 6,2024 Regular Meeting creating a lot that is consistent with most of the parcels along Park Ave. there are a little wider than 150 feet but many are not 150 feet wide. This property almost appears like it's one parcel already cause of the fact that there's a shared driveway right down the middle so it doesn't there's no indication that granting a relief would have any impact on the surrounding community or be a detriment when you're creating actually a conforming lot that achieves a more conforming lot width. There are other parcels on Park Ave. there that are improved with two single-family residences as well. We can't do this without variance relief cause there's no way to achieve compliance with the lot width requirements in the current bulk schedule. I would submit to you that the relief sought is not substantial since the merger of the parcels will substantially reduce the degree of the non-conformity of the lot width of the existing parcels and this wasdeemed to be consistent with LWRP policies.There are no perceivable adverse impacts, as I mentioned we're going to be removing two non-conforming residences and their sanitary systems and replacing installing an IA system for the newly constructed house which is not the subject of any relief here. So, as far as the lot width variance I submit to you that you have sufficient grounds here to grant the relief requested. I do want to address the second dwelling which is raised in the Notice of Disapproval relief needed to require or allow that dwelling to remain. Again, all of the dwellings on these two parcels have C.O.'s they are legally existing. This is not an accessory apartment this is a legally existing single-family dwelling. As of today, my clients can use all four of those houses in any way they want to use them. Just two years ago this Board was presented with a similar application two doors down to renovate a house on a property that had a legally existing single-family dwelling on the roadside and there was nothing raised in the Notice of Disapproval about needing variance relief to allow a legally existing dwelling to remain. So, I don't believe that we require any relief to allow that to be there. It is existing, as a matter of fact we got C.O.'s for all this after reviewing with the Building Department and said if everything is C.O'ed it can stay there. So, I don't know why it was raised now and I understand that you're under the code you're not supposed to have two single-family dwellings but it's like any other (inaudible) non-conforming situation you don't need a variance to allow to exist it is legally existing. As for the Planning Board's suggested covenant that would render this perpetually affordable and require my clients to rent it, I don't see that there's any basis for that nor is within your purview to covenant the house. It has a C.O., the Building Department is the one who determines the use of the house and they have issued a C.O. for the house.As you're well aware, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which lot is that second dwelling to remain on? MARTIN FINNEGAN : It is the roadside if you're looking at it, it's the one on the left..lf you're looking at the property MEMBER ACAMPORA:The one that's in better condition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah okay, you don't need a lot line change for this from the Planning Board? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, we're just merging so you know there's no generally yes are you allowed to condition or ameliorate or lessen impacts from the relief granted, sure if you get a side yard we're Z61 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting going to put up some trees or whatever but here there are no impacts from merging these two lots it's a net, net benefit. So, I would respectfully request that you disregard the recommendation from the Planning Board, we still have to go there for the merger of the lots and we can discuss that with them there but they certainly don't have the authority to covenant the use of a legally existing structure or limit that. So, in your earlier decision two years ago when you were faced with exact situation there was a condition that just said or really a comment in your decision that just says, none of the relief that you're granting here has anything to do with that structure. You're not allowing us to change it, you're not allowing us to do anything and we understand that we have no problem with that but to say that a covenant should be filed forever and ever against this property I just don't see any justification for that.So,with that I would be happy to answer any questions. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, how come you're going with the merger route, why not do the lot line change, leave the other structure on a separate lot and create more of a flagged lot for the main structure and keep them as separate lots? I mean you're still getting the benefit of removing two non-conforming houses,you're still getting the benefit of your main house. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think that's just what the owners want to do, they just want to have the one parcel and the way the house is designed, I see what you're saying but it was never something that was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a lot easier. MARTIN FINNEGAN :A lot easier for? MEMBER DANTES : It removes the need for one variance. You still have the same non-conforming lot width variance but you probably have another non-conforming lot size variance but you remove the non-conforming use aspect of the variance of having two uses on one lot or two principle uses on the one lot. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It has not arrived on my desk that way,this was the plan that was developed and obviously merger does not is a pretty straightforward process whereas a lot line you know you're looking at you know the more extensive approval process for that as well. MEMBER DANTES :That's my only question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : Just a question on the existing house, you guys planning on keeping the existing septic system? MARTIN FINNEGAN :Yes,for that one yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The new house will have an IA system. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Yes Z71 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that sort of seg-waged into my thoughts, relative to the demolition of three structures to build one new one if the town code and we were talking earlier today about technical demolitions this leaves only twenty five percent of what was originally on the property, so wouldn't the IA system also for these existing structures that you want to keep need to be upgraded? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No we're not doing anything to that structure it's a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I know but you're taking away seventy five percent of all the improvements on the combined lot,there's four equal houses. MEMBER DANTES : Honestly once you have that lot to review for the Department of Health I think they're going to make you upgrade the whole lot to meet current code regardless of whether you touch that structure or not. MARTIN FINNEGAN : That's not what we've been told. Obviously, whatever the Health Department requires my client will have to address but there's no intention to do that at this point that I'm aware of. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Any other questions Board Members? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just thinking by right also the applicant after the merger occurs has the right to have a front yard location provided it meets setbacks in accessory structure which would be an accessory and I know this is not considered an accessory apartment it's a house but I'm just working through the concept. It's just modestly larger than an accessory, it is an older structure and there's major site redevelopment so why wouldn't you just build a new accessory structure? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well they're building a house and accessory garage but there's no reason it's why would we go to the expense of building a new structure if they got one there? MEMBER ACAMPORA: Are they going to use it for a guest house? MARTIN FINNEGAN :They're just going to use it for family just as you know right now MEMBER ACAMPORA : They're building a brand new house why would you unless you don't like part of your family send them off to the old house. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well I don't know how big your family is but I have plenty of people I can put over there. I can fill all four of those houses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anyone on Zoom? No hands, anything else from the Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? 29 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA: Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#7912—ANDREA D.SPINARIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Andrea D. Spinaris#7912. This is a request for variances from Article XXXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 30, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" platform decks and a hot tub attached to an existing single-family dwelling 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 3175 Kennys Rd. (adj.to Great Pond) in Southold.State your name please. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Hi, my name is Timothy Cloughen, I work for Jeff Zahn Architects. Back when the owner acquired the property he did call up and ask for if he needed a permit for a platform and at the time, he was told no. He did build the platform and then about a year later we went in and put in for an application for an interior alteration and then this is what triggered this variance. So,we're here to ask for a relief on the percentage of the deck. We did after we did put in drawings for the deck as well and we also went to the Board of Trustees to get their approval and we did get an approval from the Board of Trustees where the owner had to add additional non-vegetative about a 15-foot buffer between the water line and the back of the house. So, Mr. Spinaris did put that in, it's subject to an inspection. As we said you know originally, he did call up and we were asked if we needed a permit and at the time,they said no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Who told you no? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : I'm not really sure, we called up the town and asked otherwise we would have put in for a permit for it. Obviously, we're trying to make sure that everything that's why we put in a permit for the interior alterations and we showed it on the site plan and then this was kicked into the variance that we were over by 2.2%.So,we're asking for a relief of 2.2%to keep the deck as is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a rear yard setback at 17.08 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. zq. June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is also in an AE 9 flood zone and it's LWRP inconsistent. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you say that the Trustees required a 15 foot non TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Yea non-vegetative buffer which we put in.We put in pea gravel and there was a buffer, right now because MEMBER LEHNERT:Where was that from the lot line? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : No the waterline. MEMBER LEHNERT:The current waterline? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :The current waterline,yes. MEMBER LEHNERT:The one that's on the survey right now that was TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :Yea where it says waterline. MEMBER LEHNERT:Waterline as of January of 2022. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :Ahem MEMBER LEHNERT:Are you aware of the current waterline? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Right now because of the I guess because of the water the excessive rain the waterline is closer in about 15 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The entire gravel buffer is under water. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Correct, right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So is the dock,that little platform that sticks TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : It is now under water,yes at the time it was not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It goes up to and over some turf. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : At the time we were told 15 feet so we complied with the 15 feet and we did get approval for 15 feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Can the Trustees do that? MEMBER DANTES: Did you give us a copy in the packet? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's town property. 30 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : I can get a copy and send it to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think Great Pond is partly owned by the town and partly by property owners that surround. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well on this particular lot I looked cause I was puzzled about the ownership and it's actually town land on the other side CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Adjacent MEMBER PLANAMENTO :their wood walk is on town property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wetlands,yeah MEMBER LEHNERT: On town land. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Why would the Trustees put a gravel buffer on town owned property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :We were told to put a non-vegetative MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From your lot line back that would make sense not from TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :They said from the waterline so that's why we're showing that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The waterline very dramatically depending on rainfall and so on. T.A. MCGIVNEY : Is this property in Justice Court? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : For? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was a prior there's an open, according to our information there is a series of complaints against this property and it is our research shows that let me just pull this out T.A. MCGIVNEY : I think it was in Justice Court for a (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In 2023 there was a complaint for short term rentals which is listed as in court.There's a complaint about a hot tub, "as built" deck. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : We put in for the permit for the hot tub and the deck as well along with the interior alterations. So, that's in we're just waiting for either your decision to get the approval for the house permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at this print out of what's in the Building Department's records. Are you aware that this property is listed on some websites for rental? 31 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : As far as we know right now it was when they got the summons, they paid the fine and they have not rented it since. So, we're waiting for this approval as well. Eventually we did put in an application in for a rental permit, this is also being held up by this decision as well. So, right now we can't get a rental permit until the deck is approved and then we'll and the interior alterations have already been approved the drawings as well. Again, the Building Department did approve the decking subject to the variance.So, if the decking is approved,we'll get the permit for everything. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can you just clarify again or restate where you stand with the Trustees, I'm a little confused. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : What we did is we put in the gravel or the non-vegetative the 15 foot buffer from the what(inaudible) and it was subject to an inspection so we have to still do an inspection on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :When was that? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : It was probably sometime in September, we put in the drawings and we are waiting for approvals on the deck as well. So, if we have to make any changes, we would alter those changes. MEMBER LEHNERT:So, if they went to inspect the non-turf buffer right now it would be under water. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : At this point,yes but at the time when we put it in it wasn't under water. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry,you have a determination from the Trustees in writing? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : I do, I can send it to you guys. MEMBER PLANAMENT : It seems odd that they'd make a determination without granting relief for the deck. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right, I don't understand what the determination is. So, we definitely need to see that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What were they MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Was it a pre-submission hearing? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : I'm not sure, as I said I have a letter from them telling us what to do and then they were going to be doing inspections so we didn't finish the inspection yet. MEMBER LEHNERT : Normally the Trustees would do a buffer from the property line. They wouldn't put it on town property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Absolutely. T.A. MCGIVNEY :There's no way you can verify this stuff. 3.2 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You said it's not rented now? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : It's not rented right now, no not now not until we can get a rental permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so but on the other hand I live around the corner and I walk by there every day and every single weekend I see four and five cars in that driveway or in front of the property, during the week I see absolutely no cars whatsoever. So,what's that about? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : I'm not sure, he said friends and family. This is the owner here, friends and family. T.A. MCGIVNEY :That's the owner? He has no information about the Trustees? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : We put in for the Trustees, I will email you everything that I got from the Trustees and that way you can read their letter and what they approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's not rented, why is it as of yesterday still listed on apartments.com? It's described as four bedrooms,two baths MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Perhaps the owner can come forward and speak for himself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just state your name for the record please. ANDREA SPINARIS :Andreas Spinaris,the question, I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The question was, as of yesterday I checked and staff checked some websites for rentals and there is one at your property listed as a four bedroom, two bath on apartments.com and it is described as kick back and enjoy the peaceful surroundings of this beautiful four bedroom,two bathroom house,outdoor oasis with hot tub,firepit, barbeque, shower, brand new deck and kayaks. Steps away from a fishing lake and six houses away from Kennys Beach. This house has been completely remodeled and is perfectly located to fit your getaway needs. Then it describes a bathroom, the bedrooms and bathrooms. That was as of yesterday. If you're not renting it and you don't have a rental permit why is this still listed? ANDREAS SPINARIS : I can't answer that, (inaudible). I have a business partner, I'm not sure if he has it up but I have no recollection of it being up but that's something I'll look into. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You probably should be aware of what's going on, on your property.There are people there every weekend, lots of them and not during the week.So,that is not a typical pattern but ANDREAS SPINARIS : I agree with that, I know I'll have to look into that further. e CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright. ANDREAS SPINARIS :That I do not know. 331 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY :What is the sanitary system? MEMBER PLANAMENTO :That's what I was curious to know where the septic is on the property. T. A. MCGIVNEY: It's a four bedroom. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Existing sanitary system (inaudible). T.A. MCGIVNEY :And it's already a four bedroom? ANDREAS SPINARIS:Three bedroom with a loft. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : It's a three bedroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's showing four bedrooms on the website. ANDREAS SPINARIS: It's a three bedroom,one loft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :A loft which is being used as a sleeping space. ANDREAS SPINARIS :Temporarily yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's advertised for eight people. That sanitary unless you changed it when you bought it,that sanitary is not sized for eight people and four bedrooms. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : The drawings were put in, the loft is going to be taken out. The drawings were modified, the loft is being taken out. So, it's going to be a three bedroom, it was originally a three bedroom and it's going to be in our plans it shows that it's three bedrooms the loft is being eliminated. It's just added storage,that was part of the approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which approval was that? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :Well right now it's subject to this decision in the Building Department.We have the drawings in the Building Department right now under reviewing, it's being paused until this hearing is made a decision on. MEMBER DANTES :That's for the interior building permit? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : That's for the interior alterations yes. We had eliminated and it's only going to be attic so it's a three bedroom is going to remain a three bedroom. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a review not an approval. TIMOTHY CLOGHEN : Yea it's waiting for this approval to get the approval on the drawings so basically it's just on pause until we get this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well all interior renovations have been completed, is that correct? 341 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :We put in for to maintain what was there,yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words you're asking for a building permit after the renovation was already completed? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :Yes we have asked for a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So,this was done without benefits of permits? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :We are doing the permit process,correct right now that's why we put it in. MEMBER LEHNERT: It's"as built". TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :That is correct,to maintain the existing. MEMBER LEHNERT: Now I'm going to go back,you stated that you have partners on the property you didn't know how it was being used,why does the property card only list yourself? ANDREAS SPINARIS : That's how we bought it, we have a lot of properties together and this one is under my name. If that's the case that will be rectified right away. MEMBER LEHNERT: I have one more question that actually Nick brought up, MEMBER PLANAMENTO :You're going to ask it? MEMBER LEHNERT : I'll ask it. The deck shows the Disapproval shows 17.08 feet, the survey shows 17 foot 1 and then there's 13 foot 7, how did we get there?The Notice of Disapproval goes to 17. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :That was probably where the hot tub is it narrows down. MEMBER LEHNERT:So,then why wouldn't it be on the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the Notice of Disapproval should say 13.7 TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Okay,yep.The platform is less than six inches above grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've all seen it of course but it is still not considered at grade. It maybe slightly above grade but slightly is not grade. Grade is basically paving stones that you can run a lawn mower over that's how they basically characterize at grade. MEMBER LEHNERT: It might not require a railing but it's still a structure. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else from the Board at this point? MEMBER ACAMPORA: No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the application? 3, June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was also going to ask the applicant, do you have any examples of prior relief granted similar to what you're seeking? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : No,we don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also have a couple of letters of objection from neighbors indicating that it's a very loud and noisy party house and that garbage is left (inaudible) about and so on and that they're aware of the enormous amount of water that's often on Kennys Rd. overspilled from Great Pond and inch of the phragmites and out onto the road and that is a common phenomenon. So, it's a very flood prone area in fact the town put in drainage right on the same street on Kennys practically opposite the property, caddy corner because that whole corner was just nothing but a lake. All of that area is very flood prone so you have to very mindful of what goes in there. LYNN NORMANDIA : Hello Leslie it's Lynn from Leeton Drive and I did put in a letter. I would also suggest CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes we have that and plus one from the neighbor. LYNN NORMANDIA : Good, just as a historical note, when they bought this property we spoke with them. We're delighted to have new neighbors and we were told they were going to bring their family here. I rest my case, I don't know when they stopped renting but there is still many different cars going in and out and the deck and the hot tub who is enjoying them? You've said it all Leslie, thank you. I just needed to give my two cents. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,thank you.Anything from anybody else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I want to ask Julie a question, relative to the wood sort of walk or dock whatever you want to call it, on the town properties, I'm confused about the placement. T. A. MCGIVNEY :They would need permission to do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I mean I don't know if the town ever grants that type of permission but T.A. MCGIVNEY: No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Never done that. MEMBER LEHNERT: Never seen that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That was just put in. ANDREAS SPINARIS : No, no, no that was there when we purchased. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know what was there because I saw it ANDREAS SPINARIS : I'm not making that up, that was there originally, I'm sure I can get photos from the original 361 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it might have been wrongly there. I mean I can't imagine ANDREAS SPINARIS : It's a loose structure it's not a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a ramp, it's really just MEMBER PLANAMENTO :So then you'd get muddy feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea MEMBER PLANAMENTO :That's town property. ANDREAS SPINARIS :That was there from when I purchased the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea there was a small one. ANDREAS SPINARIS :That was the same one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Same one? ANDREAS SPINARIS :Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well it certainly was not totally under water at the time. ANDREAS SPINARIS : No, not at all.That water line has gone up 15, 18 feet from all the rain. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I think it was originally installed there on dry land in order to get a kayak in without getting your feet in the water. ANDREAS SPINARIS: (inaudible) but now it is under water. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think you're allowed to have it. T.A. MCGIVNEY : It doesn't even meet, because it was there doesn't mean you can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's going to have to be removed anyway because it's on town property. MEMBER PLANAM,ENTO :Which I'm surprised the Trustees wouldn't have cited this but T.A. MCGIVNEY:Well we don't know if they did. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know about the wood walk but I was going to comment on the phragmites,the phragmites are growing everywhere except here you can clearly see that they've been mowed. I'm puzzled about that also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was actually a (inaudible) that the McCabes/Kennys Beach Association and had to eradicate phragmites in Great Pond and for a while it worked. I mean it was a very expensive proposition but they're all back, they're all back and flourishing. We do need to see 371 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting what history there is on this property with the Trustees and other than that I think we have everything we need at the moment. How long to do you need to give us a copy of that? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : I'm going to go right after here and I'm going to go the Board of Trustees to get a copy of it and I'll drop it right off at the Zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Drop it off at the office,they'll scan it and they'll email it to us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question is, do you want to close it subject to receipt? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Closing it subject to a Trustees permit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. Does that make sense to everybody? MEMBER DANTES :Yes CHAIRPERPERSON WEISMAN :That way if you're delayed by a couple of days T. A. MCGIVNEY : And you're acknowledging that you have a permit from the Trustees to show the Zoning Board? TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Yes I believe we have yea we have a letter from them and we were subject to an inspection. We didn't get the inspection yet. MEMBER LEHNERT: But we want the permit. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Yea I'll get the permit cause we paid whatever for it so we have a receipt so we'll go through all that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if they haven't done the inspection then and it's subject to the inspection then what you have is an intent to approve if the inspection goes okay. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Correct T.A. MCGIVNEY :That's not a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We'll get whatever you've got. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN : Yea we'll show we did put non-vegetated what they had considered. We did ask them what they wanted with the non-vegetated and we tried to comply with that and they said that we could put pea gravel in as part of it. They just didn't want any grass to be near the water because of the fertilization and they didn't want any CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well unfortunately there's grass underwater right now in addition to the buffer. TIMOTHY CLOUGHEN :There's a lot of grass I mean a lot of water with the rain we've been having. 381 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting ANDREAS SPINARIS:The buffer did work though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so, hearing no other comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of a pending approval from the Trustees. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT:Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Aye,the motion carries thank you for your time. HEARING#7902—JOSEPH A.GEBBIA and TERESA M. DUNN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph A. Gebbia and Teresa M. Dunn#7902. This is a request for variances from Article II Section 280-9A(1),Article III Section 280- 14 and the Building Inspector's December 27, 2023 amended January 12, 2024 Notice of Disapproval and requesting a reversal of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated January 12, 2024 based on an application for lot recognition and to legalize a lot created prior to June 30, 1983 at 1) lot does not conform to Bulk Schedule AA, 2) lot is less than the code required minimum lot size of 80,000 square feet, 3) lot is less than the required lot depth of 250 feet, 4) lot is less than the required lot width of 175 feet located at 2146 Rt. 25 and 475 Condor Ct. in Laurel. PAT MOORE : I have Teresa Dunn with me,Joe Gebbia was not able to be here but we hope to be able to answer any questions that you might have.This is a very technical application; in the many years of practicing this is a first. I think a first in part because permits are typically issued when the lot is over an acre you don't have to do a single and separate it's a we never go into the recognized lot provision. Amanda is very thorough; I give her great credit bright girl and she couldn't find where this how this lot was created. When we started investigating cause none of us could believe it because the parcels were purchased separately, has two separate deeds. They were purchased by two separate individuals,Joseph Gebbia and Teresa Dunn'own the house together but they're not married and they use separate money and Joseph Gebbia owns the farm piece the larger piece. What we discovered is that the property had been owned by the Dietchen family from the thirty's, nineteen thirty-five I believe through the period of time where after Mary passed away. Mary passed away in 1983 but then 39 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting the estate had to be probated,the two sons were the beneficiaries.The two sons passed away during the administration of the proceeding and ultimately those estates got to the end and in 19911 want to say is when the 1994 pardon me the DeBartolos purchased the properties and that was technically the first time that a deed was conveyed out because until that time the Dietchen family had continued to own the property for two generations,full generations. In our investigation and I put all this in writing I'm just recapping,what we discovered is that in the thirties the farm was farmed by Mr. Dietchen,the two children. Mr. Dietchen had put both properties in Mary Dietchen's name and had two sons. When Mr. Dietchen right before he passed away, he conveyed out the properties back excuse me he and Mary said OKAY that's the sixties so even before zoning before the code was adopted with respect to subdivisions or lot recognition and the rest, in the sixties the boys became the farmers they took care of the farm and Mary Dietchen was stayed in the house until her death. What appears to have occurred is that before the town adopted the zoning in the sixties the town first created through the surveying of VanTuyl they created a very basic town map. First time I understand now why there is this town map, it shows up on our town records called the town map. At that time is a precursor to the creation of the tax map cards which in sixty-four the cards are created and at that point the town started creating property cards and providing for the assessment of the properties. It was at that time that the town map showed it as one piece but based on our research and lots of communication with the Assessor's Office it was believed that at that point the Dietchen family went in to see the Assessors and said wait a second you know here's my house, it's on one acre, 200 by 200 which in the sixties was more than the minimum lot size and the rest was the farm.The town documented it,they created the tax property cards to that effect, we gave you proof that's how the county cause the county when they started documenting in creating the county tax map system, they documented through the assessment records they created a tax map number. It started it was 6.1, 6.2 and then over the years just got updated into one number and issued a new number. So, currently now it's 6.4 and 6.5. So, what we you know all this research was well and good but we still couldn't find the deed and we then turned to the law and the law there apparently there are other municipalities where it's discovered that geez you know there's a lot that doesn't conform to the code and the lot recognition was an issue that came up in other cases and I've provided for you the case law with respect to that. A little common sense thank God is in the law and in Sufaro vs. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Bellport in '21 and also citing Lund vs. Edwards it went to the Appellate Division in 1986. The bottom line is, that when a municipality issues permits for lots over the years and its factual you know oftentimes it can be more than one permit and in this case when we apply it to our application we've got multiple permits that have been issued including the Zoning Board consideration of the DeBartolo B&B application which I know was very controversial at the time, the neighborhood was not very happy to have the DeBartolo's create a B&B there. I've assured one of the neighbors we do not want a B&B that is not why we are here.Through the multiple permits that have been issued is I guess unfair, inequitable to declare that the property is not recognized by the town, it does not exist.That is not the case, it does exist. The family DeBartolos corrected or split it again based on what had been documented as separate tax lot numbers. DeBartolos when they did it nobody looked back to see well how was this done?Was is through Planning Board or whatever, it was determined to be based on the historic splitting of the property. I pulled out I had attached previously the property card and I noticed 40 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting the property card I attached was almost illegible so I have it here if you need it. I actually highlighted cause I want to make sure you see it the property card in fact the Assessors when DeBartolo recorded their deeds in still very almost illegible I think it's 2006 1 have it highlighted, it says split to reflect prior lots that's what this language says.Would you like a copy of it, I highlighted it for the Board if you have access to the computer so it might be more legible there but when it was copied, I apologize I didn't notice it was so light.Yes, that's a good copy, do you have yours that you can read? Okay good. I have multiple so here. MEMBER DANTES: I have a question for you Pat. PAT MOORE :Sure go ahead. MEMBER DANTES : In the application it sites both Schedule AA as well as the current Bulk Schedule, which I mean why are both Schedules cited? PAT MOORE : That didn't come from me, so I'm wondering in I mean Bulk Schedule AA reflects lots that were created prior to so it was I think through the seventies you had certain sized lots, it really reflects old the old codes.When this lot was created, I want to say in quotes, "created by the Dietchen family" it was done in the sixties and so that was even before that's when the code required 12,500 sq. ft. as the lot dimensions,that's technically when this all came about. DeBartolo split it based on the priors and he did that in the nineties and by then it was 80,000. 1 don't think AA applied then. MEMBER DANTES : So it depends on which date we determine that the lot was split and then that's the bulk schedule that was PAT MOORE : Do you have an answer? T. A. MCGIVNEY : No, I mean but they're saying that's the quirks of this is that the lot wasn't created. I know you're saying it was created but PAT MOORE :Yea well that's why I'm here. T. A. MCGIVNEY :That's why they referenced PAT MOORE : Okay,so maybe because they're referencing both since it wasn't it's not a recognized lot that we can prove that a deed was recorded prior to a certain date which is the technical definition of lot creation. Why they came up with that 1983 date I tried to find legislative history for it, I don't know. I think maybe because that's when two acre or right about when two-acre zoning went in. So, but by then I mean the family the Dietchen family treated these as two separate properties through the estate process and through the sale it was, I mean that's the way the farm families operated. The reason the town code adopted the lot recognition is because there were so many described properties and farm families that split properties off without Planning Board approval and by deed and it was'83 that's the magic date. If you go back to the code, we looked at the subdivision, we looked everything but the subdivision regulations the Planning Board didn't come to be until I want to say they did major subdivisions yes, A 106 came about in September of'67 and setoffs were not put into the code until 411 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting 1971 so again this the Dietchen family had created these two parcels by tax map. I mean I can't tell you why or why nobody said to them, hey do a deed but you know the old farm families they don't want to spend a dime I know that. I've done lots of these where the farms if they don't have to spend money or do anything it's like why I already have it, it's done. MEMBER DANTES : So, which the specific document that we should be looking at for this 1960's date for the split off? PAT MOOORE : Oh,well we're referring to original tax lot.When the tax lot numbers were created and that was when the town adopted tax map numbers when the county created separate tax map numbers,that's it was a split done by the county and the town right from the beginning. MEMBER DANTES : So is it on the property card here or where specifically is it? PAT MOORE : I attached so I had given to the Board a memo on May 23 d where I attached the property card and I also attached the Suffolk County assessment roll that was first adopted in 1969, 1790 1 have that. MEMBER DANTES: So is that Exhibit A, is that what I'm looking at? PAT MOORE : It is Exhibit probably B. She and I have both lived this, this is Teresa Dunn who has been .instrumental trying to find all of this. TERESA DUNN :There should be a tax map card, it has Mary Dietchen's name on it. PAT MOORE : If you look at the property card they have the multiple when the Assessors reissue property cards the second sheet is the Mary Dietchen property card and that one shows the that's when the tax lot was first assigned to it and the house is reflected in the first assessment of 1961. There's a picture actually of the house,the original house that was there it's the last sheet I have here but it was a small one-story cape.The Betartolos completely blew it up and made a huge addition right before I guess they made the B&B application. TERESA DUNN : It was in 20031 believe. PAT MOORE :There's a picture of the house again in the property cards that I gave you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I just take a moment to clarify exactly what relief we're looking at? First of all, there's a legalized the subdivision of these two lots is one thing for the setoff however you want to describe it. Secondly, then we have a lot size of 40,000 right where the code is now requiring 80,000;we have a lot width of 200 is that correct? PAT MOORE : It is 200 by 200 yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : According to the Notice if Disapproval the code requires 175 so why is that not conforming that width?Thirdly,the depth is 200 the code requires 250 but I don't understand that reason why that width is not conforming is the code says 175 is required and proposed is 200. 