Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/07/2024 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 November 7, 2024 10:25 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN —Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member(Zoom) ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Vice Chair/Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page North Road Hotel, LLC/Hotel Moraine#7927SE 4 North Road Hotel, LLC/Hotel Moraine#7953 4 Bungalow 12, LLC/Elizabeth McCance#7938 4-7 George Sfoglia#7956 8- 10 Stephen Haratunian and Arda Haratunian #7956 10- 12 Domeluca LLC#7957 13 - 21 Alyse Ticker#7959 21—27 Decision for Oregon Road Estates Vineyard, LLC/Russell Hearn 27- 29 Lynn A. Cataldo Revocable Trust#7958 30- 39 Roman Catholic Church of Sacred Heart#7960SE 39 -43 Noblehouse Seaport, LLC#7961 44-49 Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7893SE 51- 61 Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7894 51- 61 Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7914SE 51 - 61 Silver Sands Holdings I, LLC#7897 51 - 61 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for November 7, 2024. Will you please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. The first matter is SEQRA Resolutions 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: Greg Sfoglia, Stephen Haratunian and Arda Haratunian, Domeluca LLC, Alysse Ticker, Lynn A. Cataldo Revocable Trust and Noblehouse Seaport, LLC and the SEQRA Statement on the Roman Catholic Church of Sacred Heart #7960SE to construct a parish center upon property located on Main Rd. in Mattituck. SEQRA Action and classification and significance to be determined and declared by the Planning Board as Lead Agency, so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. The first possible decision is for Pristine Projects, LLC # 7943. It was adjourned till today in order to receive comments from the applicant's attorney and we have received those comments so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a decision in front of us, do we want to do that now or do we want to just move on to the hearings and do that a little bit later just cause we're running a little behind. We could probably do it right after lunch, I just don't want to hold up anybody anymore. Is that alright with everybody? November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7927SE &7953—NORTH ROAD HOTEL, LLC/HOTEL MORAINE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application there are two of them from the same applicant, North Road Hotel/Hotel Moraine, we have received a request from the applicant to adjourn to December the December meeting because there was apparently a death in the family and they can't attend the hearing. So, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn both of those applications that's#7927SE and 7953 to December 5th. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye, th,e motion carries. HEARING#7938—BUNGALOW 12, LLC/ELIZABETH MCCANCE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Bungalow 12, LLC/Elizabeth McCance #7938. This was adjourned from September 5 and do I need to read the Notice of Disapproval it's the same Notice. I don't think I need to read it again cause it was an adjournment. Sam let's hear from Sam. SAM FITZGERALD : Good morning, good to see you all again. In the interim since the last time, we met we have made significant reductions in the overall size and the massing of the house. I think we had a gross floor area of the last time of 5,100 so now we're down to about 4,200 so the actual number the actual reduction in gross floor area, square footage is 939. We've achieved that by first reducing the ceiling heights of some of the interior spaces below the fifteen-foot mark but more significantly what we've done is we've reduced the size of the footprint itself and we've just reduced the perimeter all the way around. So, what this does for us it not just helps with the gross floor area but it reduces our lot coverage a little bit, it makes November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting our setbacks a little less non-conforming and what it also does too is it actually helps us a lot with the sky plane. So, with the reduction of the building footprint along with some massaging of the massing we were able to eliminate the sky plane variance. I think that this is an irregular shaped lot and it's small for its zone, it's non-conforming so anyone who is building a house on this lot would need setback variances I believe. With being ten percent over on our gross floor area now I think that we're very close to the minimum of what anyone would need to build a house on this property. We also had a sort of a look out perch on a sort of elevated second floor area in the house which in the interim the Building Department has confirmed or was classified that as a third story. Unfortunately, we have to add that as a variance to our application. If I could just take two more minutes of your time and share my screen, I'd like to show I'd like to explain what we're doing with that elevated sort of section if I could. So, what we're doing here I just wanted to just go through this quickly, so this is'an aerial view of the house and we have a deck that's sort of sunken into the roof that's not really sort of perceivable or not visible from the ground it's just sort of a nice sort of secret architectural feature at the roof. This section of the building here that's the top of a stair tower or circulation core that extends all the way down to the first floor and it's the organizing element around which the house is designed but inside this circulation core there's it's all open essentially but it's a there's an open stair that goes up from the first floor, wraps around all the way up to the roof deck access door. What we've also done is along with providing access to the deck is that we have a band of clear story windows which is going to provide great passive cooling for the house too; open the windows up and you'll get the hot air will flow up and out those windows so that's a passive cooling solution for the house. Just real quick, so inside this stair tower I haven't shown the stairs yet but this is just the shell of that stair tower the envelope and you can see those clear story windows with the roof deck door so these are the stairs up from the first floor to the second floor. Then we have the second-floor hallway and then from there we have stairs up to the deck and what the Building Department allows as you know is, you can have a deck that's elevated above a second floor it's just that the access stairs have to be the minimum per code, they don't want that to expand. What I'm showing you right here, all would be permitted under zoning and the building code. What we're asking for is to build a platform at that roof deck level, it's just slightly above what a half flight of stairs would be. It's 126 sq. ft. and it just fills in this corner here and it sort of fits within the sort of the you know other space in the tower. We aren't necessarily you know building anything special for this platform, it fits within the space of the tower, there will bean open rail over the stairs, it's not going to be a bedroom. The entire house is going to be sprinklered we're just trying to take full advantage of the geometry of the house and this would be a great, great little hang out place and we say it's sort of like a sort of a lookout where we can possibly get a water view. This right here is the rendering of what it would look like, again it's the stairs here would be permitted by the Building Department for access to the roof deck, it's just this tiny November 7,2024 Regular Meeting and again I think that any concerns that the town has about three stories I think wouldn't necessarily apply in this case. We got good egress, we got sprinklered, it's a small area, it's not for sleeping and it's not enclosed. Then there's a couple of more of these with just the first floor to the second and then just another view. With that I can probably stop the share if that's alright or should I just keep these images up? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's fine, I think we're good. