Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/11/2024 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York July 11, 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 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Laura Londono#7911 3 -8 Jonathan Presseau #7920 8- 13 2440 Village Lane, LLC#7918 13 - 23 Vincent Pelly#7921 24- 27 Steve and Furtune Mandaro#7923 28- 35 Laine Filasky#7919 35 -37 George Dangas#7922 37-41 Stephane Segouin #7891 41 Grandview Drive Realty, LLC/Vincent Panettieri #7924 42 - 52 James Huettenmoser#7884 52 - 62 Roland Grant, President of SQuest, Inc. #7847 62 -71 Joseph A. Gebbia and Teresa M. Dunn #7902 71 -94 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting with public hearings for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter on the agenda for today is the State Quality Reviews first the SEAR determination these are new applications. 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: Laura Londono, Jonathan Presseau, 2440 Village Lane, LLC, Vincent Pelly, Steve and Fortune Mandaro, Laine Filasky, George Dangas, Grandview Drive Realty, LLC/Vincent Panettieri and Stephane Segouin so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. HEARING#7911—LAURA LONDONO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Laura Londono #7911. This is a request for variances 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 additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling and construct an accessory in- ground swimming pool, 1) construction located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 435 Inlet Drive in Mattituck. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning, Anthony Portillo AMP Architecture. Regarding the request for the side yard variance relief for the setback, that is an existing screened porch that the applicant is looking to close in and make it part of the living space. The structure itself is existing and footprint of that structure is not changing it's just being (inaudible) into the �S July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting habitable building space. There is a deck that's in the front of that structure that was also removed so we're able to you know reduce the non-compliance as well by doing that. The lot coverage is the request for the pool. I think it's a pretty modest sized pool, it's 18 X 36 we didn't go 20 X 40 we tried to keep it a little bit smaller. I do think that you know in this area commonly you'll see smaller lots and they're a little.bit more overbuilt. There was a relief given similar to our request or a little bit more actually, 1550 Central Drive in Mattituck, the number was 4259. The request for a 27% so 7% over 20% in that same area. Then there was another one that we found that was a request it was 21% and that was approved as well in that same area. I just think that oh I'm sorry on that one, the appeal number on that one was 5511 that's on Captain Kidd so that's basically the street over. If there's any questions, I can answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see, Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a couple of things, maybe you can footnote and talk a little bit about the Stop Work Order. Additionally and I'll just lay it all out, the pool you suggest is a reasonable size, I don't disagree about that; people do like pools but you have a deck, did you consider reducing the size of the deck or maybe just making a landing with stairs? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The existing rear deck? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly, (inaudible) reduce the lot coverage and what that calculation would be. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We didn't consider that because the deck is existing and it was basically just being rebuilt. I mean the house was in pretty bad shape. The Stop Work Order I think was a result of my original client basically sold the property during construction to like his partner at the time. The partner wasn't really involved cause my original client was the one doing the work and basically, he didn't know what was going on and a Stop Work Order happened and that's when he contacted me. I was never really in contact with Mr. Londono until then. My original client was Mr. Hartman so I think that's partially how we got there because it was a misunderstanding when they traded hands and he started doing work thinking it was acceptable. July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only other thing that I asked about was, reducing the deck. I mean you would lose one of the variances in theory cause you're saying that the existing deck is 2.5% lot coverage and you're 2.3 over. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Again, we didn't look into that because it's existing and we're you know to remove something that's existing normally it's not something I would recommend because then you're going to have to remove a structure, put in a landing and a staircase down to like a patio so I mean it does become a little bit of a financial thing I think. Instead of leaving the framing and adding new decking onto a deck that's there, there was an existing deck. So, that's the reason we didn't look at it, I mean I guess if that's a request I can speak to my client about that but that's the reason we didn't look at it cause it was there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So what Town Attorney was just bringing to my attention, the Stop Work Order there had been an application by you to request that just the house be closed up when in fact it's now like resided. The whole house looks like it is finished as opposed to just protected. (inaudible) not knowing what the outcome is and I would argue the deck was probably done at that time etc. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The applicant actually think wrote out an affidavit or signed an affidavit basically to the Building Department saying that he knows what the risk that he's taking but at the time the Stop Work Order the house was exposed and he wanted to close it so that's where that you know we were able to work with the Building Department basically to close it and protect it from the weather. So thatwas allowed by the Building Department. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : At his risk. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea at his risk, he's aware of the risk and that's why I said if the deck is not something MEMBER LEHNERT : That's not something out of the ordinary, I've run into that many times. They'll let you put the windows in, side it and stop close it up. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would state though Nick, the front deck that was there in front of the screened porch is removed and that did free up some lot coverage in that sense and that was also part of that like sort of non-compliance area. So, I mean I think there are some things that did to you know or that was the plan. So, I mean again the pool is not in and he didn't start digging a pool or anything without coming here and getting the variance and the pool is what's creating the lot coverage issue it's not the deck or it wasn't the deck at the time. MEMBER DANTES : Did that front deck have legal status or was that July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean at the time of the purchase I don't think that screened porch or deck had a permit. It was there at the time of my initial visit so when the purchase he purchased basically the house in disarray I mean it was not lived in for a while it was in pretty bad shape. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Part of the rear yard is not totally screened along the rear yard setback, it's completely open to the neighbor's rear yard. I mean you can see for several houses down and certainly I mean I'm aware of the fact that along one of the side yards there's an existing swimming pool on the adjacent property that's just as close to the side yard as what you're proposing which is very close both on the rear and side and ANTHONY PORTILLO : The reason for the pool location is the existing septic location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's kind of what created that hardship. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then you won't probably be able to put in evergreen screening, you're not going to have enough room in that five foot ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm okay if you request a six foot fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A six foot high fence is a possibility. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't think that would be a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to need the privacy. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We can do it around the rear and maybe come forward the pool like five or ten feet to sort of box it in and then we can run a four foot high fence into the garage or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just think the main thing for me is the rear property line, if you want to continue it along for privacy sake fine there's no reason to stop you but ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean just in I don't think that's a problem to place a screening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would think you'd want it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah he might consider that, I mean he might fence the whole property we just showed it the way we showed it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have to put in a pool fence anyway. July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Exactly that's why we just boxed in the swimming pool cause I don't think he made that decision but if that's something the Board would require I don't think that's a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I wanted to ask one other question if I can, there was a C.O. in the packet dated 2008 for an in-ground swimming pool. What's that for? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Nick I just looked at that and I see that that's by mistake because it says lot 22 and the subject lot is 21. So that might be there's another one, there's three of them that have lot 22. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's probably the one that's right next door that I observed when I was on the property. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's a different address too. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is 435 the pool is at 335 so that was misfiled. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, alright motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Do you want me to submit an updated site plan with the stockade six foot fence was that a request or July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we can just condition it. - MEMBER DANTES : It doesn't have to be stockade it can be whatever CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as it's solid whatever you want. HEARING#7920—JONATHAN PRESSEAU CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jonathan Presseau #7920. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207A(b) and the Building Inspector's February 14, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a single family dwelling and to legalize the "as built" addition and "as built" shed addition at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area located at 2905 Stillwater Ave. (adj. to East Creek) in Cutchogue. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, to start with the side yard variance, essentially the building existing currently and that shed is there and we're basically staying in line with the existing building on that side yard so we're not increasing the footprint forward but staying in line with the current non-conformance we're not increasing non-conformance in regards to the side yard. In regards to the lot coverage and GFA I think they have similar reasonings for being over. I think the biggest reason here is looking at the lot itself and having to basically reduce our lot size based on the water that's on the property so taking the lot size from the limits to the wetlands delineation basically decreases our property by almost a quarter of the size. So, I did a little bit of calculating just to kind of give you my thoughts on this, the GFA request without the garage being included the attached garage which I want to talk about the attached garage, which is mostly existing by the way; the request would be 3,390 sq. ft. of basically habitable space. If we were able to use the entire property in our GFA calculation we would be allowed 3,215 sq. ft. of GFA. I've spoken to my clients, that garage is very large, it's existing basically we're not adding much to it, we're making it a little bit bigger so it's a little more usable and it also helps us with the second-floor addition and they're willing if the Board was willing to approve this to basically say that that space will never be (inaudible) to habitable space. Basically, there's a ramp there for a boat, two car garage, there's two of them and a baby. So, I think if you look at those numbers and then also in the interior of the house there is the foyer has basically double (inaudible) space which is also being calculated in our GFA if 8 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting we took that out, I mean we really would be habitable space under that GFA calculation if we were able to utilize the whole lot. That sort of falls in place with our lot coverage situation as well that because we're not able to use the whole lot it's reducing our size of what 20% would be. We would actually not be over 20% if the whole lot was used in the calculation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unfortunately it's the buildable area. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I know but I think that is a hardship. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a reason why the code was changed. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think there's a hardship here because the existing house is already over GFA and it's like to add I don't think to have a four bedroom house in this neighborhood is you know an odd thing. I mean this is a very the houses around here are probably bigger than that most of them. So, there's a hardship there because if you look at the neighbors right' across the street you know they have the same size lot and they're able to use that entire GFA right so I think that you know we should consider some of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you looked at averaging? It's not the easiest thing to calculate but going forward just so you're aware we will be requiring a licensed design professional, an engineer, an architect calculate GFA average you know in that area.. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Around the area, five hundred I think is your radius right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's for sky plane actually. What it says and I think what it should say the same as the sky plane, it should be five hundred feet on the same side of the street, it's not I just checked it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's radius right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in the immediate area. So, I would assume that's the same street somewhere around there and it could be over there and it could-be over there. We need to at least cause the code limits us to not exceeding in granting a GFA excess beyond the average in the immediate neighborhood. We're all coming to grips with this relatively new code so you're before us a lot and I just wanted to make you aware that going forward the Building Department doesn't require it but the Zoning Board will because it's part of our calculus. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Maybe it's beneficial to run that calculation which I'm fine with I mean have to do a little more research around the area to figure that out. I mean that would be fine. July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or hinder you know it could result in alternative relief, it could result in an approval or a denial but until we have it we don't know. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think that's warranted if that's something you'd like me to do I can table this discussion. Do the similar to the sky plane? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea just you know look at what's around and try and get from the Assessor or wherever the gross floor area that's not so easy necessarily to calculate. It's one thing to say, look there's big houses here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's also may be problematic for this application because visibly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're so removed from MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well not only that but just the vaulted ceilings, I don't know exactly where the vaulted ceilings are but anything over 15 feet I.believe counts. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If somebody was trying to research for their own project not this project somebody might not necessarily know how that's calculated on this house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it becomes really I think very sticky. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I think that's a glitch in the code, I mean it's ANTHONY PORTILLO : You start making some assumptions at that point (inaudible) you're like alright I don't have to use that and I mean that would I guess be my own extra judgment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to trust the judgment of a licensed professional cause your license is at stake so you know we're assuming you're going to do due diligence in your calculating as best you can. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean we looked around a little bit and it was hard to really get that information but I'll have to speak to my clients, we might have to you know get someone out there to give us the information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know maybe go talk to Mike and see if he has suggestions as where you can go to cause henceforth since they're not going to do it and I don't blame them I mean it's something that we're going to have to look at more carefully. if July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I still hold my argument that the hardship of the lot and basically the garage we're not adding it's basically existing and it's a very large space and its currently the structure for the house, it's not something we're changing in this regard. But I think if putting the calculation together then I can bring that back and maybe these numbers work out with what's in the vicinity maybe that would make more sense. MEMBER DANTES : Have you given any thought to if you have an accessory garage then the accessory garage doesn't count toward GFA right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Disconnecting the garage from the house? MEMBER DANTES : I mean that would lower your GFA wouldn't it? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It would. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if it would in this case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However if he wants to add a second story you know disconnecting it is going to make it pretty hard to access. MEMBER DANTES : Right but then you can go to other design features I mean that might eliminate the thousand square feet. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean the issue we're not necessarily but the driveway is pretty much there I mean we're trying to like keep it somewhat conformant to what's there you know. think a big problem here is the garage is pretty insane if you look at the plans right cause it has like this boat area that you park I mean so it's 875 sq.ft. of the GFA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well at the moment you're you know almost 1,000 sq. ft. over and that's why averaging ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right and the double heighted space it's almost and I think in my opinion if the Board indicates that this can never be habitable space or living space you know as part of the ruling I think that then we're coming in line with what the GFA would be and then the hardship of the lot I mean to me you know it does make sense. I mean if calculating you know the vicinity if that's something you want to look at, I mean I like the ruling to go in their favor so if that's going to help us, I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we adjourn this to the Special Meeting and give you some time to sort it out and then ANTHONY PORTILLO : If I need more than a month I'll let you guys know but n July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you do just let us know and we'll adjourn it from that agenda to the following. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Anthony, is the boat storage part of the garage heated or conditioned in anyway? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So it's all just unheated, unfinished space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it like sheet rocked on the inside? ANTHONY PORTILLO : There might be a little sheet rock. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh it is finished. ANTHONY PORTILLO : There's no heat or anything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Porches don't count against GFA do they? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're not considered as habitable. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I'm wondering cause if it's a boat storage then if it's more treated as a carport. ANTHONY PORTILLO : (inaudible) over it it's closed in I mean. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No but I'm thinking if maybe there's a way to redefine the boat storage component of the garage is. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're not that (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what, look, let Anthony talk to his client it's not our job to redesign it and let them figure out what they can do to make their case. I do have to say I would ask in future the reasons that you have in your application are so vague and so minimal and it's not just in this one and I know you know how to do this. I think it would be useful if you were a little bit more substantive in describing how your application comports with those state statutes. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, and I guess moving forward GFA will provide a calculation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to require it and that way if you come in prepared or you can submit it with your application things don't get held up. The LWRP? i July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea so we're in Zone X, the house is in Zone X and part of the property is in the flood zone but the house is not and the other thing I have a map here actually in regards to the CEHA right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea ANTHONY PORTILLO : This is the CEHA map, this is all CEHA (inaudible). We're there so that's all CEHA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have an extra one of these? ANTHONY PORTILLO : You can have this one. On our survey you can see the Zone X line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me give you this for the original file. Okay anybody else anything? Is there anybody on Zoom? Motion to adjourn the hearing to the Special Meeting for clarification on GFA calculation averaging. Is there a second. MEMBER LEHN'ERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7918—2440 VILLAGE LANE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 2440 Village Lane, LLC #7918. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and Article XXXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's March 7, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 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) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 4) gross floor area exceeding 13 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 10,000 sq. ft. in area, 5) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plan as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 2440 Village Lane (adj. to Orient Harbor) in Orient. Good morning, Rob while you're getting your stuff set up let's see what we have these are additions and alterations to a single-family dwelling with six variances. One is for a front yard setback at 5.3 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 35 feet, a rear yard setback of 32 feet, the code requiring a 35-foot minimum, lot coverage at 21.6% the code permitting a maximum of 20%, GFA at 2,820.6 sq. ft. the code permitting a maximum of 2,100 GFA and the roof line exceeds the sky plane and six requires HPC approval. ROB HERRMANN : Thank you Leslie, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants, the homeowner Molly McNarry is also here and the design architect Peter Marron as well. Just to clarify there are five area variances, you said six and since we're at five I don't want that to sound like there's actually more than that. We do need the HPC but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh alright, it's another department it's not a variance. ROB HERRMANN : Correct it's not an area variance I just wanted to be clear on that. Even with the five there's a lot to cover here. I'm going to try and go through it as quickly as I can, I'll try to be as compelling as possible but please do bear with me. This is a good project; it's undergone a thoughtful design process and the scope really is fairly modest relative to what you might typically imagine for a project that requires five variances. It's thus important to fort the Board to consider an understand throughout that at most only one of these variances actually exceeds the limits of the pre-existing non-conformance that's at the site today which is the GFA we think. I say we think because the primary element of the project and the one that requires most of the relief is the conversion of an approximately 669 sq. ft. what we're calling an upper story attic space that is over the attached garage at the north end of the house and that's being converted into a more usable primary bedroom that will have views of Orient Harbor. Now the headroom of the proposed bedroom would be three feet higher than the existing six-foot attic and that's kind of what's got us into this question of whether we are in fact increasing GFA or not. Now the pre-existing non-conforming GFA is a couple of hundred square feet over the 2,100 sq. ft. so the Building Department is going to send us to the Board for a variance no matter what. We have wrestled since the beginning of whether we're proposing to actually increase the GFA because as you were finding in the hearing before us, some of the language and direction of this new GFA code is something we're all feeling our way through. So, when we came to this project we went to the Building Department, we actually sent a letter in writing trying to get some specific explanations of exactly what relief was needed and why. I was basically directed to submit an application; we did and we got a Notice of Denial. So, we were left struggling with the GFA because it's 14 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting essentially an attic space we're calling it an attic space but it has a six-foot height, so if you look at the GFA code which prevails? Is it an excluded attic because it can be labeled an attic or should it be included as GFA because it's six-foot height? So, if you can imagine the flip side of this argument where somebody coming in with a space but just calling it an attic so that it doesn't count would the Building Department say, oh that's okay the space doesn't count or would they say no the code says six-feet or more counts as GFA why does this matter? The reason it matters is because if you count the existing attic space regardless of what you call it as GFA because it's six-feet in height then we're not actually increasing GFA by replacing that space with a three-foot taller bedroom if you follow. If the existing GFA if the attic what