Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/05/2024 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 September 5, 2024 10:08 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 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Joseph A. Gebbia and Teresa M. Dunn #7902 4- 5 Decision for Paul Bentacourt#7932 5 - 6 Belle and Bean Ventures, LLC#7935 6- 16 Sara L. Campbell Cichanowicz and Jeffrey Campbell #7937 17- 18 Bungalow 12, LLC/Elizabeth McCance#7938 19- 24 Thomas and Mary Roulette#7939 25-31 Oregon Road Estates Vineyard, LLC/Russell Hearn #7941 31- 60 Joseph Vangi #7942 60-64 Stephane Segouin #7891 65 - 74 Alexander and April White#7940 75 -76 Thomas Bradford #7944 77-82 Elizabeth and Allen Jeremias/Soundhaus Holdings, LLC#7949 82-94 North Road Hotel LLC, Hotel Moraine#7927SE 94 North Road Hotel LLC, Hotel Moraine#7953 94 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for September 51h. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter is a 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 : Belle and Bean Ventures, Sara Campbell Cichanowicz and Jeffrey Campbell, Bungalow 12 LLC/Elizabeth McCance, Thomas and Mary Roulette, Oregon Road Estates Vineyard, LLC, Joseph Vangi, Alexander and April White, Thomas Bradford and Elizabeth and Allen Jeremias/Soundhause Holdings, LLC so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The next matter before us is a possible Resolution to close the hearing for Jonathan Presseau, we have received the information we requested. Are there any comments, otherwise I'm going to make a motion to close? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have two draft decisions in front of us, obviously Presseau we will table to September 19th Special Meeting. Is there a second on that table? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT.: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The first is Joseph Gebbia and Teresa Dunn #7902. Nick, would you like to do a slight review on this decision before we vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a lot going on in this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can just go to findings and facts if you want. I mean there's a tremendous amount of information on what was submitted and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So here the applicant was seeking to have a lot recognized or I should say asserting the right that the lot was in fact created by deed prior to 1983. It's a 40,000 sq. ft. one acre lot in zone that requires two acres (inaudible). So, from the findings and facts and there's a lot of testimony that was provided between the applicant and the neighbors opposed to the application. Subject lot SCTM#1000-127-3-6.5 is not recognized because it does not conform to one or more of the requirements of the plain language of Article II Section 280-9A which includes, evidence has not been illustrated to show that the identical lot was created by deed recorded in the Suffolk Clerk's Office on or before June 30, 1983. Evidence has been provided to illustrate that the subject lot does not conform to the minimum lot size requirements which included a minimum lot size of 80,000 sq. ft. in area and minimum lot depth of 250 ft. Furthermore, evidence has been provided to illustrate that the subject lot was not approved by the Town of Southold Planning Board. Evidence has been provided to illustrate that the subject lot is not included on a subdivision map approved by the Southold Town Planning Board prior to June 30, 1983. Finally, evidence has been provided to illustrate that the subject lot was not approved or recognized by formal action of the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to June 30, 1983. The motion before the Board is to uphold the Notice of Disapproval and to deny the variance relief requested. 4 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any discussion? Ready to vote? We have a motion to uphold the Notice of Disapproval and deny the variance relief requested. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye the motion carries. The next draft in front of us is for Paul BetancOUPt for a swimming pool in a front yard on Champlin Place on a corner lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This application is for request for two variances for the construction of an accessory swimming pool measuring 187 feet by 40 feet which is to be located in a front yard location where swimming pools or any accessory structures are limited by the zoning code to be located in a rear yard location. Furthermore, the proposed pool as a result of its size creates final lot coverage of 22.2% where the code limits lot coverage to 20% in the R40 zoning district. During the public hearing the applicant was requested to make the application more conforming with the code by perhaps reducing the size of the pool or offering an alternative location thereby reducing two variances possibly one or even removing all of them (inaudible) the application. They however made a resubmission to reduce the size of the pool to 16 by 36 where they had originally stated 16 by 32 feet which would of course remove one of the conditions not conditions, variances. Swimming pools are not commonly located in front yard locations, this is at a corner lot at a well-traveled road. I present a motion to deny the application as applied for excuse me as amended, deny the variance as applied for and amended. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and the important thing here is that the applicant has definitely had alternative opportunities to put a swimming pool on the property in conforming location as the one other existing pool in that neighborhood has already done. Okay, we have a motion to deny as applied and as amended. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#7935—BELLE and BEAN VENTURES, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Belle and Bean Ventures, LLC #7935. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's April 9, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize the "as built" habitable third story in an existing single-family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted maximum two and one-half (2 %) stories located at 3535 Westphalia Rd. in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : I'm Andrew Zasowski. RITA ZASOWSKI : I'm Rita Zasowksi. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sure that you've been made aware that the code only permits 2 % stories and your Notice of Disapproval indicated that you have three stories. You have cited some prior applications for limited use of a third story, habitable space, the decisions were not submitted but the numbers were. I think you indicted in your application; I'm just verifying some of the facts in our file to make sure that they are correct. You're indicating that you have to go through a bedroom to access this office use that's only for your use and that you use if for storage apparently when you're renting your premises out. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yea but we haven't rented yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You indicated as you know if it's deemed to be a third story you're going to have to install a sprinkler system per state code. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is not your primary residence, is that correct, you bought the house in 2022? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess the goal here is to legalize this space so that you can rent the property for two or three months, is that correct? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did.not do an interior inspection but I want to verify with you that the attic space is open and uninsulated. What is that square footage of that habitable space? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : I would say approximately four hundred to five hundred square feet. RITA ZASOWSKI : I think we added insulation it was ANDREW ZASOWSKI : No the insulation was there when we purchased the home so we dry walled. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You put in dry wall. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there heat? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yes, heating, cooling and that was the heating cooling unit is actually in that closet on the right hand side there and that (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no plumbing? RITA ZASOWSKI : No plumbing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the square footage of the entire attic space? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : That is (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you are occupying the entirety of that space for okay RITA ZASOWSKI : We didn't we probably took away some of that square footage by putting all the stuff in the closet there like heating and cooling but that's where it started. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was insulated as an attic space when they bought it, they added sheet rock and heating and cooling. MEMBER LEHNERT :They finished it out. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) window seat and everything that's your work? RITA ZASOWSKI : That's our work. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : We did not add heating and cooling, the heating and cooling was there, all we did was move it into behind the closet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh so it was already was that's unusual when it's just an unfinished space and it only I presume services that area? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : It's the upper level, so it's the attic space as well as one level below. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have photos of the space when it was unfinished? MEMBER LEHNERT :There's a photo in the packet of the space when its CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The packet is just showing the insulation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It had the flooring also, wood flooring. ANDREW ZASOWSKI :There is a photo here. RITA ZASOWSKI : He's going to bring up the photo. MEMBER LEHNERT : At one point it was clearly an attic, I mean even the steps are rough steps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in our packet. When you looked for prior examples of small areas in attic spaces for a third stories being used, can you recall cause again these decisions are just numbers you didn't submit the actual full decision. Can you recall about what size or what percentage of an attic space was being used in any of those and what they were being used for? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : The use I recall, there was definitely one that was approved for like a fitness center, one was approved for storage and one was also approved for a sitting room and it seemed to be the reasons for disapproval that I saw were plumbing if it was a bedroom use that was proposed which is obviously not at all what we're suggesting here. F September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I remember one of those and I think the rest of the Board does as well. MEMBER DANTES : They were all on hills I believe too. A lot of them were on hills that just barely half the basement was exposed and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and it was constituted a third story. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Which is exactly what we're dealing with here cause the front of our house is about forty to fifty percent the lowest level is about forty to fifty percent below grade in the front but then it's a walkout in the back. So, the net and I think we had a survey done to measure it, the net is the lowest level is probably about thirty-five percent (inaudible) grade. MEMBER DANTES : How close are you to having like how close is the basement to being not considered a story then? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : That fifteen percent difference, so it would have to be fifty percent to not be considered a story and then we would have effectively a two story structure. We're at about thirty-five percent, we did discuss with the Building Department potentially raising the grade around that level and they weren't receptive to that but didn't actually provide a lot of reasoning why that would not work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No MEMBER DANTES : So, basically you're saying this application is similar to the other ones and that your hardship is you have a sloped property which takes away storage. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Two questions if I may, you said earlier that you want to rent the house, currently you don't have a rental permit and in order to get the rental permit you want to close out the potential of a building permit of the third floor. Why wouldn't you and you said you needed the space for storage, why wouldn't you just keep it as an unfinished attic and just put a lock on the door? RITA ZASOWSKI : So we both we actually stay in the house quite a bit too, we're just trying to kind of (inaudible) the cost and we both work from home so we use it as a home office and storage which should be in our application. So, we put a desk like there and then we store like our office books and little book shelves and stuff like that but we just thought it would be a 9 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting private space for us cause there's not most of the quote, unquote bedrooms don't actually have closets in this house, we've put up rods so we were like we'll just move our stuff up to the attic and then when we're there we'll use it as an office space if that makes sense. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's a unique you got certain levels it's split I get it, in my packet I have this picture I don't know who submitted it and I don't know who made the comment as far as the room but there's like a home office in what looks like the attic. RITA ZASOWKSI : I have to see it. ANDREW ZASOWKI : This is I'm going to call it a half level I don't know if that's technically (inaudible) but off of the master bedroom so if you see where the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right on the floor plan there was a master bedroom like five steps below the proposed ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yea and then this is the opposite side MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) side ANDREW ZASOWSKI : This is the exterior wall and this is the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly so like a partition wall ANDREW ZASOWSKI : This is envisioned to be back and RITA ZASOWSKI : So that is we have a permit pending to do a bathroom there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're using it as you're framing it out as an office. RITA ZASOWSKI : He was originally, we now moved when the attic got done we put the desk up in the attic that was in there because they were working on that that's where that came from. You're talking about the bathroom? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yea that's the bathroom. RITA ZASOWSKI : Yea that's not in there anymore that same desk is now up in the attic, we just didn't have a place when the people were finishing the attic to put the desk so he was sitting in that little unfinished space (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea I have a question, you're making the argument that because of the way the grade slopes that it's considered the basement is almost considered a story but yet 3.0 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting on any of the documentation I'm not seeing that. All your elevations show a flat grade, there is no contours on the survey can you speak to that? RITA ZASOWSKI : Is it okay if he comes up and shows you on the survey cause that might be easier cause I don't read surveys so I'm not the right person. We have the letter from the architect in there too that explains it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Usually when you make that argument there's documentation to show it. ANDREW ZASOWKSI : It should be on the survey but there may be two surveys.in this pack. MEMBER LEHNERT : The survey we have has no contours, it doesn't show anything and the elevations are showing a flat grade. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And it's showing you one and half(inaudible). ANDREW ZASOWKSI : So there was an updated survey that was completed in January. that showed the elevations. Our architect who did the building plans leveraged an old survey that did not have elevations. There is a I would say about a three to four foot drop off from the front of the property to the back. MEMBER LEHNERT : I would say that if you're going to use that as an argument that documentation needs to be shown to us. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yea and it is,Joshua R. Wicks. MEMBER LEHNERT : Again, there's no contours on here, it's just showing a spot elevation. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : I'm not sure I understand when you say contours. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh, a topographical map as these lines kind of wave and that are spaced usually five feet or ten feet intervals and it basically shows the grade change. It's flat but that's what surveys typically would do if there's a substantial slope on a property. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : He just showed the measurements above sea level here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Talk about the basement where you talked about that perhaps could have brought in soil to sort of bury grade (inaudible) basement level that's exposed, are you talking about the basement, basement or the living room basement? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : The living room basement. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So in effect you have two basements where the living room would be the basement. :1.:L September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yes but not underneath each other. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I suspect if you we did inspect the property so we have seen some of it, perhaps if you submit some photographs of the rear of your house you know the walkout and maybe from the side showing the slope that would suffice but I mean I think Rob is correct. If we're arguing in part that the third story is a consequence of this sloped property which is then similar to others, we've granted it would help your argument to have some evidence in our record. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You can see where Donna is moving the mouse there's a little grade shift below the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but it's very tiny. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's elevation (inaudible) the living room doors you know four steps below the (inaudible) kitchen door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically when drawings are done they would show a slope and then where the actual foundation starts. RITA ZASOWSKI : Is it okay if we supplement our application to include it? We'll get it to you later today since we're out here and we're happy to have you out too if you guys want to see it. It is like the side of the house is definitely very different than the back. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : So, I have this photo here if I can bring it up. The level where you walk out on the deck, that is the same level as the front door of the house and so that but you see the patio to the right of that is a few feet below at least. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's probably maybe a couple of feet, it's not a huge slope but it's clearly enough to give you the clearance to walk out from an interior room. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Correct, and also if you if we had a photo of the front of the house you can see that the windows yea right there, so the windows to the left are inches above the grade level and if you're inside that room that's probably thirty-six to forty-eight inches to the window sill the bottom of the window sill. MEMBER DANTES : But is that half of the'room being exposed is what's creating your third story? ANDREW ZASOWSKI : Yes, correct. MEMBER DANTES : And then it's kind of awkward cause you have the other extension on the house at a different level on the third floor? I don't know how that gets calculated then you September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting have your what's called the second story, okay I understand. So, when you were talking about the grade you were talking about basically covering up those windows with dirt. ANDREW ZASOWSKI : No it would be on the left hand side and it would be bringing up the grade level to make the average of the you know the perimeter of that level more than fifty percent below. So, the grade on the left-hand side of the building we'd probably have to come up a few feet. The grade underneath that deck that is there could come up another eighteen inches or so and the net of that I believe would bring it up to about fifty percent. MEMBER DANTES : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I think we got it. Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No that explains. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? MEMBER LEHNERT: We have someone who wants to speak. BILL FLINTER : Hello, my name is Bill Flinter, I live at 3435 Westphalia next door to the applicants. I had a couple of concerns, a new one I just learned about the grading. If you look at the front of the property, I'm to the left-hand side and grading of the property scares me because I'm already below their grade I'd say probably six to eight feet. I have had some floods in my basement, nothing severe but the grading would certainly cause major problems for me but that's something I just learned today. In general, having a three story home next door to me makes me nervous, what it could hold in the future; could it be an apartment, could they dormer it out, can it get larger once this is approved how much further could it go. So, I have concerns as a neighbor and just wanted to voice those so thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Bill. I don't believe that they're proposing to do any grading, I think they were looking to get as an alternative to what is now before the Zoning Board and that's been rejected, is that correct? RITA ZASOWSKI : That's correct, we wouldn't be doing any grading. It wasn't our preference ever to do something the really nice permit guy suggested us to look into and we don't have the house is kind of too big for us as is, we're not going to be expanding it has more bedrooms than our primary home right now. BILL FLINTER : I totally understand that but you know with the vision being for a rental obviously adding more bedrooms, more space is going to be more profitable and maybe it won't be you know you've been very great neighbors you know very pleasant to live next to 131 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting never any issues, no noise, no problems but maybe a new owner someone down the line once we have this third story as part of the home I just feel like it opens the door to additional construction and now I could have potentially you know could it be an apartment an accessory dwelling unit you know could you ultimately have this be four, five units I'm living next to? If you have a finished walk out basement, an attic space and you know obviously everything inside CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't really theorize about the future but we can condition any approval we determine we should grant to limit the use of the approved habitable third story space. I don't see how they're going to expand it unless they did an addition to the house which would be denied BILL FLINTER : Yes like a dormer or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : because it would be a third floor addition. This is the conversion of what is a two and a half story essentially house and because of the grade change it's now determined to be a third floor even though it's a two and half story house. So, we can condition the approval for office use by owners only and storage and that's it. BILL FLINTER : I just again, when you hear living next to a three story home red flags went off in my head. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but the house isn't being altered in any way, I mean it's not it's certainly conforming to the height limit which is 35 feet and they're not proposing any addition they're using what's already there and they're going to have to put in a sprinkler system which is pretty costly in order to make it comply with state code. MEMBER DANTES : The discussion about the grade wasn't asking them to change it, we're just trying to figure out how close they are to being code conforming. BILL FLINTER : Yea and I think you know I should have been more prepared and maybe had some of these measurements but like I said I'm if you look at the front of the home I'm to the left-hand side. The grade isn't necessarily sloped from front to back of our properties it's more coming you're,going down a hill to basically where Mattituck inlet comes across on Westphalia and you have that tiny little bridge. So that slope is more going across the front of the house which is so if you have their garage on the right-hand side, front to back is more level but I mean you can obviously see it when it slopes off at the end there and you have the walk out basement only on that one side it's you know you wouldn't be able to have the same walk out on the opposite side of the property. :14 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, well it's difficult to calculate this, it's the Building Department who has the authority to do it but every property slope is somewhat different and they take a mean average from the height of the ridge of a roof to wherever they determine is the mean average of the grade on the property and that's not easy to figure out. That's why they're before us cause otherwise they would have just sprinkled it and that would have been that. RITA ZASOWSKI : We really don't want to do it anyway because it would be a big eyesore for us you know as you can imagine so it would have BILL FLINTER : It would need a retaining wall to be honest. RITA ZASOWSKI : It would need all that. It was just as expensive to do that as is a sprinkler system. A sprinkler system, we have young kids so we want the safety of it that's why we're happy to go that way and if anyone is staying at our house, we want them to be safe, but we don't want anyone sleeping up there it just can't happen. We also changed the septic to make sure that it's compliant to the number of bedrooms we have, it can't accommodate more so I think that it's something that also would prohibit if we ever sold the house someone else from doing that if that's a comfort cause that's a permitting issue as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Two new things sort of came up that I don't want to drag this out longer than we need to but one, I didn't see a C of 0 for a finished basement. MEMBER DANTES : Technically they're not calling it a finished basement, technically they're calling it a CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : First floor. MEMBER DANTES : It's cause half of those windows and half their first floor is buried underground so it's a first floor it's not a basement. MEBMER PLANAMENTO : So then on the architectural plans it's (inaudible) says first floor which goes back to speaking to the third floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It shouldn't be called a basement it's the first habitable floor and second RITA ZASOWSKI : And that is not finished that is just an empty room. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Then the other thing I wanted to sort of touch base on, you mentioned before the conversation started that the house is larger than what your needs are, September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting so the question would be if the house was larger than what you need why do you need a finished third floor? I understand what you said, but RITA ZASOWSKI : Yea I mean for us we're trying to rent it two months of the year to subsidize some of the cost of the home, it's something that we did as an investment property. We are a family of four and we do have my parents and things you probably seen. My family comes out you know and its great to have extra space but from a day to day we don't you know we're a family of four plus an au pair so we use four of the five bedrooms right now and it gives us a guest bedroom. The attic is more for us to have the storage to store our stuff should we rent it and to have two separate work situations. We really need the I work at a law firm and he works at (inaudible) and we can't hear each other's calls so we need to have that privacy. It would be a nonstarter for each of our jobs to not be in separate spaces given some of the confidential information that we have on those calls. So that's the drivers (inaudible) privacy and also as I mentioned we have a six-year-old and a seven-year-old and it helps us to have separate space from them because they try to run in and out quite a bit so it's been ideal and it's allowed us to work remotely and be out here a lot. We spend a lot of time here now; we love it here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else Bill? BILL FLINTER : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else in the audience? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Anything from the Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we will have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. RITA ZASOWSKI : I'll send you the photos too to supplement it. Thank you all so much, have a great day. :16 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7937—SARA L. CAMPBELL CICHANOWICZ and JEFFREY CAMPBELL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sara L. Campbell Cichanowicz and Jeffrey Campbell #7937. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 15, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 2220 Depot Lane in Cutchogue. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. I'm hoping this is a little more straightforward than the last hearing. So, my clients had previously renovated their home to create space for Sara's elderly mother, she is her caretaker and now they're just looking to restore what was the garage and build a two-car garage about 526 sq. ft. which just so happens that the existing side yard line is non- conforming at 16.4 ft. where we need 20. It's a conforming lot in the R80 well it's not it's a one-acre lot in the R80 zoning. Even though we are not here and don't need any front yard relief I just wanted to note that even with the addition of the garage all of the other homes in that little stretch of Depot there and even the Night of Columbus are all you know well forward of the front line of this home. So even with adding this garage addition it's really not going to have any impact on the surrounding community. There was a there are two sheds on the property that were in non-conforming locations that have been relocated I just want to hand up revised (inaudible). So, you know it's pretty straightforward, I did give you guys a memo of law, I'm not going to belabor it, it seems pretty straightforward here it's obviously not a substantial ask. There is also a letter of support from Gecky Wickham who lives right next door which would be the property that would be the most impacted and there is pretty substantial screening along that south line that I think to the (inaudible) there would be don't even know if this would be noticeable to the neighbors. So that's really it, if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we did notice the side yard is very heavily screened with very tall mature arborvitae so I agree I don't know how there would be any visible impact. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The sheds were relocated to conforming locations. They were just hugging the property line so rather than having to get a variance for them CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : you just moved them over. 37 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea MEMBER DANTES :There's a little trash shed, a plastic shed? z MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,just making a note, updated survey. MEMBER DANTES : The one shed changed, the one shed went from 10 x 14 to 10 x 10. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I didn't even notice that I have to be honest with you, but it's in a conforming location. MEMBER DANTES : Yea 10 x 10 oh I see cause it had a plastic shed on the back and the surveyor wrote it as one big giant structure. It was something that needed a permit and turned it into something that didn't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin, no questions. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Thank you Nick. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserved decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7938—BUNGALOW 12 LLC/ELIZABETH MCCANCE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Bungalow 12 LLC/Elizabeth McCance #7938. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280- 124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207, Article XXXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's April 4, 2024 amended April 30, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new two-story single-family dwelling with a screened porch, terrace, covered porches and decks 1) located less than the code required minimum secondary front yard setback of 20 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 3) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 30,000 sq. ft. in area, 4) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 358 Ark Hill on Fishers Island. SAM FITZGERALD : Good morning, Sam Fitzgerald appearing on behalf of the applicant 1420 The Gloaming Fishers Island. I'd like to just I won't take too much of your time at all here but I'd like to just give you a brief background on the property if I could. As you know on June 21 there was a fire and the house burnt down and it was a total loss. Since then, the property has been sort of scraped clean and presents today sort of a vacant or an empty lot. The house is called Cottage 12, it was built in the early nineteen hundreds as part of the mansion house hotel complex. The hotel is no longer there but all the seasonal cottages that were associated with the hotel are still with us and are sort of tightly clustered in this neighborhood called Shingle Hill. Cottage 12 here was on the upper side of Shingle Hill and all the houses on that northern periphery of Shingle Hill were built into a bungalow low (inaudible) bungalow style. They present as sort of having a one-story with a hipped roof and sort of second-floor bedrooms crammed into the roof spaces with pop up dormers. So that's the same style that Cottage 12 was built in. After the fire the owners wanted to rebuild and I helped them with that process. The property has quite a few zoning hardships, it's a non-conforming lot, it is a pizza slice as you can see. It's a three-sided corner lot that is (inaudible) undersized for its zone. Even with the setbacks that are afforded to us for non-conforming lots the allowable building area is quite small and it's difficult to put a viable house within that area and certainly Cottage 12 the previous house did not fit into the allowable area and we needed variances for setbacks. So, we got the variance to rebuild Cottage 12 and then after that the owner's kind of sat on it for a little bit and then decided that they really just couldn't do a construction project at this point particularly with the hardships with this property. They put September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting the property up for sale and they moved elsewhere on the island so the best person in my opinion who could have bought this property did and that's Elizabeth McCance. She owns the property directly behind Cottage 12, so Cottage 12 abuts her property along the rear property line. The McCance family has been on Fishers for generations, they have invested heavily on the island, this is sort of their forever place. Elizabeth is looking to the future and to the next generation and she wants this newly rebuilt Cottage 12 house to be for her kids so it's like a mini compound and hopefully it will be in the family for many, many years to come. Just very quickly, there are three things that we wanted to do with the design and the site development, the first was we wanted to respect the architectural traditions of the old Cottage 12 so our new design also presents in that sort of bungalow style with a one-story house with a hip roof and then pop-up dormers for the second floor. We also are drawing heavily from the details of the old Cottage 12 house, for instance the wrap around porch uses the exact same sort of arched openings, the shingle detailing, the railings all that's drawn exactly from Cottage 12 and the same with the eave details, the roof overhangs so all that's again just drawn directly from Cottage 12. A second thing is that we wanted to have no negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. The third thing was, we wanted to respect our immediate neighbors. So, regarding two and three the house has a very similar footprint size and shape as the old Cottage 12 and it's built generally in the same spot. The old house had eight bedrooms; we have four bedrooms in this new house so we're reducing the traffic by half you could say. We have a two-car garage in the basement of the new house, the old house had no garage so we're taking two cars off the street. I said that we're building the house in generally the same location as the old house but we're also pushing it back farther to the back of the property and that's to give even more relief to the neighbors and also you know the only person that would be impacted by that would be (inaudible). Sorry the Wi-Fi is horrible here on Fishers, I'm done I think that we've done what we can to respect the character of the neighborhood and the architectural traditions of Shingle Hill. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's enter into the record precisely what variance relief you're seeking, first is the secondary front yard setback is at 10.4 feet where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet on a property that size. You're looking at a rear yard setback at 10 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet and you're looking at a GFA of 5,130 sq. ft. where the code allows a maximum GFA of 4,350 sq. ft. so you will be exceeding the current GFA code by 1,340 sq. ft., and you are exceeding the sky plane you are intruding into the sky plane. So that is four variances. SAM FITZGERALD : Correct yes, yes and let me just say actually with the gross floor area if I could. So, the actual house is only the actual livable floor area is only 200 sq. ft. more than the existing house it's just that with the gross floor area we have some rooms in the house with ZQ September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting volumed heights that are over 15 feet in height so those spaces (inaudible) why the gross floor area is so high. It's really quite close to the existing size of the house. MEMBER DANTES : Wait I thought code was 20 feet you can't double, I thought 15 is okay. SAM FITZGERALD : Well I just was going through this with the Building Department and I was under the understanding that it was 15. If I'm wrong on that I'd be happy to amend that but yea I was just dealing with this with Mike Verity and he made me put on a different project he made me put a tape measure up to the ridge beam and he said oh you're 14.10 you're good. Again, I'd be very happy to drop that variance if we could. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're saying you think you may not need the GFA variance? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) 15 feet as I read the code. MEMBER DANTES : Oh it was the other application was 20 feet? Is there a way to bring the 15-foot ceilings down to 14.10? SAM FITZGERALD : We have an open stair our central stair hall it goes up to two stories so that's difficult to get down but the great room we could probably get below 15 but I may still actually be over because our allowable I think 3,700 and I think we'll probably be slightly over that even if we bring those ceiling heights down. I think we'll probably still going to need that variance actually now that we're thinking about it but it wouldn't be as severe MEMBER LEHNERT : But it would lessen the extent of the variance. SAM FITZGERALD :That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sam can you see our screen? Liz has Tracey in the office with her from the Building Department. SAM FITZGERALD : Oh is that Tracey, oh hey. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I questioned this proposed roof plan so I went to Tracey, this is on my part and I said this wasn't pointed out in the N.O.D., two and half stories it says on the side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask this question Liz, thank you. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLLOS : So I went to ask Tracey I mean would this be allowed, it's not on the N.O.D. and Tracey is saying they never received these plans. TRACEY DWYER : No they're not a part of the original Disapproval. September 5,2024 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD : For the roof? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Third floor look out room with a roof deck. SAM FITZGERALD : So it is a half flight up from the second floor and it's a ceiling height below 6 feet. So, we're just trying to squeeze in some height there. The problem with these bungalows is that they're all so low height you know they're just basically trying to cram in as many bedrooms as possible on the second floor and so it's a flat ceiling on the first floor and then it's a flat ceiling and then again, it's just cramming in as many bedrooms into the roof space as you can. So, if we're doing this the one thing that we wanted to do is we wanted to try to get some volume into these houses. As I said, the previous house had eight bedrooms, we have four and what we're doing is we're taking the space of those four other bedrooms and making volume spaces. So that's a feature that none of these houses have and also with that sort of lookout we're calling it, there's some great opportunity for some water views there. What it is is it's up half a flight and that lookout room is about you know it's about 6 foot 6 in ceiling height just to get a door out of there and there's no second floor under that it's just stair hall. So, technically it's you know well I think that it would certainly qualify as a half story or you could also argue that it's the second floor because there's no floor underneath it, it's just the first floor, stairs up and then the roof a roof lookout area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sam could you address the sky plane issue? SAM FITZGERALD : Sure, it's the along the Arch Hill side, along the Arch Hill front yard side, the existing house is quite close to the road and I don't think that we are encroaching any farther on that side I think we match the existing setback that used to be there and that just makes sense from a building siting standpoint. So, we are we have a dormer on that side that clips the sky plane a little bit so it's super close but we clip it. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any way to avoid that, can you miter it? SAM FITZGERALD : We can look at that sure absolutely yep we can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if there was a way to get rid of the sky plane and to reduce the GFA that certainly makes sense. MEMBER LEHNERT : That would go a long way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to consider submitting an amended application? SAM FITZGERALD : Sure absolutely, I would be happy to take a look at the sky plane and then to take a look at the GFA too yea whatever we can do to get that GFA number down is fine, the answer is yes. We are just a little bit over what the existing house was so you know that 27- September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting GFA number is you know doesn't necessarily reflect the livable area in relationship to what the existing house was. The short answer is yes, we can look at that again. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Sam the GFA definition is it's 15 feet. SAM FITZGERALD : 15 feet, yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that makes sense, you know unfortunately because the. sky plane law was implemented after the variances were already obtained under a different set of code and now you're really literally building from scratch so there's no the reference to the prior dwelling that was demolished is essentially a historic context. We have to consider this as new construction. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was going to speak to also. Sam, thank you for showing Julie and me around along with Members of the Historic Preservation Commission when we were recently on the island. I.just have I don't want to say issue but previous relief was granted for a house that was destroyed by fire. So, this is something that's now a reinterpretation, it's not in a historic district and while I'm very sympathetic to the architecture of the island and maintaining this as you presented, I just don't understand why it can't conform. You do have a triangular shaped parcel which.is very unusual, I sort of see more of like a "T" shaped house on the site which will further reduce variance relief by just it's new construction on basically a vacant lot. The prior owners had ample opportunity to rebuild both with or without variance relief; because of the fire I understand Mike Verity is allowing them to build exactly the same house and it was the owner's choice at that point to expand and sort of modernize I get that. This is now a vacant lot, it's years down (inaudible) and while it's a lovely home I just I think especially if you pulled it forward it would be more conforming and the way you got the exposed garage there is a terrain shift a substantial shift that would expose more of a lower Level which would be again in keeping with (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well, Rob do you have anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : No you guys asked the questions I was going to ask. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the audience? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay so Sam, why don't we what do you want to do? Do you want to adjourn this to the Special Meeting, in two weeks or do you want me to adjourn this subject to receipt of an amended application or just adjourn it to next month? MEMBER LEHNERT : Are we waiting for are we going to do a new Notice of Disapproval? September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You'll probably need a new Notice of Disapproval. If some of them are going to stay the same and some are eliminated, we won't need a new Notice of Disapproval we just write it up as the elimination of those variances in the decision. It's part of an amended application SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie excuse me, it might need to get amended because Sam has to give the Building Department the plan for that roof CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, I suspect the best way to do it is for just let him amend was he's going to submit and then resubmit to Building to verify what's left. Does that make sense to you Sam? SAM FITZGERALD : Sure. MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) receipt of a new N.O.D. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He might be redesigning the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we're going to October is so full I think probably the best way to do this is to give everybody you're not going to start building right this moment anyway, we should just adjourn this to the November hearing and that way you'll have plenty of time to work with the Building Department, with your 'client and so on and we'll have plenty of time to review whatever you submit to us Sam. Hearing nothing further I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing in anticipation of an amended application to the November Public Hearing date, November 7th. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, nice talking to you Sam. 24 September 5,2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7939—THOMAS and MARY ROULETTE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas and Mary Roulette #7939. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXXVI Section 280-208A and the Building Inspector's March 15, 2024 amended March 27, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and construct a single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane`as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 705 Meday Ave. (adj. to Howards Branch) in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? MARY ROULETTE : Mary Roulette THOMAS ROULETTE : Thomas Roulette CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome MARY ROULETTE : We have a brief statement if you're interested. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes sure, go ahead. MARY ROULETTE : Good morning Zoning Board Members, my name is Mary Roulette thank you for taking the time to review and consider our request to remodel and improve the aesthetics of our eighty-seven year old home located at 705 Meday Ave. Mattituck. My husband Tom and I purchased the home in February 1995 and have spent much time there allowing us to become familiar with the North Fork and the amenities and charm it has to offer. We are minimalists by nature and believe our home remodel plans are in check with the goal of the Zoning Board and the North Fork community to preserve the rural character of the North Fork. As we are both sixty-seven years old our plan is to convert our cabin into a modest three bedroom two and half bath ranch home. In the almost thirty years we've owned the home we have never rented it nor do we plan to. Our architectural plans are low profile and de minuous. We have the support of our neighbors who have expressed that they look forward to the improvement and the change. We would like to make this our forever home but need to update its infrastructure as well as the. inside facilities. We welcome any questions you may have and look forward to a positive decision. Thank you. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware we've all inspected the property, we've all been out there to we do that for every application before a hearing and I want to enter,into the record what variance relief you're actually requesting. This is a demo and reconstruct with a side yard setback at .7 where the code requires a minimum of 15 feet, a front yard setback of 28.8 feet the code requiring 50 feet and it exceeds the sky plane. Well with .7 side yard no wonder, there is no roof that is going to is there? THOMAS ROULETTE :That's LIPA I'm sure you're aware that's LIPA property. I don't know how that happened, the house was there before LIPA had the property I'm not sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't think they'll be objecting. THOMAS ROULETTE : Those power lines are not energized anymore. MARY ROULETTE : For years, since we've been there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The current it looks like the current front yard setback is at 42 feet 1 inch is that right? MEMBER DANTES : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay but by putting that addition on the front you're going to be reducing it. It looks like you have a 46,781.2 sq. ft. lot of which 41,256.7 is buildable, private dirt road. You have a very substantial rear yard setback from the wetlands it looks like which is a good thing. The dwelling across the other side of that private road is set back very far and screened with landscaping. I do not anticipate any adverse visual impacts on anybody. MARY ROULETTE : We have written statements from our neighbors if you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes why don't you submit those, those are helpful. Rob any questions from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have two questions, the first one relates to the front yard setback, is there anyway this garage can be redesigned or turned to lessen the front yard setback? THOMAS ROULETTE : More trees would have to be taken down and it's a sloped on that side it slopes down (inaudible) runoff or something like that. It would be trees having to come down it's kind of wooded between ours and the next house over. They own part of that too those (inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : Well it's clearly your property. My second question was the sky plane, is there any way we can avoid the sky plane variance? 