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Sam I have a question relative to that what I probably call a mezzanine more than a third floor, I see on other applications in the town where people have successfully built like a landing at the top of that stair? How large does the Building Department or how much square footage are you permitted? You had mentioned just like the stair area is allowed but I've seen other people with a little bit of a landing, how many square feet approximately are you allowed? SAM FITZGERALD : I don't know if that's exactly specified but from what Mike tells me it's the so his fear is that there will be sort of like you know a landing would sort of creep into an actual well what we're trying to do but you know so he was saying that it's the code required minimum which I think would be like a 3 x 4 space. From Mike that's my sense of what he would allow it's just a little tiny landing up there in order to navigate the door out to the deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, any questions from the Board? ANTHONY PORTILLO : This is Anthony Portillo, there is allowed mezzanine on the third floor, it's a calculation based on what that opened stairwell is. I only know this cause I'm presenting something very similar today and that's allowed. They don't require third story variance for. I don't know the calculation off the top of my head but it looks like a third of the open space or something like that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I can think of two different properties and Leslie they're sort of neighbors on North Sea, 8100 had something similar and their third floor of course was at the ground level not the roof access and then at the west end of Kenney's beach there's that sort of newish contemporary home and it would seem that it got an area it's gotta be at least ten feet square so it's not MEMBER LEHNERT : This is not something we haven't seen before. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but here it's classified as a third floor whereas for them it wasn't. November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD : I would be sorry if I could I would be very interested in learning more about the mezzanine, I did mention that as an option to the Building Department and they were clear that this was a third story. I mean I have some objections to or some issues with how stories are defined but that's a separate issue altogether but I would I mean if we can have this fall under a legal definition of mezzanine of course we'd like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many square feet, what size is it again Sam? SAM FITZGERALD : 126 sq. ft. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Again, you probably wouldn't be here if you had just a stairwell with a landing versus greater floor area. SAM FITZGERALD : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've certainly have had plenty of lookout towers in our time. I don't have any questions and once again Sam thank you for your very clear presentation, the massing models are especially helpful and being able to kind of deconstruct and put it back together is very helpful when you can't do interior inspections. Is there anybody on Zoom that wants to address the application? Is there anybody in the audience? Is there anything else from the Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. 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 PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, thank you Sam. November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7955—GREG SFOGLIA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Greg Sfoglia#7955.This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's June 3, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize and construct alterations to a habitable third story of an existing single-family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted number of stories of two and half located at 3480 Old Jule Lane (adj. to James Creek) in Mattituck. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board, Anthony Portillo AMP Architecture. I just want to start by saying that the previous owner of this home basically just submitted something that was approved and then built what we see today without amending any documents. Then the new owner purchased the home and was basically left with what is there today. What the owner did was refinished the interior this third story was existing and he basically removed the flooring and painted and did new flooring and put a new railing in. The new owner did not create this situation it's just something that he purchased and then rehabbed the home and then during inspections this is where the Building Department came in and said this was never even filed correctly from the beginning. I presented the Board with what was filed by the previous owner and approved by the Trustees in 2002 which I mean the massing of the building is totally different, the elevations are totally different. I don't know how the building got built this way but that is what happened. That's where this sort of started I guess just to be clear. I did provide photos that were from Zillow when the owner purchased the home and you can clearly see that that story was there and was finished and basically was being used, I guess as like an office/sitting area. Our plan and we did have the Building Department out to the site, they're biggest concern was that there was basically a separate room and a bathroom so we are removing all those things in our proposed plan and basically just proposing just to leave it as an open floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are proposing to remove the bedroom and bathroom? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct, it would just be an open floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That was not clear at all in the notice. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh I thought I showed it in the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you don't show it in the plan but it wasn't very clear in text. It appeared all you were altering was the stair. November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh okay, no the modified rec room it's going to be one big open space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's open to below you know going back to the last application that's where I got that definition of mezzanine. I don't have the exact calculation but I believe it's like a third of the open space. We did do a study to try to have like a narrow sort of mezzanine to access where those windows are to obviously keep the natural light, I mean it just didn't work it was a very narrow unusable it didn't make a lot of sense. I know most of the Board Members were there, one of the things I want to mention about this space it does pitch down so it's not like it's a full height space and usable completely so I know the definition of square footage or habitable or habitable square footage doesn't really you know work around that situation but the fact is it's really going to be used as just a rec space, again built that way it really wasn't something the owner did and he wants to comply. We are proposing to put sprinkler system on the third story so the are will be sprinklered and obviously we're proposing to put that staircase in so it's a proper staircase and not the ships ladder that's there now. That's basically where we're at here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You'll be sprinkling the entire house or just the third floor? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The third story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How are you going to use that, how's he going to use it? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Just a rec space for the kids really. There,were some other Trustee just to let the Board know what's going on, there were some Trustees issues. The owner has worked through those Trustees issues so he will be in compliance with Trustees as well. Again, some things that were just kind of left on his plate when he purchased the home. There was like a lighthouse out front that he removed. CHAIRPERSSON WEISMAN : Oh I remember that one, we were looking for it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I remember it too when I used to ride my bike down there. The kind of ruins of a shed that the owner the previous owner never actually built the current plans for that not really sure but I mean if the owner is going to build something he's going to file and he'll do it property. The whole game plan here obviously is just to get things C.O'd and on record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if there's any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. November 7,2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom? Is there anyone in the audience? 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 PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye ANTHONY PORTILLO : Thank you Board. STEPHEN HARATUNIAN and ARDA HARATUNIAN#7956 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stephen Haratunian and Arda Haratunian #7956. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116A (1) and the Building Inspector's May 22, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a trellis accessory to a single- family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 1205 Soundview Ave. Extension (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. URAL TALGAT : Ural Talgat I'm here to answer any questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's look at what you're actually requesting. We did an inspection as you know, the trellis structure is near the pool. ILO I November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting URAL TALGAT : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bluff setback is at 84.5 inches where the code requires a minimum of 100 and the side yard setback is 12 foot 10 inches where the code requires 20. What would you like us to know.about this application? URAL TALGAT :The owner would like to construct this trellis in the location shown so that they can have a little bit of shade while having a view from the trellis structure and also from the pool out to the Sound. One of the items was that the neighboring house is closer to a property line than I believe what we have shown for our setback to the trellis. There is another house to the west of that that has the same issue, closer to the property line than what we have shown. One of the other items that was interesting to me, I was hired by the owners to work on a new pool here which was replaced which was a vinyl liner pool and also a pool house. We built that according to code but when I first inspected the property, I noticed this trellis structure there and I looked at the survey that was provided to me and it showed no trellis structure. I let the owner and the contractor know that that's an illegal structure, I didn't find any kind of paperwork in town regarding that and I said to them that that has to be removed and we have to go if you want a trellis structure we have to go to the ZBA and it was removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good to know. Well, from being on the property it looks like all of the property lines are totally screened by mature vegetation the side yards in particular. You really can't see any dwellings adjacent to the subject lot along the side yards. I don't see how that trellis particularly with that height is going to be seen by anybody other than the owner of the property. The bluff looks like it's well vegetated, the actual house sits closer to the bluff than what the proposed trellis is going to be and that was a prior ZBA approval in 2016 to demolish and replace a dwelling. URAL TALGAT : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't find any access stairs down to the Sound itself, it seems to be simply a vegetated bluff. URAL TALGAT : Over the years that section of bluff and I know this because I would launch my boat and go fishing off of Hortons Point, during the number of years stairs were built on properties along that edge, storms would come and wipe them out. I think some of the owners have decided which is very CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Leave it alone and let nature take it's course. URAL TALGAT : Exactly Ja November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You get tired of replacing the stairs. URAL TALGAT : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, that is probably the only feasible location by the way. I mean you have the pool house on the other side so if you wanted shade around the pool there's no other feasible location really. Nick, any questions from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric got anything? MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing oh is there anybody in the audience, sorry? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye la November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7957—DOMELUCA, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Domeluca, LLC #7957. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's May 17, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to amend a currently open permit for a new dwelling to include an attached shade trellis at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback, of 20 feet located at 14895 Main Rd. (adj. to Dam Pond) in East Marion. ANTHONY PASCA : Good morning,Anthony Pasca for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nice to see you, haven't seen you in a while. ANTHONY PASCA : Yes, so this is also a trellis application, we're asking for a setback from what's in effect an internal lot line that divides two properties that our client controls and uses as one property but it is technically a single a separate lot so we have to ask for this variance. I hope some of you have gotten to see the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all made a site inspection. ANTHONY PASCA : It's really a unique property, unique in a way this particular structure is designed to be an essentially accessory structure to the main house. The central use of this structure is for display of this art piece which is what is driving the application. The art piece is in effect an old house, I can't even really explain it I'm not an expert on this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm glad cause I was trying to figure that out myself, there was a very old house on that property at some point. ANTHONY PASCA : The piece of art in question is this 1940's Jean Prouve is the artist/architect who did it and now what's left of this has become a piece of art and these have been displayed in museums so the owner has one of these, has designed this structure to be essentially a display for this piece of art. What makes it something I've never seem before is the way that they've designed it is it's movable into three different locations, one being completely inside because it is affected by the elements. It's an old house but it's open and it cannot be subject to the elements but in order to allow it to be also displayed outside there's going to be three locations. One is inside the house, two is on your picture on the far right which is it basically comes out on rails being designed at grade and on wheels this piece of art can roll out onto the end which is actually on the other parcel that our client owns. The middle location which is under the trellis is why we're here and the purpose of that is to have a second location that's November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting shaded where it can be displayed under the shade if the perfect outdoor elements are really present. That's the description of why we're asking for the variance for the trellis is to allow that second display position for the artwork. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's not really used as a pool house relative to the swimming pool or? ANTHONY PASCA : I mean it is, it's technically a single-family residence because it's on its own lot but you've seen it you know it's not really a single-family residence in the sense of something that one would sell separately apart from the main house which is there and there is a pool associated with. We call it the garden house so it'll be centered around the artwork and the pool and it'll be just an area where the owners can enjoy a second location and enjoy the artwork. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember when we dealt with the swimming pool on that lot and then MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The pool is on the adjacent lot. ANTHONY PASCA : There are two pools, there is one pool that's on this lot you can see right there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That wasn't the subject of the pool application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that one was. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes on the adjacent lot to the east. ANTHONY PASCA : That's right, I wasn't the attorney at the time so I can't speak personally about it but I did see an old decision relating to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's interesting is that it's clearly not a single-family dwelling and there is a pool which is an accessory and now there's an accessory building as well as the accessory pool and it's on a lot without a principle dwelling. ANTHONY PASCA : It is a legal single-family residence and that's how so the lot CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not all new construction? ANTHONY PASCA : It is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then how is it a single-family residence? 1.41 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PASCA : It's technically has the equipment for a single-family residence but like I said it's going to be used as a guest house/patio house/garden house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was perplexed to see why we would have these accessories without a principle use. ANTHONY PASCA : That's how it was approved, it was as a quote, unquote principle use but I'm not pretending that you wouldn't sell this property apart from the main property but the reason that lot line was kept where it was, was to allow this parcel to continue to have the right to have a principle use and a pool and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why they're not merged? ANTHONY PASCA : That's why they're not merged, correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was my next question, cause then you have a second dwelling on one lot. ANTHONY PASCA : If you merge them you would eliminate the need for the variance because that internal division line would no longer be there but you would no longer have the right to have this guest house there at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there's full plumbing and all that kind of stuff in there? ANTHONY PASCA : I don't know if they're finished but it will have full plumbing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When I looked at the floor plans again it illustrates a kitchen, a bedroom, a bathroom. ANTHONY PASCA :Just the minimum necessary to have a single-family residence there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There is an open building permit (inaudible) swimming pool BOARD ASSISTANT : It's a single-family dwelling. ANTHONY PASCA : As far impacts, we're the ones that are being impacted primarily. I mean it is technically a variance because of the lot line that exists but you've been there, it's an integrated property. If you're walking around the paths go right through the rails themselves, go right across the property line. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Pasca it was going to be a question that I was going to ask actually our Town Attorney maybe she can offer a comment, I don't think we're allowed to really offer any sort of relief where improvements extend over onto an adjacent property. IS I November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PASCA : I'll explain, we went through that with the Building Department when we filed for the turn down, we asked them do we need a variance for that too and what it was decided was, because it's at grade it's treated no differently than or they treated it no differently than if it were driveway that extended over. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Like a patio. MEMBER PLANAMENTO But that makes no sense cause the railings are attached to the house. ANTHONY PASCA : The railings are attached to the ground. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To the foundation of the house, I mean you can clearly see it runs from the living room in what you call the garden house out over the patio and into the lawn of the neighbor's property. ANTHONY PASCA : I understand but it would be no different in theory than at least the way they viewed it and we asked them and we said we'll apply for whatever variances you want us to apply for and when we talked it through with them they agreed that it was different haven't had anything quite like this but they treated it as a kin to let's say you have a concrete driveway that extended from the house that house onto the other property and crossed over. They wouldn't treat that as needing any kind of relief because it was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they're not treating it as a structure. MEMBER LEHNERT :They looked at it as a shared driveway._ ANTHONY PASCA : It's a driveway and driveways are one exception to crossing over property lines you don't have to have (inaudible). I think technically a driveway is a structure but it's allowed to cross over property lines. It's the only think it is really, you can't we couldn't put the trellis crossing over the property line but because it was essentially deemed like a driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well and it's temporary it isn't always there. ANTHONY PASCA : Well the structure is (inaudible)that's right it's on wheels literally it is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It can be pulled back. ANTHONY PASCA : Correct and most of the time because of the elements of weather it will be inside. I mean that's going to be a vast majority of the time that that piece of art is going to be inside. In the summer months there will be sometimes where it can be displayed on those rails across onto the other property. November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, in the future let's look at the future, if ever anybody sells either lot you know if the current owner decides to sell one lot or the other lot it makes sense to condition any approval that the Board might grant with the limitation that that platform may not be moved onto the adjacent separate lot if they are no longer owned by the same owner. ANTHONY PASCA : Fine with us, if you want to do that that's fine because for practical purposes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick has a point and I guess Building has never seen it so they were trying to figure out how to handle it and you know they gave you pretty much an okay on it so the question then is, if they're separate lots you certainly don't want your neighbors sticking a work of art on somebody else's lot. ANTHONY PASCA : It practically would never happen because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It probably never would but ANTHONY PASCA : But we have no problem with that for that exact reason that it's and the trellis is also being designed where it can just be taken off. So, in theory the trellis could be if you have an issue with that being close to the property line as well that can be removed because it's being designed for this purpose to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the shade is there as a result of shading the artwork. ANTHONY PASCA : Correct, correct. The only other last thing I guess I'll mention is just when we talk about art I've seen this over you know twenty, thirty years once in a while these things pop up where (inaudible) given sort of a little bit of deference of flexibility I've seen it on the Southold we dealt with this about twenty years ago in Paradise Point, I don't think anybody here was still certainly on the Board at that time but there was a forty foot sculpture that was put on the beach CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I was on the Board ANTHONY PASCA : You were on the Board okay, alright so you remember it then. MEMBER LEHNERT : I know the story. ANTHONY PASCA : What it was what ended up happening cause we were involved in that, it was (inaudible) structure so for zoning purposes it was treated as a structure not exempt from the law but when it came time back to the Board for a variance even though it was forty foot tall structure on the beach because of it's status as a piece of art it was given a bit of deference and allowed to stay. I think that's probably the right way that art should be treated because if 17 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting it is affixed to the ground it is a structure but the traditional zoning ideas don't really contemplate regulating art in the same way that they do other types of buildings. If you have any questions I'm happy to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea a couple of sort of details, the survey illustrates the trellis with a proposed setback of 6.1 feet but the Notice of Disapproval says 6.3. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think 6.3 is supposed to be the right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I think for our purposes we should use the survey of 6.1 no? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why not? I mean they're calling it out at 6.3 but if the survey says 6.1 rather than getting a corrected survey, we just say 6.1. ANTHONY PASCA :That would be great, cause then if it turns out that that 6.3 was wrong CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah then you don't have to deal with it I mean for that. ANTHONY PASCA : You don't want me to come back for .2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No for lunch maybe but not this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My other question was just relative to all of the fencing, there's like a four foot high chain link fence that has like some trellising above it to keep the deer out, is that covered by Trustees permits? I mean there's double fencing and it runs literally at the waters edge. ANTHONY PASCA : I believe so, I wasn't involved in the Trustee permits but it did get Trustee permits and that buffer has been, it's an improved buffer which is set forth I think also they have D.E.C. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you get the Board copies of that permit illustrating that the fencing is approved by Trustees? ANTHONY PASCA : Sure MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then sort of a personal question that I wanted to ask cause I've never seen anything like this, the swimming pool has like this moat around it or what I think people in some terms call it like a ha-ha but I noticed there are like these earthen bricks it looks like layers of sod but it's actually like Astro turf, what is that? ANTHONY PASCA : I wondered the same thing, I have no idea-. JL November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's is interesting but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is you could fall and kill yourself on that if you're not careful. ANTHONY PASCA : I wondered the same thing when I saw it but I don't know the answer. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I mean it looks organic but it's synthetic. ANTHONY PASCA : It looks like kind of an Astro turf I think that was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was trying to figure out what it is, it's very interesting. ANTHONY PASCA : It does look I thought it was a moat as well, it kind of looks like that or that's what it could be. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I mean that pool, it's very natural looking the way the sitting platform is and then I guess the jacuzzi in the middle of it. ANTHONY PASCA : But you notice the whole property feels like it's surrounded by a moat because of the barrier beach and then you have the interior water and you have the causeway it's I mean it's one of my favorite properties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that all of that was probably part of what a landscape architect would refer to as a conceptual design. ANTHONY PASCA : Any other questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nothing from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was there anybody on Zoom Liz? Is there anybody in the audience? T. A. MCGIVNEY : I have a copy of the Trustee. ANTHONY PASCA : Okay so I don't need to provide that to you? T. A. MCGIVNEY : No but in it and just quickly looking at it, it does state that they have to follow C & R's and then the deer fencing would be removed after one year after the bluff was vegetated. ANTHONY PASCA : I don't know how long it's been, I have no idea. I wasn't part of that application so T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's from '22 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Isn't that a matter for Code Enforcement? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yea ANTHONY PASCA : I'm glad you guys asked about it for sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want a copy of this we can give it to you, you don't have it. ANTHONY PASCA : I'm sure we have it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But wouldn't we need to uphold the Trustees remarks as part of any decision or relief granted? ANTHONY PASCA : I would ask that it be left to cause it's possible that they didn't put it up the day that they got that permit so I don't know when exactly they put it up and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bluff is well vegetated now so what you know based on inspection. ANTHONY PASCA : The Building Department is there all the time so cause it's an active construction site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's better to just let this is a you know a Board that has it's own jurisdiction and I wouldn't condition an approval based on something that was a prior determination, Julie maybe you can let Code Enforcement know and then they can work it out. ANTHONY PASCA : We'll let our client know as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just let them know that it came up at the hearing or whatever. Okay, anything else Nick? Is there anything from you Rob or Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye 20 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7959—ALYSE TICKER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you're recused from this one Nick. The next application before the Board is for Alyse Ticker #7959. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's July 10, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish per town code definition and reconstruct a single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 4) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for a lot containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area located at 1685 Westview Dr. (adj. to Mattituck Creek) in Mattituck. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant and I'm joined here today by Elyse Ticker who is the property owner. We are not here for a trellis I'm sorry to say no trellises here and this house is proposed but we do need those four variances that Leslie referenced to complete the proposed construction there which essentially consists of adding a second floor to this home with a small one car garage addition which will enable the Tickers to be able to pull the car in and have interior access to the home and then a reconstruction of the front porch. Because of the fact that the property is relatively constrained in size it has limited lot width at 75 feet it triggers the need for some of this variance relief. It's also a deemed demo by town code definition just because of the reconfiguration of the interior of the home moving two of the four bedrooms upstairs the Building Department deemed it a demo. The pre-existing non-conforming combined side yard setback is at that 20.4 feet, everything will remain within that in terms of proposed construction. The garage addition is it's only a portion that's about fourteen, fifteen feet in width that will sit into the front yard setback at 24.5 feet but the vast majority of the frontage of the house is pretty much conforming with the front yard setback and lot coverage currently is at about 21%and change. With this small garage addition, it kicks up to 23.87% and the GFA with the addition of the small garage and the second floor which is only about 780 sq. ft. we need a variance to exceed GFA by 379 sq. ft. A little bit about the property, it's 11,695 sq. ft. lot in the R40 zoning district, you guys are familiar with Bryers Woods they are many shapes and sizes. The waterfront lots tend to be a little bit deeper, the landward lots are a little bit more cookie cutter but there's really no you know standard size. Some lots have larger homes on smaller lots, some lots have smaller homes; over the years these properties as you've seen November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting them before for prior variance relief where you know just putting on that second floor is going to trigger the need for relief here and in this instance the GFA relief which is for a modest second floor addition. I just want to kind of walk through some of the issues criteria here. As I mentioned we're looking for relief for the existing combined side yard setback and that front yard setback of 24.5 really (inaudible) lot coverage is going to go up to 23.87 but the houses on either side okay we have the house on one side is at 24.6% and the other one on the other side is 25.5% lot coverage and across the street there's a house with 24.6 so what is proposed here is yes an uptick in existing lot coverage however it is entirely consistent with the homes that are surrounding immediately surrounding it. As for the GFA I do want to get into that a little bit and just kind of touch on these recent guidelines but with respect to the criteria, this Board has recently considered applications in Bryers Woods I just wanted to remind you of your finding in one of those applications where you acknowledged that the Bryers Woods subdivision is a community of waterfront and upland homes developed in the early sixties, the vast majority of which have been renovated and upgraded to meet the needs of twenty first century living. Two story homes and residences with front porches are commonly found in the immediate neighborhood as well as throughout the town and that was decision 7716 in 2022. That's what we're here for, it's essentially the same exact type of renovation where they're putting on a modest second floor addition and a front porch that's going to creep into the front yard setback. Because of the varying and mostly substandard lot width and areas around this house we need the relief we're requesting here. We looked at the guidelines and as you know on the site plan Mark did make an effort to kind of point out the houses in the immediate vicinity there. GFA analysis for twenty homes is a pretty big task but I just want to mention that it seems in a neighborhood like this that the guidelines might not be so helpful just because we're not looking at a subdivision like a Farmview where you have every lot is exactly the same. So, there's such a variation in lots sizes I mean from if you look at there's eleven houses just on this side of the road, they range in width from 54 feet to 175 feet and they range in depth from 158 feet to 232 feet so some of them may oh the GFA is complying here but you have maybe a single-story ranch on a lot and you know there's other ones that are six thousand square feet but it's a larger lot. Just looking at the tax map I was trying to kind of compare and contrast the lot sizes and it seems to me that in this instance we really have to rely on the general variance criteria to say hey, is what is proposed here consistent with the character of the surrounding community and I would suggest to you that it absolutely is just with the properties we pointed out. The property next door only has like 1,800 sq. ft. of GFA it's a one-story ranch but it has 25 feet of lot coverage so it's kind of all over the place. Across the street it's similarly you have a property that exceeds GFA by 500 sq. ft. with 25% lot coverage. So, it's variable and ultimately our position here is that what is proposed is really consistent with the GFA in the vast majority of the Bryers Woods community. As to the need for variance, obviously the advent of the GFA regulations and the Z