we're calling the attic counts as GFA now then the project actually produces a decrease in GFA because of a modification to the waterside of the house where some existing living space is being converted to porch. So, we'll say that that's an important element of our application but we've presented the application and I will continue to present the application to you today assuming the most conservative interpretation or.from our perspective I guess the worst-case scenario that we are in fact increasing GFA by what amounts to about 475 sq. ft. because we're going to assume the existing attic space does not count and the new bedroom space does. MEMBER DANTES : Why are you considering your primary argument not the other one? Why isn't your primary argument that you're decreasing GFA, decreasing the non-conforming? ROB HERRMANN : Well because we're in a position that we tried to get more explicit guidance on how to follow the code and didn't really get it. So, we didn't want to come here calling what realistically is an attic space as something else because it has six-feet in height. So, we didn't want to find out that we would go through this entire process and then the Board would determine oh, no, no, no even though it's six-feet in height it's really an attic so the existing attic doesn't count. In other words, we could not get explicit guidance from the Building Department despite an effort to try in writing or whether this attic space because it has six-feet should count or shouldn't count. So, we're trying so we would love the Board to take the position that because it's the six-foot height it doesn't matter what we label it, it counts and if counts we're not increasing coverage. If you would take a different position, we wouldn't want to go through this entire process all over again because there was an argument of semantics about the label. We think everything else that we presented in the application is compelling enough that the Board will hopefully grant the requested relief. What we definitely wanted to cover our bases without more specific guidance because again the code is not terribly clear. Even when I discussed it with the Building Department there seemed to be some question of, well is it really six-feet or is six-feet enough, do you need like six-feet and some number of other inches? Realistically, to be livable space and so this is what we were left with. So, when Leslie says that we're all feeling our way through this I have really is July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting been feeling my way through this throughout this entire application process along with the applicant and their architect. Regardless of how this issue is settled finished building height of this vertical expansion would be 21 % feet which is actually 1.7 feet lower than the existing second floor on the south side of the house and of course almost fourteen feet less than the maximum allowable 35 feet height. Again, there's no footprint expansion proposed here and this is not a case where it's a one-story house and we're introducing a second floor and it's not a case where the second story space doesn't already exist. It does we're just replacing it with a space that's going to be literally three foot higher so that it's more usable as a livable bedroom. Now with respect to what other variance relief is required and how granting such relief we argue will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood or the surrounding property owners. The immediately surrounding neighborhood as it would be most narrowly defined and this is what Leslie was just talking about in the prior hearing in terms of sky plane, GFA etc. basically have seven developed properties along a historically developed Orient Harbor shoreline, on the west side of Village Lane one of which contains two dwellings. All seven properties are less than 20,000 sq. ft. in area with shallow lot depths between the road and the harbor and most were developed prior to the adoption of the current zoning codes obviously decades before the current sky plane and GFA code. As a result, they are characterized by homes with various pre-existing non-conforming setbacks, lot coverage, GFA and sky planes. At least one was developed and several others have been renovated more recently with additions and alterations pursuant to variance relief granted by the Board. Now front yard setback relief is required only to maintain the pre-existing 5.3-foot setback from Village Lane. Based on available town records all of the waterfront properties along Village Lane have front setbacks less than half of the required 35 feet and an average front setback of approximately 9.25 feet. Dwellings at 2220 and 2300 Village Lane have front setbacks of 5 and 0 feet respectively and 2360 Village Lane which is the adjacent property to the north has a 9.3-foot front setback. Relief was granted at 2760 Village Lane in 2007 which is case 6078 for a 16-foot front setback and 2660 Village Lane the adjacent property to the south was actually developed in 1986 pursuant to relief for a 15-foot front setback which is case 3533. It is of course not possible for us to change the existing setback. Lot coverage relief was required also only to maintain the pre-existing 21.6% coverage. In fact, due to the proposed alteration to the (inaudible) side of the house which I just noted a second ago and I'll speak again to it in a moment, the building area will actually decrease by 8 sq. ft. Obviously that's not enough to change the existing percentage but the building area that comprises lot coverage actually has a net decrease of about 8 sq. ft. Other waterfront properties along Village Lane have similarly non-conforming lot coverage including 2360 Village Lane the adjacent property to the north which was granted relief in 2004 for additions that increased lot coverage to 23.2% and that was case 5436. Now due the home's proximity to the easterly front lot line which is Village Lane, sky plane relief is unavoidably required but as depicted in July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting the sky plane rendering submitted with the written application and is also displayed on the easel, I'll hand everyone up a copy cause I know you probably can't read that from there. The J proposed sky plane intrusion actually lies within the limits of the pre-existing non-conforming sky plane intrusion of the existing roofline of the second floor and I'll give that to you now. Kim I'm not going to give this to you to check in it's already part of the application as part of the record. In other words, this is not something new, it's in your packet. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's this one. ROB HERRMANN : Oh I didn't know you guys pay that close of attention. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We always pay close attention, it's our job. ROB HERRMANN : Kidding of course. So, now due to the town's recent adoption of sky plane regs there are no prior pyramid variances in the immediately surrounding neighborhood but with the exception of one of the two dwellings that are located at 2220 Village Lane all of the waterfront homes on Village Lane have two stories and based on their proximity to the road and or their side lot lines portions of several if not most appear to extend outside the allowable sky plane. Photographic evidence of a couple of the examples can be seen in figure seven, nine and ten, those are in the photo array that are in your packet submitted with the application which show the dwelling height and proximity to property lines at 2300 and 2220 Village Lane which are located two and three parcels to the north. Figure seven is actually on the easel up there and I was going to hand up figures nine and ten but again you have these are in your packet so I won't try to save time again. It's also worth noting that there is no dwelling located directly opposite the applicant's dwelling on the opposing side of Village Lane. The opposing home to the north would retain is existing water view to the north of the applicant's home and the opposing home to the south would retain its existing water view to the south of the applicants. Now, getting back to GFA, relief is needed to again if it's to increase the existing dwelling's pre-existing non-conforming GFA of 2,345 sq. ft. and this does not include the 6-foot space labeled as an attic by 475 sq. ft. to 2,820 sq. ft. which is 720 more than the 2,100 sq. ft. allowed for a parcel for having less than 10,000 sq. ft. of buildable land area. In addition to the general difficulty of calculating the gross floor area of other homes in the neighborhood without access to town recognized GFA calculations for those homes then there are no Board actions or building permits documenting again going back to Leslie's point, GFA calculations for the homes on Village Lane since the adoption of the GFA regulations their building permit records but they don't speak to GFA so if there's vaulted ceilings or whatever there's no way for us to know that. Here and you can see this in the first in figure one of the photo arrays which is again the easel but also in your packet it's an aerial photo and the property lines of the subject parcel are highlighted. One of the other issues we face is a July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting significant variability in the size of the waterfront parcels along Village Lane which make a fair and reasonable comparison of the subject homes GFA to its neighbors even more challenging. Specifically, the total area of the applicant's parcel is only slightly less than the combined area of the next three parcels to the north and the lot widths on all four parcels to the north range from 87 to as little as 40 feet versus the applicant's parcel which is over 200 feet wide. Because the applicant's property consists of a former potential building lot which is maintained as the only significant open space on the west side of Village Lane the applicant's parcel 205-foot width makes it by far the widest waterfront parcel along the road. So, getting to the point of making a quantitative comparison we used available town records to estimate the approximate GFA of the homes on the two most comparably wide properties to the south which are 2660 which is 110 feet so still about half the width and 2760 Village Lane which is 138 feet.The GFA of the adjacent home at 2660 Village Lane appears close to 2,600 sq. ft. and the GFA of the home located two properties to the south at 2760 Village Lane appears to exceed 2,900 sq. ft. both well in excess of the allowable 2,100 sq. ft. In comparison the pre- existing GFA the applicant's home is 2,345 sq. ft. again not counting the attic with a proposed net increase of 475 sq. ft. to 2,820 sq. ft. which would be just slightly more than the apparent 2,750 sq. ft. average of the homes at 2760 and 2660. Now, the other element of the project which I said I would come back to which is not much to it is on the waterside but that triggers the need for the fifth variance which is the rear yard setback relief and that is the proposed conversion of a roughly 9 x 6 section of existing living space on the waterside of the dwelling with a slightly smaller 7.7 by 6-foot extension of the existing waterside porch and a roof terrace would be constructed over the remaining first floor. As I noted earlier the net decrease in footprint results in a roughly 8 sq. ft. decrease in building area. There's a sketch on this easel I think, no there's not, I may have included it with the application but there is basically a what they're doing is they're taking that corner of the dwelling and extending the porch in place of it and because the porch is a foot or so less deep off the house it results in a small decrease in the footprint. Of course, again, the rear yard setback relief is required to maintain the pre-existing 32-foot rear setback. As with the front yard setbacks several of the surrounding waterfront properties have similarly non-conforming rear setbacks. For example, similar relief was granted at 2360 Village Lane the adjacent property to the north for a deck addition with a 22-foot rear setback in 2004 case 5436 and at 2760 Village Lane for a dwelling addition with a 26-foot rear setback in 2007 which is case 6078 and that's two properties to the south. Now, obviously because of the pre-existing location of the house even a same footprint vertical expansion such as what's proposed in the front or an in-place reconstruction in the same or lesser footprint as proposed on the waterside is being considered by the Building Department to require relief so it is impossible to accomplish the renovation without the requested variances but because the relief is not changing the pre-existing non- conformities. Again, it's arguable that the pre-existing non-conforming GFA is being reduced July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting rather than'expanded the relief is not substantial in fact. Again, just and Eric bear with me,, if we assume that there is an increase in GFA getting back to the substantionability element of the variance litmus test, regardless we know that the finished.GFA is substantially similar to really the only two comparable homes which I just went through and it is reasonable and not substantial, in fact when considering that the proposed increase of 475 sq. ft. would represent only a 20% increase to the exiting GFA. Again, we're challenged by the fact that because the GFA regulations were adopted so recently there are no prior Board actions on GFA in the immediate neighborhood but I think it is relevant that the Board did recently grant GFA relief for at least one similarly situated property one facing basically the same conditions which is at 1200 Leeton Drive in Southold, case 7809 which was granted in October which I think is one of the few number of GFA cases you've had but it has a similarly shallow lot depth between the road and in that case the Long Island Sound and even less buildable land. There the Board granted relief to allow for an increase in the dwelling footprint which is not proposed here and a non-conforming third floor living space which is not proposed here located partially within the coastal erosion hazard area, this is outside the coastal erosion hazard area and it's compared to the I'm sorry which increased GFA in that case to 3,066 sq. ft. which was in excess of 966 sq. ft. of 46% more than the allowable 2,100 sq. ft. which was also allowed in that case based on buildable land. So again, not in this neighborhood but the Board has made a decision to grant more relief than what we're requesting on an even more constrained lot with much more ambitious renovation. Finally, which I'm sure glad to hear that, with respect to the project's potential impacts on the physical environment, clearly the proposed renovations have been designed specifically to minimize construction and avoid increasing the properties structural footprint. All of the proposed work will be located outside the coastal erosion hazard area and landward of the concrete seawall. The proposed renovations will thus not encroach on existing wetland setbacks or increase flood and erosion risks. The project would create net improvements to ground water and surface water quality through improved septic treatment resulting in the replacement of the existing conventional septic system with a new low nitrogen IA sanitary system located farther from the surface waters of Orient Harbor. A new stormwater drainage system would be installed to collect and recharge roof runoff thus mitigating the volume of potential runoff from both the existing and renovated dwelling structure. Of course, a project limiting fence would be installed to contain site disturbance and potential runoff during construction and the existing naturally vegetated areas located seaward of the existing concrete seawall would remain. As I said there was a lot to cover. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know you've been in front of the HPC which adjourned subject to our determination. ROB HERRMANN : Correct July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to address their comment about the I think what we have in their minutes is that they requested they said it's out of scale and they request a reduction in the scale, would you like to address that? ROB HERRMANN : So, that would be my queue to ask Peter Marren to speak because Peter was actually who appeared before that Committee and can speak to that and who can give you a little bit more of the flavor and color of the design. PETER MARREN : Peter Marren, specifically with regard to HPC when we started to discuss it they sort of shooed me out of the meeting because they said there's just too many things from other agencies especially you folks. We generally discussed the project and essentially right now you know it's an odd little building for Orient, it's not like a classic shingle (inaudible) you know waterfront property it's as you know built by the same builder who built Bug Light which has been criticized as kind of looking like a water bug sticking out of the water. In any case, when I first saw the project had seemed odd that somebody added this garage to the building which I'm sure it was originally built without the garage and it's short and squat and kind of been referred to as kind of a car (inaudible) on an otherwise pretty mansard building. My first thought was let's just take it away, let's just remove the garage and rebuilt the whole thing but I'm sure that probably would have added probably three more variances so we thought we you know look at this project sort of like one of these first jobs out of architecture school put a bedroom over mom's garage really which is all that this amounted to. As Rob pointed out we had six feet of space above the garage and all we really did was extrude that space up a few feet in order to create the usable space but also, I would argue improve the proportions of the house. I don't know what was the expression that HPC that you read, what did they call it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They said it was out of scale and that you should reduce the mass. PETER MARREN : Well there's nothing we can do about this sort of horizontal mass but we could probably shave a bit off the overall height. It's a little complicated and I don't want to get into these sectional issues but we propose to raise it up so the ceiling heights would be nine feet on that upper floor but we can probably lower that to let's say eight feet so we can probably knock a foot off the mass if you will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well with someone who shares your profession, I'd like to say that think it's one of the most tastefully done contextual design proposals I've seen in a long time.That's my opinion, not this Board. PETER MARREN : I appreciate that but I mean we tried to be very respectful to the (inaudible). July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can see that, it's a well-known house. I lived in Orient for a long time so I know every one of those houses on Village Lane very well. PETER MARREN : Molly and her husband are you know I think great stewards of the property and (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you. Anything from the Board? Rob any questions, Eric anything? Pat, Nick anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Minor detail I think, in other applications we've talked about I think it was to the Chapter 280 appendix at the end that discusses that steps access points cannot be within 4 feet or can't be in town right of ways so since they're doing this renovation the front stairs actually spill out onto Village Lane and I don't know if anyone has an opinion about that but on the other side of the porch they run parallel to Village Lane. So, I don't know if that's a consideration that we might want to address along with on-site parking. It just appears to me that MOLLY MCNAIRRY : I'm Molly McNairry, thank you for doing your job. The steps from the street side MEMBER PLANAMENTO : front door MOLLY MCNAIRRY : the streetside, yes they have always (inaudible) a variance so I think the steps have been with the house from pictures from the 1920's but yes the lot where we own the lot and where the city owns the lot goes right through some of those steps. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly and I was just commenting in other applications that's actually come up and I understand that (inaudible) sort of speak of the house and the uniqueness maybe HPC would even have an opinion on that but then concurrently also it appears to me the garage is being converted from a garage to sort of like you know more of its indicated as non-habitable space but it looks like it's some form of like a day room as opposed to a garage. So I was inquiring about parking. MOLLY MCNAIRRY : I can park two cars in front of the garage if that's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : According to the survey they're on the town right of way, not on your property. So, my understanding is that the parking is supposed to be on site. MOLLY MCNAIRRY : I'll let someone else answer these more technical people park alongside of the road all the time and then our lot coverage we can fit our cars on that don't all over into the town's area. I'll let a technical person speak but July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can you just address the question about what the garage is currently being used for? MOLLY MCNAIRRY : Yes, the bottom of the garage has been used for bikes and surf boards and the upstairs attic is sort of a child's play space, it has three widows. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand but the proposed changes to the garage, are those garage doors, they look to me like two outswing doors with a bank of windows. MOLLY MCNAIRRY : They're still garage doors. ROB HERRMANN : It's still a garage if that's what you're asking. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes I was asking that and I was just from the plan I thought I understood that there's like sort of two sort of side light doors with fixed window in the middle so you're losing the garage door is what I was getting after. ROB HERRMANN : No, I mean Peter can speak to but the garage will remain, the garage is not becoming it will even now it counts as GFA because the attached garage space counts but my understanding the garage is still a garage. MEMBER DANTES : When I first looked at that Rob I thought those were glass doors like French doors. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : French doors yeah. PETER MARREN : The front elevation looks a little bit less of a garage but in fact it is. The (inaudible) that you're referring to is in the rear on the waterside which currently is not part of the garage and we're going to leave it (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No if you look at this it clearly shows French doors. This is Sheet A-1 and it says proposed first floor plan it's labeled as garage and storage area but it's not a garage door it's a French door. PETER MARREN : Maybe if you pull that and you can show me A-1 I don't remember. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you want to step forward I'll show you. MEMBER DANTES : Look at S-3 Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So right here Sheet A-1, proposed garage first floor plan these don't appear like garage doors. July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting PETER MARREN : If you look at that elevation again, garage door in the middle and then because they use it for recreational stuff, bikes and what not we added a couple of extra doors just to get in and out without opening the full garage door. So basically, the middle three units are an overhead garage door and then over are extra doors like a side light door. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Understood, I didn't understand that was an operational garage door, in the plan it wasn't clear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name please. RICHARD GILLOOLY : My name is Richard Gillooly, I have houses at 2320 Village Lane and 75 (inaudible). I just like to speak in favor of this application. I think the professionals here have done a great job preserving is what is an important and substantial house in our neighborhood that's lived through several hurricanes and I just think they've done a great job and I appreciate the Board's time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Is there anyone on Zoom? DAVID SNOWDON : Hi this is David Snowdon Jones, I live at 85 Willow St. across from PJ and Molly's house and I agree with what Richard Gillooly just shared as well which I think that design of the home has been very thoughtful and I think the presentation today has been just spot on. So, I think it would be a great addition and improvement to the area. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. 231 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7921—VINCENT PELLY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Vincent Pelly #7921. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 30, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a breezeway and garage addition, deck alteration and an in-ground swimming pool with raised patio addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) construction located 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 3275 North Bayview Rd. in Southold. This is rear yard setback at 19.5 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 35, lot coverage of 22.7%the code permitting a maximum of 20%. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Anthony Portillo AMP Architecture. Just to sort of lay out you know what the proposal is, there is currently no garage so we're adding a garage to the home and connected it to a breezeway to allow the location of the garage to be in that as designed. Then basically the pool being located behind the garage a visual barrier from the street. So that was the intent of the design so actually the breezeway is causing some of the lot coverage issues that we have. In regards to the rear setback I mean if you were to look at the section and that's on, I want to point out regarding the site if you look at the ZBA-7 so the site slopes very much towards the rear of the home. The ideal scenario for the owner would have been to put it in the ground but due to the fact that the site slopes like that we basically have to build a deck up to put the pool into. You can see at where that deck starts behind the garage it's basically at grade and then due to the condition of the site the structure is built around the pool area basically a pool surround. So, the rear portion behind the pool is basically to allow for lounge chairs etc. We tried to keep that as minimal as possible. We should also note that behind the home it's pretty much vegetated, there's no structure immediately behind the home. I don't think that it's creating any hardship on the neighbors it's very wooded. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we've been there, there's evergreens back there. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Actually I have a picture and that's basically all of these trees that are there and there's no structure behind there so I don't think it's really ever going to be a problem for anybody in my opinion. Again, it's not a roofed over structure it is just a deck basically for the pool area. I think the lot coverage is pretty in line with what's going on in that neighborhood. I actually do have a few files No. 5816 there was a variance granted for 23.9% on 950 Waterview Dr. it's in the vicinity. 1380 Waterview Dr., 6765 there was relief granted for 21.7%. Those are the two that I have and we're basically in line with what other reliefs were. 4 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : You didn't have that in the original application did you those numbers? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know if they were there but I hear Leslie and they will be there moving forward we'll make sure that anything we're presenting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Am I right that the existing lot coverage is 11.7%? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Hold on one second I'll verify that. Main house the deck, the front porch 11.6%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so doubling it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm sorry there's another thing I should mention, the existing leaching pools that are behind the deck because we did think about putting back there you know utilizing the existing deck and sort of trying to build off of that. I think the first;problem there is we're very close you know we're already pretty close to the setback line and if we were to put a pool back there and build a bigger deck, I think we'd be even closer to the rear yard. Also, the current leaching pools are there that all of the gutters are feeding into so, you know that was another reason of how the pool placement came about. We're twenty feet from those existing leaching pools. Moving all those leaching pools basically we'd have to dig up the yard, reroute all the gutters so you know we sort of using that and the idea of sort of hiding the pool from the front yard you know it made sense where it ended up being located. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only thought I had and I know Leslie had said earlier during I guess the first hearing, it's not our place to design it but did you consider rotating the pool in its current location, that might save a little bit on the terrain shift also would perhaps reduce the lot coverage? Lastly, the deck why wouldn't you just have a terrace around the pool versus decking? I understand that there is a concrete retaining wall but I think if it was rotated, I think a lot of well the rear yard setback definitely would go away. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean this would be a pretty quick answer to that, the only thing I can see there is again without doing the design is the pool being now getting closer to the side yard and then if you need a lounge area you end up having the same sort of rear yard situation. I think you'd still need a relief because you know if you rotated the pool thirty feet, you're at fifteen and twenty-eight and end up having, I think you'd probably still need to figure out a way to get some lounge area around there. I'd have to look at the twenty foot from the leaching I mean I don't know that I couldn't give you that answer right now but I` don't know what lot coverage if it would really change that much and I'm not sure if I'd be able to not still need a relief for the rear yard. I do personally think just in regards to presenting it to the street and having it sort of camouflaged by the garage is a nicer look for the neighborhood as well. I think I said I don't think the rear yard you know we're not July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting disturbing anybody back there and it's heavily wooded already there's not going to be a house built there so I mean I think it makes a little more sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No, I mean I see Nick's point, you could shift the pool a little bit closer to the garage, take off the back patio then you could conform to the code. I don't think you lose that much of the furniture layout. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And even just attaching it, I'm puzzled about the deck. I understand about the retaining walls and the structure and I get that people like what they like but it just seems ANTHONY PORTILLO : Detaching the deck from the existing deck? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Detaching the pool from the house cause then well ANTHONY PORTILLO : So not connecting the two decks? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand that there is a terrain shift I mean without a doubt CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's the problem. MEMBER PLANAMENTO The property there and I was actually taken back cause I you actually have bay views I was surprised at what you could see. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea it's pretty. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just thinking if it's just the pool it would be you'd have more lawn than deck so I don't know if that would in fact reduce lot coverage or not but I think it would. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well I think it would still need to raise the patio regardless and end up counting towards CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to be counted as structure anyway. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea and then if you have a walkway CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any retaining walls it doesn't matter what the surface on top is it's still a structure. z6 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) turn the other way the retaining wall would be lower is my point and what point is it ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh you're saying because then you wouldn't be going all the way down the slope. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea but I think either way it's because it's raised it ends up calculating CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's still going to be lot coverage. MEMBER DANTES : What if(inaudible) does that count as ANTHONY PORTILLO : It doesn't matter it's just what a raised structure counts towards lot coverage, it counts towards whether it's an accessory or part of the primary. Once your eight inches out of ground that's (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything from anybody else, Rob? Anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Anybody on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. 2� July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7923—STEVE and FURTUNE MANDARO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steve and Furtune Mandaro #7923. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 4, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 2135 Bay Ave. (adj. to Marion Lake) in East Marion. We have an amended Notice of Disapproval from Amanda that has changed the determination, the variances remain the same but it's now considered an addition and alteration rather than a demolition. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So this applicant was this application was before the Board about a year ago CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember ANTHONY PORTILLO : We adjusted the design based on what the Board recommendations or you know requirements were, went to Trustees, the Trustees were not favorable to this being a reconstruction and due to that basically we minimized what we were doing on the second floor. So, we're less obstructive than what you guys granted us already so I think this is I don't want to say de minimus but it's less than what was granted. The variance request is a little bit different, the front yard setback that we need relief for is 31.5, the original Disapproval had it at 16.2 1 believe which was to the existing home but when I spoke to Amanda about that because it's being raised for FEMA, we didn't have a requirement for to get that setback relief. The front porch is what the relief we're requesting for that front yard now. I have that and then I have a revised site plan as well and I brought copies for the Board. MEMBER DANTES What's the difference between this and what we had previously approved? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, great question, one it's no longer considered a reconstruction which I think is huge. We're basically maintaining the existing building; we are elevating it. Based on your recommendation from the first hearing the finished floor is at ten feet so we did lower the building based on our first presentation to the Board and the front the home itself the second-floor addition itself is not encroaching our front yard, it's not encroaching on the rear yard. The only thing that the relief if for is cause we need a landing and stairs to get up to the home now so that's the that's where the front yard encroachment is coming from. I really thing this is line with what probably more in line with what your original relief granted and the Trustees have approved this design. After we've done this dance for about two years now Z July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting back and forth and dealing with the different Boards, I think I'm hoping you guys agree with me and obviously the Trustees like where we are. We also got rid of all the retaining walls, we're using a pressurized leaching field so we were able to remove all the retaining walls which were on our original application as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, I think that this project after taking a few spins around the dance floor you know turn out to be pretty nice and I think it's really kind to the environment and I think the Trustees would agree with that so MEMBER DANTES : What's a pressurized leaching field? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Essentially you can reduce the size of the leaching galleys because it's being the influent is being pushed with pressure instead of it being just done naturally through like a normal leaching field. MEMBER DANTES : So basically you add a pump to the system? F ANTHONY PORTILLO : There's a pump that basically pushes the influent faster through these galleys and then it dissipates into the soil. So, you don't need to have because the original reason for the retaining walls was due to the ground water height and we were trying to use regular leaching galleys which you'd have to conform to certain height restrictions off the ground water and things like that. We no longer need to do that so basically, they're not that far into the ground I think six inches of one foots requirement on them, they're pressurized so their galleys are a little smaller so it alleviated the retaining wall need. We are adding a little bit of grade but retaining walls are no longer needed. This has been approved by the Suffolk County Health Department. MEMBER LEHNERT : Do we have copies of the Trustees and the Health Department? ANTHONY PORTILLO : If you don't I can provide them. T. A. MCGIVNEY : There's a Trustees permit in here but it's dated from November '23 and it references your plans last dated February of 2024. So where does that put them as far as these July plans over4he ones that we just changed by Amanda? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The only change is the setback cause Amanda originally had the Disapproval at the 13.2,that was changed so we changed that on our setback chart. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right but the Trustees haven't seen this new site plan, there's nothing here that's different from theirs? Z9 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct, I can provide you the site plan that we gave to Trustees. I can provide you with the drawing but it's this, we didn't change it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just give us a copy of the Trustees approval, they describe the project in detail with ANTHONY PORTILLO : Not a problem, and we'll give you the Health Department approval as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay T. A. MCGIVNEY : We have the authorization dated from November of'23 and then February '24 we have something from the Trustees so is there something different? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No so I mean I'm going off memory here cause I don't have it in front of me but my recollection is that we met we had a Trustees hearing in November, (inaudible) issues came up we believe we did a site visit with them and it was just a determination basically from the Trustees was like let's try to reduce the retaining walls or get rid of them, let's minimize the addition and try to bring into more of a renovation/addition and no longer a reconstruction and that design was presented I'm guessing now in February whenever the relief was given, whenever they gave us I think it was February I don't a hundred percent but I know that we ended up having to go back to ZBA probably around March or April and then it took about three or four months to get to this hearing. So that kind of works with the timeline. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm saying I just wanted to make sure that the Trustees approval CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is what we're looking at. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll provide it but it's this design, this is what they and we're back here T. A. MCGIVNEY : We need to make sure about that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Not a problem. I'll provide that to your office, but that's the reason we're back here basically cause (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, I think it's noted in the Disapproval anyway there's a little footnote about that. Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nope CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience? Please come to the mic. STEVE MANDARO : Hello Board Members, I'm Steve Mandaro the owner of the property and this house has been it was purchased by me twenty seven years ago and I've actually been in the neighborhood sixty years because my other home which was my parents is two doors away. I've raised my children there, my grandchildren and this is the community that I've lived in for the last sixty years, summer my entire summers have been spent there. My wife and I are looking to raise this home because in Sandy Hurricane Sandy in 2012 three feet of water came up cause we're in a little bit of a soup bowl. We couldn't raise the house at the time and at that time we had to redo the whole home; all the permits we got through the Building Department but it's come time to now as far as we're concerned raise the home and make it our retirement home. We're going to plan to live here year-round. We've been at this two and a half years. What seemed to be a simple thing turned out to not be a simple thing. You guys gave us your approval a year ago and we've been as Anthony has said going through quite a bit in redesigns and all very costly, I won't even go to what we've spent already. We are putting in a new septic system, I am party of Save Marion Lake Board. I am a member of the community there and we're looking to reduce the impact that the old septic system has on the lake which is right behind us raise the home so that it will not get flooded if and when another catastrophic hurricane happens hopefully it will not and to enhance our life there in that community that we've been part of for sixty years. So, we would appreciate if you would see through all that and give us an approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And your name is? Please state that for the record. FRANK BEAURY : My name is Frank Beaury, I live at 3S Rabbit Lane in East Marion it borders the property in question. The only reason why I'm here is I don't have a problem with people making improvements or anything but some of the things that went on before were major and I didn't agree with it at all that it would be beneficial for anyone. I did not receive a letter for this meeting, I called up yesterday cause I had a neighbor that called me, they received theirs yesterday afternoon.and I called up and they said well they mailed it to you. Well, they made it to you they didn't mail it and I'm not saying,they didn't mail it to me but I didn't receive anything. The last time I got it the day before so it's very hard to go to these meetings. So, they told me when I called your office they said, oh you have to go to the post office and they're saying they said they had a thing that the post office said that when they tried to July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting deliver it the mailbox has been packed and no one's been there for years and they can't leave mail. I don't know if they think that I live in an apartment building but basically the area that I live in is similar to the area in East Marion in some ways it's kind of exactly the same. My mailman I'm friends with him, I talk to him all the time and he said I never got anything, if I got anything I would have given it to you. I went down and spoke to the post office cause that's what they told me to do and the mail I already got the mail they said that's bologna cause we never would send anything to the town saying that we tried to deliver it and the mailbox was full and that we couldn't get in touch with you or anything else. I kind of believed them and the Postmaster General in Kings Park is where this happened, he said he has no problem giving anything to show that that's bologna that there's they would not send that to you. They would either send you the green card with my signature or refused or unable to deliver but not a day-by-day report. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just do we have green cards? BOARD SECRETARTY : We have a report from the post office CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're just checking what the office has on record. FRANK BEAURY : Yeah cause I'd like to'know. BOARD SECRETARY : We tracked it down and I believe Donna spoke with you yesterday, she read off the tracking from the post office. FRANK BEAURY : Well the Postmaster General says that he don't know why he had something like that, they would never fill that out. BOARD SECRETARY : They did do the mailing properly. FRANK BEAURY : I should have had a signature on it. MEMBER LEHNERT : If the applicant filed everything properly and did it on time that's his only responsibility. We can't look at what happened at your post office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a United States Postal Service tracking record and according to this,there is an alert from July 10th at 8:18 am Kings Park, New York that's you. FRANK BEAURY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unclaimed being returned to sender that's what it says. FRANK BEAURY : I'll follow up on it. p July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMSAN : Okay, alright I mean the idea is I understand the applicants have to do due diligence, it's part of their legal obligation, we have a record that said they did. If something got screwed up at the post office FRANK BEAURY : Those other people that live over there who don't get them either, we don't live in the same town. MEMBER DANTES : But also there's three layers of notice, I mean there's the mailings, there's the posting on the property and there's legal notice in the newspaper. FRANK BEAURY : The newspaper, I don't know what newspaper it is but I didn't see it and I didn't look for it. I didn't see anything on the property and I didn't receive the letter. The Postmaster General says, they do not send an update. I spoke to my mailman and he said, geez Frank if I had something for you, I would give it to you which he always does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well something went amiss I'm glad you found out and I'm glad you're here. FRANK BEAURY : Well then they tell me write a letter. You're not accepting letters because it was too late to accept the letter. My only question is, this is about knocking the house down? Is this house being knocked down, or no? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No FRANK BEAURY : No it's not. MEMBER DANTES :That was the prior version of the plans. FRANK BEAURY : Okay because I went to the November meeting and it was scaled back and like I said nobody including I can probably speak for the neighbors, they didn't have a problem with that. The first plan was bizarre and we went through that already with a family member Mr. Mandaro a couple of doors down. So, they what do you call it nobody seemed to have a problem with it and then we find out the last minute and get told, well they did they did like I'm being told now. If they mailed it out you were notified, I'm not notified you have to sign for it and I spoke also to an attorney with that and he claims that we do the same thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir honestly there's just nothing we can do about it. I'm sorry that FRANK BEAURY : I think that something should be done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've heard you, we don't have the authority as Mr. Dantes just explained there are not everybody in the neighborhood gets a posting it's very clearly spelled out who has immediate impacts, they get a personal mailing from the applicant everybody July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting else drives by, walks by sees the yellow sign on the property and people read the Suffolk Times that's all that we are obligated to do. FRANK BEAURY : I walked by and there and I did not see anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are many ways you could have found out. FRANK BEAURY : I have pictures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just out there and the sign was on the property. FRANK BEAURY : I didn't see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it was there. FRANK BEAURY : Oh, I didn't see it and I didn't get notified by the mail. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok we heard you. FRANK BEAURY : The house is not being knocked down and also CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it is not. FRANK BEAURY : behind the home, that is so flooded and this year it's ten times worse than it's ever been. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly that's why they're raising the house to prevent their property from being flooded. FRANK BEAURY : It's puddles. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : East Marion is always like that, anybody on Marion Lake, Rabbit Lane you know and we know that area very well. There's all kinds of flooding going on. FRANK BEAURY : It's never been as bad as it is now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea climate change is getting worse. FRANK BEAURY : I've been there for fifty-six years, not in my house but down the block. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, alright here, anybody on Zoom? Anybody else want to address the application? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just want to make I have a photo the posting was posted on the lawn and I think to the point that 341 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all saw it Anthony. ANTHONY PORTILLO : basically we're doing a good thing here right we're lifting the house and we're bringing the septic outside of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Nick, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll email that to you and thank you Board for listening to all of us. HEARING#7919—LAINE FILASKY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Laine Filasky #7919. This is a request for a variance from Article XI Section 280-49 and the Building Inspector's February 5, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 100 feet located at 1345 Old Main Rd. in Mattituck. State your name for the record please. MIKE ARATO : Michael Arato, 245 Rt. 109 Suite T West Babylon, New York representing the homeowner Laine Filasky. So here we're asking relief for front yard setback that is currently the shortest distance at 57.26 feet where the required setback in the VE zone is 100 feet. This house was built in 1958, C.O. is from January 4, 1960. The setback on this house at that time was less than 100 feet. As per the records we were able to gather from the town and the 35, July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting aerial photos from GIS the setbacks from the structure have not changed. The proposed work that the current homeowner is looking to do will only create a shorter distance of .96 feet from the existing shortest setback to the original structure that it was built. The shortest setback is 58.32 feet and with the porch now that they're adding the shortest setback will be 57.36 feet. The owner purchased his home and it was in need of being updated due to the house being occupied by squatters for an extended period of time. The owner is proposing a second floor shed dormers, a second-floor cantilevered additions, front porch with steps and some new masonry where it's needed. The additions excluding the porch are all staying within the existing footprint of the house. As mentioned earlier this house is non-conforming and was built without the setbacks that are required so any sort of additions that get added to this house will require a variance. None of the proposed work have a negative impact on any of the neighboring properties and won't have a negative impact on the environment. This property is surrounded by commercial properties and directly across from this house is a horse farm. Many of the residential properties that are in the area that we were able to view seemed to have less than the required 100-foot yard setback. So, this property is not out of character of the neighborhood and as far as we know we haven't received any phone calls from any neighbors or any letters from any neighbors in opposition to this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well part of the problem is that the zoning instead of it being residential is a business zone which automatically kicks you into a much bigger setback than most residential lots. There's a big wide you know buffer across the street of landscaping and a horse farm as you say and the road is not parallel to the front of the house so you know you're going to have skewed setbacks. MIKE ARATO : That's what I was saying, the shortest setback we're really like I said is less than a foot it's .96 feet that we're that are being changed on this property so it's a very minor variance that we're asking for. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah if this was a residential zone you probably wouldn't be here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it wouldn't, anybody have any questions on this one? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, it would be nice to see this property fixed up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience? Okay, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 3, July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. HEARING#7922—GEORGE DANGAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for George Dangas#7922. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXII Section 280-116A (1) and the Building Inspector's December 11, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a deck addition to an existing single-family dwelling and an in-ground swimming pool, 1) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 1900 Hyatt Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. JOAN CHAMBERS : Joan Chambers, 895 Greenfield Lane in Southold. The very first thing I'd like to bring to everyone's attention is that there is a mistake in the description in the agenda, this is not an in-ground swimming pool. It's sort of a it's a gunite pool but on the north end the top of the swimming pool is 52.5 in elevation and the north end the contour is a 50-foot contour so on the north end the shallow end of the pool it's going to be 2 % feet out of grade and then as the contours drop off towards the south side it's going to be 5 % feet above grade. This I think helps because we're not going to be excavating a huge hole in this back yard here. Basically the architect and engineers have designed this to sit on and slightly into the existing grade so I just it was a gunite pool and I understand the confusion that it looked like an in-ground pool but actually if you look at the elevations on the contours it's an above ground swimming pool. MEMBER DANTES : You have to dig down to do a footing or some sort of structural members don't you? JOAN CHAMBERS : Well according to the swimming pool companies plans the bottom of this pool is going to be set on undisturbed soil. So, they're not digging down in any place for you 37 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting know it's not like we're digging a hole and setting this pool down. This deck well you were there, comes out of.the back of the house at a couple of feet above grade at its shortest point and the swimming pool is going to be set at the level of that deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it'll be leveled with the existing deck? JOAN CHAMBERS : Level with the existing deck which puts the majority of the swimming pool above grade not in grade and I think that makes a difference for you know for excavation and filling and things like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, we're looking at a bluff setback at 72 feet right? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and a combined side yard setback at 33.4 the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. We know we can't put the pool in the front yard, it's a very, very steep slope, the septic is there, the retaining walls are there. You will need Trustees approval. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes I spoke to the Trustees and they asked me to please come here first before we did a Trustee application so they're aware of the project but the application has not been submitted yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just because you have a number of these applications you should be aware of the fact that the Town Board decided to change that practice. JOAN CHAMBERS : Oh really and they're going to let them go concurrent? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Either concurrently or they can go first. This will become this was already in the hopper I think before that decision was made. The environmental impacts are far more pervasive these days than some of the variances that the ZBA would have to grant and as stewards of you know the bluffs and bays Trustees ought to really make their determination so that we can uphold or act accordingly relative to any variances we have to grant. JOAN CHAMBERS : I agree wholeheartedly. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : I'm hopeful that that will be put into place smoothly, Trustees are not happy about it really but we got used to it that way and you we'll move on from it. JOAN CHAMBERS : (inaudible) from talking to the ladies in Trustees that what happens sometimes is we come to zoning and say the deck gets reduced by two feet or something and then we have to go back to Trustees and do this revision that's just my understanding no one really explained it that way. Alright, I mean you have read everything I put in there I said 1 38 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting wanted to correct the fact that this you know this pool is not requiring a lot of excavation. The other thing and I'm sure you're aware of this is that twenty three years ago someone else tried to get a variance for a swimming pool on this property and they were denied. I want to point out the differences between that project and this project are major. I mean that had what was it a 70-foot brick patio and a huge round pool and a lot more construction getting closer to that bluff and this was designed to pull that pool in as close to the house as possible, tuck it into the existing deck those two little wings and try to respect the fact that it's on the bluff. Also, and I'm not going to read you all my attachments cause I'm sure you read them, looked up the digital properties of twelve other homes on Hyatt Rd. and out of that six have swimming pools and all of them have structures closer to the bluff than the 78 feet that this swimming pool is going to be at the top of the bluff. There's a lot of homes, sheds, pools, decks you name it I've listed all of the ZBA determinations, a lot of people are close to the bluff there. I'm not saying that we should get closer and closer but what I'm saying is this project was designed keeping in mind we're trying to stay away from the top of that bluff. Also, a revised site plan was handed in and I believe you received it and nothing changed about the deck or the swimming pool on that site plan, it was walkways along the side yards that were altered mostly. So, I don't think that's a major thing but you did get that revised site plan? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes JOAN CHAMBERS : I was just going to say I can show you what changed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it. Well, we noticed for one thing that the bluff actually slopes towards the house not the other way around. Also of course there is an adjacent house with a swimming pool in approximately the same or a little bit closer but it is in their rear yard because their house is so much closer to the bluff. This house is setback much farther from the bluff. I think Trustees wait a minute well wasn't there a prior with a Trustee required 15- foot non-turf buffer? JOAN CHAMBERS : I don't know, I did not research Trustees at this point because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay no the bluff is pretty well vegetated over there at this point. Of course its LWRP inconsistent because of the bluff setback which is standard. I don't have any other questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Yea, you have a drawing I think it's called a site sectional showing us the elevation change like when you're standing at the bluff and looking at the elevated pool and then the (inaudible)? JOAN CHAMBERS : No I don't have that. MEMBER DANTES : Is that something that you can provide for us? JOAN CHAMBERS : Absolutely, you want a sectional through the swimming pool you mean or from the bluff up to the house? MEMBER DANTES : When you're standing at the bluff whatever that I guess that's the north (inaudible)the view from the north looking at the raised pool and then the house. JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay MEMBER DANTES : Showing me the elevational change slopes down just (inaudible). JOAN CHAMBERS : Yea the contours they run from the very, very corner 42 up to 50 so we'll sort of do in the middle of that like an elevation section. MEMBER DANTES : Yes JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay we can provide that no problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, shall we just close this subject to receipt of that information? It might take you a couple of days hopefully you'll have it before you know JOAN CHAMBERS : The architects and engineers are very responsive and actually I have the project manager here with me right now and I'm sure she's going to get right on them later this afternoon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not that hard to do a site section. JOAN CHAMBERS : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have the contours so you're okay. JOAN CHAMBERS : We'll bring it into you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay sounds good, I make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a site section. I'm sorry did you want to address this application? No, okay and there's nobody on Zoom. I will carry on, motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a site section through the swimming pool from the bluff. 40 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. HEARING#7891—STEPHANE SEGOUIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Stephane Segouin #7891. There was a request from the applicant to adjourn this to September 5th, there's an amended Notice of Disapproval that adds one more variance to this particular application and because it hasn't been properly noticed with that variance and posted the applicant will have to re-notice and y you know post the new legal notice. So, we're going to adjourn this, is there a second on my motion to adjourn? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. Motion to recess for lunch, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye 41 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. Motion to reconvene. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. HEARING#7924—GRANDVIEW DRIVE REALTY, LLC/VINCENT PANETTIERI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Grandview Drive Realty, LLC/Vincent Panettieri #7924. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116A (1) and the Building Inspector's March 5, 2024 amended March 15, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" accessory pavilion at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 2410 Grandview Dr. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Orient. Hi, would you state your name please for the record. STEVE CAPUTO : Steve Caputo. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're looking to legalize an accessory "as built" pavilion with a bluff setback at 52 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 100 feet and a side yard setback at 6.5 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15 feet. What else would you like us to know about the application? 42 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting STEVE CAPUTO : I think the first part, I want to let the Board know that this is not an application for forgiveness. My client, the family bought the house in 1993. When they bought the house in 1993 there was a pergola in this location, the pergola that we're talking about today is not that pergola. In 2022 it was taken down and we put up a structurally sound pergola the one that was there was coming down. He's an accountant he's not a land use expert, he had no idea that he had to go get another permit to replace in kind, in place. Again, I'm offering it as explanation not excuse. Clearly, he needed to get permit for it and he should have gotten a permit for it but he didn't but immediately upon receiving the violation he jumped all over this to get whatever papers he had to get to in front of the town. It is a structurally engineered pergola as opposed to what was there before. It meets the wind standards, it meets the NYS building code. It's an accessory structure that doesn't have walls, its not habitable. It is within the dimensions that you have defined but it is also in a unique part of his back yard where I think the pictures that I provided with the application show you that the only people that can see this pergola are across the Sound, the tree line is higher than the pergola. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so that you're aware in case you don't realize it but every Board, Member goes out to inspect properties personally so we are aware of side yard setbacks and what's surrounding and what's in the neighborhood. MEMBER DANTES : Do you need Trustees approval for this application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He should. STEVE CAPUTO : The way it was told, the way that I brought it into the Building Department they wanted me to get it denied, they wanted me to come to you and once I'm done with you then I can go to the Trustees so that's on hold. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Caputo, you mention that there was a prior pergola there, do you have like a survey from 1992 when they purchased the property or something that illustrates STEVE CAPUTO : I can show you pictures of part of that survey, it's an old, old survey but I can show it to you I have it with me and I'm happy to show it to you. The difference between that just so I can explain, the difference between the pergola that was there and the one that's here is that was octagonal ours now is rectangular that is the only MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that was sitting on the existing travertine patio? STEVE CAPUTO : On the patio, it was sitting on the patio and my understanding was well it's not there anymore so I guess I can say this, it was not secured to that patio. So, this unit that 43 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting they put in is secured this isn't going anywhere it meets wind standard, it meets 130 mile per hour. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The pictures that you have that you're going to share that illustrates the survey that's part of the town file for a building permit for the house or for the pool installation? STEVE CAPUTO : I have given pictures as part of the application, I've given the new survey and I can show you am I allowed to approach? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah sure. STEVE CAPUTO : I want to just so this is an old, old survey and I can try to get a full copy of it but you can see on here, there's the old pergola the octangle one, the new pergola is on the survey that I provided you is in the same footprint the difference being rectangular (inaudible). That's the new one that shows the rectangular. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if there were any prior permits for that pergola? STEVE CAPUTO : My understanding is that pergola went up before (inaudible) it's there that long. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's labeled as a framed gazebo, the only thing I would state is that the gazebo location is considerably farther from the lot line than the existing pergola. So it'll be interesting if that's part of we should look at the or maybe Liz can look it up, is she able to do that, the pool permit the full file.There should be a survey to illustrate. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Where are you in Justice Court? STEVE CAPUTO : I have my client's attorney here, is it okay if I let him answer that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's probably a good idea. ANTHONY GUARDINO : Good afternoon, Anthony Guardino Law Firm of Farrell Fritz representing Mr. Panettieri. I have been dealing with Mr. Johnson at the Town Justice Court for several months. I did appear, we were arraigned a while back. We have been adjourning every couple of months so that this process can run its course. There were some delays, there were some things that the Building Department had asked Mr. Caputo for that took some time surveys and surveys that showed coastal erosion lines etc. it just took a while so I adjourned it about a month ago and the thought would be that we would get back to court as soon as this process runs its course. Thank you. 441 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this is in response to the complaint that's on record? You're in Justice Court for ANTHONY GUARDINO : It was a complaint on record. I don't know how it actually came about. STEVE CAPUTO : We are in the dark on that. We don't know how it came about. ANTHONY GUARDINO : What we can say about it is Mr. Caputo said is that my client contacted me as soon as he said, hey I have a problem. I think he probably spent more money in trying to legalize this because it's important to him and the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You say now it's anchored to the patio? STEVE CAPUTO : Yes we have full engineering on that which we submitted with the permit to the Building Department. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So actually I found in the packet which I looked through but I didn't read through, in 1986 there's variance relief granted for the pool installation including the deck around the pool and a gazebo that'was in 1986. Now the strange thing that I would argue based on the survey that you shared, Leslie has it, I guess the deck is kind of substantially smaller than the raised stone patio. This is all now patio, so I'm wondering was there a permit issued for the patio? STEVE CAPUTO : Not that I'm aware of. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That I think would need, that's lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep MEMBER DANTES : How far above the ground is that patio? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it's about a foot maybe. STEVE CAPUTO : It's nine inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Like one step down then from the patio there's one step down to the grade. It should be considered a structure cause it is elevated. I mean you can't run a lawn mower over it,that's how the Building Department decides if it's a structure or not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Two steps down in this photograph but I thought there were actually three on the other side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I only remember walking down onto the grass no I guess over by the gazebo I walked 45 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO :.Yea well it's higher over there. I think when you enter there are either steps up or down like where the pool equipment or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : along the side of the house yea there is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO But I would think the Trustees would even need to see the (inaudible). STEVE CAPUTO :That might be why they wanted us to come to them last. MEMBER DANTES : So you're saying the patio was there before there was a patio there? STEVE CAPUTO : Yes MEMBER DANTES : that require a building permit? STEVE CAPUTO : Yes, the present owner's family took possession in '93 so I can't get solid answers on what happened before '93 but I do know that the portion of the survey that I showed you which is dated '97 that is the condition of the property when they took possession. I understand that's not an excuse either, it's just information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He would not be the first individual that bought a property that said but that's how I bought it, I didn't do it and it's true I mean it's not a lie. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Part of the conditions of the original ZBA the pool decking gazebo has to be at least 10 feet from the westerly side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but even here it's 8.5, we need Liz to,find the file if she can access it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is 6.5, this is the actual determination from the ZBA, Appeal No. 3518 Betancourt in 1986 and it was a grant, it says construction alright that's fine it's not 45 foot to the top of the bluff. Okay, all pool deck and gazebo construction shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the westerly side.property line. No disturbance of vegetation within 45 feet of the bluff alright that's the relevant thing so it's possible, it's probable and that's what it looks like what the older survey is showing that the gazebo that was there was a lot farther away from the side yard than what it currently is. MEMBER DANTES : And the old gazebo was legalized in Certificate of Occupancy No. Z19455. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that's a different location than the current application. MEMBER LEHNERT : My question is, can this be moved to a more conforming location? 46. July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting STEVE CAPUTO : My answer to you is, I don't know but I can get that answer for you. MEMBER LEHNERT : I mean as per the drawings you guys submitted I mean this thing is just attached to the patio with steel angles. STEVE CAPUTO : Just hypothetically, if it were to move to be at 10 feet or more from the westerly line are we then okay or do would you if we're moving it do you want us to move it even further? Do you want us to get to the 15 feet? MEMBER LEHNERT : My question is, can you conform? STEVE CAPUTO : I don't know how it's secured to the patio, I'm not an engineer. I know that it is secured and was built into the patio that I know but whether that can be (inaudible) out that's over my expertise level. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's interesting cause here it says, the construction of the pool shall not be closer than 50 feet from the top of the bluff, this is 61 feet to the pool and 52 to the gazebo, the patio is a little bit closer but it doesn't show on the survey. Ripping up the patio is a'much bigger deal but possibly moving the gazebo on that patio MEMBER LEHNERT : If you look at the engineer's drawings this thing is just mechanically attached, it's pinned it's bolted in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so it's possible there is room on that patio, it's a pretty big patio to increase the side yard and possibly even bring it closer to the pool and increase the bluff setback. So why don't we do this MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The Trustees I think they're going to have a say in (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Trustees will probably either deny it'as applied for or require a greater setback so if we can show that you attempted to create much greater conformity it probably bodes well for the future application but I'm not sure. Did you want to make a comment? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, shouldn't they go back to the Building Department because of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's have to get an amended Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Because of the terrace so I don't know how to move forward (inaudible) cause that's not what was approved by the prior zoning you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was a patio it said 471 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was a wood deck. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It was a wooden deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Wood deck and it was kind of oval in shape which is completely different than what's there today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can make copies of that old survey. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That doesn't exist. STEVE CAPUTO : But the old deck was elevated three steps, he's brought this down almost to ground level. We're nine inches off the ground at the one corner. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're not nine inches I mean at the I guess that's at the eastern edge CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe one side is another side is higher. STEVE CAPUTO :The property slopes away from it definitely does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bottom line is the Building Department needs to rule in on whether or not you need any kind of relief for that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And also lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And does it calculate in terms of lot coverage as well. So, while we're trying to you know make sure everything is corrected let's be you know complete and make sure we get everything. It's just to everybody's benefit that way. So, I want to hear what you want to say in the audience and anybody else who wants to speak to address it and then we'll figure out where to go. SUSAN WORTH : Good afternoon Leslie and Members of the Board, my name is Susan Worth and I live next door on the westerly side. Obviously, I don't want that to be there. It is a detriment to my property to have a structure 6 % feet from the property line, it reduces my property value. Obviously and there's another issue I will return to later, the pavilion yea they want it on the deck but look at the lawn area beside it. I mean they can be 100 feet back, they can be 15 feet from property line there's plenty of space over there obviously they want it on the deck but there are ways to put it somewhere else. In addition, on that side on the right there was a permanent, substantial shed maybe 8 x 12 on the right side just north of the fence line that you see toward the front of the house that they took down last year so there also was a structure over there. 4811 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's on this survey I think you can see it. MEMBER LEHNERT :The survey is showing it removed. SUSAN WORTH : When I moved in, in 2004 that pool patio was there, there was no gazebo there the gazebo had gone away with the wooden patio evidently or whatever it was called, there was no gazebo there. It is a substantial request because it affects the value of the neighboring property. With respect to the pavilion itself, I'm an architect and I live there year- round and I do not believe that it has the foundations that are indicated on the manufacturers plans and drawings. I think they just screwed it into the marble terracotta whatever I do not believe but I may be wrong and the Building Department should be able to check on that in its existing location. It is a self-imposed difficulty, they've chosen to do that, they've chosen to put it there; if they didn't have things there before whatever. Returning to the detrimental effect, the zoning appeal action that you see from 1986 No. 3538 states that all pool deck and gazebo construction will be 10 feet from westerly side property line. As you can see on the site plan not only does the pavilion ignore this requirement but the entire west side of the pool deck including a 3 foot by 2-foot-high planting not only just go to where they thought the property line was or where the property line actually is but it goes onto the adjacent property. So, they have already done I can point it out for you if I may. So, the pool deck this is also whatever that material is marble or whatever there is a raised planter that goes all the way like this and here is the actual property line is where I put my fencing up when I moved in. Already there's all sorts of things that shouldn't be there and I don't know if you just say ah, it's there, we can add another thing that doesn't belong there too. I don't know what you're feeling on all this is but and I don't understand whether the current zoning code supersedes an agreement that was made in 1986 that states the 10-foot distance. MEMBER DANTES : It's not an agreement it's an area variance. Technically once something is demolished then the variance is extinguished. SUSAN WORTH : Okay, so we've got 10 feet by 80 feet of not just flat deck but also raised planting area that is exceeding its 1986 parameters as well as being on the adjacent property. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's why we're asking to go back to the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department makes the determination that that raised planer area which is very difficult to actually read on that survey I mean it looks like it could be fence it could be anything I mean or it could be just a railroad tie. If they determine it to be a structure it depends on how honestly, I don't remember. I saw it but I don't remember how high it is elevated above grade if it's just minimal 1t is on their property however it is not on your property. 491 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting SUSAN WORTH : It is on my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're saying it's on your property? SUSAN WORTH : It is on my property. Not having walked on their property because I thought I was not allowed to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'll tell you this much, when the Board determines that something like a fence let's say that supposedly belongs to the subject property owner is not on their property we have required them to remove it and placed it on their own property at the very least. SUSAN WORTH : And the 10 foot distance from it was given in 1986 do you do anything with that, the whole deck there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it is a prior determination, however Eric is right only in a sense that the code was probably the side yard setbacks were probably less at the time than what they are now and once something is demolished both the Certificates of Occupancy and the variance relief will also be demolished. So, if that was for a different gazebo with a wooden deck that no longer is there then the likelihood is that that is no longer a viable variance and we kind of start from scratch. SUSAN WORTH : Because as you can see everything is within 10 feet of the property line. Thank you for your attention. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just because Mrs. Worth or Ms. Worth mentioned the deer fence I wanted to point out an observation I had, the area whoever is using the mouse the area that says to the left of the house that says brick patio or whatever it's called brick patio, there's no pool fence there, there's a gate at the front of the house and I think the pool fence originally stopped at the north end of that little brick patio where the basement access is. SUSAN WORTH : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But somebody took that fence down and all they did was leave what appears to be the Worth deer fence up for that I don't know 10 or 15 foot length. So, there should be a fence also fully enclosing the pool. I think whether the Building Department needs to go out and see what's going on or issue a new Notice of Disapproval there's a lot more here than just a pergola. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm glad that various issues have come to light so that you know the applicant's representatives can address them and I think we'll just give you some 50 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting time to do that. Go to the Building Department, sit down with each other and figure out exactly where we need to go from here to legalize everything. STEVE CAPUTO : I'm just confused, I see the property line on the survey and you're saying that it's over the line but I don't see it over the line. I just want to understand SUSAN WORTH : Can I approach? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea sure, I want to make sure that he understands what it's better if you all have the same understanding before you walk out of here. SUSAN WORTH : It starts on the right side but it comes over to here also. STEVE CAPUTO : Oh where I can't see, I understand that's why I was confused. I don't see it going over the line but you're saying it physically goes over the line but it's not on the survey. Now I get it. SUSAN WORTH : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anybody else out there who wants to address the application? MEMBER ACAMPORA : There is a Certificate of Occupancy for the electric to go to the pergola and that was issued in January of 2023. SUSAN WORTH : Yes there is electric and lighting, there's big speakers that point to my direction. MEMBER ACAMPORA : But I'm saying that somebody went out there and inspected and issued a Certificate of Occupancy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea without examining the fact that it may not be conforming to the code and STEVE CAPUTO : The Building Department has been there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Obviously but they issued it a 2023 C.O. for the pergola's electric. STEVE CAPUTO : It's important for me not to comment on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's do over time. I think we have everything we need to understand so why don't we do this, should we just adjourn to next month and give you enough time to get in there cause if there's a different Notice of Disapproval then we have to re-notice it so the public knows exactly what variances we're looking at and if we can get all 51 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting that done by the time the legal notices have to be in the paper then we can certainly hear it next month. If not we're going to have to adjourn it to the following month. STEVE CAPUTO : If we don't have everything in place for your next meeting can I let the Board know that and then we can just keep kicking the can down the road until we're ready? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can just adjourn this to September then. I don't want to rush, property owners are usually ready to have it figured out yesterday so I try to put it on as quickly as we can but in this situation September makes a lot more sense. If you have everything in place just submit it and if you don't let us know in advance so that we don't put it in the paper and all of that we'll just scoot it over to October if we have to. Okay? Alright so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to September 5. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. HEARING#7884—JAMES HUETTENMOSER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for James Huettenmoser #7884. This was adjourned from March 7, 2024 and April 4, 2024. The variances have changed, do we have that reflected in the legal notice? Okay, I'm going to read it into the record because it's different than what the prior record reflects.This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's November 8, 2023 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a new two-story single-family dwelling, 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) more than the s July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) gross floor area exceeding the permitted maximum square footage for a lot containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area located at 2235 Cedar Lane (adj. to Spring PondO in East Marion. Okay so this was it appears to have been amended from a reduced seven variances to three is that correct Pat? PAT MOORE :That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, we're looking at a side yard setback at 7.8 which is the same as previously, the code requiring a minimum of 10, lot coverage at 30.8 reduced from 33.4, the code permitting a maximum of 20% and a GFA is the same 4,016 sq. ft. the code permitting a maximum of 2,425.75 sq. ft. So, what we eliminated a front yard setback? PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : a minimum side yard setback PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and sky plane. PAT MOORE : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And now we're showing on-site parking, there's a gravel dirt area that wasn't there before I think. PAT MOORE : There is a driveway and there's two garages. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The gravel area in front. PAT MOORE : Yea off premise, off the street parking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so do you have you I know Pat you submitted some prior variances PAT MOORE : Yes they're a lot in Gardner's Bay Estates. At a certain point I was like how many more do I include. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't we talked about this earlier today with Anthony Portillo because he was before us a couple of times and gross floor area along with Rob Herrmann that came up, it seems to be something that's coming up quite a lot. We realize that the code just refers unlike sky plane which allows averaging on the same side within five hundred feet, it just says average within the immediate area which is very vague and very difficult to figure out. PAT MOORE : Yes that's very difficult. S31 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want you to know that although the Building Department doesn't require it moving forward we're really not supposed to go beyond the average in the area in terms of granting something but the code possibly needs to have a little update. That remains to be seen though but we have to have the gross floor average and we're really going to require although the building may not, we will be requiring that a licensed design professional submit it because that's kind of the only way we figure there's some qualification in place to actually do it. It isn't to question your judgment it's very hard to track this stuff. PAT MOORE : No it was I actually gave you because usually a combination of floor plans that might be on record and that's always a might and how carefully or clear they are with respect to the floor area and the Assessor's Office records which are often I mean sometimes they're close and sometimes they're way off. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Plus they don't necessarily tell you if there's a cathedral ceiling in there. PAT MOORE : So what I was able I did in my written analysis I did go to look at to see it the best I could of the gross floor area of the homes within approximate area and I identified those that were over, they were not greatly over the minimum but I was able to identify okay they exceed X. The exact number I didn't feel comfortable trying to give them and represent to you an exact number I just felt the information which is not conclusive. I did analyze and find that the others were conforming or under. So, it kind of averaged out and this is a very established non-conforming neighborhood, extremely non-conforming as you can see from all the variances that this Board has reviewed pretty much every parcel in Gardner's Bay Estates has received a variance of some kind or another. Some of them are the old setbacks to bulkheads those we can kind of eliminate but most of the time that also included side yard variances, gross floor area wasn't applicable yet so we couldn't look at it. Lot coverage I did list because in those lots those parcels that did have variances for lot coverage, I wrote it down. So, I gave you again there were a lot but I did sometimes I give it to you and I forget to give you exactly what it was for, when there is a few, I attach the decision but, in this case, I gave the description of what it was that the variances were for to give you some really and you're well aware of this neighborhood. The fact is that most people need variances. I would point out that my clients and Mr. DeLuca very carefully listened, you should see the notes that were taken was very, this person asked for this and this person asked so they really looked at every comment that was given to try to address those comments actively and with redesign. One of the things that you mentioned as far as the code having some difficulty, honestly if you go back to the Board, you really should have them reconsider gross floor area of garages because in this case you have two small garages, I mean you they're one car garages but it screws up the gross floor area by the size of the garages and when the code was being considered I think that 54 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting the thought was well, people turn their garages into living space. Well, if they went for a variance for gross floor area, they have to go to the Building Department to get it legalized. When they go to the Building Department if a decision the Board has made has it looked at the garage is for conversion to living space you get to look at it again. So, there is an avenue, we can't assume non-compliance that's really there's lots of case law that says you're not to presume people not complying with the code you're supposed to write the code in a way that is you know applicable and meaningful as applied. So, in our case we have those two.small garages and they do screw up they increase the gross floor area by I gave you the number it was a significant number. I mean we still exceed the gross floor area but it's 668 sq. ft. that's a huge number with a lot that is a small you know small to start with. So, that's I would ask the Board and as I said they have tried to reduce this house and make it conforming to the neighborhood and character of the neighborhood if you put a condition on the decision that says the garages will remain garages, no problem that's what is planned. So, if justifies the additional gross floor area. I think eventually just like setbacks to bulkheads I'm hoping that'll be cleaned up and again when they adopted gross floor area, we knew that it was going to be a work in progress on trying to identify what worked and what didn't work. I would ask the Board please consider making that a change. It affects this property but it affects a lot of properties cause I review a lot of applications dealing with gross floor area and sometimes people want two car garages just for two car garages and it really screws up their living space which is what they really need. Oftentimes a detached garage is not an option. Here a detached garage will absolutely not be an option. You'd need to have it in the front yard, non- conforming and would change really the design significantly. I'm here really to I've given you a lot of documentation but I'm here to answer more questions than since this is the second hearing and I think that the comments that the Board made and I think neighbors had some comments, have been addressed in this design. I'd rather deal with any questions that you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That makes sense. Do you want to ask questions now or do you want to hear what the public has to say? Is there anybody here that wants to address the application? Please come to the podium and state your name. CARYN KLEIN : I have copies for all of you, I apologize I was not able to get it to you on Monday. So, my name is Caryn Klein I was actually here in March so it's nice to see everyone again. Myself and my husband Shaun Knoll who is sitting right here are here not only to represent ourselves (inaudible) on East Gillette but we're also here to represent nine other homes in the neighborhood. When I say neighborhood and I saw you know all the analysis that was done it's really the immediate neighborhood. What you'll see in the packet is a petition which we had submitted in March but now we actually added two other homes to that petition. We all continue to be in agreement that we asked the Board to consider on denying .%,5 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting these appeals. There is a few reasons why and I'll get into that but I think it's pretty powerful and it's important to communicate that and I've been in discussions with all of these owners that we are all aligned on everything that you're seeing in this packet. What I want to reference I'm not going to go through the whole packet but I do think there's some things that are important is that the first thing, actually before I get into it, I do actually have a question because what we were able to see on line was really just this plan so I'm actually pretty I'm surprised that the sky plane the height requirement was eliminated. I also and all of us felt that the revised plan is almost exactly what the original plan was unless there's things we're missing and I don't know what that is that we're missing because the only thing we were able to see is this architectural plan. We weren't privy to any other documentation so it is concerning that the height of this new structure is something that is not under discussion. The one thing though that I want to point out is also the basement. So, you guys have all seen the property right, there's an additional piece of information in this packet and I think it's page three or four it's a picture of the back of the property. It was a picture that was taken from MILS when they were renting the home and the rental was up for weekly rental in 2020. What you see is that it is a ground level walkout, it's not a below grade basement and this really does directly impact the height of anything that they would put on top of that. It really does negatively impact the character of the community. So, as and I'm sorry I think it's Patricia, so as Patricia has outlined all those variances when we looked at the variances you know a lot of them were really, really old right so if you look at that and you look at the past five years some of the variances in the immediate area are minimal, minimal and yes I would agree that and even myself if we were to do something there's things that we might have to do from a minimal perspective but what they're asking for is excessive. So, that's one thing, the other thing is a notarized letter and one of the reasons why I couldn't send this to you ahead is from Dr. Pagano who is their neighbor. I think it is worth really if I can read this, I think it's worth ready and for everyone to hear. So, it says that this is in response to the memo to the Board from Patricia Moore dated 6/28/24. Gardners Bay Estates is a fully developed community which consists of primarily one and one and half story homes. To my knowledge there are no homes within the association which have two full stories and a walkout basement. The Huettenmoser home was previously raised which allowed them to build a full basement. A variance in height would allow for three stories which would make the property out of character with the community and make this property one of the highest points in the association. It would be visible from the association beach and would negatively change the character of the area. Please note that the property is situated at one of the highest points within the community thereby making it tower over the properties. It should be noted that the list of variances cited, this is something I mentioned just now but cited on Ms. Moore's memo consists of many small lots fifty feet wide in which small variances have been permitted over the past fifty years to allow for the conversion from summer bungalows to year-round July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting residence. The majority of the referenced homes are well under 2,200 sq. ft. and I think that's another thing to point out is the average square footage around that area. Regarding community interaction, although the idea of a front porch sounds charming it should be noted that every adjacent neighbor as well as others in the community has signed a petition against this project, so Pagano is also saying that. In regard to town code defect that presumes illegal conversion of garage space to living space it should be noted that the Huettenmosers have been respectful residents and have offered short term rentals over the years. It is not uncommon to see seven cars parked along the front of their property. If the project goes ahead as planned it is not inconceivable that in the future there will be major parking issues due to the potential number of guests and there's no on street parking that's permitted. It should also be noted that in the recent renovation of my property Pagano which is adjacent to the Huettenmosers I constructed a driveway which can accommodate up to nine cars without parking on my lawn. Thank you for your consideration. So that is something from Dr. Pagano. Just a couple of more points and I think the lot coverage is the more important one which it really does continue to be excessive only reduced by I think what you said is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 3.4% CARYN KLEIN : reduced by 3.4% but it's still almost 31% which I think is significant. We are all very concerned about and I guess this is not under discussion I don't know I mean I guess it's a question, about the height and the sky plane issues and you know the gross floor area does however you define it and again this is beyond my expertise, it continues to be it's now 82% more than the maximum allowed square footage. So that is excessive in all of our opinion. So, for these reasons and again I'm here representing not just ourselves but you know these nine other homes that are around and you see all the addresses, I've attached all the petitions. I had them send them to me electronically, I can show you proof of them saying yes, I agree and I approve and I'll sign the petition but we really would ask the Board to you know to really deny this appeal and we would ask our neighbor to also really consider these points and really come up with a plan that would be within character of the community. We're all supportive of improvements it's not about that it's just that it doesn't really keep with the character of the community.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. SHAUN KNOLL : Shaun Knoll and I'm married to Caryn Klein. We live directly in back right and I know there's been a lot of focus on the Gardners Bay Estates which is where this property is resident but we live in Marion Manor. So, if you look at the map of where Cedar Dr. is our property line is right on Cedar Dr. as well as a number of houses and we're in the Marion Manor so this actually affects two different neighborhoods. So, it affects Gardners Bay Estates 5,71 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting and it's affecting our homes in Marion Manor as well. Also, it sets a precedence right of a structure of that size right in both Marion Manor and in Gardners Bay Estates, the average size is like 2,200, 2,300 sq. ft. This is it borders a magnitude much, much significantly larger and that sets an order of precedence to now all of a sudden, these other homes can now be built cause there's been a precedence now and I think a lot of the homeowners feel like that's going to significantly change the character of not only Gardners Bay Estates but also change the character of our neighborhood in Marion Manor.Thank you. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Is there anybody else out there? Is there anybody on Zoom? Let's see if the Board has anything at this point, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Heard it all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat did you want to say anything else? PAT MOORE : Do you need an explanation I think you already understood the plans and the basement which is MEMBER DANTES : We understand the code regarding the basement walkout. PAT MOORE : Okay but it was also a boat where the boat ramp is and the boat goes in that's storage. I understand the comments of the neighbors, I would also you're familiar with the property. The objectants it's their back yard, they are not there's a fence, there's a pool and then there's the house and essentially everybody or the people that have signed this petition are primarily in the other neighborhood where this house one person it's adjacent to theirs but across the road and from my memory of it there was a stockade fence, there was shrubbery, there was a pool I could see the house so MEMBER DANTES : We have their address. '58. July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : So please when you get you know have their comments also consider their location and how this house will in fact impact them.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In many documents or statements it's the habitable lower level that's the walkout is referred to as a basement. It is a habitable living area, correct? PAT MOORE : Currently or proposed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Currently PAT MOORE : Currently there it's a rec room I was trying to remember, in the winter it's storage and in the summer it's a rec room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it sheet rocked, it is finished, is it PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it conditioned space? Is there any heat or air-conditioning in it? PAT MOORE : I don't know. Jim, do you want to discuss it cause I went in there but I don't know the mechanicals there. JIM DELUCA : Jim Deluca I'm the architect, yes basically it is a rec room but most of that is going to be removed because the way the note reads as far as demolish. The first floor the existing first floor is being demolished. The basement is remaining the structure of the basement is remaining. This house when we do the renovations all the area down in the basement that's there now is being taken out. First of all, it's going to be exposed to the elements cause the house is going to be wide open. The new structure is going exactly on the existing foundation walls, the only thing that's different to that is the small vestibule that's going up front that's two stories high. If and when the house is underway if in fact, we decide to do any work down in the basement he'll come in for a permit but that existing work is going to be taken out because it's going to be exposed to all the elements and the mechanicals systems down there are going to be changed, everything is going to be changed so that's all coming out. That's why I didn't even bother with it because it's a moot point, everything is going to be removed. The stairway even is gotta be removed because the new stairway has a different direction going down into the basement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will that be used as a basement storage or will there be JIM DELUCA : We have intentions of a basement storage. If in fact they want to finish it as a rec room we'll be back otherwise it's going to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Non-habitable storage. July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting JIM DELUCA : Exactly and as far as the sky plane rule, I don't think the people who looked at the plans read a definition of height of a structure. It's the average between the back and the front and that's indicated on the plans what the average height of the building is and the sky plane rule is ten feet up forty-five-degree angle from it's all on the plan. So, we're not trying to hide anything as a matter of fact the height of the building was reduced by several feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no non-conformity with building height. JIM DELUCA : No, it's well in conformity of the height regulations it's actually lower than the required the maximum height regulations we could go. That height business is a moot point and also, I'd like to add one other thing that wasn't discussed, to make the side yard conform we took off part of the existing deck I don't know if you noticed that on the site plan on the it would be the north side. We took off that whole corner of the deck as you can see, it's got a hatch mark that is an existing C.O.'d deck we're taking that off to keep this side yard all the way the same side yard all the way. So, we're not increasing the side yard in any way shape or form. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're decreasing. Alright, anything else from the Board, any other questions? Does that help clarify any of this? CARYN KLEIN : So that I can relay this to the others so I do want to understand the height because if there's no changes to the basement and they had raised the ceiling of the basement in prior years and then they're on top of that foundation because now the foundation is raised on top of that foundation they're going to put two stories, to me that means that the height and I think it hasn't changed unless they're reducing the height of the other two floors. It's not my profession. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it's confusing exactly sometimes for non-professionals to read plans and figure them out so to the extent that we're able to educate everybody asking experts and applicants to do that we're all better off as a community. I mean we all don't want to move forward with things that people don't understand. When they determine height it's not like from the back of the house the waterside of the house from that patio back there all the way up it's average grade that's how height is determined. So, the height is if you took it from the point is the Building Department makes that determination and why I asked was because is this a habitable third floor then you know or not which is a whole other set of CARYN KLEIN : Which I think that it correctly is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and they are basically saying no it is not and will not be, it's going to be walkout to the water, storage. They had a rec room in there and they're not proposing it now, they're going to put the house right back where it was and the height will be conforming 6 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting to the code and if they in fact want to convert that so called basement area into habitable space they will have to come back to the Zoning Board and we'll have to have a public hearing. CARYN KLEIN : So there was a reduction in the height then? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes CARYN KLEIN : And where was that reduction made? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's on the new plans which you didn't get to see the elevations apparently. I don't know why cause it was I mean if you want Mr. Deluca if you can just explain how it was the height was reduced so that they can take this back to the neighbors and JIM DELUCA : Originally we reduced the sky plane we took CARYN KLEIN : The right garage yea. JIM DELUCA : We took off this whole side the second floor was taken off. CARYN KLEIN : Right JIM DELUCA : Then this height because on the last one we caught a piece of this in it I took a foot off each floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :To lower it down. JIM DELUCA : Right to lower it down and then I (inaudible) this one here between this and the side and I showed the average right here, it's 31 feet. So that's the height of the building and we could have went to 35 feet but the problem is when I go up to 35 this point CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sticks out. JIM DELUCA : sticks out and you get a little triangle in the pyramid law or the sky law. So, the actual average height of this building on the south side is 31 feet and I could have went to 35 feet. If I reduce this I could have made it to 35 feet. CARYN KLEIN : So that's why it's no longer an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's why the variances were removed. CARYN KLEIN : Got it, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What it also does is it reduces the bulk and volume the massing so the house doesn't look so big. I mean as soon as you begin to have a higher pitch and you know the garage is up higher, the whole building looks bigger and that's when you talk about 6:1 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting character of the neighborhood you say it's just too big for the neighborhood other houses don't look that big. So, what they tried to do is incorporate and I'm not making the case that we'll grant or deny anything I'm just saying what they attempted to do was to listen to the majority of people's concerns CARYN KLEIN : Understood CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and reduce the project from a lot of variances to fewer variances. CARYN KLEIN : Okay I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know when you had seven and now you're down to three that does tell me they did make an effort to listen to the neighbors and to this Board too. CARYN KLEIN : Alright,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Anything from the Board? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Pat, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries and thank you all for participating. HEARING#7847— ROLAND GRANT, PRESIDENT OF SQUEST, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an application for Roland Grant, President of SQuest, Inc. #7847. This was adjourned from February 1, 2024 and this is basically for a self-storage building. I don't believe I need to read this back into the record again all of the cause it's a 64- July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting continuation so I'll just let you.go at it Pat. I know that you got comments from the Planning Board as did we and I'm sure you're prepared to address them. PAT MOORE : Let me start off by saying this is very frustrating because you went through a process before a different building a different design, started over. We put in the application with Planning and Zoning at the same time with the hopes of having a design that could be agreed upon. I met with Planning, I submitted it to Planning, I met with Planning staff, we modified our plan based on Planning staff comments changed the design and that's why last time I said wait a second the review that you got doesn't seem to respond to the site plan now it's a simplified site plan cause it's a lot of engineering otherwise a simplified site plan for the Board to consider. Somehow their staff (inaudible) could have given it to the Board or I don't know what happened internally. Anyway, so now we got their comments. The bottom line is the Planning Board always their comments on any commercial project, it's too big. In our case the architect very carefully and Roland Grant very carefully met the lot coverage, met the landscaping criteria, these are storage buildings so when it comes to storage you need to have a certain basic square footage. Financially you can't build a building a multimillion-dollar project without a certain amount of square footage because you go bankrupt. I remember (inaudible) Corp. for an example, they had a beautiful building that the town loved but he went bankrupt because and that's Winds Way the project there on the North Rd. back in the early ninety's late eighties whatever. So, the bottom line is, you have to develop something that can sustain itself both the cost of construction, the ultimate rental and the carrying cost. This project has been reduced down to a warehouse space that could be rented and not go bankrupt and that's why it has been submitted the way it has. I've given you photographs because really just a walk around the property would address most of the comments that the Planning Board makes. My first, I have Exhibit One I have them labeled, it's a picture of the railroad tracks. When you go by the railroad tracks, you're typically paying attention to the road and you're typically paying attention to the railroad tracks. The property the Grant property is right there on the right-hand side you can see the trees and some of the mulch that was left behind by the railroad when they were doing some trimming and ground cover cutting back this spring, I believe it was. This is a Horton is a busy road, it is an active intersection to the Planning Board is treating this as if we're in a residential neighborhood. This is an LI zone property, we are developing the property in accordance with the zoning, we're meeting the lot coverage, we're meeting the landscaping. Those are the important things that the Planning Board is supposed to consider not whether or not you know is the project too big, is it not too big, that's very subjective. Let me go to the second exhibit, I take pictures from Travelers St. From Travelers St. you can see first is a green space of the railroad north of Traveler then you get the railroad, then you have a buffer the trees are the Long Island Railroad and then those evergreens, those evergreens you see that is my client's July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting property. Years ago, ten years ago he planted that evergreen as a "Z", those arborvitaes have now grown and are fully screening anything behind it. The reason he planted those trees at that time is he knew that he was going to need to redevelop this property. He wanted to make sure he had mature trees to screen whatever it is that was going on back there that would be built. I have another picture I just took pictures as I was going along Travelers St. to give you a general viewpoint and then the last picture well one of the last ones is from the street view, you can see that a couple of the trees are getting a little dry if at the end of the process they would be replaced. Again, you see a very heavily screened area. Then you have you get to Exhibit three, Exhibit three is from Sunnyside Rd. That is a corner a vacant lot I think it's part of one of the houses I don't I remember looking at Sunnyside I don't recall off the top of my head it's been a large lawn you see the stake? That was put in by the we think the railroad to identify the right of way.The road actually is set back just as it is on both sides, the road is relatively narrow in relation to the right of way and that area there is all green. Then you get to Exhibit four, that is our neighbor across the way across from Horton. That gentleman that house has huge pine trees and other shrubbery in front of it you can barely see the house. Based on what the actual front yard setback from the stake that you can see on their prior picture, the right of way extends in probably about ten, fifteen feet and then you get to the house so that house I would imagine someday might be renovated but it's been like this for a long time. Then you have the next neighbor on to the north and Nicki and Rob they are the owners of Hampton Hearth. They have a huge privet in front of their property, the driveway is over to the on the end. That they're good neighbors, they communicate, they've been shown the plans, they have no objection to the plans and they were supportive of the plan. They're just so busy they didn't have time to write a letter even though they said they would it's okay they have a couple of kids and are very busy. Then you have Exhibit five, additional photographs from further down on Travelers as you get closer to the self-storage facility. Exhibit six, this is the self-storage facility and you can see from Traveler where self- storage is, they have no shrubbery whatsoever, they have a fence and they have the self- storage. You don't even notice it because of the railroad tracks quite frankly. I don't know how many times you've driven on Traveler I'm sure endless times and you don't even think about that project because one it's quiet and its setback no different than what we're proposing for storage. Additional photographs as you go towards the Boisseau no wrong one, towards the east I'm definitely on the wrong street but anyway, in that direction again you can see the self-storage a little more. Then the last picture I have, I have a picture of all the shavings that the Long Island Railroad left behind and that's a little closer view with my camera just blowing it up, nobody even sees it. The other point that Planning made is, we should get rid of the garage. This garage is sturdy, it's not going to look like it does today as part of the project. It's going to be clad with the same material and the intention is there's going to be a barnwood material, the architecture is very well done here, the instructions the 64 f July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting architect gave the architect was given was make it look like a barn, make it look as you know to go into the background. The garage that's there is very sturdy, it's a hundred-thousand- dollar garage if you had to build it. It has solar panels; it has a charging station. The purpose of this and you see that there's an apartment that's proposed on the second level and it's for the Roland Grant will live there but if he doesn't it will be somebody who is the manager/operator the person on-site for the storage. This garage is not going to be for commercial purposes, it's to be used for maintenance of the property for the let's call it the residential use of the accessory apartment. Getting rid of this garage makes no sense whatsoever and is complete disregard of the value of a structure and the value of a property. Roland Grant recently was putting some landscaping and just because he's constantly adding landscaping you can see that there is a three-foot landscape bed that's being proposed. The property is three feet from the garage is three feet from the property line. The adjacent property has zero landscaping and we seem to be punished because the neighbor has no landscaping whatsoever. Nevertheless, we have three feet as is evident from this landscape bed plenty of room to put plantings. Ultimately, we have plenty of room to continue the mature landscaping that is going to be I want to call it cannibalized used from where it is in the back and used for the front. So, the comments we got made absolutely no sense to us given the existing conditions and what's on this property. At least they acknowledged well it is going to make the property better and you know nicer development. Yes,that's the goal here. The last pictures I provided are the arborvitaes you don't even see that's the back yard of the back property line. Again, when he planted the arborvitaes, he didn't skimp, he planted them somewhat off center so it creates a very thick line of evergreens. Those evergreens and then the privet that is just on the other side of it, there's the last picture of the privet. That privet again can be used to screen the entire property. It's going to be a beautiful project but he's prepared to screen it also there so nobody can see it. The driveway location, we completely disagree. The architect the driveway that's being proposed there has been positioned facing not the residence the residence the one that has covered trees in front of it, there's a privet that is separating that house from that green lawn that you saw there's a privet right there on that property line that's where this driveway is. It was positioned here purposely not to face any of the homes. Again, we're not yes there are homes across the way but Horton Ave. is a very busy intersection. That is where a lot of commercial traffic and residential traffic travels to go from the North Rd. to Main Rd. particularly to avoid downtown hamlet. Their comments are so subjective and frustrating when my client has spent so much time, effort, money on architecturals to get back commentaries that are as if the original project hasn't changed. The comment they had again subjective, the apartment is too big, why does the apartment have to be so big? Because it should be comfortable, it should not have to be an efficiency, we don't want it to be somebody that's just living there temporarily; we want it to be able to be for a family. If the wife or the husband I won't be sexist either one of them or the kid is the July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting caretaker the operator of the facility it should be comfortable for the family to live in. You should not create living spaces that are inadequate because of some subjective standard. Roland Grant designed it for himself as well. So, if he wants to live there, he can live there. We'll respond to any comments you have it was just so frustrating because as I said we designed this talking to Planning, we had Heather, we had Mara and we had the Planner there I just had a senior moment they were all there. We were talking about it, we showed it to them, we said listen this is what we want to do, we got rid of the garage driveway, we created a green a barrier so there are no curb cuts other than the center curb cut. Another comment about backing out of the loading area. What the heck are they talking about?The loading area is in the back of the structures, you I mean this is a commercial property you back into unload and you go forward out the driveway so it wasn't Roland Grant didn't do this on a paper napkin. He did this with an architect who very carefully studied the property, carefully studied the site plan to meet all the parking requirements. This plan meets all of the requirements the code imposes and we just don't know what more we can do. We need the variances it's clear LI needs a variance here.The lot size meets code but when the Board said we want you to put your parking in the back not the front well clearly you have to move the building towards the front. Next door that was (inaudible) Cube Smart, the two buildings that are there are comparable in size, they're actually 60 x 80 in size. I went by there to double check because they don't have windows, it is the equivalent of two stories in size. The back bays are large truck more like a fire truck size height so that the height of the buildings is the equivalent. We have we don't maximize the height of the buildings; they have good rooflines to make it all look in line with what would be a house roofline. The two commercial buildings next door clearly the property is huge and it goes all the way around. The buildings themselves are set back but that's because their parking is thirty-feet from the property line. In that case they had the parking in the front and put the building in the back with additional parking behind it. So, the Board I don't know if this Board or the Planning Board said, well you can't use that, that's before the code was what the code is today. Well, that's our neighbor, we're making a better project than our neighbor has but it has to be reasonable, it can't provide,buildings that are inadequate for their intended purpose. Believe me I've squeezed his arm heavily and said, can we make them smaller and no you really can't and not this project cannot happen and make the building smaller. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat let me ask you ask a question, I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly, PAT MOORE : Was I funny? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I just heard you say that the existing garage is now being proposed to be used by the resident of the apartment? 661 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It's always been, it's always been for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You said that it was going to be simply for the maintenance of the storage facility. PAT MOORE : Yes but it can also as a bay be available for the a car to park in there if it's not completely filled with lawn equipment. The point I'm making is that it's not a commercially rented garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand that. PAT MOORE : It's going to be used as part of the entire as part of the property so yes he was told no you can't rent it but we Mike Verity said that you can use it as part of the maintenance of the property and that would be okay. Well, he still put it in as a one of the variances required. I don't understand why but that was our limitation, it's not a rental it's strictly for that property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but previously in prior hearings you said that it was going to be used as a building to maintain the storage facility. You did-not mention its use as by the you know the renter of the apartment. PAT MOORE ': If you want the renter of the apartment to be able to also store in the garage it's probably going to be him or the person who maintains the property is going to be the person that is living. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then only reason I'm mentioning this is because if it's strictly for the use of the occupant of the apartment that apartment is an accessory to a principle use, the storage facility. You were then asking for an accessory garage to be an accessory to the accessory use you see what I'm saying, not the principal storage use. PAT MOORE : It can't be both? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have two accessory PAT MOORE : Alright well whatever doesn't work we'll not do it. I mean it's kind of a silly distinction as far as can the person CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't have an accessory to an accessory, you have to have an accessory to a principle use. PAT MOORE : Okay that must be my I will CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : that's why I'm trying to clarify what you want to use it for. 671 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It'll be simply for maintenance of the property cause it's going to be accessory to the principle use of the warehouse. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now you're going back to square one. PAT MOORE : Well I mean to me it seems stupid that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen, we don't even know what we're going to do yet. I just want to clarify the testimony. PAT MOORE : I don't want to create another issue that the Building Department has to review. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. PAT MOORE : So if it's an accessory to an accessory and you can't do that we won't do that. Does it make sense, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I want to do is review now because we've been all over the place with this and it hasn't been entered into the record. I'm going to review all of the current variance requests alright so follow along people. Let's make sure the bouncing ball is in the right place. We're looking at a rear yard setback for Building A of 52 feet where the code requires a 70-foot minimum, a rear yard setback number two for Building B of 52 feet, the code requiring 70 feet. These are 25%variances pretty much. The third variance is a front yard setback for Building A of 38.57 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 70 feet and number four front yard setback for Building B at 25 feet, the code requires a minimum of 70 feet and then the fifth one the "as built" garage has a side yard setback of 3.2 feet the code requiring a 20-foot side yard setback on this type of zone the LI zone and that's about an 84%. The sixth one, the linear length of the building is an 84% variance the length maximum permitted is 60 feet, so six variances for the whole project. I just wanted to make sure that's in the record so everybody is on the same page. PAT MOORE : I did forget to point out something pretty obvious from the design, which is that the linear feet the buildings themselves have 50 linear feet and then it's stepped back for the additional square footage, that is an intentional design to address the linear feet the length of the buildings because the code does allow for stepping back but it's the language is it doesn't really help that much. I think the variance doesn't get eliminated but the intention is met by the design. The step back also allows additional landscaping to be placed in that cut out to also mitigate the length of the building. So, the architect was very careful in his design to try to address the intent of the code even though dimensionally because of the size of the property in LI and the code requirements just impossible. 68 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the length was put in because it was trying to avoid strip mall the appearance of a strip mall. PAT MOORE : Exactly and it's never been (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Many times we've dealt with it by skillfully breaking up the massing of a building with setbacks, roofline changes, (inaudible) various ways of you know making them look a little less massive and PAT MOORE : The architect addressed it here, you can see the rooflines and the gables that were added to try to address that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, one thing that I do want to point out though is that in this zone even though there's plenty you have a lot of mature evergreens along certain property lines and I agree that on the south side which is railroad tracks basically, that's pretty well screened and it isn't that bad a deal but the Planning Department is probably going to require that you adhere to the code in an LI zone for 25 foot buffer. PAT MOORE : Which side? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They'll probably going to want it at least the northern side yard or possibly in the front. PAT MOORE : Well the front we are prepared to do that. We actually have well the building itself the closest point is 38; remember on the south side of the property I thought it was the railroad that came around but it actually is the town right of way, the railroad goes straight but the town right of way encroaches it's gotta be 20 feet CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What Travelers? PAT MOORE : Yea, the width of the road, Hortons Lane there's a cutout. My guess is that it used to belong to the Long Island Railroad and it may have been given to the town at some point because it's a very unusual cutout. It goes beyond the fifty foot right of way that is required for town roads. So, that area is already green, it already is landscaped. We obviously can't landscape town property at least legitimately but it's already landscaped over the years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wouldn't make sense to tear it out. PAT MOORE : Absolutely not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point is they may require you to put in twenty five feet on your own property. 691 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : We have it, we actually we designed we offered a wall which would be a stone wall as a barrier in addition to now the architect drew in some basic landscaping. If you see what is on the south side Roland is ready to put in the identical thick screening of evergreens that are mature evergreens that are along the entire front. It's a shame because they're going to be very attractive buildings but if that's what the Planning Board wants, we're going to screen them immediately. They're already the trees are significant trees that grow a foot and a half each year so they're substantial. We also have privet as an option, the privet that's in the back that would be replanted is also mature privet and that would be similar to the residence Niki's residence there, Hampton Hearth owners that they've got pretty much their entire front as privet. So, we're ready to landscape that's not an issue, we have the room. The only area we did not have room is on the north side of the garage but we do have three feet we can certainly plant along those three feet or we can put a fence in with trees. I mean there's plenty of room. In a sense we're landscaping for our neighbor that has nothing but we're prepared to do that. They said, well there's a visual there's a lot of a long line of commercial, well that's all Cube Smart and there's no landscaping there. Cube Smart has done lots of things over the years and Planning and the Building Department has never sent them back to Planning for any additional landscaping. There was a cell tower that was added, that was an opportunity to add landscaping but that was never proposed or required of them. So, the opportunities have been there so it couldn't have been that big a deal if they didn't require some additional landscaping when the opportunity was there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Rob do you have any comments or questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think we've gone through this enough that we all know where we are with it. PAT MOORE : I mean this may be another one where I mean I just the Planning Board sometimes kills the golden goose because they think something that is going to come along. 70 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting They did that with the hotel, it was going to be senior housing a big development of senior housing an condos and so on they beat up that property owner so badly that he sued the town won whatever they won and then the next guy comes in and puts in a hotel/motel that is now an uproar in the neighborhood cause that's what zoning allows. So, you know Roland is trying one last time to develop something that is attractive that he'd be proud of that he'd be proud to live at we're at our wits end but we tried and here we are. I guess it's in your hands at this point. I'm sorry we were trying to have them give us fruitful comments, it didn't work out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to address this. Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. HEARING#7902—JOSEPH A. GEBBIA and TERESA M. DUNN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Joseph A. Gebbia and Teresa M. Dunn #7902. This was adjourned from June 2"d so I don't need to read the Notice of Disapproval again into the record. We took some time to take a look at a very lengthy legal memorandum that was submitted that both the applicant and those who those represented by the neighbors had time to look at and respond to so let's see where we are with this, Pat let me just let you go ahead as a continuance. 7:: July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes, thank you. You've really heard about you have all our record of all the prior actions that have been taken on this property. It's interesting because most of the time you don't discover lots that were created by the Assessors I don't want to say by deed because they were created by the Assessors technically, you don't see that because they don't get caught. They had either been sold multiple times so then there's a deed. We're talking about very old properties that have stayed in families for a very long time so the Dietchen family have owned for a very long time and so things were done differently then. When you talk to former Assessors, they and we called Bob Scott and said, Bob you know can you help us? Do you recall this kind of thing happening? He goes, well yea and he starts telling us the stories of when he first started as an Assessor yea we got about an hour but it was interesting because and you may know this from your years in Southold you've all been here a long time, things were done differently in the old days and he describes old man Wickham I don't even know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's John PAT MOORE : John who came into the Assessor Office and said I need you to create this lot or I need a tax lot or I need this lot created and Bob said where's the deed you gotta give me something and this is in the nineties so this was early on. John Wickham goes off, brings back what is essentially nothing more like a written a napkin written on it from so and so to so and so from him to him or whatever here, here's your deed. I was like this is how things got done way back when. T. A. MCGIVEN :.Let me stop you for a second because I think if you're going to bring those stories in there should be a factual basis for them. PAT MOORE : Yes I understand it's just it is here say. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) last meeting. PAT MOORE : It's by storytelling alone because I can't you know T. A. MCGIVNEY : You don't have the factual. PAT MOORE : Yea I don't have it I can only tell you this is how things used to get done but by MEMBER DANTES : The only problem Pat is when your clients purchased the property they purchased it with one single deed and that was in 2005 and I mean why didn't their attorneys address all this back then, why did they do it that way? PAT MOORE : My clients purchased with two deeds there were two different owners. Debartolo the prior owner. 7ZI July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : He split it up in 2005? PAT MOORE : Yes he's the one that split it yes. MEMBER DANTES : In 2005. PAT MOORE : Yea, after what happened is going back he bought it with one deed, Dietchen sold it with one deed even though but with separate tax map numbers. The Assessors still had them as two separate properties on the maps but the deeds showed it as one. MEMBER DANTES : Right but the prior owner (inaudible) PAT MOORE : Prior owner and then during his ownership he was dealing with the there was like a back and forth with deeds with Deitchen. First, he had them separate then he went back because he thought he had to put them back and then he after the Zoning Board hearing where he got a B&B approval during that hearing it was like no, no it didn't merge because it was one acre so he went back to a prior separation of deeds. But yes, there was a period of time during after Dietchen cause Dietchen was an estate and DeBartolo that had the separate tax lot numbers but the deeds did not describe them as separate parcels at least not initially. Ultimately it was and then when he sold the property to Ms. Dunn to Gebbia/Dunn the house and Dr. Gebbia the farm that was a continuation of two separate properties. So, my client has always had separate deeds (inaudible) separate properties. T. A. MCGIVNEY : In one of your you have so many memos here, can you just refer to which one that is cause I recall from memory but not one hundred percent certain. PAT MOORE : What are you asking? T. A. MCGIVNEY : When you recite who acquired what with how many deeds. PAT MOORE : I believe that was in the original I have to go back, I've written so much on.this. T. A. MCGIVNEY : That's why I'm asking we have to make sure that what's being said is accurate. PAT MOORE : Well I gave you in my original submission I gave you a copy of the deeds. My original has as exhibits the deeds that were of the properties the DeBartolo deeds. If it wasn't the first memo it was the second memo I know for sure. In fact, you got it again from Twoumey Lathams' office they attached the deeds. So, you've got the multiple deeds there and if you need a clarification after the hearing I can certainly give it to you again, I'll give you a copy of the deeds that's the best I can do. The title search itself has it. I'm going to object to the submission of that document because the Board was very clear and I was I worked very 73 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting hard to get my memo to the Board far in advance of the hearing far in advance of the deadline of Monday, sent it to counsel immediately so that they would have an opportunity to review it and respond. I just got what you just got today and I understand there were circumstances that she'll put on the record I'm sure but that does not excuse the time line that this Board imposed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me clarify that. Let me explain, what I did not want to have the office passing on to the Board because it was just confusing and creating delays submitting information to the office that wasn't timely enough for the Board to read it at least a couple of days before the hearing. PAT MOORE : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That did not preclude things being submitted during the hearing. That's a completely different situation. If we can't understand quickly at the hearing and just make it part of the record then yes, we will all need time to read it. PAT MOORE : Okay just for the record I'm (inaudible) my objection. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know that we're going to require any more public hearings. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We never closed the hearing to submission. PAT MOORE : No you didn't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We never closed this hearing so submissions could be submitted really at any time. I was looking at new applications that basically hadn't been heard and then we were getting things the night before.That doesn't make any sense so PAT MOORE : Okay but this is my clients this is really a hardship for my client to have these multiple hearings CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we're going to have to have another hearing. Let's see what everybody has to say because I think we have more than enough facts at this point to probably continue and to make a determination alright. So why don't you go ahead and review what you would like to. PAT MOORE : So what I'd like to point out is that in my memo of June 25th, the reason I use the Mangled case is it is exactly the same their lot that this Board granted a waiver of merger for and ultimately they did a re-subdivision had not would not have been a recognized lot using the same the town's definition and how it's being applied to my client's property. They're separate lot was never or lot 18 was never a separate lot, it was always just a tax map 74 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting number it was not a lot. Their objection really was fortuitous for us because we knew that this had our property it had occurred through the Assessors and however things were done out here. Mangieri was the exact same scenario where a prior separate vacant lot was treated separately and the Building Department in that instance when they tried to develop it or they were going to sell it or whatever the reason, the Building Department said, oh they didn't raise it as a lot that wasn't a recognized lot. I don't think they even thought about it or they misread the single and separate because clearly the single and separate showed it.was not a separate lot.They just because of its size said, it merged to the other property. We don't have that because we have the exception of the one acre to merger and I got a chance to read very quickly what was submitted and we disagree on some of the on the law and the facts. You've heard enough from me and you have lots in writing, I don't know that I can give you anything new other than clarify something that you may or may not be clear. So, do you have any questions from us?Are you clear on the deeds now? T. A. MCGIVNEY : As far as the other property though that was I mean that's you know that's not the subject of this hearing and also PAT MOORE : Magieri's property? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yes, and I know you referenced at some point Scott Russell as an Assessor but where did you say that this Board made a decision on it? Did this Board make a decision on PAT MOORE : Oh absolutely yes. The Zoning Board decision so Mangieri got a Notice of Disapproval T. A. MCGIVNEY : What are you looking at? PAT MOORE : Got a Notice of Disapproval that the lot had merged in 2019 the Board issued Appeal No. 7109 that authorized the waiver of merger but in fact the lot it was beyond waiver of merger it was never a recognized lot. MEMBER DANTES : You're saying Mangieri his lot had merged with your client's lot? PAT MOORE : No to it's own property. Mangieri has one big piece of property and the half acre, quarter acre lot,that is lot 18, that little lot was never a separate lot 'it was always a separate tax lot number but it was never lot as the town says lot recognition. That is was never a lot created by deed prior to 1983 it just never happened. The single and separate Mangieri had and submitted to this to the Building Department and this Board describes the entire piece as an entire piece just like the Dietchen. So, Dietchen and it was McCarthy before it was Mangieri cause McCarthy Estate sold to Mangieri. McCarthy was the old farm at the 751 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting same time that Dietchen was the old farm. The two go back to the thirties as common properties. You don't have the Mangieir property that's our property. So, in my memo of June 2511 Exhibit B is the Mangieri property. You see that survey it's the old VanTuyl survey. T. A. MCGIVNEY : In order to use this I would have to go side by side comparison in order to say that this is exactly the same situation so PAT MOORE : Well go right ahead that's what they pay me for. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I understand that but it's going to have to be you know the same exact type of property, done the same way PAT MOORE : Absolutely T. A. MCGIVNEY : all that stuff. PAT MOORE : It's never been created, it got created later in time after the waiver of merger is the first time the deed was done that created lot 18 that separate lot. So, it's actually a worse scenario than our, ours was created in the nineties by DiBartolo be it correct or not correct I don't I can't tell you how it was but Mangieri considered that to be a separate lot and somehow when he went to the Building Department they said well T. A. MCGIVNEY : You're speaking to what he's thinking and saying by saying that. He went to the Building Department, he thought it was a separate lot it's just not the subject of this (inaudible) PAT MOORE : It's town records, I respectfully disagree. You guys the Board is we're relying on documentation and how this town created lots. We're talking about things that were done in the sixties and seventies maybe when the first tax map book was created is when they first started creating these tax lots or at least that's when we see it. I don't know it may have been done after the fact based on the Assessor it may have been done later. Before June 30, 1983 which is what the town code says is the lot recognition date. Lots had been created by the Assessors before that date and after that date. T. A. MCGIVNEY :Tax lots PAT MOORE : Tax lots but developed lots that's what it was. It was tax lots that ultimately got developed. In our case it was a tax lot that got developed it's where their house is, it's where the pool is and everything. Sorry you can hear her, what Ms. Dunn is saying is that that house was originally built in the twenties, DiBartolo almost rebuilt in its entirety in the nineties then turned it into a B&B with the Board's approval and thereafter it was sold to the Gebbias. 761 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : For the record I just want to put in that we obviously disagree on whether or not the Mangieri property was created the same exact way and or that its pertinent to this application. You said that you wanted it in, I'm just saying (inaudible). PAT MOORE : In a court of law we will completely disagree with each other. T. A. MCGIVNEY : That would be the appropriate forum to discuss that. PAT MOORE : Okay but I think it is exactly it is an example that is not unique. Our property the way our lot got created what I'm saying is it is not unique in the Town of Southold and Mangieri is the closest example of exactly the same thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I understand, you're trying to establish some sort of town precedent in the way lots were recognized. I think we should go on and you're right we've hear you've got everything in writing and let's hear from Martha you want to take the podium. Are we getting copies of MARTHA REICHERT : It's not as bad as it was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A lot of exhibits? MARTHA REICHERT : No actually just one. So, one of things that (inaudible) the Board is if you go down a little bit into my letter I created a table of the deeds that we have regarding these two properties the two tax lots if you will. Good afternoon, my name is Martha Reichert, Twoumey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Duban and Quartararo 33 West 2"d St. for the neighbors Mr. John Mangieri who owns property nearby and which is also the subject of a disputed right of way although we previously discussed that. What I want to really contain my comments to today is about what is this application for right? The application form is a little bit of a hybrid, one, it seeks a reversal of the Building Inspector's determination that lot 6.5 was not created pursuant to town code Section 280-9A right? So, in that case this Board is being asked to determine whether to affirm or reverse that determination and so with respect to Ms. Moore's prior letter where she says that this Board can't engage in some sort of DiNovo review. I've supplied a couple of different cases discussing you know and you have counsel here who can advise you with respect to your jurisdiction when you are affirming or reversing a decision versus when you are granting area variances here. Really the thrust of this application is, is this a recognized lot or not, right?The Building Inspector through their Notice of Disapproval says this is not a lot that was created or recognized pursuant to 280-9A. The burden of proof upon the applicants here is to provide you with evidence that the Building Inspector erred, that it does actually that these lot were created pursuant to one of the enumerated standards in 280-9A and what we want to submit here is that they have not. Anecdotal stories about how things were done in the past etc. are useful for understanding 771 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting actually how we go to lot recognition being in the code. In 1983 the town code enacted its merger provision and twelve years later in 1995 in response to request by the Zoning Board, the Planning Department and various other local attorneys including the Town Attorney's Office enacted a local law adding lot recognition to supplement the merger provision. I'd like to sort of just read a quote from the Town Attorney, the Town Attorney (inaudible) at that point at the town actually held multiple hearings on this and even took out ads in the newspaper informing town residents about these merger provisions because they really wanted to give people an opportunity, they even gave them a one-year cure period to put their properties in single and separate ownership. So, what the Town Attorney said back when lot recognition which was initially called lot creation was added to the code it said, the current law provides a non-conforming lots merged with certain exceptions neither town staff nor local attorneys have clear guidelines as to which lots merge which leaves property owners in limbo. The proposed ordinance provides clear guidelines for lot creation and lot merger. When this section was added to the code it was not really meant to be open for interpretation you either meet one of the enumerated standards or you don't. So, this goes back to again what is the applicant's burden here? Since we know that this wasn't a lot created by a prior zoning approval, it was not approved by the Planning Board pursuant to a subdivision, it was not approved as a setoff under the older provisions that used to be in the code which Ms. Moore supplied as Exhibit A to her most recent letter. So, we're really left with, was it created by a deed prior to 1983 that was recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office and that's a very simple factual analysis. It doesn't require nuanced interpretation of the law, it's either there or it isn't right. So, what I submit is that there is no deed, there was and again I've compiled the deeds that my office has found and there is no evidence of tax lot 6.5 ever being conveyed or created through a deed until 2006 by the DiBartolos when they sought to sort of unmerge. From 1924 all the way through 2006 every time this property was conveyed it was described as a single property and it was conveyed in a single deed and it was held in common ownership until Dr. Dunn and Gebbia purchased the property in 2006 from the DiBartolos. I think that's a simple analysis for this Board when it comes to whether or not you are affirming or reversing the Building Inspector's determination that this is not a lot recognized or created pursuant to town law 280-9A. I think that again the tax map parcels and the history there of how things were done. Those are perhaps persuasive things to discuss in a merger waiver application right. So, I again Pat and I disagree on this but I found that her reference to sort of the similar fact pattern with the Mangieri waiver of merger and subdivision (inaudible) make my argument which is that's the more proper process here because these lots have merged since they are not recognized. Again, merger is built into lot recognition and lot recognition was intended to make the merger provisions clearer for the town to administer. Really the thrust of my argument here is that the applicant hasn't met it's burden, the documentary evidence regarding the deeds and the history and the lack of a 7a July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting recorded deed prior to 1983 should make this a fairly clear decision for the Board and if the lot is not to be recognized then it sort of moots the other part of the application which is for area .variances to have this non-conforming lot 6.5 you know to grant it variances from the minimum bulk requirements for I believe it's what lot depth and lot area. I think that there's very clear reason why the applicant is presenting a lot of evidence that you would typically see in a waiver of merger application but isn't saying they need a waiver of merger application and that is because when you unmerge a property it's because one is developed and one is vacant and here you have two developed properties. They have long been developed right one with sort of the farmstead parcel and the other developed with multiple accessory structures (inaudible) long abandoned agricultural use. Now I know that the applicants are using it and they have some raised beds and everything else but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of what we deem agriculture or a bona fide agricultural operation under the Southold Town code. I think the conundrum here and again the focus has been on lot 6.5 but the Notice of Disapproval is for both of these lots and the reason the Notice if Disapproval was triggered was because the applicant has in Justice Court multiple violations for having constructed a single-family residence on lot 6.4. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yes (inaudible) but you know that's exactly why they came here? MARTHA REICHERT : Well I know that the I just was emailed my FOIL for the Code Enforcement files but there are informations and violations dating to 2002 T. A. MCGIVNEY : We're aware of those, we have those. MARTHA REICHERT : Correct, and according to the applicant though right if you take it at face value what they put in their application the Notice of Disapproval was triggered because they were attempting to get permits to quote, unquote a barn into a residence. If you review the documents that are within the Building Department's file it tells a different story, right? I think that this lot recognition aspect is sort of the only (inaudible) though in terms of how to sort of deal with the fact that the applicant has created has increased the non-conformity on both of these tax lots because we now have two single family residences, you have again things were built without permits and there is a path forward, obviously to deal with that but I think that the Building Department can't move forward with additional Notices of Disapproval until the issue of lot recognition is resolved. Again, they have issued a Notice of Disapproval that is the subject of this particular applications stating that it is not a recognized lot. The applicant has appealed that for you to either affirm or reverse and to summarize we don't believe that the applicant has met their burden for a reversal. I don't think the Building Inspector erred because there is no evidence that this property was created pursuant to any of the standards set forth in the code. That's it. 791 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Martha, let me ask Pat, in your most recent memorandum and possibly the first you indicate you know that if these two lots are recognized you're gonna then you said go to the Planning Board to create a conforming lot size. So, why didn't you just go directly to the Planning Board for a subdivision of one parcel into a second parcel with a conforming size? PAT MOORE : The process of a lot line modification is very different than a subdivision. So, by recognizing the lot and then doing a lot line modification just like Mangieri did, it simplifies the process with the Planning Board. So, our option was subdivision or lot recognition we came to this Board based on what we saw was how this lot got created and I would disagree that it's not the code that's why you sit as a Board, if the code was black and white as the attorney states, we wouldn't need these variances or we wouldn't need to present it before the Board. What I've given you is the background of how this lot got created and I know I've given you an identical situation next to it with Mangieri. They also and they did as a lot a waiver of merger but to get to a waiver of merger you have to first recognize the lot that's where I think the Building Department jumped right to a merger just assuming that the lot recognition in the Mangieri case in our case T. A. MCGIVNEY : You can't say that because we don't know you can't assume that that's they did. This is where PAT MOORE : It's documentary. T. A. MCGIVNEY : this is becoming a little bit of you know PAT MOORE : I mean it's T. A. MCGIVNEY : a lot of history both of the attorney sides with a lot of stuff thrown in here. PAT MOORE : I understand that but when in other words don't just listen to what I'm saying or to the documents that I've given you as far as the Gebbia, Dunn property and how that lot was how that lot had a separate tax map number since the sixties. I've given you an exact same example next door and I think just like with give us other variances that the Board has looked at, give us other examples I'm giving you one exactly like ours and in that instance the Building Department looking at the Notice of Disapproval that got it's the Board's own files which is the waiver of merger for the Mangieri property they just jumped over lot recognition and said it should be a waiver of merger the lots merged. Well, the lots had to be created in order to merge which is what she's saying. For us to have a merger and come into this Board for a waiver of merger you have to get to the lot recognition first. It's a technical you know it's ,logical. 81) July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : It's (inaudible) anyway for waiver of merger. PAT MOORE : Exactly because it and either Mangieri didn't technically either because the lot had changed names, McCarthy had been the original owner and it got bought by Mangieri when it was supposedly merged. So, we got a lot of there are two examples of really messed up files and we're trying to go through the front door to recognize this lot and as I said do the lot if you're concerned about its lot size, we would that's what the area variances were for to allow the lots to be as they are at the subdivision stage. If the Planning Board says well, we don't want you to change the lot line we want you to keep it the size it is well we have the variance in place as part of this application to allow the 200 x 200 lot size. So, that's why we came in with two requests, one was lot recognition and therefore do a lot line modification. If the Board says no to the lot line modification okay, we have the lot recognition we have the original lot. We're not against a wall in all or nothing, we have options. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One other thing too, as you all know the right of way that existed at one point from the subject property to Main Rd. over the Mangieri property was extinguished per ZBA approval when Condor Ct. was established. PAT MOORE : I'm not aware of that decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There is something in our record PAT MOORE : It's a ZBA? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : that yep PAT MOORE : I'd love to see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : it's there we have it PAT MOORE : Okay if you can share with me it would be nice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : because that was the only access to that entire subject property was off on Main Rd. across the Mangieri right of way. PAT MOORE : No I think there what you what you're decision says is that that house for the B&B approval would have access to the Condor Ct. not the property the entire property but that house. So, it was extinguishing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Condor Ct. created a different path of ingress. PAT MOORE : It created access right public access. Eli July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When that access was created by force of law the right of way PAT MOORE : on the Main Rd? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : over to Main Rd. across Mangieri was extinguished according to my reading of those documents. PAT MOORE : I would respectfully absolutely disagree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have to (inaudible) I mean I (EVERYONE TALKING OVER EACH OTHER CANNOT TYPE) PAT MOORE : As I understood the Zoning Board's review for the B&B approval during that hearing DiBartolo said, my access for the B&B is going to be Condor Ct. and that's how the B&B approval was approved. It was conditioned on access to Condor Ct. You did not extinguish, you could not extinguish a right of access on Main Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm going to read that again because I know that it said something in there about PAT MOORE : I absolutely would agree with you that the B&B part of the approval process was that we want the public CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's own right of way. PAT MOORE : It's own access correct and that I would agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to say something cause she's jumping up and down. MARTHA REICHERT : I was going to say Chairperson Weisman you gave Pat and I a moment to agree. So, if you look at the first letter that I put into the record, I actually go through the decision and I said that the ZBA never touched upon the merger issue but was entered into the record was a copy of the Supreme Court's judgement which spelled out the terms of the extinguishment of the right of way. Again, counsel can tell you about the doctrine of res judicata but this is already an in judicated issue and so the DiBartolo's through their own sworn testimony to this Board in that B&B application because there was significant push back from the residents on Condor Ct. saying we don't want them having public access here. The DiBartolos said we have to have access onto Condor Ct. because our property touches it and the easement that we have over to the Main Rd. is temporary and we can't rely on it and I'm paraphrasing but it's quoted.That was sworn testimony. July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was judicated by a higher court our quasi-judicial body of Zoning Board. MARTHA REICHERT : I'm sorry Pat, I'd like to just you know draw a little bit of a distinction right, tax lot 6.5 doesn't touch Condor Ct. it accesses Condor Ct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : over MARTHA REICHERT : an easement over 6.4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct MARTHA REICHERT : And 6.4 doesn't have an easement through 6.5 if you go through sort of the deeded documents from the 2006 transfers out of DiBartolo into Gebbia and Dunn and Gebbia. So, I think that you can't just sort of say oh only 6.5 has access to Condor Ct. because 6.4 touches Condor Ct. and that's how you know again, I don't want to I'm not asking this Board to adjudicate or relitigate the prior litigation but the decision was in the B&B record right that's how I found it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep MARTHA REICHERT : and so was the sworn testimony of the DiBartolos and again if you look at the deeds which I've supplied the DiBartolos when they transferred this property in each deed they quick claim any interest in title they have in that right of way to the Main Rd. which is basically saying, we make no representations that it's still legitimate if we have it we grant it to you right? That is the force of a quick claim within.the deed. So, again while we're not trying to you know have this Board adjudicate something that is beyond their jurisdiction it is immaterial representation that the applicant made inAs papers right. They opened the door to whether or not it's true and I think that again then you go back to the records in the B&B application where it was very much understood that this was the access for this property and the DiBartolos you know with respect to the merger said you know we have an eighteen-acre parcel here right. So, I have one last thing that I would like to comment on, which is again, going back to the Mangieri waiver of merger and subdivision, that was handled by Martin Finnegan so I'm not going to pretend that I know every single fact and nuance about it. The point is, the applicants met their burden of proof under the waiver of merger section in the code. They supplied a single and separate search and one of the lots was vacant. Then they went through the re-subdivision in order to create two conforming lots. Kind of what (inaudible) at the very first public hearing is why aren't we doing and following the process that was followed in Mangieri because there wasn't an issue about lot recognition, they're two separate things right. There's lot recognition if you meet one of the standards is an exception to merger. In Mangieri it wasn't about whether or not there had been a recognized 8,3 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting lot it was oh, title has merged in these, one non-conforming lot into another do we merit the unmerger right the waiver of the merger. Here this application before the Board again is not about a variance of lot recognition you can't do that right, you're either approving or you are reversing you're either affirming or reversing the Building Inspector's determination. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, understood. DAVID LEVY : My name is David Levy, I live on White Eagle Dr. in Laurel which is in the neighborhood of this subject site. You may remember I was here last time to express two concerns of the people in the community. There are two homeowners' associations involved here, there's one that is very concerned which is the one which is closest to Condor Ct. and the other one is the adjacent community adjacent homeowner's association which you must drive through in order to get to our homeowner's association. The two concerns and again I left here let me go back a step, in the middle of the meeting last time this case was heard I thought that I was going to be able to go back and tell people their concerns were unfounded and everything was fine and then at the very end of the meeting the floor fell out as you probably recall. I don't want to go back there today without understanding where we stand right now. The two concerns were one, re-activation of the formerly operating Bed and Breakfast. Prior to the hearing Ms. Moore had indicated to me that there were no intentions to bring that back. So, I have two questions, is the once issued permit to operate that, is that still a viable permit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code is silent on transfer of ownership when there's a B&B in place unfortunately and we've been trying to fix that for a long time. What this Board did a number of years ago was when we approved bed and breakfasts we put down as a condition of approval that the application would not the B&B approval would not be transferable to a new owner. The reason being, the code requires us to go through a rigid set of standards to ensure that the applicant that the property owners occupy, the applicant lives there and so on so how do we know what the next person is going to do if we just allow automatic transfer. The code has not caught up to that. So, we continue to do that with B&Bs until such time as it's codified. We did not this was a long time ago this B&B therefore I'm positive there was no such condition put on. Then the question is, does that the bottom line is if that use has been,extinguished for more than two years if it hasn't been operating as a B&B it cannot operate as a B&B that is no longer a viable use, they can reapply but it's not a possible right Julie? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yes 84 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, the answer to the question is, they cannot legally at this point operate a bed and breakfast without reapplying to the Board of Appeals with a public hearing. DAVID LEVY : Okay so I can bring that back because were that use to come back or an attempt to be made to reinstitute it there would be a form at which the local community could come out and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh sure they would have to apply for a bed and breakfast and it would be the same thing, a notice public hearing and all that other stuff. DAVID LEVY : The other issue was, if activity were to intensify on the farm portion of this portion that we're talking about. How are those vehicles going to get there? Farm vehicles and employees' vehicles and so forth? What we were told before the last meeting ended was that there was a right of way onto the Main Rd. and that that would be used and now what I think I'm hearing is that is not available to be used. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those were the facts, we haven't made a determination and Ms. Moore is correct in the sense that the Notice of Disapproval didn't address it. This Board does have jurisdiction over Section 280A which is access for emergency vehicles and so on that must be available to all lots that are developed and used but we have not basis at this point. I guess we're really figuring that out, I mean we brought forth all the facts but we haven't ruled on anything and we have to make sure that what we do rule on will make a determination is within our jurisdiction. DAVID LEVY : I appreciate that. Let me say that MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) necessarily in our jurisdiction a lot of time it's a civil matter to be negotiated or litigated between (inaudible). DAVID LEVY : I understand let me say this, if this Board would otherwise absent this issue be inclined to grant this application these two communities which I'm referring to which is a total of sixty houses they're thirty houses each or thereabout would be unalterably opposed to creating a condition where you are going to have farm vehicles and employees for that farm coming up through the streets of those communities and there really is no other choice if there's not an egress and an ingress to the Main Rd. So, I just want to make that clear. I'm not even certain and someone else suggested to me who knows more about this stuff than I do that they're not certain that the bridge that you have to take to get from these communities to this property would withstand that type of traffic. T. A. MCGIVNEY : That's something we definitely can't decide. '. July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting DAVID LEVY : I'm just repeating what was said to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Those are valid concerns of the public but we DAVID LEVY : Although the house which is on the property which is the subject of this application has a Condor Ct. address, it is not on Condor Ct. in fact it's not even you look like you're familiar with the property so I don't want to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are obligated to do individual site inspections on every single property that before a public hearing that comes to this Board. So, yes, we were provided access through the gates, we went all over the property, we looked at everything. DAVID LEVY : Then I won't waste your time by describing it to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't have to, we know. DAVID LEVY : Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. JOHN MANGIERI : My name is John Mangieri I am the owner of said property, you've seen me up here before. Just to speak to my neighbor's fears, there's not enough upland first of all there's not enough upland there for a real farming operation that requires heavy machinery. Number two, that bridge which I didn't build Ray Nine built it, it is ten-ton bridge twenty feet long. If there's any doubts that that bridge is insufficient in this day and age it is very age to replace that bridge with a prefabricated either concrete or steel bridge so that you could drive cranes across it or whatever you wanted to do. If the bridge is deemed to be insufficient after twenty-five years, then it's part of their maintenance that they have to fix it. In regards to having a lot of people coming in and out of that property, as we all know the upland on that property is very, very small. So, there can't be huge farming operations there in fact there are none. The Condor Ct. concern that farming operations are going to increase, how, how is that going to happen?Again, I've said enough thank you so much for hearing me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Pat can you just remind me, are you going to Trustees (inaudible) are Trustees involved in this? PAT MOORE : So the original permit for the reconstructed barn got a permit. The structure was pushed back further away but there is some portion that's still there. Under the old code it was fine, under the current code we'd have to get it amended for the existing structure 6 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting because I don't know what the Trustees at the time approved, didn't approve I only have the permit itself for the barn it's described as a barn. Is that the one? T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) is a barn but isn't that a fully functioning building with a kitchen and PAT MOORE : Well if you recall the Trustees regulations CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a dwelling. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's another dwelling. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's another dwelling. PAT MOORE : Okay, the structure the barn that was it started out as a barn open rafters okay. It can be used as a dwelling. This would have all not been an issue had the lot recognition issue not gone up because the plans were submitted, it was ready to be approved as far as the applicant knew and then the lot recognition sprang up. T. A. MCGIVNEY : As an "as built"? PAT MOORE : Yea because this was occurring like in the middle of COVID I guess the project started before COVID but ended after COVID. So COVID created an interruption. That Trustees remember the Trustees regulations only deal with the structure placement and exterior not what was going on inside the house. Now they're a little more interested in what's going on inside the house but at the time T. A. MCGIVNEY : If it's a dwelling and it has a septic then it's certainly something that PAT MOORE : Well there is a septic, there is Health Department approval you showed it to me for that barn for the sanitary system. It all had permits it was ready to be submitted for the Building Department to issue a building permit. So, ultimately-it would have been all legalized by now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : As an "as built" though. PAT MOORE : Well the interior "as built" the exterior was built with a building permit so the finishes inside were different. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On that property there are two structures, am I right? PAT MOORE : There are two barns, there are two barns. Are you talking about the farm area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : There are two existing barns, or there were original two barns. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, except one is a house now PAT MOORE : When it was rebuilt it was (inaudible) intent thank you that's the type of construction that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was an old barn. PAT MOORE : It was an old barn yea but when it got rebuilt it was rebuilt MEMBER PLANEMTO : It's a house. PAT MOORE : It was a mortis (inaudible) and it continued to be it's nicer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then there's another building that is a storage building PAT MOORE : It's a barn CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That storage building also has a meter on it and inside PAT MOORE : It has heat CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : it's conditioned space. PAT MOORE : No, no it's no it's heated storage for the plants. I'm sorry there's no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a meter for what, electric? PAT MOORE : You need to get on the record because otherwise it will not be heard. I'm sorry she knows the details of the barns. TERESA DUNN : There was a meter on the property at the time before we started the construction. That meter stayed in place and the service was actually split between the two buildings. So that is held up actually even in getting the C.O. or a PreCO for the storage barn because they're sharing the meter. So, we've had the electrician and everybody come through and until they can complete the inspection of the other structure, we can't even get the PreCO for the first storage barn because that is the original meter that was there when we purchased the property. PAT MOORE : But there is no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Everybody keeps calling it barn and I'm thinking wait a minute what I saw was a house and a storage building. 881 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting TERESA DUNN : The storage building was there, we resided it that's all we did to that. It's been looked at by the Building Inspector and signed off already on that. PAT MOORE : That's the PreCO TERESA DUNN : Yes PAT MOORE : Let me just address the in our papers we say the right of way is really not before this Board that's been put in writing but let me be clear to the neighbors. That right of way has been used will continue to be used, it's going to be litigated. If it hasn't been used it's only because Mr. Mangieri encouraged them to use his driveway instead of the right of way but the right of way is there and it will continue to be used. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The right of way to Condor Ct. PAT MOORE : No the right of way to the Main Rd. I'm talking about that right now. The other one is Condor Ct. MEMBER DANTES :The right of way really isn't before us. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right PAT MOORE : And it keeps getting brought up by Mr. Mangieri so T. A. MCGIVNEY : This is becoming as if this is a court room and it's not appropriate so I think we have to find a way to tie it all up. I don't know how you want to address these comments coming in during this meeting but I think at this point we're kind of PAT MOORE : You've heard what you've heard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's why I'm saying I think probably and I want to hear what you have to say in response, let me not speak (inaudible) go ahead. MEMBER DANTES : Is this new or MARTHA REICHERT : No it's just in response to some of the things that were said here. With respect to the comments that were just made regarding you know the Condor Ct. and the Golden View Estates, I think that if you again if the Board wants to take notice of their prior decision in the B&B matter, this was a very discussed topic, the safety the emergency services there were multiple letters from the Dibartolos and the fire district about their refusal to use the Main Rd. right of way because it was too narrow and said it wasn't proper for emergency access, the engineering standards. The bridge was approved by the D.E.C. etc. so there is sqq July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting evidence within that particular application. I want to again address the application that was the permit that was issued by the Trustees in 2013 right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For the barn? MARTHA REICHERT : Yea for the barn sorry I'm pivoting now to the barn in 2012 MEMBER DANTES : It's not before us. MARTHA REICHERT : Well it's relevant in a sense that there were two barns on this property right and Mr. Gebbia in his letter to the Board refers to one as the red barn which is the historic barn which is still a barn although again it has multiple violations in Justice Court that are being worked through. PAT MOORE : It doesn't have violations please MARTHA REICHERT : This is based on the FOIL documents that I received while I was sitting here. Then there is the barn that was issued a permit for in place, in kind reconstruction and that one was tremendously dilapidated it is not the one that is now referred to as the red barn. The Trustee permit was issued in 2012, the survey that was stamped approved by the Trustees shows an in kind, in place reconstruction that's what's written on Nate Corwin's survey and it says that it's a dry building and there is no sanitary system shown. What was not part of the Trustees record was a subsequent approval from the NYS D.E.C. showing again this in kind, in place reconstruction of the barn but a sanitary system. Then'in 2018 again aerial photographs don't lie but five years after the Trustees permit and those things generally expire about three years construction began without a building permit and what was built does not resemble a 21 x 61 barn right.They built something that has twice that footprint and is two stories, has a sanitary system, has a kitchen, multiple fireplaces etc. etc. The fact that we keep calling it a barn (inaudible) the fact like let's just be open about what's really there. It's a residence and so I think that again when this Board looks at this you know it's very confusing to keep calling it a barn especially when there's another barn but it didn't receive a building permit and I would love to see exactly what the Health Department approved because was it similar to what the D.E.C. approved in terms of a 21 x 61 barn or was it a residence single-family residence? T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think that's enough because I mean we have plenty of paperwork here that can completely away from the main issue that's before the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's what I'm going to do here's what I'm proposing. It looks like your paperwork that you just submitted has more exhibits than substance, I don't think that it'll take that long to read and have a look at but in fairness to everybody I think that maybe 90 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting what we should do is just adjourn to the Special Meeting, have a chance to just digest everything both of you included and if this Board has no further questions as a result and we think that there is nothing more to be gained by anymore conversation we'll just close it. Then we will at that point have sixty-two days in which to render a decision. If it's possible I won't say it's impossible to have a decision in two weeks it depends on what's here but it's likely more probably something will be deliberating about at the next Regular Meeting a month from now on September 5th when we can't get to everything within the two weeks, we sometimes do some deliberations at the Public Hearing date cause we meet twice a month rather than delaying it even further. That is what I think the scenario will be, does that make sense to everybody? T. A. MCGIVNEY : How are we going to handle these (inaudible)? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm saying is if we adjourn to the Special Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : You want to accept more comments (inaudible) PAT MOORE : I mean in fairness I just got it I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm saying I'm adjourning this which means it's held open which means the record can still accept but only written comments. PAT MOORE : I understand but you're looking at a week to respond, I may be able to do it (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : Why don't we just say, hold it to the Special and that's it we cut off all comments. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) for no more comments (inaudible) for next week because if then if it's not next week and put the week after then it's for this Board. We understand that you only have a week but if they come to us two days before the next meeting then we only have two days. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just a second, Liz wanted to ask something. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : There was mention that there is a pending Pre CO and that they had building permits for the barn/house whatever we're calling it, I asked Building for some information. A Pre inspection was done but they have not issued it because they have not finished with John's three comments as far as fixing what needed to be fixed. So there is no Pre, it is pending and that was dated CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that on the barn or is that on the house? 9JL July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : It says occupancy type barn, cement block wood frame shed on slate foundation. This was back on 6/21/2023. Then there are no active there are complaints in Municity as far as work being done on the building. There,are no building permits for anything. New dwelling with sleeping loft, two bedrooms, two baths. Existing barn needs building permit, electric, new windows, structural supports added interior and new electric back in 2022. Then there's another one that's being reviewed I guess cause there was another Disapproval back in 2022 in Municity which I'm trying to find in our records here. It says here in Disapproval draw pending so we probably never got it back from 2022 as far as let's see what it's for, "as builts". So, there are no active building permits. PAT MOORE : We've been trying to deal with this since 2022. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : But you haven't complied with what was needed to be complied with. PAT MOORE : That's why we're here, Liz we can't comply. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : No, the Pre CO needs electric cert., permits for windows, structural support, studs needs (inaudible) electric for wiring then okay for Pre CO no mention of ZBA on the barn. T. A. MCGIVNEY : What's the last date we're going then we're going to look at PAT MOORE : But you're submitting information that might be considered prejudicial so I just want to clarify. The Pre CO application for the barn, we had to get an electrical inspection, we can't get the electrical inspection finished until the electric is split and we can't have the electric split until we deal with it here. So, everything has been a problem that we are here trying to address, once we finish here then we can go back and finish with the Building Department. We can close out whatever the Building Department wants. The windows were the restoration of the barn the true barn, I don't remember windows are they new windows, I don't remember it could have been. TERESA DUNN : Some of the windows have been replaced and I've given all the window spec to the Building Department. The Electrical Inspector came through and he said, because the service was joined he had to inspect the other building. He can't go in the building until we have a building permit. PAT MOORE : building permit and we can't get a building permit until we are here. So, the problem is a technical 97- July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) service just cut the service. Couldn't you cut the service and then get a Pre CO on the barn? TERESA DUNN : It's too complicated to (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These are issues that the applicant PAT MOORE : We're addressing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ': are going to have to address. The Board always prefers that things come before us not after the fact. However, it is what it is but what we have to deal with right now is whether or not we're going to uphold or overturn a Building Inspector's determination about recognition of a lot. PAT MOORE : We have two variance requests, you have area variances and you have that so just to be clear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what we should do is set a time where we will cut off further written submission okay. That gives both of you the same amount of time and the public by the way and then we will close this. Now we can do it as late as the Special Meeting and just say we will accept nothing we'll accept everything up to the date of the 251h alright, that's two weeks' time. PAT MOORE :July 25th, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes July 25th. After that, at that time we will then close the hearing. We will clearly not have a decision. PAT MOORE : We know. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : We'll just close it and then we'll write up our determination after that and try and get it on two weeks later at the Public Hearing in September and if we need longer then it will be at the Special Meeting in September, we have the two. MARTHA REICHERT : May I ask just a point of clarification? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure MARTHA REICHERT : Will the hearing be continued and closed at the date of the Special Meeting or not that's just the date when for written submission? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only I would propose that we'll close it unless there is something profoundly riveting in there that we have not even thought of which I doubt will be 931 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting the case that would require an additional hearing. If all interested parties have an opportunity to be heard in writing then I think that's the end of that. It reaches a point where you have to say alright we're deciding. MARTHA REICHERT : I just want to make sure that I don't have to calendar the 25th to attend it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, I do not believer we will any of us want to have another public hearing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Also, there's no testimony on the 25th it's the Special Meeting, it's just a deadline. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's a deadline. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) with what our decision will be I guess it's August 1st MARTHA REICHERT : That's fine by me I just wanted to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure, okay. Is everybody clear of what's going on now?Alright so, I'm going to make a motion hearing no further comments or questions to adjourn this hearing to Thursday,July 25th for further written submissions. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. We have two Resolutions. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 9:00 AM so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Al in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye 941 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held June 20, 2024 so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. Motion to adjourn the Public Hearing. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES :Aye ; MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. 95 July 11, 2024 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION 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 :July 22, 2023 961