421 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting Secondly, I want to ask a question about the arbor that's being used by this smaller lot, clearly you can see the fencing you know is going around, that fencing is going off into the other lot. The arbor is technically located on the larger lot or no man's land however you want to describe it but it's not on the actual property it's not within the lines the property lines on this survey. PAT MOORE :Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now if it belongs to the smaller lot and is being used by the smaller lot it will have to be removed and placed on that lot PAT MOORE :That is not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and in a conforming location. PAT MOORE : That is not a problem. However, let me continue, because out first step is lot recognition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right PAT MOORE : Once we have lot recognition the next phase of this is going to the Planning Board for a lot line modification. We spoke to Mark Terry in the Planning Board about this cause that was our end goal here. I have from the surveyor actually the site plan I don't have the survey I have a site plan so you can see so what the goal here is, once lot recognition is in place then we can do a very simple lot line modification.The Goal here is to make sure that the house has it has the only access being Condor Ct. The farm will continue to have as it's sole access the Main Rd. as it's been since the thirties.That's been a situation the access has been there for multiple generations. MEMBER LEHNERT:So you're going to remove this little road? T.A. MCGIVNEY: Isn't that a right of way? PAT MOORE : It's a dirt yea it's a right of way probably not because while there's common ownership it's a short cut and it enables the farming convenience but if it ever sells and there's no plan in the near future to sell but at any point and time then we can clearly establish listen we're not having farm vehicles nothing, nothing is going on Condor Ct.we want exclusive use of the farm piece with the right of way. So,that's our next step but it's a certainly a bigger it's a completely different application if we have a lot recognition which is in our belief what we originally should have had. It's a simple lot line modification,there are real no substantive issues related to a lot line modification. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So hold on a second, I just want to get what you said about the access,the larger home will be solely accessed right on Condor Ct? PAT MOORE :The lot that is currently 200 by 200? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea 43 June 6,2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE :Will be on a larger lot. T.A. MCGIVNEY:You said the larger home. PAT MOORE :Yea you said larger home so I wasn't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry I meant the lot. PAT MOORE : So Condor Ct. is now the access for the home, it will continue to be and with the lot line change you can see that the proposed line takes you right to the edge of the town road Condor Ct. So that is a straight, it eliminates really the issue of non-conformity. I think by lot recognition I don't really need variances for the lot itself as it exists because our next step is to modify it but if you need to give me variances as well as lot recognition I'll take it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I still don't understand the discrepancy. PAT MOORE :That I hadn't noticed it but you know T.A. MCGIVNEY :You said that you spoke with Amanda, did you ask her why this PAT MOORE :You know, I didn't notice it I didn't ask her. T. A. MCGIVNEY:The entire notice (inaudible) 200. PAT MOORE : It took us a while, we were dealing with lot recognition primarily and I think it was in my oversight I didn't even notice the 175 cause it's not, it's 200 by 200 that's the way it is. BOARD ASSISTANT: I copied the N.O.D. PAT MOORE : I believe you, I don't even have the notice in front of me I'd have to search it. MEMBER DANTES : Can we go back to that assessment roll for a second cause that I'm sorry I have trouble reading these old ones. So, basically, we're looking at Mary Deitchen and then to identify the parcel we look at the names of north, east, south and west cause they don't have the tax map numbers or anything like that. Is that PAT MOORE : I'm not sure what you're looking at, let me see what you mean. MEMBER DANTES : What identifies these two parcels (inaudible) the two parcels that you're looking at. PAT MOORE : It does have the tax map number. MEMBER DANTES : It does,where? PAT MOORE :The number right there. MEMBER DANTES : Oh I couldn't read that, I don't know its too small. June 6,2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Let me ask. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do they only reference the numbers.Pat? The last three digits the farm is 136 whereas the lot is 236 but those aren't the tax map numbers. PAT MOORE : It's 6.2 and 6.3 1 highlighted them. MEMBER DANTES: Oh okay,where does it say that? PAT MOORE : Here and here. MEMBER DANTES : Oh so those two little no I have trouble reading those little, basically what she's saying is we leave these two that she highlighted 6.2 and 6.6 PAT MOORE :Where it says here description MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry Pat,where does it say 6.2? I'm looking at his which is highlighted. MEMBER DANTES : The numbers do add up, it says (inaudible) 17 acres and this one is .92 so there's your.91. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Those numbers don't make sense though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on folks,we are having several conversations going on all at once. T.A. MCGIVNEY :This is what she's proposing,this is going to be the (inaudible). PAT MOORE : I think it actually says .01 and yea MEMBER DANTES : Here's a question for you Pat, is there a document that lines up the parcel number with the two lots like a tax map or something like that? PAT MOORE :The property cards did. MEMBER DANTES :The property cards have a parcel number on it? r PAT MOORE :Yes MEMBER DANTES:Where's that? PAT MOORE : Look at the old property card. MEMBER DANTES : Exhibit A? PAT MOORE :Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on you know what, this is not helpful. I mean I want everybody to hear the same thing okay. If you've got questions or comments or insights or whatever let's all hear them and then I want to hear what she was talking to Eric about. 45 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Basically, they have this Town of Southold assessment role from 1969-1970 and it highlighted two lots, lots No. 7818 and 7819 and Pat is walking us through the property card that identifies 7818 and 7819 as the two subject lots in this application. PAT MOORE :Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : That's where we are now. If that's a property cards that you just handed out in front of me so on hopefully on one of those there's a 7818 and a 7819. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand what Eric just shared but how do we find out what the Suffolk County lot no.7818 and 7819 are? MEMBER DANTES : We have to go through the property cards and hopefully the numbers are on here somewhere. PAT MOORE : I'm looking at the property card,they were MEMBER ACAMPORA: I don't see anything on them. PAT MOORE :Yea I don't see the MEMBER DANTES : That's what we need to figure out, that's kind of what this whole application is crux on. PAT MOORE : Well we this is what the county gave us through their (inaudible)just put on the record who provided that assessment roll property cards. TERESA DUNN : These are actually available on-line download but then real property also has a they had the property originally on the very first map as one lot and it was changed and they told me they could only change this by submitting a form 102 from the Tax Assessors Office. It is shown in 1982 as two lots on the county map so they have the lot numbers and everything. So, it would be in 1982 county has it on a county map as two lots at that point. PAT MOORE : Remember there were no they did this there were no deeds recorded but that's when they documented it. T. A. MCGIVNEY : When did the county, when did they adopt their regulation for you know doing a lot line change or doing a subdivision? PAT MOORE :The county? T.A. MCGIVNEY :Yea PAT MOORE : Well the Health Department uses 1981 tax map as the threshold of when they needed to review subdivisions or splits so if it pre-dates the really the 1982 tax map that is used by the Health Department to document a pre-existing subdivision or split or described property however it existed 461 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting at the time. That snapshot in time is how they document when the Health Department reviews it. So, that's a Health Department question.The county I don't know how far back real property went; it was really documenting the what we see are the property cards through the Assessors Office. They both the Assessors and real property get together and they are the ones who first created the cards. TERESA DUNN : I was told that Southold Town was their test for building the first county map which they started to try and build in 1977. MEMBER DANTES : So, basically we just need a document that links these two numbers up with the parcels that's kind of where we're at. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The tax roll illustrates the column as parcel number and then the two parcels in question have those numbers that are explained to me (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it exists. You know there was a time yes where the tax map numbers got changed and our office was consistently when I first came on there was like a box of index cards. Those were the ones that we were used to using and the tax map numbers by the county got changed. PAT MOORE : Well they're changing the tax map continuously because every time that if there's a deed recorded or a change of anything be it a lot line modification, an easement whatever they put to sleep the old number and replace it with a new number so that's why this property has now the third level of numbers but it's been consistent.The point started, .1, .2 and then it went to 3.4 and 4 and 5. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know, if the lots get recognized then they would be pre-existing and if they don't meet the bulk schedule in which in one moment they say it does and then the next moment it doesn't it doesn't matter. PAT MOORE : Exactly, this recognition will not change our tax map numbers or our the county's records. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All we have to really do is say historically it had been recognized and you're saying your case law has provided information that says if municipalities issued permits then it's a de facto recognition of some sort is that correct? T.A. MCGIVNEY : I acknowledge your interpretation but as far as the Kufaro case was that do we know if that's on appeal? PAT MOORE : I'm not aware of T. A. MCGIVNEY: I don't either so I can't say definitely that that's not going to be a return and as far as the Lund case,the Lund case had a I thought that the Lund case was distinguished because it had a the property sizes were a lot closer and they were having permits issued for structures that were additions. In our case in this case, I should say the Building Department just by giving a building permit for the barn to make alterations doesn't establish that it's a legally established lot because the barn is accessory to the house at this time. 47 June 6,2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : But I would respectfully disagree that in fact it is right on all fours as we say, because the house had multiple permits, it had special permit for a B&B so it's had I think I listed four different permits from the house,the barn had it's own permit.The barn you're right it's accessory it could have been accessory but the house which is really the lot recognition we're talking about is related to the house and that lot that had multiple permits and from the time Debartolo purchased it and it got a pool permit. I mean there have been additional permits. TERESA DUNN : (inaudible) restricted even during our pool permit (inaudible) of all the setback of a one acre lot. T. A. MCGIVNEY : But you're acknowledging that the barn was accessory, so then the house getting multiple permits I don't understand how that makes that house lot that determines that that's a lot because the house it's a one-family house on a large piece of property and they're issuing permits for alterations. I don't see where PAT MOORE : No because every application showed setbacks to the property line that we all thought existed. So, you can't in one hand say well you know it didn't matter that there were property lines you would have gotten building permits anyway. No, that's you know yes, we would have gotten permits but they would have been completely different, they would have been different setbacks, different you know whatever the plans would have shown something completely different. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Pat, along that same train of thought but in reverse and I understand that you're looking for lot recognition for the 200 by 200, one acre residential lot take us through the permits on the barn building cause the barn building doesn't look like a barn it looks like a house. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think you're in Justice Court because that is the alterations that were done to the barn, it is a home it's a second dwelling right now? I know it's in Justice Court, what is the violation in Justice Court? TERESA DUNN : It's a timber frame and it's completely open on the inside. So, there are no interior walls in that structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any plumbing, I did see plumbing and a great big wine barrel of some sort. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just driving by you can see through the windows the openness but you can also see there's clearly a kitchen there's (inaudible) it reads as a house. I was just asking(inaudible) TERESA DUNN :The permits are completely stalled based on this lot recognition right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :And what permits are you looking for? TERESA DUNN : It's actually an "as built" at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :An "as built" second dwelling? 