2,61 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting THOMAS ROULETTE : I don't see how CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's this little corner here. MEMBER LEHNERT : The corner here, it's showing a roof where there's'no second floor above it. MARY ROULETTE : I don't know how that can be dissected in any way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So to Rob's point though, is there a second floor above that existing bedroom? THOMAS ROULETTE : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So in the elevation it shows basically an operational window is that an attic window? THOMAS ROULETTE : That's going to be an attic,that's going to be storage above the garage. MARY ROULETTE : It's stationary. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh that's the garage? MARY ROULETTE : Yea THOMAS ROULETTE : That's the back. MEMBER LEHNERT : That's the rear elevation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So to Rob's point though, if you see the cut away line where it shows that you're penetrating the sky plane, often time people will miter the roof just taking away that edge. So on the one side of the (inaudible) is that something that you can possibly do since there's no living space above the bedroom? THOMAS ROULETTE : The architect (inaudible) I think that's the LIPA, we're so close we're seven tenths of a foot or something MARY ROULETTE : From LIPA THOMAS ROULETTE : There's markers on both sides, if you stand on both sides its' kind of (inaudible) you're looking right down the side of the house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly it's right on the lot line. Z71 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting THOMAS ROULETTE : That room was built by I think in 1954,the house was built in '37 so you know MEMBER,DANTES : So you're saying that's an existing condition that sky plane? MARY ROULETTE : Yes THOMAS ROULETTE : Well it is I think they're going to bring up the roof a little bit but not the garage part (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it would be still be in the sky plane anyway even if you didn't raise it. MARY ROULETTE : LIPA got the mailing. THOMAS ROULETTE : Probably right now it's probably in violation in the sky plane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes MARY ROULETTE : LIPA didn't respond to the mailing with any MEMBER DANTES : No they won't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what I'm asking I think what we just want to confirm with you what is there now looks like that? MARY ROULETTE : Yes THOMAS ROULETTE : Yes right that bedroom the bedrooms are all staying the same that's really the main part of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it is an existing condition that is being maintained, it's not a proposed new construction. MARY ROULETTE : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Didn't he just say he's raising the roof? MEMBER LEHNERT : He's raising the roof, so if we're raising the roof it's not an existing condition. THOMAS ROULETTE : It is right now (inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct but the minute you raise the roof that existing condition goes away. Z& September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the garage side, the attic window that's the west side. The original elevation I was talking about there's a similar window on the east side which is you know you can reduce the size of the window since it's only for an attic and miter the yea right there the east elevation. So Donna whoever is using the mouse that's the dormer(inaudible) THOMAS ROULETTE :That upper window that's the garage MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So really it's just this right here if you can lower the garage roof and that's the existing condition. MEMBER LEHNERT : No because he's saying he's going to be moved. THOMAS ROULETTE : (inaudible) looking at the picture it might not be. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the picture looks different between the existing and proposed conditions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you check with your architect and just ask the question. Just say the Board would like to eliminate that if it's architecturally feasible to do that. MEMBER LEHNERT : And if not the case tell us the drawing where the existing violates it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's a good point, show the existing condition and then if they're raising the roof show what the proposed THOMAS ROULETTE : (inaudible) because we're so close. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen I would assume so, but it's a small little drawing from an architect to just confirm here's the existing sky plane here's the proposed sky plane. THOMAS ROULETTE : And I might want to add that I've been cutting the lawn for almost thirty years on that LIPA side,of the property. MEMBER LEHNERT : I mean he should have a sky plane also on the proposed elevation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay can you do that for us? Is there anybody in the audience who would like to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Why don't I just adjourn this to the next meeting in two weeks to give you time to talk to your architect. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Why don't we just close it subject to receipt of the drawings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right we're not going to need another hearing. MEMBER LEHNERT : I would agree with Nick. Z September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just don't know if they're going to be able to get it in time. We close it subject to receipt of that information then we can start the clock, we have sixty-two days to render a decision from the time we receive it. We won't take sixty-two days we never do. THOMAS ROULETTE : You scared us, our daughter is getting married in like two weeks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Congratulations MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would ask the architect in fact if it doesn't if the original roof ridge without the portion of the house already (inaudible) the sky plane to show it but alternatively if he can just miter the roof line then the variance goes away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board is required by law to grant if justifiable the minimum variance possible and if there is an alternative a feasible alternative to a variance we're required to inquire of the applicant if they can eliminate it, that's what's going on here. So, we are just acting within what the state laws require us to do. MARY ROULETTE : So request that of him and bring it to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea,just submit it to the office as soon as you get it. When we get it we'll mark it received and then we'll get out a decision as soon after that as soon as we possibly can. MARY ROULETTE : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm going to make a motion to close subject to receipt of information on existing and proposed sky plane. THOMAS ROULETTE : What if he tells us that it.can't be done? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we'll have a determination you know. If he wants to state that in a letter or show us what the existing and proposed is. MEMBER LEHNERT : He can still show us the existing and proposed. MARY ROULETTE : Do you think based on your past experience, do you think it can be done? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably but probably it depends on a lot of factors, it depends on the aesthetic consequences for you and for the architect but it looks visually as though you have enough ceiling height in that room you should be able to (inaudible) that corner off and a hip roof is easy to do you know it kind of just goes like that and then there's a ridge. Then that would just get rid of a variance which you know would be very helpful. So, I have a September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting motion to close subject to receipt of information on existing and proposed sky plane. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Thank you for your time. MARY ROULETTE : Thank you very much. HEARING#7941—OREGON ROAD ESTATES VINEYARD, LLC/RUSSELL HEARN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Oregon Road Estates Vineyard, LLC/Russell Hearn #7941. This is a request for a variance from the Building Inspector's April 29, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct alterations to an existing building for office and wine tasting area 1) to allow the expansion of the tasting room pursuant to Zoning Board of Appeals decision #6469 condition #1 which states that no further expansion of the tasting room as applied for is allowed without further review located at 13050 Oregon Rd. in Cutchogue. The Zoning Board approved this application for a tasting room with storage and office space and conditioned this approval No. 6469 that no further expansion was allowed for the tasting room without further Board review. Also, the Planning Board decision of 10/8/2011 condition No. 5 indicated, new site plan is required for Planning Board approval and we've inspected the property and it's quite clear that the expansion was done,they are "as built" and the question is, why was that done without property further review from the Zoning Board prior if new you know if new conditions had arisen from the time that approval was granted? With that condition we should have been made aware of it and it should have been reviewed before the September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting decision was made to go ahead and make those alterations. So, that's the first thing I'd like to know, why was that done that way? PAT MOORE : Let's go back to specifics, the building has not changed so we're talking about interior only. From the records the Building Department records in 2011 there were construction drawings that were part of the C of 0 that was issued late in 2012. Almost within the year immediately there was a revised interior alteration to what was originally identified as an office. It has a stamp by the Planning Board, it refers to fire walls that were already in place and I attached it to my most recent memo so you would have it unfortunately I don't have my copy but I remember it very well. The fire walls remained, it looked like it was an aesthetic change with some shelving and storage and display areas and a doorway. It would appear that within the year since 2013 what had been identified as an office in that plan it's the space centered below no that's the current proposal. The original plans of the building had what was identified included what was an office and a vestibule area to into the back warehouse storage area. So, since 2013 that space has been used as a private tasting room. It appears that the Building Department based on the plans they looked at it and said, well it was an office it's not expanding into the storage area and it was not considered an expansion. Interestingly when those plans were submitted it didn't under the state building code you know should have been included occupancy but it didn't include an occupancy. Kate's drawings and I have Kate on by Zoom she has surgery coming up for an Achilles tendent so she's incapacitated but she's by Zoom. Kate's drawings identify the occupancy of each space under the state building code the plans show each square footage to be with the particular occupancy and hallways which obviously don't have any occupancy identified. What the owners have been using since 2013 is the tasting room, general tasting room area plus that private tasting room everything else was either office or storage. The decisions and the conditions say, no event space, no events in the warehouse, I think the concern at the time was that warehouse space might be used for events or ancillary activities and that's never been the case it's always been storage. I'll have Russell discuss or Shelby who is here both of them are here to discuss the improvements to the parking lot. The only modification is a recent extension of the gravel in the parking area. It was not an expansion to the building or the interior of the building. In my response to the memo, I'll go through their allegations or their statements and they begin by citing North Fork article and Patch article which I pulled up and I read them and it was like well, it's typical marketing. It referred to improvements that had not yet been done; they're proposed. One of the articles though did correctly identify that they painted, they added lighting and new furniture that's all that's been done on the inside and that's why we're here is to ask to reallocate, modernize the building and reallocate the interior space,the work has not been done. It's been purely cosmetic and that's all inside. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bathrooms that are there on the interior now were always in that place? PAT MOORE : Absolutely, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there has been no you submitted in your application the fact that the owner changed and oh the winemaker changed there's only one what I'm saying is that you indicated that they no longer needed as much office or storage space. PAT MOORE : Correct that is absolutely that's why this application is being made. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that occupancy has gone from 86 to 18 seats on the inside? PAT MOORE : I don't know where those numbers are coming from, I know that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The plans. PAT MOORE : We go to Kate's drawings page 101, Kate is on the phone and she can certainly correct me if I misstate anything. If you look at page 101 the top, I asked her to please put the proposed versus the existing. The numbers were just not. matching what I was seeing and what she did originally was show the existing square footage but didn't include the private tasting room. So today I was like it looks like the private tasting room has been there since 2013 where the numbers and we realized that that square footage, let me give that to you right now so the private tasting room office is 235 sq. ft. that would equate to sixteen people so the total occupancy now is 96 and that's been operating since 2013. 1 don't know what numbers you're coming up with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the tasting room is supposed to be 1,278 sq. ft. as proposed with 515 PAT MOORE : Are we talking about proposed or existing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I want to know what the existing occupancy is including the tasting room and the private tasting room and what the occupancy is proposed to be on the interior and then we'll get to the exterior after. PAT MOORE : Do you want to have Kate go over it her plans? KATE SAMUELS : Hello, my name is Kate Samuels of Samuels and Steelman Architect the architect on record for this application. Basically, as Pat has laid'out our proposal increases the tasting room space by 25 people. Basically, since 2013 the space has been the occupancy has been -96 people with that private tasting room that was seemingly approved by the September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting Building Department. Our application will have a total occupancy in the public tasting room areas including our private tasting room of 121 people. This will be divided by the 86 people in the tasting room area and 35 in the private tasting room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on a minute, so the original occupancy was a total of 96 people? PAT MOORE : It was a (inaudible) calculations. KATE SAMUELS : It was approved at 80 but then in 2013 those 16 people of the private tasting room was added so that equals a total of 96 people. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When was that added and by whom? PAT MOORE : The owners in 2013 the application was submitted by Nancy Dwyer as a design professional through the Building Department. It's actually part of I found it as part of the application of the original building permit and C.O. So, it was all included in that original building permit from 2011, 2012 the building was finished in 2012. The architectural interior modification to that office space was done in 2013 so that's how it's been operating ever since. MEMBER DANTES : Is there a C.O. for that? PAT MOORE : I don't think they ended up needing a C:O. that's the whole thing, because the drawing show that the firewalls remained and there was let me see MEMBER DANTES : Then what did they get a.permit for? PAT MOORE : Pardon me. MEMBER DANTES : What did they get the permit for then? PAT MOORE : It looks like it was an interior modification that didn't need to get any special ,approval. It's in the record and it's what is existing so I can't believe it was I mean it's been inspected by the Fire Marshal; it has annual inspections and it's been that way since 2013. What I think is that the alterations were so minimal it was a doorway and it was retaining the _original fire rated walls so I think it modified a corridor that's about it to get to the storage but it was such a minor the details of it were it showed the rendering of this shelving and wine display and so on and then it just labeled the interior room rather than what it was as an office it was tasting room, private tasting room. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm surprised about is that the Building Department has all of the approvals the ZBA grants and why they would have issued a permit for an expansion of a tasting room from the office without prior ZBA approval coming back for that is confusing. PAT MOORE : I think well that's what the there was no permit that's the thing, they didn't issue a building a permit, they didn't issue any correspondence saying Notice of Disapproval go back to the Zoning Board or the Planning Board. It was a very small I want to say occupancy difference and the plans didn't identify separate occupancy so it was MEMBER LEHNERT : So legally we're still working with the existing Certificate of Occupancy. PAT MOORE : But you can't ignore the fact that it was done in 2013 MEMBER LEHNERT : But there was no permit issued. PAT MOORE : I'm not sure it needed a permit because it was an existing room, it was just occupying the space a little differently than MEMBER LEHNERT : Then the numbers should be the same, the occupancy numbers should be the same then if you're saying it's just an interior alteration. PAT MOORE : Well the occupancy it looks like what they did is they didn't identify the office space with occupancy, they did in the original. The original application the original plans I don't think had occupancy designated and it was not in the proposed the change over to essentially a sitting room for wine tasting. It was just I can't listen this is 2013, 1 have no idea but I could see very easily that that use of the space was not considered something that would have triggered because it wasn't going into what was clearly considered prohibited area of the storage area. It was a designated already shown on the site plan as usable space and instead of an office or people sitting there having lunch, conference room whatever they just made it into a private tasting room. That's my assumptions, again I'm looking at a paper with nothing more. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the office would have been limited to employees of the tasting room, you wouldn't have sixteen employees. PAT MOORE : That's not necessarily true, you can have an office of wine counsel coming in, they sit there and they meet, it's a conference. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's a guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Pat I was there when the decision was written and I do remember very lengthy conversations, a. because a tasting room is always an accessory to a 35 September S, 2024 Regular Meeting winery and no wine is produced on that site it's stored and so on and it was on Oregon Rd. which as we know is a scenic view shed. What the Zoning Board did not want to have happen was to have a boisterous busy you know it was quite a grant and it was quite exceptional because at the same time as we're recalling we turned down something very similar over on Old Sound Ave. in Southold, Southold Farm and PAT MOORE : Yea they left because they MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They left. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bottom line is, I remember the decision and it was to create something that was very small in scale, very quiet and now we have an extension of PAT MOORE : I would like before you make those conclusions I'd like to have the owner speak in terms of the manner of operation and what is being proposed here because I think that what the goals were in 2012 remain today and have now been proven to be the case. RUSSELL HEARN : Good morning, Russell Hearn. I guess there's a number of questions and I'm not too sure which one I should start with but the could I ask maybe the first question again so that I go in order. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see if I can remember what the first question was. PAT MOORE : I think just the building and the parking so why don't you address that. RUSSELL HEARN : The site plan which show exactly how much it is but it's roughly a fourteen acre piece of land of which one acre is developed rights intact, the other thirteen acres the development rights sold. I've been involved not as an owner but as a wine maker since the beginning when Mark and Kathy Lieb purchased the original vineyard in 1995 and then Bill purchased this and planted in 2000 and then in 2011, 2013 the changes happened so I can give a little history from reality. This property as I said is fourteen acres of thirteen acres development rights sold, one acre of development right intact. We have an additional total two other vineyards that total fifty-four acres of development rights sold land. We have one acre of development right intact land to hopefully market and sell our fifty-four acres of agricultural use. In 2011 when I don't know why Mark I wasn't involved in those decision, I don't know why Mark and Kathy chose not to maximize the parking to the DRS line which is what we've done at this point in time. It was seventy percent of the available capacity or eighty percent, don't quote me on the exact number but in one of the stipulations in the 2011 permit was to try to restrict, eliminate any parking on Oregon Rd. In the past there has been some parking on Oregon Rd. that was one of the reasons that was the strongest reason for us to expand the parking lot to the DRS line to try and take parked cars off Oregon Rd. So, we 361 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting went to the DRS line with the expansion of the parking lot, asked several times the Building Department and Planning whether a permit was necessary. We were advised that a permit was not necessary for parking. We had put a retaining wall on to retain the different elevation between the vineyard and the parking lot. It goes to roughly one portion of it is just under three feet so we were also advised that you don't need a permit unless it's above four feet so the retaining wall was to try to allow the differing elevations of the parking lot to be on one grade to maintain the vineyard on an existing grade. We didn't put the retaining wall in we would have the property had continued to have erosion from that going into the parking lot with heavy rainfall so that was to try to minimize any change related to that. I think that was one of the questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, it's clear that the original determination by both Zoning and Planning put conditions of approval on there because of it's proposed location and not being attached directly to a wine production facility. Now it looks upon inspection as though there's an awful a lot of outdoor seating in addition to indoor seating, both on the porch and now almost up to the road shoulder. Can you address that please? RUSSELL HEARN : There's an existing patio that's been there since 2011 so hence yes there's been a (inaudible) patio. We definitely do Adirondack chairs on the existing lawn. Excuse us for ignorance if there's a section in the code that does not allow that, we're not aware of that. If there is restriction on that we'd be happy to comply with that but I'm not aware of that. Numerous other wineries and other farm stands etc. have outdoor seating on grassed area on their properties so if we're not in compliance because of that we'd definitely address that if that's an issue. The patio like the interior space has been there since 2011 so I guess the assumption it was approved the assumption that's a part of the tasting room. From a state liquor authority we have to define our tasting area so both all the interior is defined in the SLA application for our license but also the exterior is defined as to where we're conducting tastings if you will and that's all in the SLA approval that's been in place since again previous ownership in 2011 and our ownership new license from the SLA as the beginning of this year. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Russell does the SLA the State Liquor Authority require you to in addition to outlining the location does it also require you to give the number of people in the spaces. RUSSELL HEARN : No I may be wrong but I think it refers to town code as to occupancy or Health Department related to occupancy. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Does your (inaudible) whatever the number of the original occupancy was whether it was eighty people or ninety six as Pat is elaborating from the original plan, does that include the interior and the exterior space or are they separate? a7l September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting RUSSELL HEARN : We've been going along the assumption before purchase and from purchase that it's ninety-six. If you came to the tasting room today just the way we've laid out the internal space we have roughly fifty, fifty-four seating capacity inside, so we're not using our capacity. The old I hate to sort of bring up the old (inaudible) so in the nineties and the two thousands the standard model for a tasting room was you know a number of chairs and then a lot of people at the tasting bar standing one, two, three deep. That's a model that's archaic, that's not something that we want to do. I don't think really any of the existing wineries do that anymore, it's a reservation seating trying to improve and provide as high a quality experience as possible so we're under utilizing our occupancy currently. We could put more tables and chairs in that space, we're choosing not to as this point in time. COVID related a number of other reasons so the expansion the internal renovation I'd like to use that term versus expansions, expansion to me is adding square footage to the building, that's not the case we're just interior decorating or reassigning areas is for our business model. It goes a little bit into that the previous owners which again I was involved with, they had two brands, Lieb and Bridge Lane. Bridge Lane was a substantially larger non estate grown meaning non- fifty-four acres purchased fruit, fruit from the Finger Lakes more of a brand style. That was twenty thousand plus case brand, Lieb was six thousand cases. So hence they needed a lot of storage space, twenty-six thousand cases were for storage space. Our model is not to be as heavily into the wholesale world and definitely to be an estate grown of our fifty-four-acre vineyard. Our model has shrunk to more like an eight thousand capacity so we have storage space that is a quarter full and we'll always be a quarter full. It's an incorrect use of space. The whole proposal is to better utilize the building, interior. To that point, yes potentially there will be more traffic coming from potentially more people year-round versus during the summer months which is almost impossible. The flip side of that is there will be substantially less truck deliveries and pickups that had been in the past. I would estimate there'll be at least a hundred less trucks delivering and picking up because you've only got eight thousand cases of wine predominately being sold at the tasting room now versus twenty-six thousand cases that was almost exclusively being sold in the wholesale world, stores, restaurants, out of state. Formerly owners had distribution in fifteen different states so it was a much more aggressive production model than what we're looking to do. We've decreased our hours, it was up till seven, Shelby can talk much more much stronger to this. We've decreased our hours; we close at six except for one day a week versus seven. We don't.allow buses, we don't allow large groups limos, etc. that's not our business model. Our business model is to try to provide the highest quality experience for people to come out and taste wines. Oregon Rd. is a destination, it's not a drive by. I'm not knocking the Main Rd. but to a certain extent people may come out and visit a couple of wineries and then let's see what else is down the road, oh let's pull in here. We don't get that at Oregon Rd., one it's not a drive by place but two our model is reservations so we can staff correctly and also provide the best quality services that i September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting x we can do. The negative of that is-that we can only take reservations for interior seating. So, on a day like today within reason it doesn't matter because everyone wants to sit outside but on an inclement Saturday, a rainy Saturday we can only take reservations for our internal capacity not ninety-six, fifty, fifty-two cause we've chosen to do that from a table and chairs arrangement to give space. We're turning away people during inclement weather as well as the idea is to have enough interior space in those inclement days in the'nice months but also the rest of the year, in November, December,January, February you know you're not going to sit outside in January we'd like to have people inside. The concept of having a larger internal capacity is to bring people inside to control noise is obviously always an issue but bringing people inside we see it as a benefit not as a negative. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It all makes sense what you're saying however, I can tell you categorically that the original approval was to limit the number of people whether they're indoors or outdoors going to that destination wine tasting facility. You're basically saying you want more people inside by reservation and again it was strictly prohibited because the idea was to limit traffic, to limit noise, to limit activities on the site but to allow for a tasting room by a reputable wine maker. It's a little disconcerting when changes had been made or appear to had been made, I'll say that based upon Planning Boards, based upon our inspection and based upon Planning Board's memorandum which we will read you know Pat Moore's response to which we just got that's all. I mean it just I cannot tell you the number of times people come before the Zoning Board now with "as built" situations and then saying, well it's there already we did it. It's something we have to deal with but it's not something that's very savory. It's difficult to say to somebody take that out when they spent good money putting it in. I don't really expect you unless you wish to respond that's fine but I was just expressing a little frustration over the way in which things unfold in Southold Town these days. People are driven by their business models by their profits. Understandably you're in business to make a profit nobody is-objecting to that. When people when I was there people were spilled out all over the grass practically on the road right making a lot of noise cause when people drink they're happy they're having fun and they're going to make noise and that's a residential quiet bucolic road. When you come across something like that it is not in context with the rest of that road. Shinn which we know very well, Rose Hill now you know also went through all kinds of approvals and so on but everything was in the back not the front. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Other than the excessive parking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well other than the parking all over Oregon Rd. RUSSELL HEARN : Obviously Pat's addressed the building code stamp approval on the 2013 we can obviously I can respond from January 1st to now and our submission if you will for 39 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting renovation inside. I think that that's sort of the issue that we're somewhat talking about at this point in time. I would agree that in 2011 there was a certain desire for Oregon Rd. and to keep it a certain way, that's thirteen years ago now. The one thing we know about the North Fork in the last thirteen years, things have changed and obviously Planning and Zoning are here to hopefully direct the best possible change it's not a matter of stopping it's already here it's in our rear vision mirror and our front (inaudible) screen it's coming, we have to your job is to try to direct it as correctly as possible to maintain the beauty of our township. I live in the township of Southold; I've worked in the township of Southold for thirty-five years it's my town as well so I'm very cognizant of that. I think also the one thing that's involved with agriculture, one constant of agriculture is change. I'm sure you've heard that many, many times over the last thirteen years and that will continue to come up. In the Comprehensive rezoning or updating of the zoning code, there was a meeting at Raphael I think March of this year, April; Heather Lanza and Al Krupski was there and a number of other people there was about a hundred people from different businesses there were two wineries represented. In that public forum there was a desire to be more flexible to allow the changing environment to encourage and allow agricultural activities to flourish. That's what we're in the process of trying to apply for. We have fifty-four acres of open space protected land, beautiful vistas that is the whole goal of the township of Southold from an agricultural standpoint. We have one acre to market that on so we're in the sustainable wine growing group which is a number of like-minded vineyards out here that are very conscious of what we spray, how we spray being good stewards for our environment. What we're trying to do is provide a sustainable business model. The reason the former owner was interested in selling Lieb is because it was not profitable, it was not sustainable. We're looking to try and provide a more sustainable business by not bringing in two hundred people cause that's not what we're interested in doing. In non-perfect weather days to allow fifty or sixty people to be inside or seventy people to be inside versus be limited by fifty people. To that point Oregon Rd., I'm not knocking anyone, I'm always talking about what we're looking to do but you know I would think you would agree that in 2011 a large storage building was not the perfect designed business to be on Oregon Rd. but that's there as well. Things change and I'm all for change. Marty Sidor or potato chip, large potato chip grower, large potato grower for hundred of years out here making potato chips that's an evolution of agriculture at this point of time. This is what our evolution of agriculture is. We don't want to (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) is not producing potato chips on his farm. RUSSELL HEARN : Correct I mean I would digress but I think that's an incorrect decision that probably would get changed in the future because that's an agricultural production in many respects but that's up for future. 40 September 5,2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Processing versus production. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Production is growing, processing is transforming to another it goes from grapes to wine, it goes from potatoes to potato chips but that's look that's really getting off track here. Let's try to get back on track and look at what's being requested. MEMBER .DANTES : How many square feet in the new plans cause it looks like in the original ZBA approval was for 2,020-sq. ft for the tasting room and office. In the new plan what is the square footage for the tasting room and office? KATE SAMUELS : I can speak to that. The proposed tasting areas is 1,800 and the office space is 454. MEMBER DANTES :That's 2,224 sq.ft? KATE SAMUELS : Approximately, yes. MEMBER DANTES : So our original approval was for 2,020 and so you're adding basically 204 sq. ft. in your proposal? KATE SAMUELS : Yes MEMBER DANTES : So basically this hearing is regarding a 200 sq. ft. increase. PAT MOORE : Exactly and a reallocation of space. Obviously, the bathroom, the way people use bathrooms these days it's you know there's never enough ladies' rooms and men are very quick,from the ladies experience you can probably attest to that.The bathroom design allows for more comfort for people to use the bathrooms. The entryway has a separate entryway to monitor where the entry into the building comes off the parking lot so you can see the entry design has the doors out to the parking area. The access to the patio, it has an access now instead of one double door it's got a double set of double doors so it allows for more air flow and so on. MEMBER DANTES : In this submission you just gave me cause I'm just looking at it today cause we got it today, these two little bathrooms in the top left corner from the Nancy Dwyer plan in when was that, 2013j PAT MOORE : I thing that never changed, it was designed that way in 2011 it remained that way. MEMBER DANTES : No right I understand that so then you're saying that this is a much larger bath (inaudible) than what we're looking at today. 4:1 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Well are I'm sorry are you asking about the number of bathrooms,toilets? MEMBER DANTES : I'm just looking at how the space is being reallocated. So, then that's also additional square footage but the 2,020 sq. ft. wasn't included with the bathrooms right in 2011? PAT MOORE : No it wouldn't have been included in any of it. Usually the restrooms, hallways, prep area that's not I don't, I have to say probably not. I don't know how it was calculated at that time. Kate do you know how in 2011 the calculations were done? KATE SAMUELS : Yes, it was not included in the occupancy or the square footage, each of those bathrooms are 100 sq. ft. as existing and our proposed public bathroom is 195 sq. ft. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pardon me Leslie, can I ask Liz to look something up? I'm just still trapped on what happened to the original eighty and how it grew to ninety-six with the 2011 Certificate of Occupancy whatever the (inaudible). T. A. MCGIVENY : Getting back to the original question here, what is it "as built" or isn't it? I mean as done or isn't it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That C.O. is very confusing. PAT MOORE : Yes, I'm not sure that it was ever a numerical how many I don't recall seeing number of occupancy, people, heads. I don't recall seeing head count being the how it was determined. I think you get there by how many parking spaces but that can also be based on square footage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's fire code too. The Fire Marshal is going to tell you what the occupancy of the building should be by state code based on the size and so on. PAT MOORE : So what you see from the Nancy Dwyer drawings that is what Kate Samuels shows as existing conditions and the construction alterations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what the Board is saying is we want to make sure we understand what the moving parts are. I mean I want to make sure that we understand what is proposed and you're saying something is proposed, you're saying the Planning Board is wrong it's not all built already? PAT MOORE : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But there's a 2013 Certificate of Occupancy that shows a commercial alteration which you sort of talked about but it says the Certificate is issued alterations to existing building for office and wine tasting as applied for per ZBA 6469 dated 421 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting 6/15/11, see condition one through four per Zoning Board of Appeals. So those were the see the conditions. I'm very confused by the way this is worded. PAT MOORE : When I try to track the interior of the space when it was under construction it had one interior floor plan at the ZBA. It had a different interior floor plan at the Planning Board and it appeared to have a slightly different interior floor plan for the building permit. So, I was unable to track it because it's the same building, it's the same four walls that much we know but the allocation of space for bathrooms, service area, mechanicals, office space, tasting room that was it never quite tracked exactly. It was slightly adjusted here and there (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) that there were some variation I don't think that possibility I don't know for sure but let's assume that's the case. The bottom line, the intent of those conditions was to allow for this sort of warehouse building with public access right to wine tasting. The idea was, when we talked about no further expansion, we did not mean a physical addition, we meant the storage was to remain as storage, the office was to remain as office and now that is not the case. I understand we talked about (inaudible) business model and so on I understand that. PAT MOORE : Yes, if you go back to what was the intent, why were you creating these parameters in 2011 is you didn't want to have what was occurring in other wineries that were becoming more agrotourism and less winery you know tasteful tasting that's the reason why the parameters were going into place. In 20111 believe we were still fighting with Vineyard 48 and other wineries that were had a lot of open fields sitting areas and it was very it was much larger a completely different model. This facility and that's why I have Russell speak to that and I'll have Shelby if you want to add anything to it. They have proven to the Board that your concerns were met, they have followed they have not degenerated this model into something that the Board was concerned when they granted this approval but we do have to recognize that this is considered an agricultural business, it's an agricultural operation. It is in the AG's and Markets; it's protected by AG's and Markets. What Russell is telling you that in order to maintain this low impact model to be able to pay for the fields, the field workers, the farm, the agricultural end of the winery business he needs to modernize the space, you've been in there it's 2011 architecturals. It's trying to modernize the space and the as you said the addition the expansion, we're talking about a difference of about 200 sq. ft. it's very minor. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry to interrupt, you're going from what I think showed an occupancy of eighty disputing maybe ninety-six it's unclear to a hundred and twenty-one, that's like a fifty percent increase. PAT MOORE : 121 that's not a fifty percent increase. 431 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eighty people is what we have a record of what the building is supposed to be for occupancy. PAT MOORE : Well I'm not that's not accurate. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) I agree with that. PAT MOORE : So I think we were talking about a difference of twenty-two people. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It goes from 80 to 121, 96 to 121 is still 24 people. Does the Fire Marshal when they make that inspection issue occupancy numbers? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, they have to. MEMBER PLANAMENTO And what is the occupancy when the building was issued it's (inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : It's based on square footage, the use and the square footage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whether there's fire walls and all that other (inaudible). I do want to say one thing MEMBER DANTES : Right but we also conditioned the tasting room back then, we didn't condition the expansion of offices, we didn't condition expansion of bathrooms technically those aspects PAT MOORE : And not to use the storage area for events. MEMBER DANTES : Reading it technically you should be able„to expand those as of right. Right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. Let me address this, Pat you just said something that I think is important that the applicant has proven that they are intending to do what we expected them to do. I would like to read into the record three letters we received and make sure you have copies in case you want to address them from neighbors who disagree. All three object to what they perceive to be more people coming to the tasting room inside alright. Here's one, they're not terribly long so I'll start with this one from Thomas Ulinger. Dear Ms. Weisman our names are Karen and Tom Ulinger we reside at 13370 Oregon Rd. since 1971. Our property is contiguous to the proposed tasting room, vineyard expansion. In 2011 a variance was given to the then owners stating that there would be no further expansion of the use of a tasting room. That satisfied our concerns knowing that protection was in place. After meeting with the owners and reviewing their expansion plans of twenty-five more seats and an increase in functions necessary to offset their investment we are formally objecting to 44 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting the plans. We respectfully request the ZBA deny further expansion, to an increase in traffic, parking necessary to support additional patrons, deliveries and occasional loud patrons. Let me read another one, good morning ZBA, in reference to certified letter dated 8/16/24 from Patricia Moore addressed to neighbor for the property located directly west of the current property under review owned by Michael and Lisa Boyd enclosed also was a Legal Notice advertising of the hearing date blah, blah, please accept this email as official documented communication. A submitted written communication before the conclusion of the hearing to address concerns, clarification and additional information to be provided prior to any final decision. Please note for clarification if you're not able to accept this communication to record based on certified letter, Legal Notice this is just procedural. We have the letter and reading it. After pleasant meeting with Shelby the manager on-site at the location and reviewing the proposed renovation plans, we would like clarification on the following questions. One, based on the proposed expansion can the parking lot handle the proposed number of seats, standing spaces, and all outdoor seasonal seating further maximum capacity allowed for the two-acre property. Does the calculation include staffing? Two, would the policy of no street parking still remain in effect?This was very effective when the building was converted from the storage building to a wine tasting room. Three, in agreement with the Hearns they advised,they have no intention to allow busses or limos, can this be part of the condition of expansion? As we know Oregon Rd. is one of the most bucolic agricultural corridors on Long Island that we collectively need to protect'its natural beauty also keeping in mind that vineyards need a vineyard to sell their products and other New York State Ag products. I hope the decision heavily weighs on both aspects. This is from Michael and Lisa Boyd. Finally, Southold Town ZBA, my family and I have owned and lived on a seventeen-acre farm nursery across the road and east about five hundred feet from the Lieb tasting room. I've lived in Southold town sixty-five years on this farm for thirty. We have witnessed many changes in the nature of Oregon Rd. over the years and most of them have been negative. Our understanding when Lieb tasting facility was allowed in and that,it was going to low key quiet affair thus with minimal impact the immediate neighborhood. By and large this has been the case but not in the last two years. The last few years there has been event noise where I have had to call the police because it was loud at my house even though my house is about two thousand feet away. They claim there is no amplified music out of doors, that is simply not true. Cars are parked all over the edge of Oregon Rd. on the vineyard grass mostly but way overfilling their parking lot. These patrons need to know no boundaries, they walk all over Oregon Rd. taking selfies and dangerously in the way of traffic. They are also encouraged by Lieb management to stroll down my road that is obviously my private road, no trespassing. In the application it mentions a sixty foot versus one-hundred-foot setback. In reality it is a zero setback because the patrons tend to lounge all over the front lawn sometimes down within ten feet of the edge of Oregon Rd. This creates a very dangerous situation, there is 45 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting often unsupervised children and pets on the lawn. Regarding parking, the new parking lot is large enough to accommodate busses and limos. Will those still be excluded by the town?The paperwork mentions an extremely modest expansion of occupancy, well if I read the plans correctly occupancy levels will rise from eighty-six to a hundred and eight. Since when does twenty-five percent increase qualify as extremely modest? The application also mentions the interior modifications are necessary to make the business successful. Well, I'm a little confused as to why one would buy a business that as it exists is nearly impossible to be successful that the town and the neighbors have to suffer this. In many areas of the application the stated purpose is for interior alterations only, well it sure does not look that way on the plans. What I see is a quiet Ag building becoming a glass walled modern industrial office building. Another ugly building in Southold town much like the home on the east end of Oregon Rd. Maybe toning down the exterior modifications to something remaining barn like would be a good idea or eliminating exterior modifications altogether. Another curious part of the application description states, large evergreens and a ten-foot mesh fence provide a privacy screen for the home on Cox Neck Rd. Criticism without constructive suggestions is not positively conducive. I suggest eliminating the glass walls cutting back on the increased occupancy to a modest increase of maybe ten. Thank you for your time, Timothy T. Steele. So, look I do understand what you're talking about in terms of changes to the town, change is upon us and you're right our responsibility is to uphold the law while managing change in a responsible way. We are not anti-property rights; we are here based on what the law requires us to do and it's very clear in the law and we try very hard because we are not permitted to personalize things not to. It doesn't matter whether we know you or we don't, whether we like you or we don't the law is very specific on how things should unfold. It's not quite that cut and dry, maybe the rear of the property can be used more effectively for submitting some outdoor seating instead of having them on the front of Oregon Rd? I'm just thinking out loud, the bottom line is neighbors have some concerns. They're not objecting to the building being there or to the winery it's a done deal it's been there a while. We're just going to have to take in everything you've told us, everything anybody else has told us and see where we go from there. I'm certainly keeping an open mind about all of this and I'm assuming the Board Members are doing the same. Let me see if you want to say anything in response to those letters. SHELBY HEARN : I am Shelby Hearn and I'm the general manager and one of the owners of the building and property. One thing that I just wanted to add to the record and to clarify is, we have made what happened prior to January 15t on that property was done by a different management team as well as by a different ownership. I completely respect that there were frustrations by the neighbors prior to that and we can only speak to what's happened since January 1st moving forward. We have made a number of business decisions and to specifically 46 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting address I think some of the concerns that were brought up in those emails or letters I'm sorry. One of which as Russell mentioned before was decreasing our hours. A lot of the traffic that was coming primarily was coming at the end of the day to the property. So, we have decreased our hours from being open from twelve to seven as was prior to January 11t to being to twelve to six because we do not want to operate as a bar. We are a tasting room with the intention of people coming to taste and to enjoy the wine and to hopefully purchase a bottle to take home to enjoy at a later time and day. In addition to that we had decreased our group size prior to January 1st and the property used to allow much larger group size, we now accept groups no larger than eight and the one exception to that being we do offer a higher level of experience a guided private tasting with one of our in-house sommeliers for groups of up to twelve and that is early in the day and that is inside only. We are limiting the group size, the intention of that being again to really focus on higher and an elevated of service as well as to really focus on the wine tasting experience. I want to ensure that everyone coming into our space like I said they're not there to drink,they are there to taste to enjoy the wine and again to hopefully make a bottle purchase that they take home with them and to enjoy at a later date. Beyond that if we look at a business model that really works for us the smaller the group size and T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think we've heard the testimony about the we can move on beyond the business model. SHELBY HEARN : Beyond that; looking at the outdoor space in addition to decreasing group size we also have decreased the amount of seating available outside because we are looking to and decrease the number of children running around the lawn and pets running around the lawn. We do actively say to all of the guests that come in and they just stay in their seats and we do not encourage walking about on the space and we do try to limit as much as possible and they're entering and exiting exclusively through the patio entrance. We also have been anytime we've seen anyone to attempt to park on Oregon Rd. this season we have actively told them that they are not to park there and then if we are in full capacity in the parking lot, we turn people away because we are fully aware that we are not to have anyone parking on the grass and we have been actively trying to focus on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who does that for you, do you have an employee specifically looking at (inaudible)? SHELBY HEARN : The host and on the weekends the only time that we're really only seeing that happen would be on a Saturday in season which is when we see the highest volume of people coming through and the host on the patio as well as all of the staff that are working 471 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting outside keeping an active eye on the grass and to make sure that we're not having overflow parking spilling onto the grass. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When your parking lot is full do you literally turn people away? SHELBY HEARN :Yes we do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you now want to get people of Zoom or do you have any more questions? T. A. MCGIVNEY : The whole question is the occupancy and the business model although interesting (inaudible) to the fact that the Notice of Disapproval states that there was an expansion beyond which was already interior expansion change of what the rooms were. PAT MOORE : I think the Notice of Disapproval says the proposed expansion not that there's been an expansion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says the proposed alteration includes an expansion of the tasting room. PAT MOORE : That's what our application is, they got these plans are proposed plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But what are you alright, so I was there, I inspected okay. We really need to clear this up so everybody is on the same page. We looked at what was there, are you proposing more than what is already there now, more interior seating? RUSSELL HEARN : Correct, could we get the new design up?That's where the additional this is what MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) allowed eighty or ninety-six, there's fifty-four inside and thirty outside or forty it already exceeded what they allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The numbers are not quite adding up. PAT MOORE : But you're (inaudible) are not making sense MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well we don't know if it's eighty or ninety-six. PAT MOORE : (inaudible) because it wasn't by seats. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but it's still occupancy and Russell stated that it's fifty-four PAT MOORE : It's two different things. 48 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed, but he said we'd like a small experience we only have (inaudible) seating for fifty-four guests on a rainy day. So, while you're allowed whether it's eighty or ninety-six you're under using what you're allowed but on a sunny day you might have the fifty-four persons inside and I have no idea what the seat count is outside which let's just say it's fifty you're now at a hundred and four people. I don't know I'm not there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's not call it building occupancy let's call it people on the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and for a one acre site still it's intense. MEMBER DANTES : Our decision was based on square footage it wasn't based on (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Shouldn't the square footage like the Fire Marshal comment it's based on square footage. PAT MOORE : No it's occupancy. MEMBER LEHNERT : Occupancy is based on square footage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I'm saying. MEMBER LEHNERT : X times Y gives you an answer. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what we're trying to nail down, what is the occupancy? PAT MOORE : They use occupancy because that's a,fixed number not seats because MEMBER LEHNERT: Seating is based on Health Department, a completely different PAT MOORE : I mean you can have bar seating versus sit down seating MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed PAT MOORE : exterior versus interior. PAT MOORE : So that's why we operate only on occupancy and that's what MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So what was the original Fire Marshal's occupancy? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What does the original C.O. say? RUSSELL HEARN : Ninety-six. PAT MOORE : On the placard 49 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The Board of Health, Ag and Markets, Fire Marshal MEMBER LEHNERT : That would be Fire Marshal. RUSSELL HEARN : As Patricia said the Fire Marshal has been there twelve, thirteen times once a year for the last thirteen years it's on the wall. I mean this is terminology but I think it's a valid question. So, if our occupancy is eighty, we're looking to if our occupancy is ninety-six, we're looking to go to 121, twenty-five people. If our occupancy is eighty, we're looking to expand by twenty-five people to 101. So, I don't think you can use eighty and 121 as a fifty percent number cause that's an incorrect. Ninety-six to 121 is a twenty-five percent growth or eighty to 101 is a twenty-five percent growth (inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : Why don't we just clear up what it is, let's get the document from the Fire Marshal which he has if he issued it and we're going to know a number. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) C of 0 (inaudible) documents from what resulted. MEMBER LEHNERT : We're going to know what's there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, we can talk about those numbers but RUSSELL HEARN : May I just do a quick to your point let's say ninety-four inside I'm sorry fifty- four inside, forty-two outside on paper that is one hundred percent correct. In reality this isn't reality, what we see is people will come along and you know today a beautiful day, they'll come along and if the forty-two people seating capacity outside if full they're not interested in coming inside they want to sit out in the beautiful weather. They'll go somewhere else. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Or they walk and linger because people come and go I mean I think it's impossible RUSSELL HEARN : This is how it operates, do you go to I mean I'm not being facetious but I'm just T. A. MCGIVNEY :This is getting way too RUSSELL HEARN : I don't go to a deli at 7:45 on my way to work and it's full and then come back in an hour and a half. I'll go to a different deli. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, wait the numbers of people are one thing but the bottom line is in order to have more people there, let's assume it's all legal the occupancy is legal whatever the number is, will you need to utilize any part of what was originally an office and any part of what was originally storage? That's the question and what amount will you need to utilize? That's what we meant by enlargement, it's not the number of people cause we September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting never dealt with that, that's absolutely true we did not. That is a Fire Marshal's determination based on the size of the square footage but what we said was, you get what you get, fit in as many people as you can and go from there with blessings. So, now what we're saying is you want more people in that space but to do that you will need to use some of the space that was originally proposed as office and storage. The business has changed, you don't need so much storage, you may be needing a smaller office whatever it is and you want to do what the ZBA said no to originally. PAT MOORE : Would it help if we just I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did I describe that correctly? PAT MOORE : Yes I'm trying to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At this point that's all I want do. PAT MOORE : Let me just ask this ,question, because the rest of the space is reallocation. We're really talking about reducing the storage. I think the storage CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. PAT MOORE : That number I think will answer your question, am I correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because the basic idea was this is the size of the tasting area okay that's it and however you can fit in you can fit in. You want to make more room for more people and in order to do that you gotta use some of the storage area which you no longer feel you need and that is where we're here because that is what the ZBA condition of approval prevented you from doing as of right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) missing something cause I'm confused because you got the (inaudible) component which I agree that it's square footage based not occupancy I understand that, that makes sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's use based also because we said that space is to be used this way,that space is to be used that way and that is for tastings. MEMBER PLANAMENTO But then how does the outdoor terrace and guests sitting the Adirondack chairs CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn't even address that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I know but September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It was never addressed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But there's more people than you have (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : Well then the cars (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why they will need to get a new updated plan a site plan approval from the Planning Board because they also conditioned limits on their site plan approval. So, to move forward with your proposal one way or the other you need to get ZBA retro active either a change from the prior condition right and amended based upon some substantial reasons because that's a substantial change that removing a condition of approval is never deminimus it requires an amended decision. T. A. MCGIVNEY : There still is the issue, I know you said that the application was for proposed but there still is the issue as to why the Planning Department seems to think that this was already done, "as built". I'm still back at that point where PAT MOORE : I don't know, did they ever go inside the building? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yes PAT MOORE : I don't have an answer. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) crux of the issue with the N.O.D. and the Zoning Board's last decision, I don't think we can address anything else until we figure out exactly whether or not the inside was reconfigured as to change what the ZBA allowed as far as tasting rooms. MEMBER DANTES : Fire Marshal would handle that wouldn't they? PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Only occupancy, not use. We determine that should be used as storage, that as office, that should be used for tasting so it's a use determination. MEMBER DANTES : I'm saying if there's an "as built" the Fire Marshal shall flag it during their annual Fire Marshal inspections. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Not if they don't know that the ZBA decision was that they couldn't change the tasting room from this parameter to this parameter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Isn't this what we're here for is to determine whether or not it violated the ZBA? September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Actually we are not, we are it is not T. A. MCGIVNEY : But that's what the Notice of Disapproval PAT MOORE : (inaudible) It is not (inaudible) penalty approach rather than a proactive. T. A. MCGIVNEY : This is the Notice of Disapproval is stating that they violated the Zoning Board's so the relief sought what is the relief sought then if it's not to have a building permit issued to do changes to the interior?What is the relief sought? RUSSELL HEARN : I welcome whoever wrote that to come up to the tasting room anytime they'd like I'd welcome any of you to come up to the tasting room whenever you would like. I can guarantee if it was in a if we were in a court of law and putting my hand on the Bible, the only interior touches that we have done since January 15Y which was before we made this application but from January 1st cause that was when we took ownership of.it, if this was the tasting room we painted the walls, we added some more light fixtures cause it was dark in there, wall sconces etc. and we rearranged the furniture. We added some new furniture, some nicer furniture hadn't had a lot of (inaudible) investment for several years because it was (inaudible). No expansion, no reutilization of the office space or the vestibule or anything, nothing, nothing interior has changed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you something sir, it's possible based on this 2013 C. 0. that's all you did what you just described. Is it possible that previously the prior owner made changes in violation of the ZBA's approval a condition of approval? Perhaps they were done without your doing it but it's there. RUSSELL HEARN : I think the difference between the diagram in 2011 and 2013 was done, yes. So if that was but since then 2013 including our one year ownership of it, nothing additionally has been done in the interior to that (inaudible). T. A. MCGIVNEY : 2013? PAT MOORE : I keep trying to tell you I don't know why in 2013 there was a drawing submitted to the Building Department taking what had been called office and they called it tasting room with the aesthetics added. Whether or not there was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is the drawing? PAT MOORE : I submitted it, it was attached with my memo. So that's what I found in the Building Department records. It did not generate a Notice of Disapproval, it did not generate a building permit, did no generate a C.O. It was documented, it was inspected thereafter by the Fire Marshal, it was never flagged as a violation of the Zoning Board decision or any to our 1 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting and again my client bought the building in January so what they would have what he bought is what is showing on this 2013 diagram. If you look at the notations that are made to that diagram it refers to fire rated walls by Jeff Butler (inaudible) from 2012. So, it was referring to how it was originally constructed or approved and then the only difference being it looks like a vestibule was the office space was what had been an office was cut a bit for a vestibule/corridor to the storage and what was left was connected to the tasting room by doorways and identified as a private tasting room. That's what was done in 2013, if it was done illegally there's no evidence it was illegal because there was no violation issued nor Notice of Disapproval and that's what the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's possible that they were not at that point whoever did that did not PAT MOORE : I'm not quite sure that's true (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : If you go through the drawing and add up that square footage in that 2013 it complies with the square footage listed in the ZBA decision. PAT MOORE : Okay so it's complying so it's not a violation. MEMBER DANTES : Of what's in that drawing she just handed us, it complies with the decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It complies with the total square footage but it doesn't comply with the designated uses, that's the difference. PAT MOORE : That's a matter of interpretation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The ZBA never broke out and said X number of square feet for storage, X number of square feet, X number it said the plans were submitted that storage, that's office PAT MOORE : The thing that was clear was you could not do events in the storage area that much of the decision I think was absolutely clear and that was never violated. So, any alterations interior alterations whether it's with walls, doors or cosmetics is what's been here since 2013 and that's what we are proposing to change with our application that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much of your proposed how much of the existing office and or the existing storage will you want to be changing for tasting room use? PAT MOORE : 204 sq. ft. MEMBER LEHNERT : May I ask a quick question here? 54 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. MEMBER LEHNERT : Giving a little deference to change of ownership cause things happen when they were not the owners, I understand that, is it possible this can be the change in square footage can be approved leaving the original occupancy of whatever number it was in place thereby not violating the old ZBA decision? PAT MOORE : I don't believe it can because the occupancy MEMBER LEHNERT : What I'm asking is basically, can we approve two hundred square feet without violating the old no expansion because the expansion talk about the occupancy or did the expansion speak to square footage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The expansion spoke to uses. There was a certain number of square feet for storage, certain number of square feet for a tasting room and a certain number of square feet for an office and it said you can't change that. That's basically what it says. You can do those three functions but you can't change the allocation of the square footage. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we condition an occupancy number so the square footage can change but the use and the occupancy does not thereby the crowds cannot get bigger? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I don't see how that can work. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Question, you gave this memo this morning, earlier today PAT MOORE : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to understand the floor plan that you submitted, not the bar design or wine storage racks but the floor plan it says received which I assume is the Town of Southold, April 16, 2013. PAT MOORE : Yes that's the one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the floor plan and I've never been in the building I'm sorry I don't have the benefit of knowing what is or isn't there. Is this the floor plan as it exists today? RUSSELL HEARN : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So if I walked into the building I'd find in the front corner the two bathrooms, I'd find the tasting room September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It's exactly this, absolutely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This document illustrates an occupancy also and I know that we've talked about the square footage versus PAT MOORE : No I think there's an error because there's an occupancy for the private tasting room that is not written in. That's a technical error that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you don't think the private tasting room is included in the regular tasting room with sixty-eight people? (inaudible) PAT MOORE : Honestly under the state building code there should have been an occupancy for that space. How does the Fire Marshal (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : The Fire Marshal in his yearly inspection would take that into account. PAT MOORE : But he called it ninety-six. So, the existing conditions based on the Fire Marshal's inspections of the last ten years has identified this space to be ninety-six occupants, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, let's just start to wrap this up. So, in 2013 some changes were made by a previous owner from the original X number of square feet to this (inaudible). Likely that was the private tasting room. PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now what you're looking to do, so it is the way it is, now what you're looking to do is to take 204 sq. ft. from either office and or storage of what's left and convert that to a public tasting room, to enlarge the tasting room that you have. At least we now know what people want hallelujah. We're making progress. PAT MOORE : Yes that makes it. MEMBER LEHNERT : If I'm wrong even the expansion of the bathrooms would almost wash that out. PAT MOORE : There is such a reallocation of space and the vestibule entrance as a separate entrance so that's what's been very frustrating here and that's why originally was submitted as a de minimus because it was a reallocation of space. I understand for reasoning for a hearing, we're here but that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I had to deny the de minimus because it would have (inaudible) an amended decision those are not de minimus. 56, September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's just better to bring the Hearns in here, let's see what you want to do and let's move forward. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you add up the expansion of the bathroom space and then take that 200 square feet it looks like it's going to wash out. PAT MOORE : More or less I mean it's MEMBER LEHNERT: Give or take a couple of square feet. PAT MOORE : Cause bathrooms aren't occupied there's no occupancy limit on bathrooms. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct PAT MOORE : and hallways, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question is, there are some people that are waiting on Zoom to speak so let's let them in. MARTY SIDOR : Hello, Martin (inaudible) I live on 13457 Oregon Rd. which is basically two properties down and I've been here for eighteen years and of which we've noticed a lot of changes on Oregon Rd. The property the tasting room has two areas that are think are of concern, one is the inside area which is obviously the main thing we're looking to change. The effect of increasing that is going to have some affect on the outside area which affects the neighborhood and the road. It's going to increase traffic, it's going to increase noise and you know there are people who are parking on Oregon Rd. and basically, they have not done anything put up any no stopping, no parking signs, they haven't put any tape up to keep people from parking there. There are as was mentioned they keep adding chairs and people get closer and closer to the Oregon Rd. with kids running around. I understand they want to keep and have a nice business but it's not helping the neighborhood, it's helping them but it's not helping the neighborhood. It's not helping Oregon Rd. which is a place where people walk and ride bikes; having extra traffic and extra population events and traffic in that area is going to create a very different atmosphere to Oregon Rd. which is (inaudible) to do. So, by looking at the seating areas which obviously is a main issue but there's also outside seating areas. I mean how many seats do they allow to put out there and you know putting a chair is that making it additional seating area? I mean we can go into some semantics of what people try to get away with to increase business but I think that we have a nice we have an existing area which works well. Why change it, it's working just the way it is. We tolerate some of the 571 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting traffic as it is now which is fine. I don't think we need to expand it at all and I'd be opposed to it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, can we get a hold of anybody else on Zoom who wants to speak? OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : It looks like there's no other hands up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, is there anybody in the audience who likes to address the application? PAT MOORE : I think you may have noticed when you went by recently cause I was there on Saturday or Sunday,there's a farm stand directly across that's pretty active right now so there is activity going on that has nothing to do with the winery. I just want to make clear that you know the parking on the road when I was there, there were empty spaces for parking in their winery. There's a lot of activity but some of it is for agricultural related farm stands and miscellaneous activities. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One last question from me, do you have someone you know playing music on weekends or something like that? Do you have one of the local musicians performing? SHELBY HEARN : We have had acoustic local musicians on Sunday from two to five in July and August and we've received actually a number of high compliments from the neighbors appreciating the music. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where do they perform, are they indoors outdoors? SHELBY HEARN : On the patio. CHAIRPERSON-WEISMAN : Alright, let's see Pat do you have any questions? PAT MOORE : I just want to make clear,that is not amplified music which is a prohibition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I know. PAT MOORE : Okay good. MEMBER DANTES : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, anything further? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll ask again I'm sorry that we're so behind now but thank you for your patience, we would do the same for you. RUSSELL HEARN : Very, very quick just one last comment cause I think it's related to what we're talking about again going back to I live in this town. So, we purchase fifty-four acres of land on Oregon and Bridge Lane. I think you should know that exactly but I think we have about between thirty-three and thirty-five hundred linear feet of roadway between the vineyards of providing wonderful open space nondevelopable property, beautiful vistas of the farmland which I think is consistent with the township of Southold and very much a part of Oregon Rd. vista. We have one acre with a hundred and twenty feet on Oregon Rd. that we're talking about so if there's some modifications or there's some consideration there, I mean the whole plan of the township of Southold was to maintain and encourage agriculture and protect open space and protect and to develop the agricultural activity. In the Comprehensive Plan a couple of hundred pages there's about ten pages in the Comprehensive Plan upgrade for next year and I had this conversation at the Raphael_presentation of that. In those ten pages it talked about how larger impact agriculture is,thirty percent of the land. (inaudible) of that land is vineyards. It goes into the economic we're third and largest economic impactor in the township of Southold. All of those numbers, it goes into a lot of you know encouragement of agriculture. There's not one sentence it says we're looking to protect the farmer and I want to put that forward. We can't have open space; we can't have agriculture if the farmer is not profitable. There's some balance in between here that's necessary. It's a give and take, we're here to see what we can give but without farming being profitable we will lose more and more of our agricultural (inaudible). The housing, we all I mean I'm preaching to the choir; we don't have the infrastructure for that, the schooling system all of the above do we want to become Nassau County, no. Being conscious of protecting the farmer is a critical part of this decision. (inaudible) but every decision that you're looking for related to agriculture. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? Okay I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye 5,9 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7942—JOSEPH VANGI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph Vangi #7942. This is a request for a variance from Article XXXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 19, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a raised patio and deck addition to a single-family dwelling 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 25% located at 17180 Main Rd. in New Suffolk. JAKE LACHAPELLE : I'm Jake LaChapelle at 1870 Ole Jule Lane in Mattituck. The applicant requests permission to build a second-floor deck at the rear of the house, the rear being the southern end of it. This is a year-round single-family dwelling and underneath that raised balcony or deck there would be a raised patio. The home is in the New Suffolk HB hamlet business district and as you said we're seeking relief for the (inaudible) 25% lot coverage. The proposed balcony is certainly in character with the New Suffolk hamlet business district, it won't produce in our eyes an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by single-family residences and businesses on similarly non-conforming undersized lots.There are numerous similar variances granted in the area. Two examples are next door Action 7539, (inaudible) granted approval for "as built" cottages across the street which include raised back decks and balconies. Then, next door Action 7278 in 2019, approval to exceed lot coverage and setbacks. MEMBER DANTES : What was the first one that you mentioned? JAKE LACHAPELLE : 7539 MEMBER DANTES : What was the lot coverage on those decisions? JAKE LACHAPELLE : The lot coverage I don't have the lot coverage on the first one, on the second case it was a slight overage of 25.8%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was that number? JAKE LACHAPELLE : 7278 601 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's enter into the record the relief requested is for lot coverage of 33.3%, the maximum permitted in that zone district is 25% of the usual 20%. The existing lot coverage from what I can gather I just want to confirm it with you is 30.2%. JAKE LACHAPELLE : That's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they're already over. The second story you know deck is not an issue, it's not really contributing but rather than you know doing this deck in the back why not just do an on-grade patio which does not increase lot coverage? JAKE LACHAPELLE : The house it's a small house and there is an existing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Small patio. JAKE LACHAPELLE : (inaudible) old staircase inside which is very narrow, I don't remember twenty-four or twenty-eight inches. There's a valid C of 0 everything is up to date as far as permits on the house but one of the benefits of this is that they would like to have a more reasonable means of.egress from that second floor. So, it seems like without renovating without doing massive renovations inside in that location those areas taking out a bathroom, taking out a bedroom downstairs an easy approach is to put this secondary stair that comes off the back of the house. A deck there, balcony with a small stair is our preferred solution. Does that answer your question? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, I mean you know we know that are very well and of course there's this the rear is fenced and there's a large commercial structure you know on one side of it well to the.back with a blank wall basically facing so there wouldn't be any impact.To the right is a dwelling that's set pretty far back and to the left is an open area behind the carpenter's shop that we also granted approvals for. We're just enquiring how you could possibly reduce that proposed lot coverage, even for New Suffolk that's a lot. JAKE LACHAPELLE : Understand, yeah understood. Looking at it you'd always want to we wanted to minimize it and I think the most modest version of this is this small deck that comes off the top of the building and then has a staircase that runs down from that. I should clarify, the deck up top is 115 square feet, the patio below is the 198 square feet so that's what's generating the whole ask. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the on grade patio that's there now should not be calculated in lot coverage. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) raised patio. 61 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, I'm saying why can't you just keep the on-grade patio and enlarge that and do a step down, do a landing. JAKE LACHAPELLE : We could and then you all can consider that. The intention is not to step down out of the house you go onto the patio so that Joe can speak of his mobility issues better than I can. Can Joe say a few words? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course, absolutely. JOSEPH VANGI : Good morning everyone my name is Joseph Vangi. I have some mobility issues and also have a handicapped son and my grandchildren sleep when they come over upstairs. My biggest reason was for egress and the ability to exit my house from downstairs a little higher-level cause I find it very hard coming out. It's a little bit too high so I want to be able to bring it out a little bit like a little space to walk on without falling. That was the reason for down there. The upstairs is basically for a fire egress which really concerns me. Since I was in the industry for many years to protect people, I want to protect my own family and also the fact that it makes it easier for me since I have a handicap also to get up the stairs with a little bit more space and two railings on either side. I only have one railing and inside it's very small twenty something inches for me to go up the stairs on an angle. It's very old-fashioned and that was the reason. Do you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unfortunately and I do mean that because I'm of the age where I'm pretty darn concerned about railings myself, I understand the need to want to walk out onto a leveled area and then perhaps gradually walk down from that but what you might want to think about doing is instead of it being an actual deck, deck make it much smaller that you have that continuity than with a step and a railing and a step and railing down to an at grade sitting space so that you're lot coverage is much more in keeping with other excessive lot coverages in the neighborhood. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) a landing at the second floor so that you have that (inaudible) that you suggested the stairwell down and then a similar mini just a simple three foot deep landing to a patio. I don't even know if those landings are calculated in lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would depending on the size of it, if it exceeds a certain square footage it's considered part of lot coverage. A landing per say is not you need something a little bigger than what would be considered a landing I think to accomplish what you're looking to do. I think you know this is you're proposing an actual deck whereas if you had something that provided the safety that you're looking for and the comfort that you're looking for you can do that with a lot less than you know the proposed 6 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT :Thirty-three percent lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, the proposed size and I think the Board would be open to entertaining an amended kind of application to reduce that lot coverage. You can have as big a sitting area as you want if it's at grade. JAKE LACHAPELLE : What I'm hearing is and correct me if I'm wrong, if we submitted a drawing with the lower area reduced that could be considered? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes JAKE LACHAPELLE : You're aware that we'd still be at 31% or something like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because it's not that huge that you're going to get rid of that much of a variance cause you're already over, you're already 30.2%. If you could accomplish that I think that it would at least be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and what we're obligated legally to do which is to grant a variance only when it's completely justified and there is no alternative. We can also ask you to reduce the degree on non-conformity because that's part of what we have to do also is to see, can you accomplish what you need but with a slightly less variance request. JAKE LACHAPELLE : Yea so I'd like to consider it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, to be honest I don't think ramps are going to count in this lot coverage, I'm not sure. MEMBER LEHNERT : Stairs don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Stairs don't count. JAKE LACHAPELLE : We just have a little space that ramps CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You'd have to be doing scissor backs all the way to the you'd be snaking your whole back yard. MEMBER LEHNERT : Steps don't count. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No,they don't. I'd leave that up to you, you can possibly put in two or three steps with double railings to make it stable and safe just to get down to the patio part. So why don't we do this, why don't how much time would you like to think this through and come back with it's not a very big drawing or anything. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we close this pending receipt? 631 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's what we'll do we don't need another hearing. I'm going to make a motion to close this subject to receipt of an amended site plan let's call it with amended lot coverage. As soon as we get it, if we get it really quickly, we might have a decision at our next meeting in two weeks from today. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, I don't think it's just a site plan we need the architecturals too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea, yea, yea okay does that make sense? So there's a motion is there a second to my motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All if favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, thank you. Let's take a five-minute break just so that we can stretch our legs and I'll make a motion to recess for five minutes. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 64 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7891-STEPHANE SEGOUIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stephane Segouin #7891. This was adjourned from July 11th because it was adjourned, I'm not going to necessarily read this very long Legal Notice into the record again. We started out with eight variances and LISA POYER : Lisa Poyer on behalf of the applicant from Twin Forks Permits. Stephane is here as well in the audience he is the property owner. Yes, there are many variances. I did provide with a table this afternoon that kind of breaks down and simplify I hope the request as far as the visual aspect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay this is it. LISA POYER : Yes, so in there is just a table that kind of discusses existing structure and the setbacks etc. versus the proposed and there's a difference, quite a few of them there's no change. I just wanted to kind of run through that. We're seeking relief from zoning code to construct a new residence in terms of the town Building Department's regulations. We are looking to basically build a second floor to the two-story residence. It has a partial second- floor right now, they're looking to convert some existing attic space to have a little space and then as far as GFA to add only 172 sq. ft. of new area to the residence and that's solely on the second floor. The foundation of the house is not changing the footprint and the first-floor layout is not changing significantly. We're going to do some kitchen renovation; they're going to convert the existing garage into habitable space with an office and a bathroom. Once again that footprint is not changing. The code permitted maximum lot coverage is 20%, we're proposing 25% and that's basically with the addition of a second-floor deck which I'll discuss in a second here as well as a proposed swimming pool. There is going to be a patio at grade 651 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting surrounding the pool as previously discussed is not our application is not considered lot coverage. The house right now with the prior covenanted subdivision approval was at a 7.2- foot side yard setback, that is going to be maintained. We're not looking to increase that, we're not changing it again, the footprint of the house is not changing. The current dwelling as it exists today does violate sky plane. It has a roof ridge height of 27.5 feet I'm sorry 26.5 feet, we're looking to go to 27 feet in elevation. So, we're significantly below the 35-foot maximum and once again the existing house the sky plane is violated, proposed house is going to be the same by just a few (inaudible). The dwelling itself is located 106 feet setback from the top of the bluff, we're not looking to change that again. The reason I think the variance was requested is for the second-floor deck. If you look at the survey there is an existing patio area that has a covered trellis area, that is with the setback right now of 96 feet from the top of the bluff, we're looking to remove that and to construct a second-floor deck across the entire back area of the house and that setback will be at 97 feet from the top of the bluff. (inaudible) There is accessory decks that are about 45 sq. ft. that are on the edge of the bluff, those have been there for about twenty plus years or so. Many neighbors in the area have decks on-the top of the bluff along that same road. Some of them are permitted some of them are not. We're looking to as part of this application legalize those wooden decks. So, they've been there a significant amount of time. You've been to the site, there's substantial (inaudible) to the bluff edge. There's work in progress right now along the actual shoreline for the revetment to stabilize that and it is a stable bluff cause there's large vegetation that's pretty substantial in size there. So, we're looking to legalize those two decks. Then obviously previously discussed we're talking about the GFA increase for that second-floor area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so with your indulgence just because there's so much so many moving parts LISA POYER : You want to go through the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I just want to make sure that I have all of the variance requests correct in my notes. So, you're looking to demolish per town code a single-family dwelling and reconstruct the single-family dwelling with a new pool to legalize two "as built" accessory decks. Now, lot coverage is proposed at 24.02%, you said 25%. Is it 25%? LISA POYER : Twenty-five percent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code of course allows a maximum of twenty. A side yard setback at 7.2 feet? LISA POYER : Correct September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the Pebble Beach subdivision requires 7.5 feet, is that correct? LISA POYER : I think it's 7.2 it was constructed to the Pebble Beach association CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : standard LISA POYER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, cause the original application said it was 7.5 LISA POYER : I think that's the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's so deminimus it's hardly a LISA POYER : It's not changing like I said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah okay, not changing. LISA POYER : I'm sorry the swimming pool also top of bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, then we have exceeding the sky plane which it already does. Then we have number four is a bluff setback for the dwelling at 97 feet? LISA POYER : That is to the deck.That's where I think some clarification it's to the second-floor deck.The house itself the habitable space is at 108 feet from the top of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's the deck. LISA POYER :The second floor rear deck.There is a first-floor patio on grade CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that doesn't count. LISA POYER : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the house setback is at what? LISA POYER : 106 feet from the top of the bluff and that is not changing what exists today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, number five bluff setback to the pool is 64 feet? LISA POYER : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The accessory deck at a zero bluff setback and the large accessory deck is seaward of the top of the bluff and then a GFA at 3,842 sq. ft. where the code allows a maximum of 2,805 sq.ft. 671 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting LISA POYER : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have five letters of support from neighbors previously. You're going to need Trustees approval on all of this. Do we have an LWRP on this, there's gotta be inconsistent? It's an old one I think though. LISA POYER : Michael Kimack originally had this application. He had submitted originally in the first application submission the ZBA decisions for other decks, bluff setbacks for swimming pools and lot coverage in the neighborhood and then the submission that I just submitted to you today includes GFA and lot coverage from your more recent decisions not in the neighborhood based upon the new zoning code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Out of curiosity, did you include GFA averaging in the neighborhood or no? LISA POYER : We did not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you don't have to it is an option that if you choose to exercise because you think it might improve your chances here then LISA POYER : We're looking at it. MEMBER DANTES : It's already over. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's already over the GFA so averaging isn't going to help a lot unless there's monstrously big houses everywhere which is not the case. LISA POYER : There's some large homes in that are because they were built prior to the code change (inaudible) too close to the property lines if you've driven down the street, too close to the road so they do appear quite large. MEMBER DANTES : We put guidelines on how to average the GFA out, cause the waterfront homes there are a lot of big ones there aren't there? LISA POYER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I think we've asked the office now if anybody comes in with variance relief to just give them the information, it's totally optional but at least this is helpful because the code you know you need a little clarification. So, my site inspection shows the bluff actually slopes towards the house. LISA POYER : Correct, there's a high point right along the edge and continues down to the house. We're increasing bedroom counts and obviously we're putting in a new IA system in as 8. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting well. As you mentioned the immediate neighbors do (inaudible) and Mr. Segouin is the one that has collectively gathered the neighbors together along the Strand to do all of the bluff work and help support all of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions here, Pat I'll start with you. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'm sorry could you repeat what you were going to do with those wooden decks? LISA POYER : They are to remain. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you going to do any fixing of them or are they going to stay as they are? LISA POYER : They're going to stay as they are maybe some minor maintenance, (inaudible) one or two boards are rotten but there's no changes involved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there prior Trustees approval on those decks? LISA POYER : Not from my research that I could find. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn't see any. LISA POYER : As you can just you know see from the aerial photograph that was also submitted today that there are significant number of neighbors in the neighborhood being that northern side of the Strand that do have bluff decks, I think someone has a gazebo and then also swimming pools in the area as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My only thought was and Pat brought up the decks, they visually looked like (inaudible). You said that you want to preserve them (inaudible). Is there any possibility to move the pool closer to the house? LISA POYER : We can consider looking at that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How far do you think you could move it? LISA POYER : I'd have to go (inaudible) but a few feet potentially. 69 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) ask a different question, maybe Donna can you pull up a site plan? She said she wants.to keep those and (inaudible) but I've moved on to the pool, what is the distance between the pool and the house? LISA POYER : Over 20 feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a lot of room that you could (inaudible) bring closer to the home and still have a walkway between the house and the pool which would reduce the or excuse me increase the setback from the bluff. LISA POYER : We can consider that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't want to speak for other Members of the Board but it looks like something closer to the eighties (inaudible). LISA POYER : Okay we'll consider that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The last question that I have is, the placement of the drywell, I don't know how the Trustees would feel about that (inaudible) in their purview but shouldn't the pool rather the landward side of the pool? LISA POYER : We can move it to the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically when you have a situation that's seaward of a bluff Trustees will basically say to avoid land disturbance, if the structure is sound underneath you could replace the decking but leave the piers and so on in place to avoid more bluff (inaudible). Let's see there's so many variances on this thing. I think the side yard is the side yard can't do anything about that and the sky plane is probably the sky plane. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The second-floor deck is cantilevered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, that second-floor deck let me see what part is in the sky plane? LISA POYER : The existing ridge and the proposed (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What exactly is you know this is demo per town code so that means nobody knows what it means that you're removing more than fifty percent of the value. If somebody was removing their roof, we'd say maybe have another thought about the kind of roof you're putting back on. What exactly are you leaving here? Is that roof staying the way it is? LISA POYER : That would be honestly a question for the architect but I believe 70 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well by the way it's drawn it says proposed so it looks like the roof is LISA POYER : I think the roof I mean it's going to be elevated by five or six inches, the roofline will change. The first floor and the foundation are pretty much staying exactly the same (inaudible) interior but it's really the second floor the dormers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come to the mic and state your name sir so that we can get that in the record. STEPHANE SEGOUIN : The roof is like this and it will go like that. It's the angle of the roof CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the pitch is going to change. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Are those in know you have plans but are those second-floor bedrooms do they have vaulted ceilings or (inaudible) or there's an attic above? LISA POYER :There's an attic there right now. MEMBER DANTES : You have a slight attic but it won't be big. LISA POYER : The whole house height is going to be 27 feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So what I'm getting at and we discussed this earlier this morning in a different application you could miter the roof edges so where you have the reverse gable and those large dormers on the east and west side that could actually be the roofline and then reduce the variance or you wouldn't need a sky plane variance. MEMBER DANTES : Yea but he (inaudible) I mean I think there's a lot of houses that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea they were all built before MEMBER PLANAMENTO : At least this takes away a variance. STEPHANE SEGOUIN :The house next door is higher (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know we knew when this new code was passed there was going to be a lot of non-conformity created but the ultimate goal here is to ensure that new construction is appropriately in scale massing wise with the size of the lot and the kind of give back to the public was, well if you're neighborhood is already changed and a lot of things were built beforehand that are really much bigger than what you're doing you could then average the GFA. We provided guidelines recently because averaging the GFA is not 7:1 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting necessarily the simplest thing to do. We do require that a design professional do it because we can accept their license and assume they have the expertise to accurately do such a thing. Then we suggested additional information that can be submitted to help us really figure out what's going on. MEMBER DANTES : It's only increasing the GFA by less than 200 sq.ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was it 172 sq.ft? LISA POYER : 172 and like you said it's all over top of existing first floor we're not (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a situation where I think it sounds worse than what it actually is. That's when you have to start doing your homework to know what it really means. Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anything else from you Lisa? LISA POYER : If we agree to move the swimming pool to 80 foot bluff setback can we resubmit close and resubmit revised plans? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, we can grant alternative relief at 80 feet and then you will be required to submit those drawings or we can wait for you to do it and just say as amended. How long do you think it would take to get the revised setback? LISA POYER : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh then you might as well amend it. Yeah if it's only a couple of days to get that information to us LISA POYER : We have to get the survey changed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah exactly. LISA POYER : That may take a little longer. MEMBER LEHNERT : We can use the site plan to do our draft. LISA POYER :The site plan can be quick. 72. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Then the survey can come later. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can do the site plan, resubmit the site plan and just with a cover note amended survey to follow and we can condition approval then for that based on the submission because they do take time. We know surveyors are not jumping quickly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, be it you just reminded me we have a site plan we don't need the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's stamped by a licensed professional we don't have to. BOARD SECRETARY : Usually surveys show existing conditions but sometimes we have a survey instead of a site plan for proposed. MEMBER DANTES : But he's going to need the survey anyway to build it. LISA POYER : We can have the survey changed. So, if we can close the hearing of the site plan submitted to you and then the survey to follow, that's no problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what I'm going to do is just close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can I just aske one question, I know Eric (inaudible) an opinion but would you be willing to also remove the one of the sky plane variance? LISA POYER :That's going to be a little bit harder. MEMBER LEHNERT : But it's part of the existing house. LISA POYER :The existing house already violates the sky plane. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but you're raising the roof. LISA POYER : Five inches. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) you got the reverse gable those two front dormers that you could just miter or (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Go back to the elevation CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many square feet would we guess of that roof is violating the sky plane? It's a small corner. 73 September 5,2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it would follow the same roofline of the dormer. MEMBER DANTES : If you look at the floor plan I think you're losing like half of those two bedrooms. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea the walls come out to the edge. LISA POYER : There's so many houses in that neighborhood that violate sky plane more than a tiny little CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea especially since the side yard setback was permitted to be so narrow, the code is generally minimum 10 feet. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Anthony Portillo, isn't doesn't the code have an average sky plane calculation that you could CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we just discussed that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just thought that maybe that was CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN : No, we just you would know all about it. We offered that to them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was just my thought, I didn't mean to,interrupt (inaudible) the idea is to close subject to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, we will just close subject to receipt of an amended application and you can decide what you want to amend. You heard from the Board and do whatever is possible to reduce the amount of non-conformity or eliminate wherever you can. We'll wait to get that from you and then write up a decision, okay? So, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended application. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Pat, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. 741 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7940—ALEXANDER and APRIL WHITE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Alexander and April White #7940. This is a request for a variance from Article XXXVI Section 280-207 A (e) and the Building Inspector's May 7, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling at 1) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 80,000 sq. ft. in area located at 230 Kimberly Lane in Southold. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good afternoon Board, Anthony Portillo AMP Architecture. I think this is pretty straightforward, we are proposing an addition that is under the existing covered front porch so we are not increasing the footprint I want to make that clear. Basically, the addition that's increasing the GFA is for dining room space. We (inaudible) note to the Board is this house does have two garages that is obviously adding into our GFA calculation, two existing garages. We did provide GFA calculations to the Board. I think in this neighborhood you'll see in our calculations looking at the different homes around the neighborhood there are some very large homes that well exceed what we're proposing. I don't think that the addition is adding any mass to the building or size the fact that we're going under something that's already existing that's already (inaudible) side of the home. So, the front porch is actually the part that we're using is the part that returns back into the home so the front part of the front porch is still remaining which I think it kind of gives it that (inaudible) scale I don't think that (inaudible) effect to the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just get this right, the proposed GFA is at 5,864 sq. ft. is that correct? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The maximum permitted is 5,451 sq.ft. ANTHONY PORTILLO :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What did you say is the average GFA is in the neighborhood? ANTHONY PORTILLO : One second, I'm sorry the average is 7,567 sq.ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know the street pretty well.That's the only variance, right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any questions from you? 75 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony, the proposed 5,864 sq. ft. is 413 sq. ft. over the allowable yet the enclosed porch that you want to add to the dinning room is approximately 140 sq. ft. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So where is roughly 160 sq. ft? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The existing home is already over their GFA so it's already exceeding it. Th addition is 126 sq. ft. of dining room is increasing the GFA which is already non-compliant based on current code. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right so the existing house is already over ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, I should have said that, yes. MEMBER LEHNERT : You'll increase it by much less of an amount. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea, right that helps my case. We are increasing 126 sq. ft. of GFA. We are increasing the non-compliance that's already existing. MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? Is there anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? Is there anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. 761 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7944—THOMAS BRADFORD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Bradford #7944. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207, Article XXXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's May 23, 2024 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 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, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 4) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 10,000 sq. ft. in area, 5) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town code located at 3755 Bay Shore Rd. in Greenport. Let's take a look at these variances, this is a demo per town code and construct a new two-story dwelling, 1) the GFA is at 2,243 sq. ft., the code permits a maximum of 2,100 sq. ft. so it's 143 sq. ft. over, the second is the sky plane; we're going to look at the section to see how much is exceeding the sky plane, lot coverage proposed at 22.4% where the code permits a maximum of 20%, front yard setback at 25 feet,the code requiring a minimum of 35 feet and five, side yard setback at 7.5 ft., the code requires a minimum of 10 feet. What is the current GFA Anthony? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The home that's being demolished the current existing one second I'm sorry 2,359 sq. ft. which we are proposing less and part of that is a garage where it's not habitable space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the non-habitable garage is not included as ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's part of the GFA but we're less GFA than what's existing. I don't know if this is a correction.Leslie but I'll just (inaudible) to make sure it's clear, we're demoing this building completely and building a brand-new building. So, it's not a reconstruction by town it's a complete demo. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's probably incorrect it's not oh it's oh I'm sorry it does I may have misspoke, you're demolishing the house yea, yea, yea. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's what I think is really important here because the existing home doesn't meet the pier line, it's in the flood zone, it has a lot of non-conformance issue currently so our thought process right off the bat was, if we leave the existing we have to raise it, we have to fill in the basement, we have to fix the quirky roof situation actually (inaudible) true second story. I just want to be clear; we went down that thought process and we knew that was going to kick us into reconstruction. We would have had a problem going 771 September 5,2024 Regular Meeting to Trustees with a reconstruction being seaward of our (inaudible) so that's where this is decision was, well hey if we move if we demolish the home move it behind the pier line, we also were able to move it into the Zone X area so we were getting the home safer out of the flood zone that's where some of these decisions started to come up of, we really should build brand new. If we're probably never going to make it through Trustees you know and I think we would have had a worse condition of pyramid as well because the current home is already exceeding the pyramid and if you know the house we have a drawing of it, it's a very odd- shaped house and if we were to get the bedrooms that we were trying to get on the second floor we would have had to reshape the roof and our side yards were already the existing side yards are a lot closer to the property than what we're proposing. So, by doing everything we did we really kind of trimmed up the building, we're not really outside of the pyramid in my opinion, it's pretty negligible and you can see we provided other homes in the area its' pretty common in that are for a two-story home to be outside that pyramid line due to they're being very narrow lots. We also thought in regards to the garage that it's very common in that area that all the garages are in the front yard, some are attached, some are detached. I mean this really dates back to when these things were you know cottages and weren't really used for year round, they all have small garages in the front. We took a lot of the demographics of that area or the aesthetics of that area we built on that to come up with our design. One, keeping " it a narrow building, two, keeping the garage forward and then trying to decrease the existing non-conformancies and then also being a little bit kinder to the wetlands. Those are the reasons behind how we got here at least and we did all that. We've decreased GFA, we've decreased our side yard from the existing home, we've decreased the side yard. I think we did the only thing we probably did is introduce the front yard variance that wasn't existing but in reality, there's other garages that are a lot closer than what we're proposing in the neighborhood so to me it made sense. Obviously, we had a challenge with putting an IA system in and all of our leeching tanks and I mean it was really squeezing a lot into this lot. I think at the end of the day aesthetically too just the building of what's there and what we're proposing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know you submitted I just got the more recent one, I think you said that the average in the neighborhood of the GFA is 1,923 sq. ft. is that right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That is correct, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, and even though what you're proposing to build has a smaller GFA than the house that was being demolished the code says the Zoning Board is only allowed to grant no more than the average GFA in the neighborhood. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well I think that which I can appreciate that but I think that it's important that we look at the neighborhood too because there's still a lot of smaller homes that have more GFA so we have a little bit of a skewed average here for that reason because of some of the ones (inaudible) but I think if you look at a you know the existing building to the proposed building having a decrease in average it should weigh in on the decision. There was a thought of not attaching the garage but it just didn't work out again because of the size of the lot you know just really cram it in there. To get out of the flood zone, to get out of you know if we were to put the building closer to you know seaward of that which we wouldn't be able to cause of the pier line I think it's also a problem then maybe we would have enough room to detach the garage. It just really, I mean I think it's the garage that's creating this problem so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you did submit some priors which we'll take a look at. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We do have a letter of support which I brought with me from the neighbor. We also provided the building heights in the area. This neighbor actually just did a renovation, it is his brother but you can see that 3705 his GFA is over, his height is you know we're not going to be any higher than him if anything it'll be smaller than him. He also doesn't meet pyramid this house was done prior to you know big house rule. I don't know if you guys need all these copies but I have six copies. I can read it into the record? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you got them, we'll take them. MEMBER DANTES : I have one question for you Anthony, why go for the side yard setback variance why not just move the house over the two and half feet and then maybe that eliminates your sky plane variance? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Also the sky plane variance will go. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Let me take a look. You're saying reduce the overall width of the building? MEMBER DANTES : No it's fifteen and ten right? Why not do the fifteen and ten? Why do (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh you mean move it away? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's the septic system. MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay. 791 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's those distances from the building that we have to maintain. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's not highlighted on your site plan but what are those distances that are required? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I have the actual submission to the Health Department, I'll share that with you. We're currently 10 feet, 8 feet from the septic system to the leaching, the temps are in the front there and that has to be 5 feet minimum from the front yard and then 5 feet minimum from your garage and then the leaching is 5 feet from the porch or the landing and staircase to get to the house. So, it's both and because of ground water we're using a low trenched system you need a lot of them and you need a field basically. I can see maybe moving it a bit over is possible, I'd have to look at that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To Eric's point, it just seems if you just shift I tried marking up what you just said I'm not seeing the distances (inaudible) match up, on the site plan the greatest distance you said is 8 feet between the septic and the leaching field. ANTHONY PORTILLO : This is the side yard, that's the (inaudible). There's distances from the side yard because you have to have the expansion tank possibility that's the dotted line there. They require you to meet the same setbacks with this you know non-tank that's really going in the ground but it's an expansion tank that eventually you can expand on that and they approved that. But, with that thought I think that's something we can maybe let me look at that I don't know I think that's something worth looking at cause then we would be reducing some of our variances. CHAIRPERESON WEISMAN : Variances would probably go away or there would be a lot less. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Or maybe the GFA the variance is less of a concern. MEMBER LEHNERT :The septic is driving this whole thing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He has a 10 foot minimum between the house which is where the garage to the leaching field and then 8 feet right here and the septic tank and the leaching field. So everything else would just fall in place if he could just shift it over. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't look like he's got room really. MEMBER PLANAMENTO It's the garage which goes back to what you said, the garage presents the (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : To detach the garage you really end up losing like your foyer in the house and again it's not a big house to begin with, we're not proposing a mansion here. 8-01 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you need this back Anthony? ANTHONY PORTILLO : You can keep it, it's been submitted to the Health Department, actually I think we have approval on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if you want take it back and see if there's ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea I think I'm all about taking it into consideration everything the Board has said so I'd like to look at it and let me see what I can do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to just adjourn this to the Special Meeting or do you want to close it subject to receipt or what? You don't know what you're going to be able to get yet. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'd be okay I think adjourning it to the next hearing would be fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next hearing or the Special Meeting? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Let's do the Special Meeting, so I would just have to submit that to you and then CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and if we have questions then we'll adjourn it to a hearing. ANTHONY PORTILLO : You got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we don't have any questions we'll just close it and then make a decision. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not to repeat things but I think Eric you brought it up, you want to discuss if there's a way to shift the house it looks like you'd lose the need for a variance for the sky plane and then you'd make a conforming side yard setback so that's two that are gone and what I would I think would ask if it's plausible, instead of the deck maybe consider like a terrace cause that would reduce the lot coverage. The proposed rear deck is 3.6%, so you'd be at (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : So maybe of an on-grade yea, yea,fair. I'll look at all those.things. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm sorry, so that means September 19th get it submitted to the Board? T. A. MCGIVNEY : The Friday before that. HEARING#7949—ELIZABETH and ALLEN JEREMIAS/SOUNDHAUS HOLDINGS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Elizabeth and Allen Jeremias/Soundhaus Holdings, LLC #7949. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 22, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a deck and raised patio addition to include a hot tub and swimming pool addition to an existing single-family dwelling and to legalize the expansion of a stair platform located seaward of the top of the bluff at 1) proposed construction located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) "as built" platform located seaward of the top of the bluff, not permitted, 3) proposed construction located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 2635 Soundview Ave. (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : I'm Jennifer DelVaglio representing the Soundhaus application, I'm from East End Pool King. I'd like to submit a revision on the survey if I can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, sure. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : So you know that I like to keep these quick and short this one is going to take (inaudible). What you have before you is a new survey. I was going over the survey in preparation of the meeting today and noticed last night that the surveyor had the wrong size pool to scale so when I scaled it out on the copy that was submitted the pool size although it said 20 x 32 to the left is actually scaling out at 15 x 32 which is disappointing to my client of September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting course. In the event we decided to lose five feet so that we can keep this whole project moving forward. So, all of the numbers on here besides the original size of the pool are correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was the original pool size? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO :The original pool size was 20 x 32. We've reduced it by 5 feet overnight to try to stay in moving forward with this process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see, what we're looking at here is a construction and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry what is the new sized pool? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : 15 x 32. Leslie, we made one other change, in keeping with the LWRP and the comments that they said forward to us on August 29th, they requested that we consider moving the dry well landward so I show the original proposed location of the dry well but if you look on the new survey it shows with verbiage the dry well being relocated in the side yard. It's on the easterly side now and with the LWRP they also requested a fifteen- foot non-turf we actually have a twenty-two non-turf existing. We also to comply with the LWRP requested had the surveyor put in the dimensions for the platforms on the stairwells and I think that was it. So those were the changes that were made here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're still looking now at a 52.3 foot top of bluff setback JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : for the "as built" platform seaward of the bluff and then we have a side yard setback of 5.5 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 20 and you're going to need some sort of retaining wall it looks like. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yes, so what we're proposing is I don't know who was able to go to the property but you can see it's kind of like a wow from the house to the bluff it goes down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : So, in order to put a flat plain for a pool we need to create a flat plain for the pool. If you noticed when you go down the driveway there are the railroad ties to the left-hand side so what we're trying to do is kind of keep it low like those railroad ties continue them seaward and it would only be like twenty-one inches so it would be three railroad ties basically to create that flat plain so that we could have a leveled swimming pool and then a patio so people can sit you know level and not tip over. So that's what that proposed is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Retaining wall would be about twenty-one inches high? September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Correct MEMBER DANTES : Is that what's creating the non-conforming side yard setback is that retaining wall? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yea MEMBER DANTES : It's (inaudible) high? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did get out there and certainly I observed that there was a you know a neighboring property that we granted relief for a swimming pool at 76 foot bluff setback JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : In 2020 and they have a pool, their pool is according to the documents it's a 30 x 50 swimming pool and their patio at grade is 3,000 sq. ft. at 60 x 50 so it's quite a large space also. Then on the east side the neighboring property has a swimming pool 16 x 32 and that's 50 feet from the bluff, 25 feet from the coastal erosion line. MEMBER DANTES : Do you know if they comply with the Trustees tie line with the swimming pool? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : I'm sorry, one more time. MEMBER DANTES : The Trustees, do you comply with their averaging for the bluff setbacks for swimming pools? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : I have the Trustees come to the property for a site visit and the only thing that they requested was for us to move that dry well to the side yard with the LWRP and then they said everything else seem like it would be okay. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : So they're alright with the seaward of the bluff(inaudible)? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yes they didn't say stamped sealed but yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a Trustee permit for that or is it formerly issued or JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : No, I have my hearing with them next. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're going to have to go there for those JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yes, I think they were just happy about the 22'foot non-turf splash pad that was (inaudible). 841 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well that's the single best way to preserve you know bluffs from erosion is by these buffers.That's some dramatic slope all the way down there, wow. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : The proposed deck is actually the first tier of that deck is actually existing and then the second tier is just to try to bridge the gap of the elevation. If you noticed when you were on property there are quite a few stairs to get from the top deck to the bottom of it so I was just trying to use that transition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a long way down. I think a lot of that is going to have to be dealt with the Trustees. MEMBER ACAMPORA :There's not a lot of beach there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, not at all: Well, they've hardened the toe of the bluff too, they've got a bulkhead down there so you're not going to have a lot of sand (inaudible). Eric anymore questions on this? MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, I'm good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, Rob anything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you explain something for me, I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at.You got that railroad tie raised plinth for (inaudible) but on the survey the one that you provided today it shows a retractable deck pool cover sliding rail system. What does that mean? I've seen retractable covers (inaudible) that didn't (inaudible) seems to go over the lawn? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yes so this would be my first, I'm very excited about it. It's taking the place of that automatic cover. The automatic cover you can in fact walk across but it's sort of like a waterbed for a lack of a better term. This retractable deck would make it so that the space was actually usable in the off season. So,when the pool is closed it would be a flat plain and it would make it safe and like a second usable space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this is over whatever the finish and I know you said it's like a tiled surface or something what the pool surround would be but this actually sits over that so it sort of slides September 5,2024 Regular Meeting JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Correct, yes so it's going to be on a track, the top will go over the patio that's why the patio needs to be that size so that this can go seaward and stay at one level plane. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It reminds me of It's a Wonderful Life where Jimmy Stewart (inaudible) into the pool in the gymnasium and somebody pressed the retractable cover so you could actually walk so it would look and feel like a deck for nine months of the year and then when it's open it also seems like you don't recognize that transition in that cover, wow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Take pictures. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim just brought up a different prop, is that something that you can open and close on a daily basis also? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you could really keep the pool maintain the temperature and then just at will, wow JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yes it will do heat retention for sure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't know that existed. MEMBER DANTES : You don't need the pool fence. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Then you can dance on it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To your point, (inaudible) pool fence around it. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yea the pool fence will go in essence see where the X's are on top of that railroad tie. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly that's what I thought just Eric had said something so I MEMBER DANTES : By code you don't need it but you'll still going to have it because if you leave it open JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Right CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : Sure, you don't want any kids falling in there. Is there anybody on Zoom who wants to address the application? Is there anybody in the audience? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, Anthony Portillo AMP Architecture I am here representing Mr. and Mrs. Klear and they are the neighbors to the east, 2735 Soundview Ave. I want to start by September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting saying that the neighbors they don't necessarily have a problem with the proposed work. I think it's just more that there's not enough information for them to make an assessment to maybe have any call or judgement towards the application. I'm going to read through the things we think are if the Board could if they agree with the requests, we could have proper information to maybe make assessment on what the visual impacts would be to the neighbor. First thing is, we did find that this survey and passed surveys of this property are not accurate or this isn't accurate to these past surveys. There also was a subdivision plat map of the three lots of my client's lot, the lot that the applicant has and next to it and that doesn't match either in regards to the property lines. I have copies of those. MEMBER DANTES : What's the difference, I mean what are we ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's pretty substantial so it's really you know what we're seeing on the plat map for the subdivision is 490.78 feet on that shared property line and I believe it's off almost like 25 feet. The concern here is, this being in record and my client's property line is basically the one that's shared is being misrepresented or is it being misrepresented? Again, we're just basing it on this survey, the survey of their home is also different than that (inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : What you're saying is the metes and bounds line on the east side does not match? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It doesn't match on either side so we're just concerned that maybe the survey needs to be (inaudible) or looked at. It doesn't match what we have in the past and the approved plat map that is on record in Southold Town from the Planning Board. I can provide those if you'd like. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : I'm sorry I don't understand, you're saying it seems MEMBER DANTES : It doesn't pertain to your project he's talking about BOARD ASSISTANT : (inaudible) survey of the property. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's the plat map that was approved by Planning. I'll give you the survey so you can have it here Kim. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're talking about the (inaudible) the eastern lot line. MEMBER DANTES : Yea we're not talking about the distance from the bluff,the code really ANTHONY PORTILLO : No it's just more that there's a concern from my client that is the survey accurate? $7. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Wouldn't that be a civil matter and something you would deal with? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm just basing it on it was approved by Planning and the submission of this site map. MEMBER DANTES : The other thing that you're dealing with underwater land so I mean there's always there is a discrepancy when you're dealing with underwater land (inaudible). It may be depending on the time of year the high-water mark can move. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's just about a fifty foot difference from original plat of that land. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea but when that was taken you know whenever how many years ago the bluff changes, the water moves. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I wanted to put on record, I don't know if it's something that needs to be considered. Again, it's not also the coordinates are different from that plat map so that also could affect how this deck/patio thing lays out. Again, we're not against the application just to be clear we're just seeing some discrepancies and we don't think we have clear information about what's actually going to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Discrepancies in the ANTHONY PORTILLO : I have a couple of other things, that was just the first that's number one. I'll go through them all. The other thing is the site plan that's provided it doesn't really give us much information on heights on these proposed platforms. I did here that it's three railroad ties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Twenty-one inches. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right but there's also a deck being proposed and it doesn't really give you a clear identification of that. I mean I would say it would be helpful if an elevation maybe was provided so we could see what the effects of these elevated structures are going to be on you know the visual impact from my client's home. I would imagine even the other neighbor but I'm not here for that I can't speak to that but MEMBER ACAMPORA : The way the property goes their property is very high so they look down into the applicant's property. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, we don't think there's a visual impact it's just not clear and we don't have enough information to make that determination. One thing to not though, we are talking about the two pools the two neighboring pools, they're both at grade. I'm going to speak as an architect, I do think there's a way this pool can be at grade. It sounds like the September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting reason that it's not at grade is probably because of this whole cover system that they're trying to do which in reality you don't have to do that, you could just do an automatic cover. I'm just wondering why it's not at grade and that is what's been that is what's going on in the neighboring homes. So, if you were actually let's say lower the levels and put more stairs you could proposed these eight inches above grade and then honestly you wouldn't even need the side yard variance and you wouldn't need the variance so close to the bluff. You would only be looking at the pool because the patio would no longer be required to be raised. The pool barrier, there's really no indication of it, that would be something that I think would be probably a visual impact on we just ask if they could (inaudible) or what can we have some determination of what the pool barrier is going to look like. Is it going to be open, mesh it just doesn't state that? The other thing is, their site plan it's not indicating where the existing septic is and I have a site plan here that we know where it is, it's in the side yard there behind the driveway so there's a concern from my client that they meet all the required setbacks from that existing septic system. The biggest one is the pool being 20 feet but also even footings or anything like that I mean what they're asking, like retaining walls I think it's 10 feet required; so, none of this is sort of like delineated on the site plan and the concern for my client is, let's say they are too close and there's some effect with that septic, the septic.would sort of break or there'd be a collapse more towards their lot. I do have a survey that shows where the septic is, I can provide that for you. It's hard to determine whether what they're proposing is but it looks like MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) how it would flow uphill. MEMBER DANTES : Yea how does sewage flow uphill? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It does smell though if something does happen. Anyway, it just doesn't clearly show if they're meeting the codes. I think it's fair to ask that they show some of these things. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : May I respond to some of these things? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes of course. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Do you want to hear the last one, okay. We just ask that you know maybe as part of the approval just around the perimeter of the patio that maybe down the road maybe put like a bunch of bushes or anything like that maybe something in regards to that. We're just nervous like if it's a raised patio maybe they start planting stuff around it in the future and it really would start mitigating the view for that property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's pretty heavy landscaping along the property line now. 89. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : It stops at really the my client's house and then it's all open and it's a great view for them. The only reason I think it's acceptable for us to ask for some of these things is the requests of a variance for that rear yard so that's what's going to start creating these sorts of visual problems for my client down the road. Like I said, we're not against the project I do want to make that clear it's really just that there's some things that are really finalized that I think it's fair to say, hey like these things need to be looked at and what are those things?That's all the comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to respond? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : It would take me a few minutes to look at the survey situation. I think we can probably move on from that one. As far as the visual impact, that lower deck has from the top deck to the lower deck are five steps, steps are usually at about seven inches, that's going to be thirty-five inches below the existing deck currently. The property that you're speaking of that's to the east side is arguably at least ten feet higher because they have a four- foot retaining wall and then a four-foot fence and then the property continues to go up in elevation. As far as a visual impact there will be none. As far as plantings around there the plantings will be twenty-one inches above grade so again there would be no visual impact if there would even going to be any but at the current time there is no plantings proposed for that space. The pool cannot be at grade because the entire area that's at the well of the deck that's there now actually continues up to the foundation of the house. All of the water runoff will come right down into the pool and I cannot have a pool that is consistently overflowing with water. It's going to impact the clarity of the pool, functionality of the pool, it's going to mitigate any stormwater management because I can't control a pool that's flooding. I can't put the pool at grade. As far as the barrier, it will not be a chain link fence so it will be something that is aesthetically pleasing. I haven't decided what that will be yet but it will be to code. The septic system we will maintain property distance per code from the septic system, I know where the septic system is and will remain twenty feet off of that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Again, I think this is all verbal I don't understand how you can make these assessments without doing some type of analysis. I mean all I see is a flat site plan and I think it's fair to say MEMBER DANTES : We have an elevation drawing showing the deck. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh you have an elevation? Why didn't receive this is all we have in our packet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have pretty complete information. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I apologize then I didn't know we had 90 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : It doesn't show the whole house but it does show the decks and grading regarding the decks. ANTHONY PORTILLO : My comment is again, the looking at the pool and the twenty-two inches were just creating a larger setback issue. It is a worse situation than what's going on with the (inaudible) where they're at grade. There are ways to control water you know with using swales and other types of there's other ways to deal with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you thing that that slight elevation in order to put in a small retaining wall on all of the properties around there are sloped. I mean everyone of them has slopes and'almost all of them have some sort of retaining wall if they have anything on their waterside you know property. This is characteristic of that neighborhood because people are building in sloped terrain. I don't think that you know okay twenty-two inches is going to have a very big visual impact on anything and it will allow for the property kind of drainage control on-site. You know what might be helpful is if the second the Board has everything that we need to make a decision. We certainly heard your comments, we'll look carefully at everything. Maybe the two of you maybe just show him all the drawings you've got in your file and do it outside there and answer the questions. I think there are answers for all your questions. I think the Board has the answers and obviously you didn't get as much as we did and so consequently cause we do have things documented it isn't just here say we have it in our file. ANTHONY PORTILLO : A lot of this is coming up because my two clients are elderly where they sit in their house is basically on that corner and it's just more of a clarity situation. I don't know why we didn't see the elevations but (inaudible) the site plan but maybe MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony you're talking more about their (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's on Laserfiche. BOARD ASSISTANT : I know his client came and looked at the file, you could have come ANTHONY PORTILLO : A hundred.percent I didn't realize we have this. My point is, that's all the reason why we're even here it's just more of a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For clarification. ANTHONY PORTILLO : And being comfortable of like what's going on. I mean again I also like the pool barrier I don't know why that wasn't determined. It's normal for me to determine a pool barrier upfront. What is it going to look like? MEMBER DANTES : But they don't need it if they have the system so if they don't want to have it they can still meet 1. September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : They don't need a pool barrier if they don't have what system? MEMBER DANTES :The retractable cover. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're going to put one in anyway right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It has to have an alarm on it too or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's desirable to have a fence anyway, you don't want to be closing it every time you turn around. ANTHONY PORTILLO : There wasn't a lot of clarity but knowing about the elevation it does provide clarity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fair enough, we want to make sure that you're comfortable with what's going on next door. LYNN KLEAR : Lynn Klear and I want to tell you I so appreciate being here and seeing this process and I thank all of you for being so thoughtful in your you know I just see from prior but observed you guys are very thoughtful in your answers and I'm leaving this decision to you because my husband and I we're really not knowledgeable in all of this. Where we sit on this balcony is what the whole property has become to us. We don't use the pool anymore, we just sit there and it overlooks everything on their property and we want them to be happy, they paid enough for their house. We just don't want to ruin our view like I can't even comprehend this pool deck that's coming in and how that's going to look when in it's in the closed position. You know this thing that they're this retractable thing, I've never heard of it, I don't even know and instead of seeing grass am I going to suddenly see this big covered area, I don't know. I' just feel like we went to the North Fork because you guys have a reputation of maintaining the beauty of this place and I respect you will do that for us, I respect your process. I just hope you realize how much that means to us to not lose the beauty of what we look over every single day, that's all we have of the house anymore, that little balcony that looks over. I don't know if this thing is ugly or not you guys know way more than I'll ever know in this area, I'm going to respect your decisions and that's the end of it. I want my neighbor to be happy and I just don't want to lose the beauty of what we were able to enjoy in this house especially at this space in our life and I thank you for your attention. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Okay, anything else from anybody? Is there anything from the Board? Okay, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. September 5,2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Can I share one last thing, is there anyway to have any type of like not having a solid barrier around the pool area? Is there something that the Board can do cause I think that would really just help (inaudible) outside. I know that's something (inaudible) cause it's going to be on a raised platform if they decide to do some solid structure or solid plantings or I don't know and again I know it's not planned for now but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The strange thing is oftentimes you know we'll condition the decision ANTHONY PORTILLO : We don't want this thing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : with either fencing or planting. Here I think the neighbors will be unhappy and I think Jennifer made it clear there is no intention of planting but I mean it's their right if somebody plants a tree their right. ANTHONY PORTILLO : But not on a platform like that that's being MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Isn't that platform the deck surround? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : It's going to be a pervious patio with pavers. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think that's our biggest concern is (inaudible) things that go in there that are solid or MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think I speak for other Members of the Board of the applicant but it would seem to me that everyone wants to and appreciate to take advantage of the view that you know if anything I envision chain link and thought it was kind of funny, somebody said there's no chain link but oftentimes people use glass or something. I can only imagine you can go into the expense of making this raised cover CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't want it to be ugly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here you go, Liz is we have a photo. So that's what in other words what's around looks like a wood deck area and the cover that comes right over the pool looks exactly the same. LYNN KLEAR : Oh goodness, so it would go to ANTHONY PORTILLO :The seaward side. Okay, I just said my last comment. 931 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to 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 PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7927SE &7953—NORTH ROAD HOTEL, LLC/MOTEL MORAINE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to adjourn North Road Hotel, LLC/Motel Moraine #7927SE and North Road Hotel, LLC/Motel Moraine #7953 to the October 3rd Regular Meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Next are the Resolutions and then we'll have lunch and discussion. FOR RESOLUTIONS SEE MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2024 94 September 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape-recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. (a�Signature : � 1 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : September 17, 2024 w5