48 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting T.A. MCGIVNEY : Only if it's approved, it's an "as built" second dwelling at this moment. TERESA DUNN :We had gotten to the point of just having inspections. T. A. MCGIVNEY : But it's in Justice Court for violations. TERESA DUNN : Well yes, it is in Justice Court for violations. We filed all of the permit applications and at the very final stage when we were trying to get the Building Inspector to do his walk-through Amanda found this and everything stopped. PAT MOORE : So it was almost to the point of correcting everything. TERESA DUNN : She said everything is ready for inspection except PAT MOORE :John did his inspections, he's been in there, has T. A. MCGIVNEY : He's just going off his inspection report he's not going there and saying okay this is a legally recognized lot and this is PAT MOORE : No, no, no. T. A. MCGIVNEY :So his doing his inspections PAT MOORE : I thought that what you were asking. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can we back up here for a moment, what prompted the violation? Why is it in Justice Court? TERESA DUNN :That was the violation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What prompted the Justice Court situation? That was the violation that there is now a second house that it was discovered two houses on a single lot? T.A. MCGIVNEY: Building without permits,for a Certificate of Occupancy, at this point I find that there is so much information that needs to be clarified I don't know I mean we need proof from Amanda as to why the N.O.C. was written this way the Justice Court file is to (inaudible) violations are for. I just feel like there's a lot of unanswered information that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what just because I want to make sure everybody has all the information that you can provide and everything that we want to talk to the Building Department about I mean it's very it throws one if you're looking at a Notice of Disapproval that we think should have been written as an approval, we have one thing that says the lot is approved in the Bulk Schedule, we have another that says the lot width is non-conforming, there are just some dangling things here that need to get sorted out so I think that maybe the best way to do that is to simply say submit whatever you want. I'm going to suggest we adjourn to the Special Meeting in two weeks and then 49 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE :Well I want an opportunity to respond cause I don't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you can I mean it'll be open so, I'm saying you'll have all the information whatever we turn up is going to be part of our public record and you'll have complete access and you'll have an opportunity to agree with or disagree with and whatever you want to do with it and that way we'll have some of these very you know kind of mirky and complicated questions answered better. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just want to clarify, I don't think you necessarily we'll let you think that the Notice of Disapproval should have been approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, I'm just saying there's let me restate it. My original questions stands as to why it was cited with a lot depth I mean a lot width of the code requirement of 175 feet and you're proposing 200 and it was issued as a non-conforming you know T.A. MCGIVNEY :Just to clarify that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to know why maybe she was in error, maybe not I don't PAT MOORE : Maybe because it's a right of way and the road frontage of the right of way is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : removed it? PAT MOORE : I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need to find out. PAT MOORE :That's fine CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't stamp drawings that don't you know have approvals that are based upon the Disapproval, we all need to have the same consistent information for it to be a really proper determination. T.A. MCGIVNEY: Right and then the other thing we haven't even addressed yet is the road the right of way and the access to the property so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea I mean does 280-A get thrown into all of this? PAT MOORE : Well it's not a subdivision it's an existing condition so you Condor Ct. is a�town road so you have access to it that way that one. The right of way to the Main Rd. is not changing that's really as a farm and as an improved property it'll continue to have the legal access that it"s always had. So, I don't think we need 280A if it's not a subdivision it's not changing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as it's going to be well that's for Planning, you're going to do that through Planning. ,,G June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Well that's why I want lot recognition because it takes away all the issues of 280A and you know open space and sixty percent and the crazy stuff that we now imposed on the subdivision regulations when it's for one existing lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just fill in one other thing, it's not cited but then they never do there's an awful lot of extensive wetlands you know all over the place, are you going to need Trustees for any of this? PAT MOORE : Well no everything that is currently there already has permits has Trustees permits. So, all the permits the regulatory permits on the barn alteration were all attained prior to so it has D.E.C., it has Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure, I know site plan approval will be required for this lot line modification, Planning Board approval. PAT MOORE : Planning Board but Trustees do not have (inaudible)they only had CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure cause as soon as you see wetlands it's like wait a minute. PAT MOORE : I would point out that these are actually cranberry bogs and they want to reestablish them as cranberry bogs in the agricultural portion it's a beautiful piece of property I know you've all seen it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We have,we have.Alright,we're running way over. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, one if we're talking about the barn building I'm speaking about the one to the north of the property, that's not the original barn that was there. Do you need further variances does this need to be discussed for the expansion of this building? For that lot size it's not going to meet the setbacks. MEMBER DANTES : No cause they've already been there and inspected all the stuff with the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From the Exhibit there's no permits cause they it's"as built". PAT MOORE : It meets setbacks. TERESA DUNN :Amanda had no problem with the setbacks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The only other thing I want to comment on was what we received yesterday and I don't see the Twoumey, Lathan,Shea representative on the phone. MEMBER DANTES :She's right there. 5,,E June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh of course, what I just wanted to say though is instead of having the discussion at the Special Meeting it might be better to adjourn it to next month's public meeting but I guess she's here so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I guess we did say we were going to so this is what we got the ninety six page PAT MOORE : I didn't get a copy of anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You know what, I think given that what happened was and we're absolutely I will tell everybody in this room henceforth, unless the Board of Appeals receives any additional things relative to an application the Friday before a Public Hearing we will not accept it. We will accept it at the hearing and if we,we got a ninety-six-page document last night. PAT MOORE : Oh last night that explains why we haven't seen it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Last night, that is unfair to whether it's in support of or in opposition people need to be able to see everything in our public record and the Board has got to have time to read it and digest it and understand it. Consequently, it's just confusing and it requires an adjournment so I think probably because of that I think you need to have a copy of this and we need to read it. All I read was the first two pages. Well at eleven o'clock at night I'm getting ready for something other than reading Zoning Board its great bedtime reading. The point is I think we're right maybe what we should do is adjourn this to next month. There's just so many moving parts and I just want to make sure we're all on the same page with the same information. T.A. MCGIVNEY : I agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, let's do that let's Kim can you make certain that you email to Pat the information that, I know you have copies. MARTHA REEICHERT : I do which I would like to submit and there are also members of the public who are my clients who would like to have an opportunity to be heard before it adjourns today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's perfectly fine for you to testify, I'm just saying that we're yes we will definitely hear what you have to say. However, I think probably we're still going to need to adjourn but nevertheless let's go ahead. Please just state your name for the record if you would. MARTHA REICHERT : My name is Martha Reichert I'm with the law firm Twoumey, Lathan, She, Kelley, Dubin and Quartararo 33 West 2nd St. Riverhead, New York. I'm here for adjoining property owner John Mangieri who owns 1900 Rt. 25 and also 2050 Rt. 25 in Laurel. One of the reasons that my clients are particularly interested in this application which is before the Board is that they are one of the properties that was formally burdened by this right of way. What I have submitted in the package is several different items that are compelling proof that right of way is since been extinguished and the Board should be aware of that. There is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Dietchen administrators and Mary Dietchen's estate stipulated to and agreed on with all the other right of way 55 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting properties including the Long Island Railroad, Half Hollow Nursery and George McCarthy who is the predecessor and title to Mr. Mangieri that the Dietchen right of way would extinguish upon those properties attaining access from another roadway which is what happened in 1995 when the Highway Department accepted Condor Ct. into the highway system. In 1995 the DeBartolo's obtained permits from the Trustees to build a bridge over the creek to access Condor Ct. they got a driveway opening approval from the Highway Department. In the 2003 Special Exception permit process for the Bed and Breakfast the DeBartolos testified before this Board that their right of way was temporary in nature and that it could not be considered a permanent right of way which shows the awareness that it had been extinguished and that was the motivation for obtaining access to Condor Ct. MEMBER DANTES : Wait so you're not here to argue against the lot recognition or the subdivision, you're just here to clarify that the right of way is extinguished. MARTHA REICHERT That's one element, I am here to oppose the current application that's before the Board in addition to also clearing up and clarifying to the Board my client's position in terms that there is no right of way going through their property. That may have to be adjudicated to a higher court but in terms of what's before this Board right now I think that's very material because what you're looking at right now is really creating two lots right. If you recognize one then it means that there are two residential lots and the applicant's have made a claim that these lots function independently because one takes access from Condor Ct. and the other one has an existing right of way to the Main Rd. through three different properties. Here we can show that in a testimony that was provided to this Board in 2003 the prior owner conceded that the right of way was temporary in nature and there is again a stipulated Supreme Ct. judgement setting forth that that right of way would expire, it would terminate when the two Dietchen tax map lot numbers received access from another road. Again,you know that with respect to the lot recognition we oppose it because in 2003 again the issue of merger was raised before this Board during the Special Exception permit process and within the packet that I've submitted I have excerpts from the transcript where Mr. DeBartolo in response to a memo from the Assessors Office indicating that these lots had merged said that he didn't know which way it would be, had they merged, had they not merged but that he said what we have here is an eighteen acre parcel and he was trying to get his Special Exception use. So, I think that there are some real substantive legal issues here in terms of the lot recognition and whether or not these lots have merged. The only think that Pat Moore and I agree on today is that this is a very technical application and it's further complicated by the fact that you have an environmentally sensitive parcel. I mean the majority of this parcel is wetlands and so even if you just look at the numbers on the survey of what's wetlands and what's technically uplands it's really doesn't reflect the conditions on the ground because all of that what might technically called uplands on the westerly side of the creek and the bog right is not usable for residential use. So, you really have this very narrow strip where formally they were just accessory structures and I'm talking about what's called lot 6.4 and then you have this small out parcel which is called lot 6.5 right now. One of things that was in my packet and that I also disagree with Pat Moore's characterization is that when so I put in a copy of the 1966 map the old town map which shows this parcel as a single parcel and then the 1977 tax map shows it as lot 6.0.The Board has heard a lot of testimony about tax assessment rolls,tax map parcels and I kind of go back to 531 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting what was drilled into me in law school which is the tax map is the lowest form of description. It's there as a tool for the county to collect taxes. The highest forms of property description are what you find in your deeds right which are metes and bounds, reference to a filed subdivision map and most of the time in modern conveying right on your Schedule A which is where you have the legal description of a property when it conveyed, if a tax map parcel number is included there's usually always those words "for reference purposed only" because the tax maps are notoriously inaccurate right? People can go to the Assessor and say, oh my lot should really be this parcel and this parcel and it's supposed to be based on deeds but I think what you have here is a very clear history from 1935 to 1994 where this property whether it had tax map parcel 6.1 and 6.2 was used by a single common owner, it had one principal structure and then accessory barns on another tax map parcel, right because there was a differentiation in the tax classifications. So, you know I think that while it's very relevant to have all of that history, what you really have to look at are the deeds right which is why when we deal with lot recognition or a merger we look at, have they been single and separate, do they function independently? I think that if you look at the aerials and the history of these properties, they were owned in common ownership by the Dietchen family until 1994. They were owned in common ownership by the DeBartolo's by a single deed until 2006 when they conveyed to the current owners of lots 6.4 and 6.5. However, one of the things that I found really striking is that merger was raised as an issue in 2003 before this Board but the Board's decision never took a position on it because again all that was really looked at was adding a Special Exception use to the principal structure on the property. So, I don't think we can say that the issue is put to bed in 2003 by this Board because the Board's decision is completely silent on the merger issue. What I find more compelling is the fact that the DeBartolo's shortly after the Special Exception use and in connection with whatever they had on their mind they conveyed the two parcels again described as a single parcel in 2004, DeBartolo to DeBartolo. When Real Property recorded it because it was described as a single parcel,they merged it which is how we got to lot 6.3 and if you pull up the tax map numbers or the tax map from that aerial, you'll see 6.3 goes back to be a single lot and then shortly before it was conveyed to the current owners the DeBartolo's you know asked the Assessors to go back and so it becomes lot 6.4 and 6.5, the decimal numbers tell a story on the tax map right? Again,just because we have this history of tax map numbers changing is about taxes it's not about zoning and the code and that's what merger is about, right? So, the Tax Assessors are not empowered to unmerge a lot, this Board is. So, this is a very live issue before your Board to look at deeply and that's really, I think what we've come here to ask today is probably what this Board already realizes that there are a lot of different moving parts here from the technical aspects of merger to the legal idea of whether or not there is a right of way I mean I think that the MEMBER DANTES : Merger doesn't apply, merger pops out at 40,000 sq. ft. I mean this is whether or not it ever merged (inaudible)of it's ever been subdivided or divided. MARTHA REICHERT : I think you should look at the code though because it says under 280-9 it says there's two elements to 280-9, it is a lot is recognized or exempt from merger if its 40,000 sq. ft. and it's been recognized under 280-9 that's what the code says. So, it's not just the mere fact that it's 40,000 sq. ft. that doesn't save it from merger. It has to have been on a subdivision map or right 54 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting existed recognized by deed, formal recognition by the Board all of those things which is what we're here for today because there is no lot recognition. So, this property isn't saved from merger until this Board first recognizes it. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible)that it's merged it's that it's never actually been divided. (inaudible) MARTH REICHERT : You know it's a philosophical way to view it, in my understanding as a land use attorney and Southold has this lot recognition aspect but merger is by operation of law. So, if you don't have lot recognition then your parcel merges, it doesn't matter that one of them was 40,000 sq. ft because the current zoning here is minimum 80,000 lot size. Just taking that into account what you have here is an applicant or two applicants who have come before this Board asking for zoning relief right an exception from the law, an exception from merger or to recognize a lot where it doesn't meet the criteria for lot recognition right all these things needed to happen before 1983. When you do that of course anytime this Board carries out its charges you have to look at your balancing right, does it merit the exception from the law? I think one of the things that's very important to look at this parcel is that it is extraordinarily constrained by environmental conditions. It has freshwater wetlands; it has tidal wetlands and I think that the history shows that it's functioned as a single parcel for decades. Then on top of it you have the added complication of the fact that there are a myriad of violations here. Again, I don't agree with the statement that everything has a permit because we know that the quote unquote, reconstructed barn on lot 6.4 was originally permitted by the Trustees as an in-place rebuilding of a dilapidated barn right, it was meant to be about 1,500 sq. ft. It got a Trustees permit in 2012 and it had a D.E.C. permit. The D.E.C. permit was amended to permit a sanitary system but the Trustee permit was never amended and it expired two years after it was issued. Circa 2008 is when the applicants went ahead and built what they wanted to build which was something not built in-place and built twice the size. I mean there's an extraordinary difference between what was meant to be rebuilt there I mean so much so that it was deemed a minor action under the LWRP because it was just an in-place reconstruction of an accessory farm building. What we have here now though is you know an estate with a residence that was built with no Trustee permit, no D.E.C. permit in terms for the size that it was built or the representation that it is a single-family residence and zero building permits right. So,you have that all there is so many different layers and so it is very technical but also on the 6.5 parcel you have the arbor that is technically on 6.4 but clearly functioning as part of 6.5 and the swimming pool there never received a Trustee permit. So, you have cases where there are partial permits but not everything for all of the things. So, the swimming pool in my mind is problematic because it didn't receive Trustee approvals and it's clearly within wetland permitting jurisdiction.Then you also have all of the issues of the things that were built on 6.4 including a very large single-family residence that is approximately sixty feet I believe from the fresh water wetlands boundary. Finally, and I do appreciate the Board for taking the time to let me make these comments, I think a referral to the Trustees for their comments or maybe even a collaborative effort between this Board to figure out how to unravel this in an equitable and fair way is needed because it is very complicated and I think that what happens when one hand doesn't know what the other is doing is you end up with situations like this. I think that this Board should look at the fact that this is an entirely self-created hardship by what I would call applicants who clearly knew what they were doing. They had a strategy; you don't SS June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting accidentally build a structure of this caliber and size without realizing that you didn't have permits for it. So, it comes down to how much this Board is willing to reward that kind of behavior by creating two independent single-family residential parcels on an incredibly environmentally constrained parcel. Finally, again to just go back to the road access issue, the applicants have stated that 6.5 and I know I haven't seen the map that was just handed in but currently as it stands and again, I think this goes to the idea that these parcels function as a single property is the fact that 6.5 is still technically landlocked as it stands right now. You're being asked to recognize a landlocked parcel that utilizes currently and identifies itself as 475 Condor Ct. but there is no easements over 6.4, there's no right of way that's been granted even though our applicants claim that they are you know independent parcels. So, I think that again something to address, something to look at because while I can appreciate the reasons why the applicants what to have the lot recognized first before they go through a lot line modification or a resub division I can't help but feel like this is a segmentation of real meaningful review of the greater picture because this is even if it's a phased approach for strategic reasons the end result is that the applicant's are looking to create two single family residential parcels to legalize essentially a tremendous amount of "as built" construction on a property that is highly constrained by wetlands. I know that you have the Planning Board comments as well that they currently oppose this application. Again, I thank the Board for the time to let me sort of present an abbreviated version of what's in my submission and I don't know if you have any questions for me at this time but I also have my clients who would like to just make a personal statement.Thank you. JOHN MANGIERI : Ladies and gentlemen of the Board my name is John Mangieri, I am the owner of one of the properties that the extinguished by court order right of way passed through. I have owned 2050 Main Rd. for thirty years this July Is' and I would like to shed light on the history of the right of way, the farming or lack thereof on the DeBartolo/Gebbia property and the numerous misrepresentations and provable falsehoods contained in the application. For starters, when I moved in the right of way was in disrepair. I met the DeBartolo's and as a gesture of goodwill to my new neighbors who said that they had been mistreated by my predecessor George McCarthy I fixed the right of way for them free of charge as I had the equipment to do so. I had a long friendship with the DeBartolo's, ate and drank with them, helped them dig out when we had blizzards and had permission to frequent their property anytime I liked as I used to like to walk in my younger days so I know the property very well. When the DeBartolo's had the opportunity to build the bridge they told me that the right of way would be extinguished if they got egress to another road and they were anxious to do so. It would increase the value of their property and also mine; they accessing an upscale subdivision instead of a substandard temporary right of way which he alludes to before this Board in 2003 and me not having a right of way across my property. I did not build the bridge but I built the road from the bridge to Condor Ct. I also sent the letter proving the viability of the bridge a letter from my lawyer has found and now you have or if you don't I have a copy of that letter, I also have a copy of my remarks to be transcribed. I built this at my cost for my neighbors. The DeBartolo's stopped using the right of way and I let it grow over which you are welcomed to come and see. No one has passed from Main Rd.through it in twenty years. My current neighbor of eight-or nine-years Steven Schott and the former owner Mindy Ryan will attest to this. No one has passed through in twenty years. Last year the Gabbai's decided to try to bully their way through the extinguished right of way claiming it is in 56 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting continuous use.Approvable falsehood by eyewitness,aerial photography and the overgrown nature of the right of way. They never used it, maintained it or insured it. The Gebbia's were our friends for seventeen years, we frequently socialized before they tried to steal our property rights last year. We helped them support one side of the old barn that was supposed to be reconstructed. I went out and propped it up myself so that they would we hoped need less permits to rebuild but instead they build a mansion without permits which my lawyer has discovered and apparently you have too. In regards to the farm operations, the DeBartolo's had some grapes which failed and were removed. The Gebbia's have an estate not a farm, they have a large garden with raised beds which I produced the original composted soil for. They do not have fields; they have a lawn with a few fruit trees not a viable orchard. In this application they said the cranberry bog is still in use if you read the application number six. The (inaudible) necessary for this was unusable thirty years ago and had been so for decades. It was torn down in the making of the bridge. There are no cranberries on the property unless they planted a bed next to the new barn mansion, I don't know about again not a farm operation but a garden. If they say that they want to get this cranberry bog back in operation they're going to need all kinds of permits from the D.E.C. to get a title (inaudible). I know about farming I'm a nurseryman too. The building violations and lack of permits as uncovered by my lawyer are of substantial and ecologically areas there is no farming operation, it is an estate with a big garden. In order to move forward the Gebbias need to remove the claim of right of way, clean up the numerous violations and go through the subdivision process like everyone else. They can claim no special circumstances or hardship, in fact they've been patently dishonest in all their dealings with this Board and the town. I expect and I'm sure that the Board will act on the court decision,factual documents as presented by my lawyer and discoveries by their investigations. I'm sure that it can be resolved but also in regards to your point about the documents coming in late, this is the first I heard of them attacking us. It attacked us last June stating that they had continuous use of a right of way which was extinguished and we went back and forth with our lawyers on that. Then, they knew that 1 was away because I'm a seasonal businessman and they tried to come before the Board in February.They knew that I was away, I got no notice of it. Then, I got a notice last Thursday, not his Thursday but the Thursday previous that, oh there's going to be a hearing and we have this right of way that we're going to put before the Board as part and I had no time to respond to this, I had to scramble and get my lawyers to do research. While I do apologize about the lateness of the submission it's because I was not notified in a timely manner to be able to do my due diligence. Again, I'm sorry about my tone but I'm really angry and upset that my neighbors who I was friends with for years and years and years have stabbed me in the back and tried to steal my property rights. Please look at the case in Supreme Court, you have it before you, this right of way has been extinguished and this should never have come before the Board. Part of this whole machinations by segmenting it is a sneaky way to try to regain access by getting your approval. So,we need to clean this up.Thank you very much for listening to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. I believe there's a hand raised here from Cornell Cooperative Extension in Suffolk County. Liz, would you bring them in please. Tell us what you'd like to have us hear please,state your name. 571 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting STEVE SCHOTT : I am not here as a representative of Cornell Cooperative Extension. Due to how long things took I had taken time off from work to sit at home and attend this through Zoom but I had to go back to work so I'm on my work computer. My name is Steve Schott, I am the current homeowner at 2570 Main Rd. Laurel. I have part of the original right of way on my property connecting the Main Rd. through the eastern edge of my property into Mr. Mangieri's nursery and connecting into the right of way that once went through his property. I just wanted to offer support to Mr. Mangled of the fact I've been at the house over eight and a half months I'm sorry eight and a half years I'll be.there nine years in October and we've never had anyone come through and claim they were using my driveway as a right of way. Most of the right of way is actually wooded and impassible so they would actually have to come onto my property outside of the right of way to access it. So, I'm just offering support that you know the right of way has not been used at least in the almost nine years that I've been there. I was told the same because I brought it up when I was buying the house from the previous homeowner Minnie Ryan that she had never had anyone use the right of way either. That's all I have to say,thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your testimony. Please come to the mic. DAVID LEAVY : My name is David Leavy and I live on White Eagle Drive which is at the top of the "T" intersection, my house is at the top of the "T" intersection that is formed by White Eagle Drive and Condor Ct. the street that's in question here. When the hearing notice went up on a tree outside the property involved it caught some angst in our community because there's a history of at least I'm told there's a history because I'm only there for six years that prior to my arrival there, there were some problems in the community because the property in question had been used as a Bed and Breakfast. You have to admit that the notice of hearing while legally sufficient in every way doesn't really tell a lay person who's reading it what's going on. So, people got nervous about what was contemplated and I said to them, before you march on Town Hall why don't I'll go to the hearing and see if I can figure out what's going on. As of twenty minutes ago I thought I was going to tell you that our concerns have been allayed because Ms. Moore was good enough to have a conversation with me out in the hallway and she explained to me in simpler terms what was happening here. I told her what the concerns were and it seemed to me that the concerns had been addressed by what they were planning to do.The concerns in the community are really two main ones; one was that the relief being sought here was merely a part of a plan that was going to result in the conversion of a barn on the agricultural property involved into a single-family residence and not a Bed and Breakfast. Part two was that access to the farm property would be through the Main Rd. and only the Main Rd. and specifically not through Condor Ct. which seemed to me everything the people in our community were concerned about. So, as I say as of twenty minutes ago, I was going to thank Ms. Moore and I do thank her for the time she spent with me and to tell this Board that I thought that the needs of our community have been met. As long as this question has been raised about the availability of that access to the general public, I would urge the Board to do what you're talking about doing which is to adjourn and try and sort some things out and I would ask that you recognize the concerns of our community that that right of way still exists and if not to take whatever action is appropriate. se June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is why we have public hearings. DAVID LEAVY : And that's why I came. I thank you very much. By the way, also because I found out about this on very short notice and my first instinct was to call your office and somebody named Donna who I believe is you was very helpful on the phone in giving me some information and telling me where I can find other information.So, I thank you and I thank her. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much. Okay we have a lot to think about here and in fairness to everybody we're going to need to have everybody have time to digest all of this to look into all of the various things that we've heard, the written submissions and I'm sure we're going to have additional questions and comments and certainly the public will now have greater access in general the neighborhood in these continuous concerns. So, I'm going to I think we should adjourn it to next month does that make sense to everybody? That's going to be July 11th, I don't know exactly what time, you want to put them on in the afternoon? Make it the last one. We haven't gotten the agenda quite set up just yet but we'll certainly the office will let everybody know and we will see you all next month.So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to July 111h, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA: Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries see you in July. We have a choice; we are so far behind. We can maybe take a five minute break, and then come back and just carry on because people are here and they're waiting and we can have our lunch afterwards. Okay, so motion to adjourn for five minutes. MEMBER ACAMPORA: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries. 59 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. HEARING#7916—1420 SMITH DRIVE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 1420 Smith Drive, LLC#7916. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124,Article XXXVI Section 280-207A(1) (d) and the Building Inspector's February 5, 2024 amended February 27, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single family dwelling and an accessory garage 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 35 feet, 3) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for a lot containing up to 40,000 sq.ft. in area located at 1420 Smith Drive South in Southold. GAIL WICKHAM : Good afternoon,Abigail Wickham of Wickham, Bressler and Geasa of Mattituck, New York for the applicant. Also here is Mr. Gary Scalice who he and his wife Anne are the property owners. First, I'd like to thank the ZBA staff and the ZBA for the extended process that we've been through in getting to this point. Starting with Mr. Kimack's application which sadly he was unable to continue. The property was purchased from the estate of a deceased person and it came with a lot of baggage. The executor was not willing to address the things the owner had done to pack those bags and required an as is sale. The Scalice's who are going to make this their home, it's not a spec home realize that to only clean up the antiquated dwelling but to fit in their family, their vehicles and to address the low level of a basement and other improvements they were going to need a full house renovation and it would address all of those issues that they inherited as part of that plan. They are just on the verge of the numbers for determining demolition versus renovation and reserve the right to run the numbers to come in under the demo designation. They decided for this application that they would go forward without trying to juggle all those values and term it a demo. That as you can 60 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting see from the application has finally landed in your file is just slightly over the allowed GFA. I would argue that this could be considered de minimus for the reasons in the application as amended. The process in getting to this point however is as common with an old property that needs work has resulted in what is probably the record for me for the number of amended Disapprovals in one application. So, I have to again thank your staff and also Amanda for their help as we sorted it out. We now have before you what we tried to make as clear as possible with the various diagrams. There's several areas of modification to the existing structure are each separate and distinct in different parts of the residence and are each relatively small, it's the aggregate that requires us to be here. An attempt was made to keep the original house essentially the same with the following modifications and I'm just going to abbreviate them. The attached garage is being changed into part of the interior residential area but reduced in size from the existing garage area. A detached garage will be built to address the vehicles. All that work is in compliance with code as to yard and setback requirements. The existing attached garage will now be converted as I said to residential interior to house primarily the mud room, laundry, relocating the mechanicals from the basement and a small stairway. The existing lower level of the house now is partially a crawl space and a low height basement under part of the house. While the house is above the flood plane its in the X zone, the basement where the mechanicals currently are does on occasion take in water that's managed by a sump,pump but the Scalice's thought it is not a good risk to keep it there with rising tides and moving it up to where the garage used to be and also some additional on the second floor. The first floor will now house the master bedroom which I think Gary is going to need by the time he gets done with this project, he'll be so exhausted to have a bedroom on the first floor. The northwest extension will make the master a reasonable size and shape. It is that corner of the master that is just that's the 22.4 feet from the side line that creates our side yard inconsistency.The front porch will remain unenclosed except for a small enclosure planned on the east side to incorporate part of the kitchen.The new detached garage which will be in the front yard based on waterfront property will be one-story with a little dormer,the upper area will be uninhabitable it's very shallow,very short. It has three it will have three bays and while it's not a subject of this appeal it is in a similar location to that of the much larger two-story four car garage on the property over to the west, the adjoining property. On the waterside the porch will be extended slightly but will remain opened and there will be a small enclosed indoor pool which will be included on the west side. It's not a typical swimming pool, it's basically an exercise pool. It's about fourteen feet by eight and a four-foot depth. It's self-contained and does not need to be emptied and filled every season.I guess it's like an indoor pool or hot tub a glorified hot tub. It will require fewer chemicals because of the enclosure which is to be constructed of a concrete footing and polycarbonate enclosure. The LWRP inconsistency was based on the location of the house in the X zone and recommended that improvements be kept as far away from the waterfront as possible.That has been done with the exception of this little pool enclosure which is not as complete as an interior structure as it would otherwise be. It's basically a concrete footing sitting three feet into grade and then much of it is above grade. I'd like to add on that note that the owners are in what I would call optimistically a productive communication with the D.E.C. on a plan to clear up the waterfront which also had some baggage from the prior owner and improve the waterfront structures and marine environment and as soon as we have a determination here the application to the Town Trustees will 61 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting be completed and filed and we are in the process of finishing a plan for the D.E.C. so that all will be done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So D.E.C. and Trustees. GAIL WICKHAM :Yes, D.E.C. was already submitted after our conference we were asked to make a few modifications which the environmental expert is handling. If you have any further questions that's what I've tried to do to summarize what was a lot of paper. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know we did drive around, the houses really vary in the neighborhood, some are very large.The one next to the adjacent property but there are other that are small just you know, you're going a little bit closer to the bulkhead than the current footprint? Is that true, I saw some stakes. GAIL WICKHAM : Part of the waterfront is being removed, which is the root cellar and I think part of the deck. What's going closer is the pool that little pool corner on the southwest. The depth I guess that's an exterior structure but that's an open (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's called patio, is it a wood GAIL WICKHAM : I'm sorry it's a patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it is a patio, is it at grade? GAIL WICKHAM :At grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So that doesn't count really. GAIL WICKHAM : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean they marked it as 52 feet but to the bulkhead but it should be bigger than that because if it's an at grade patio well it's marked deck no it's marked patio so I don't know why well it kind of looks like wood the way it's described on here but it's probably a greater setback so the closest is really the pool. GAIL WICKHAM : Pool enclosure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright, let's see if Eric, questions? MEMBER DANTES : Just the most recent version of the plans is dated we have all these Notices of Disapproval, (inaudible) is the most recent version or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just got one received March 10th, March 1. BOARD ASSISTANT: May 22na GAIL WICKHAM : May 22"a 6 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : But does it say it on the plan or is it just stamped? GAIL WICKHAM :Well I'm looking at A-100 that top one is May 22"d MEMBER DANTES: Oh I see GFA revisions May 22"d GAIL WICKHAM : May 241h is the correct one. MEMBER DANTES: May 24th but it's dated May GFA revisions May 22"d CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is the one. GAIL WICKHAM : May 22"d we had changed the formula on it to (inaudible) Amanda's suggestion to get to the GFA the same number just a different computation. MEMBER DANTES:So the plans didn't change it's just how the calculation. GAIL WICKHAM :The plans didn't change. MEMBER LEHNERT: It's how they got there. GAIL WICKHAM : This the right one, when the architect did it he had shown the reduction in the garage area and that was confusing to Amanda and everybody else so we changed it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have two application here so much paper. We need to get rid of the old one. I know what I have and I saved it from Kimack, I saved the original application,then we got more. GAIL WICKHAM : I know it was quite a process. MEMBER DANTES : If you make changes after it's approved it becomes a whole lot harder. GAIL WICKHAM : Exactly and some were mistakes that,were corrected, some were just the Scalice's scaling down the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Okay,questions Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could you talk a little bit about the sanitary? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come to mic and state your name please. GAIL WICKHAM : There's an improved IA system planned from the Health Department. If you don't have it we will get you a copy. Oh, that's right Mr. Woychuk put it on the survey. The plan that you have on your survey which is in the package shows the MEMBER DANTES: Oh right here. GAIL WICKHAM : new system and all of the (inaudible). So that's all on the northside of the property landward of the house.The concrete driveway is being removed and replaced with pervious 631 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what about the condition of the bulkhead? It looked like some new wood, I'm sorry please come to the mic and state your name. GAIL WICKHAM : I can just tell you as he's coming up here, the bulkhead is in good shape. The prior owner had added some plywood on the top, that's part of the D.E.C. concern and the application and Gary correct me if I'm wrong is to raise the bulkhead slightly I believe to about that level but get rid of the plywood and put appropriate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well the Trustees are going to require the (inaudible) GAIL WICKHAM :That's part of the clean up of all the issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I get it, I have no further questions. Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I'm good. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT:Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#7872—ROCKY BLUFF,LLC; RICHARD REISMAN and DANA REED CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rocky Bluff, LLC; Richard Reisman and Dana Reed #7872. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 116A (1) and the Building Inspector's September 11, 2023 revised March 11, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling 641 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting at 1) proposed construction is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 645 Rosenberg Rd. (adj.to Long Island Sound) in East Marion. ROB HERRMANN : We are here seeking relief as described and we hope the Board will agree to be fairly characterized as a reasonable and straightforward variance request as the proposed additions and alterations would be constructed within the footprint of the existing dwelling and this would not diminish the legal existing bluff setback. As we noted in our written application the subject dwelling was constructed pursuant to a building permit issued in March 1975 which at that time permitted the house to be set back 40 feet from the bluff (inaudible) prior to the town's adoption of the required 100 foot bluff setback. C.O. Z6799 was issued for the house in December of 1975. For the same reason all of the sound front dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood are similarly located non-conforming distances from the top of bluff. As referenced in our written application, several of these dwellings have been renovated pursuant to bluff setback relief from the Board. Most notably on the adjacent . parcel to the east which in 2019 was granted relief nearly identical to what we're requesting today for a second-story addition that maintained an existing 37-foot bluff setback. We thus argued in our application,the project will not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood or the adjacent property owners. I believe that both adjacent property owners have emailed statements of support to your office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We have them,two letters of support I believe. ROB HERRMANN :Yea that should be the adjacent owners to the east and the west. As also described in our application, no addition could be added to the existing dwelling due to the legally existing but now non-conforming bluff setback. However,the modest addition has been carefully designed to stay within the existing footprint so that without causing any additional impact on the bluff or the bluff setback the applicants will be able to achieve the benefit of renovating enhancing the second-floor bedroom space on the waterside of the house and creating an associated small walkout terrace all within the existing footprint. Thus, while a mathematically substantial variance request at 60% of the required setback the addition is truly not substantial in fact. You have photographs and all the plans, I don't know if I was able to submit this rendering but just briefly, this is a photo of the existing house and that's a rendering so you can see the only change really is here on this in the second-floor area you can see the enhancement that's being made in that space and I'll just give you that so that you have that color rendering from the architect for the record. The design also includes significant mitigation measures to protect the physical and environmental condition of the property including an upgrade of the existing conventional septic system to an IA OWTS system. There is a proposed ten- foot-wide vegetative non-turf buffer adjacent to the top of the bluff which will replace the existing turf lawn with native plantings. There's a newly proposed stormwater drainage system and of course a project limiting fence to contain site disturbance and control potential runoff during construction. That's basically it, there are also included in the application on the landward side of the house same footprint renovations on the front side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is one of the more isolated properties in town, the GPS went ballistic trying to find it. 651 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : I think you mentioned Leslie, I think the Board mentions in the case I referenced on the property to the east that this is a particularly isolated area with little opportunity for impact on the surrounding. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : God forbid don't meet the landscaper for next door when you're going down that road, somebody has to have a backup camera that's for sure. Alright, well we've all been out there as you know. I don't really have any questions on this I mean it's a very complete application as always and will be an improvement. I don't see any adverse impacts anywhere on any of this most of it is landward upstairs. Rob do you have anything? MEMBER LEHNERT: No it's a pretty benign application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I agree with Rob, absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat,anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA: Straightforward, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : Reframing the second floor dormer basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's see,there was an approval in 1975 with a 40 foot bluff setback. ROB HERRMANN : Correct there's a building permit and a C.O. both issued in 1975 and I included in the first page and the narratives was actually a little hand diagram of the proposed house associated with the(inaudible) and it shows the bluff setbacks yea it was kind of cute. I was able to show that side by side with a snapshot of the proposed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :What I wanted to ask you is,you're going to Trustees I presume. ROB HERRMANN : Yes we would have to go to the Trustees after this and once both those approvals are obtained we'll be able to complete the application with the Health Department for the upgraded septic. There's a NYS D.E.C. non-jurisdiction letter for the project because it's behind the top of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, okay I guess there's nobody on Zoom. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA: Aye 66] June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#7917—DAVID and ELAYNA KAPLAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David and Elayna Kaplan #7917. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 26, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a front entry attached to an existing single-family dwelling, 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 1700 Inlet Way(adj.to Hogs Neck Bay) in Southold. DAVID KAPLAN : I just spoke to Clay and he will be there momentarily. Is there an issue with the posting? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to have submitted your affidavit of posting, meaning that the yellow card was placed on your property. DAVID KAPLAN :There is a posting it's on the property, I have a picture of it. MEMBER DANTES : Can you send that to the office? If you guys can email in the picture that would be helpful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have to develop a public record in order to make a determination and this is a pretty straightforward application but we still have to review it. So, let me do this we opened it so DAVID KAPLAN :Who can I send it to? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Send it into the office and they'll forwarded it to us. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I received Mr. Kaplans' email and the photo of the sign posting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to recess, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES :Second June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We had actually opened this hearing and then we had suspended it so I've already entered into the record what this hearing is, it's for Kaplan #7917. We understand this is to construct a front entry on a single-family dwelling with a front yard setback of 31.5 feet where the code requires a 40 foot. Please state your name for the record. ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : Yes ma'am, Isaac Clay Coffey the architect and I just want to apologize again for being late on this. I really appreciate you guys reconvening my sincerest apologies here. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we obviously inspected the property and the front yard setback is in line with the existing stairs that have already been enclosed with a wall but you've got the beam in place for the roof overhang, is that correct? ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : When it came so the original permit was for the (inaudible) to replace the existing stair, right in size and kind and I think there was an issue with the contractor not fully understanding the extent of where the stair aligned and it was pushed out. When we saw what was happening obviously we stopped the work on that portion of the piece and filed with the ZBA and are waiting a determination for how to proceed with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well the house is already has a non-conforming setback what is it, 33 feet 2 inches? It's at an angle to the property line. ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : The rear portion of the house is more non-compliant than the front portion of the house based on the property line and the total non-compliance from a setback standpoint is not changing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The property itself is right at the end it's a dead end, I mean you know its there's no impact visually on any other property, no one is going to be able to discern that front yard setback at non-conformity particularly. It's quite an elevation to just get up there. Let's see if the Board has any questions. Is there anything else you'd like to say about this? ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : I think we've you know the goal was to try and add a covered roof for the house for the front entry and I think you know trying to align it to the existing non-conformity essentially. 68 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) I'm just curious about the accessory structure in the front yard. Can you tell us something about that, I'm confused about the C of 0, can you clarify what it is? ISAAC CLAY COFFEY: So, it is from my understanding there's a C of 0 as a beach cottage that was from the I think sixties in the C of 0 or potentially eighties I'm not sure.That's kind of all I know about it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you get us a copy of the C of 0 that shows it's use and the conditioned space? ISAAC CLAY COFFEY:Sure, no problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT: I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is nobody in the audience, is there anybody on Zoom. Okay, you want to close subject to receipt of that C.O.or just close? MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Subject to receipt. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy for the other structure on the property, conditioned structure, habitable conditioned structure. Is there a second from somebody? MEMBER LEHNERT:Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. So as soon as we get the C.O. we'll begin the process of writing up a draft decision.The sooner the better because typically we would like to try and 691 June 6, 2024 Regular Meeting have a draft prepared and ready to go to vote on it two weeks from today when we have our second monthly meeting.That way we would have a decision quickly for you. ISAAC CLAY COFFEY : I'll try to have that ready for you tomorrow.Thanks so much, apologies again I'm really sorry about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to adjourn, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA:Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries. 70 June 6, 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 :June 21, 2024 7a