November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting deeming demolition by the Building Department triggers the need for the relief but I would point out as I have in my memo there's three other homes just in the immediate vicinity of Westview that were granted setback variance relief because the constraints of these lot sizes, these non-conforming lot sizes that exist in this neighborhood. We would submit that the magnitude of the relief sought is not substantial, the front yard just for that one portion is thirty percent but as I said the vast majority of it is conforming. The combined side yard is eighteen percent but again we're just living with the pre-existing non-conforming setback there, ten percent relief for lot coverage from the existing and sixteen percent for GFA. I know the GFA regulations are relatively new and you guys haven't had that much of a chance to but I sited some other decisions recently where there was twenty six percent relief granted and forty six percent relief granted for GFA on similarly sized parcels, non-conforming substandard lots and I would ask you to consider that. On balance we would submit that the relief sought here is far less substantial. We do have letters in support from the three immediate neighbors all of whom have seen the plans and have no problem with what is being presented here and we would submit obviously that there's no evidence or indication of any adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood. It is just a pretty simple as you can see from the plans renovations so I'm happy to address any questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's start with Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you changing the septic system at all? MARTIN FINNEGAN : We are not, Pat and I'll tell you why. When the Tickers bought this property just a few years back the prior owner had done some wonky things. They applied an upgraded the sanitary system which was originally approved for a two-bedroom home to accommodate the existing four bedrooms that are in the house. They just they moved the sanitary system from waterfront to the front yard, it's three years old it's just in about the best position that it could be in so we're asking that you know the Building Department has not asked for further relief there so there is no plan and hopefully they would not have to incur the expense of a brand-new septic system three years later. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we just have a copy of that for the file? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, it is noted on the plans the number but I will yes of course we can provide that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to need Trustees approval for this? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes we gotta get through here first and then next stop. 231 November 7,2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Town Board agreed that the Trustees actually on waterfront properties should go first, we really ought of just change the way we've been doing this because the environmental impacts long ago when this was done just simply to make it easier for property owners and both Boards with concurrent jurisdiction there's nothing in the code about any of that as you know, it's just a matter of internal working out and now it makes given the environmental impacts it won't affect this application because it is what it is but we're going to get well I'm only mentioning it because something is going to happen in future particularly with attorneys and other agents we need to let them start to know that Town Board has suggested that because of environmental impacts now are so much more dramatic than what they used to be and the variances often are so many more than they used to be that it makes sense to see what the Trustees want to do. We've had plenty of situations where we've approved something and then they've said no you've gotta make it you know farther away from a wetland and suddenly we need a front yard variance which we never needed. MARTIN FINNEGAN : We're about to send you a letter on one of those. I think that there's two schools of thought on it, I mean I guess it depends on the property and sometimes it makes sense that you know you guys weigh on it first and say whether you know if you have one that's in the coastal erosion hazard area you know you gotta go to the Town Board, I don't know if the Town Board is going to want to consider varying that when they don't have a variance from the Zoning Board it's hard to say which application it makes sense, kind of a case by case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is, I just want to ask about this GFA though, are you submitting GFA averaging or not? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'm not, I'm just making the argument. I have the ones that are on the site plan and it's a I think if you've been out there you've seen that there are clearly some homes that are either side that are smaller, they're single-story ranch homes but on balance I think that the relief sought here is not significant and I think it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood so we rely on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to check. The Board as you said is like everybody else trying to get used to this new code and so it's not a requirement it's an option that people can exercise. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it can be, as I said in the more cookie cutter subdivisions it's obviously very helpful to do that, it's just when you have these varying lots. Also, when you have properties that are with the waterfront on one side and there's always a disparity in November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting those lots in the waterfront communities with the upland lots. I mean here across the street you have pretty much consistent although there is a little variation. It's hard to use that here. T. A. MCGIVNEY :That's true but unfortunately the code (inaudible) it says what it says and MARTIN FINNEGAN : I know, I know (inaudible)trying to figure it out. T. A. MCGIVNEY : They have to go by what the code says and you're right there's a hundred scenarios that would make it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All true. The code also says we are prohibited literally from granting GFA requests in excess of the average, we're just trying to come to grips with all of that basically. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's just it's very difficult for people to do that analysis you know. I mean to come in with a herculean task you know and so I think you also have the authority of the town code to vary you know based on the town law criteria and the character and all the criteria. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we'll deal with it. Is there anybody in the audience? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Where's Nick? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's recused. If you want to say anything you have to come to the mic. ALYSE TICKER : Alyse Ticker, hi and thank you for your time today. We bought an existing four- bedroom, two bath house. We're trying to accomplish I think three things, one is it would be really nice to have a garage. I'm doing nothing but getting older, my husband is doing nothing but getting older and I don't look forward to the thought of having to shovel out a car so we're trying to get a garage. The two other things are from the previous owner that we're trying to correct, there was work done in the house by the owner before us that I think you referred to as wonky that's probably the kindest way to put it. We're trying to remedy a few of those things. One of them being a staircase that was moved to another location within the house down to the basement and it's not to code, it's vey narrow and it doesn't even get all the way downstairs it's got an inappropriate and too small landing so we need to widen that and make that not a death trap. Another thing he did was, he moved the washer/dryer which I think was in what had originally been a garage in the house but he made into the master bedroom which is in a gorgeous spot but it was a garage and he moved the washer/dryer from the garage into a closet that opens onto the dinning room. So, some of my friends said, well isn't it great to have your laundry right there it's so convenient but it's not great having November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting your laundry opening up into your dinning room. So, we need a place to move the laundry room and when we sat down with Mark and looked at these three things, we're trying to do we said alright to widen the stairs to make them safe and to code we need to take up this much extra space; to move the laundry room let's put it where there's already some plumbing all of that is now taking over a crazy bathroom and encroaching well into if not taking up almost all of the small fourth bedroom in the house. With trying to do those three things we lose a bedroom and a bathroom. So, we're not trying to build a big house, we just want to keep a four bedroom and at least a two-bath house. Mark said, let's see how we do with looking for a little bit of a variance for just a one car width garage and then because we're losing one bedroom to the garage, another bedroom to the stairs and the laundry room we'll go up and we'll build out just enough space upstairs to replace the two bedrooms we're losing on the main floor and give them a bathroom up there. I'm so happy we got introduced to Mark because I think with a very tight space as Martin was referring to, we don't have a lot of places to go and I think with having no place to go how he utilized the space upstairs and keeping most of the floor plan on the first floor the same I think he did a great job. We just became grandparents two weeks ago and we're very excited about having a place for our family to come.That's what we're here for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you very much for your testimony and congratulations. Rob any questions from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : I have one more, on the garage I noticed it's very tall what are you planning to do if anything on the top of the garage? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it's for storage. ALYSE TICKER : Part of it was just to kind of balance out the look of the house a little bit to make the second story not look like it's just kinda like plopped onto the house and my husband is also crazy with storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you. Is there anybody on Zoom? Well, nobody else is in the audience, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? 7_6 November 7,2024 Regular Meeting LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Why don't we while we're still in session do the decision for Oregon Road Estates Vineyard, LLC/Russell Hearn #7941? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can get Nick back in here now.This is for as we know there was a tasting room established with Zoning Board approval but with conditions of approval on Oregon Rd. It was sold from the original person but that individual had expanded in violation of the condition of approval the existing tasting room.Typically tasting rooms are accessory to wineries as a part of value-added agriculture and to market to the public and of course there is no winery there so the Board approved it nevertheless but said don't expand it because it was an attempt to keep it small and low key and not have you know an overly intense use on the property by the public. In any case, expansion did occur and additional expansion is now proposed. The Board has determined to grant the existing "as built" changes to the tasting room as shown on the demolition plan and this was April 29, 2024 and to deny the variances as applied for for additional expansion shown on their plans but there is a bunch of conditions here. Shall we just review the conditions one last time. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first one, there's no further expansion of the current number of legally permitted occupants in the "as built" tasting room per approval of the Fire Marshal is permitted. B, no further expansion of any other alterations to the tasting rooms, storage or other changes without further review of the Zoning Board of Appeals, so we're not barring them we're just saying you gotta come back. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Should we say application instead of review cause they might seek a de minimus? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, because then that will be a review. I mean if it's de minimum it's'de minimus, if it's not we'll let them know that they need a new application. B, the applicant must deny guests access to inside seating once the occupancy is full. MEMBER ACAMPORA : We have two "B's". Z7 November 7,2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh we do, now we're down to "J". C, the applicant okay we did that. D, outdoor seasonal seating is permitted only on the "as built" patio in the front yard and access must be denied to guests wishing to sit outdoors and when that seating capacity is full. E, no outdoor seating of any kind is permitted in any area on the subject property other than the "as built" patio in the front yard. F, no enlargement or enclosure of the "as built" seasonal covered patio in the front yard is permitted. G, the applicant must obtain site plan approval from the Planning Board per condition five of the Planning Board's decision dated 10/18/2011. H, no buses or limos are permitted on the property. I, all parking must be on site in the designated parking lot, no parking is permitted on any other area of the subject property and no parking is permitted on Oregon Rd. J, no outdoor music must end by 9 PM, no amplified outdoor music is permitted on the property.That's it, any suggested changes? MEMBER LEHNERT : Looks good. MEMBER DANTES : What about them moving of the front door and moving of the bathrooms, is that denied (inaudible) or is that, that's what I kind of where I don't truly understand. They were going to add a door CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was denied because that is the current application. As Pat Moore explained, there were changes made prior to this application, we are blessing those we are not requiring them to rip out anything but because of the original give to the applicant in this unusual location we don't want them to do anymore for the public, no more in what's legally permitted now. I guess those alterations would have to do with expanding the tasting room. The current application for additional expansion, they were doing the bathrooms again, they were doing a few odds and ends making that inside room bigger, I mean it's what they have is really very nice we've all seen it and we don't want to be punitive per say but so that's what's that all about. Are we ready to vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, all in favor in denying as applied for and granting what's there already? The motion is to deny the variance as applied for, grant the existing "as built" changes that had not that were in violation of the condition of approval prior approval subject to the various conditions that we've just reviewed together, that's the motion. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Nick, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye za November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, any opposition? MEMBER DANTES : I abstain cause I haven't read it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea I'm sorry you can't vote, I forgot. Okay so the motion carries and the decision is what it is. Alright I think that we'll make a motion to adjourn for lunch. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 291 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7958—LYNN A. CATALDO REVOCABLE TRUST#7958 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon everyone, the next application before the Board is for Lynn A. Cataldo Revocable Trust #7958. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and requesting a Reversal of the Building Inspector's July 22, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing accessory building at 1) a non-conforming building containing a non- conforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use located at 9490 Main Rd. East Marion. PAT MOORE : Good afternoon, Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Cataldo is here, she also has some friends and the neighbor that are here to support her application. When we submitted they originally looked at this application the existing cottage has a Pre C.O. It's had a Pre C.O. since I would say the seventies when it was first issued and the law and I sent you the case law, the Appellate division has specifically as to Southold Town case has considered that a pre-existing residential dwelling like this is permitted to have modifications, it's not considered to be a non-permitted use. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm going to object to that because first of all this isn't a court of law and you're citing case law and expecting the Zoning Board to be able to respond to it is not appropriate and that case was dealing with an accessory it's not the same fact pattern so I don't see how you can say that this is what the town has decided, this is what the Court of Appeals has decided. The fact patterns are somewhat different so and we disagree and I think that for in the future you know requesting variances or reversals based on siting case law it's going to be bounced back because it's just not appropriate for them to be coming in that way it's just a request via a court case. PAT MOORE : I respectfully disagree, that's precisely what an application to this Board would cite precedent as well as the case law applicable T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) cite exactly what the Notice of Disapproval the section to the code you could have quoted but you're just quoting case law and PAT MOORE : No I cited the section of the code which is all throughout which is you know the specific section which is 280-122. The Building Department keeps citing 280-123 and I'm saying T. A. MCGIVNEY : You're requesting a reversal based on Dawson case and PAT MOORE : Based on the interpretation that this is a pre-existing structure, residential structure, it is not a non-conforming use. It is a permitted use and 301 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right and what you're arguing based on what you interpret the case law to be so that is not something that the Zoning Board has to agree with. PAT MOORE : They can chose not to agree (inaudible) court would make that determination. The bottom line here is, we do have a pre-existing cottage. The use of the building was with a living room, dining room, the full amenities that a cottage would have. At some point I want to say in the early nineties the spouse who was in construction made minor alterations, interior alterations to the existing cottage. The existing living room was relocated to what had been a storage area in order to give them more separate living space for the tenant and the kitchen remained the same and gave a room what used to be the dining room and kitchen combined gave the tenant a living space that provided for a dining room. So, the interior alterations of the existing cottage were not changed just altered internally to give the same space reallocation for a more comfortable space. The Pre-C.O. labeled what we're calling potentially a second bedroom, that had been a dressing room; a dressing room at the time that this was built you used to have rooms that got access through another bedroom, could be a nursery, could be a dressing room. Again, it was used by the tenant of the structure, modification merely gave a separate door to the hallway and aloud the bathroom'to have a jack and jill doors into both rooms. If the second bedroom is a problem certainly something that the client would discuss but it gives flexibility. The cottage is of a certain size, right now there is a one single woman who has occupied if for years now and another a very small second bedroom would allow a potential tenant that has a young child or a (inaudible) of a little extra space for more flexibility. There is such a lack of housing in Southold that an accessory that cottage provides really needed space for any tenant that would go occupy the property. We considered or I considered going through an accessory apartment law because again, we would qualify under either but the provisions for an accessory apartment when you have a Pre-C.O. are imposing additional conditions which often time are difficult. What happens is, the accessory apartment law it still has that condition that the owner has to live in the main house and that's how an occupant either a family member or a tenant is obtained for the accessory cottage. That does not exist with a Pre-C.O., it allows someone to buy the house, they may want to rent the house as separately or live in it, there's flexibility. The cottage stands alone so it doesn't get tagged with the occupancy of the same entity as the main house. So, you're downgrading,you're reducing the value of your Pre-C.O. by changing it to an accessory apartment. What typically happens, I'm reviewing these today where you have a real estate deal, a person buys a property has an accessory cottage and they really don't know what they can do because if they can't live there year-round or can't make it their primary, I don't want to say principal residence that's changed, primary residence it potentially interferes with the continued rental of the accessory apartment. So, until that law is cleaned up a little bit so that you don't end up having kind of like you have with a B&B 3:1 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting where it's somewhat personal to the owner and to the property the Pre-C.O. has a great deal of value in and of itself and that's what we have here the Pre-C.O. The interior alterations are so minor, the wife who made the alterations was in the business, she was a carpenter and there were no structural changes whatsoever so it really made for a very small modification. These modifications came about only because she was Ms. Cataldo was in the process of getting a rental permit for the current tenant and that's when the application for the rental permit didn't quite match with the Building Department records. Her efforts here have been to get whatever modifications that the Building Department made direct on with respect to the property. The little bedroom would have to have a new egress window, that's something because of current code the egress window would be required versus what was required in the nineties when it was done. Aside from that everything else here would remain the same, there's really no need to do anything else to the existing cottage other than that. I'm happy to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you this question, the Legal Notice and the variance standards you address in here and yet you also indicate and I think correctly so that a variance is not required,this is really an overturning of a Notice of Disapproval. PAT MOORE : Yes, your format is very structured with respect to an area variance form so I tend to try to give you the same form that you use as your standard form but with the overriding of that Notice it's all incorporated into the reasons for the appeal. I also point out the overturning it doesn't impact any of the surrounding community, again this is all internal modifications were so minor. I think the Building Department should have issued the building permit to make these to put in an egress window and make the living room a separate space. It should have been something that the Building Department should have issued outright. I would respectfully disagree that the case doesn't fall on all fours but in I think it does. In the Dawson case they didn't have a Pre-C.O. They were arguing over a Pre-C.O., in our case we actually have a Pre-C.O. so we have one step closer to the fact that it is a residential dwelling conforming to the residential zone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know this is a very similar to a precedent we have at Breezy Shores where it's a residential use which is conforming in a residential zone but because there are two dwellings on one property it is considered non-conforming because only one dwelling is permitted.This is clearly a legally established building. PAT MOORE : Yes it is a legally established use and building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and use, the question is, the habitable area was enlarged. It's not just the minor alterations to the interior, that's storage or garage area or whatever it was used for became habitable space and thereby the degree on habitability was enlarged and the degree of non-conformity (inaudible). 3Z November 7,2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : (inaudible) criteria which is this you know that's why typically you incorporate the variance criteria in there. I'm not sure that changing the habitable the square footage of the habitable space would be an increase of the degree of non-conformity because square footage wise of course you have you know something that was fifty square feet and it becomes a hundred square feet but you still had a living room. So, a living room that is moved and made as part of the interior structure you know that'll be your decision to make whether or not that's considered to be an increase in the degree of non-conformity that would be prohibited under the other section of the code. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Either or whether it's non-conforming use or conforming use you still have the same issue is that the garage which was made for storage was turned into a living room did you say?Then the living room was turned into a dining room which wasn't there either. PAT MOORE : No, no, no, no, what is now dining room was the combination living room/dining room T. A. MCGIVNEY : Okay cause there's no pictures so nobody was able to PAT MOORE : I am basing it on the written description of the 1978 that's what we're guesstimating as being. The actual square footage we know what the exterior dimensions of the building are and all of it contained within the existing T. A. MCGIVNEY : It would have helped if there were some sort of photographs that could show exactly what the interior looks like because of the storage and the use of the garage being converted. Then the inside wall where the dwelling was (inaudible) these were changes that were made so PAT MOORE : I'm sorry which wall are you talking about? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Where you opened a new doorway to get into the second room. PAT MOORE : What used to be the dressing room has a door into the hallway T. A. MCGIVNEY :That wasn't there. PAT MOORE : Originally the doorway was interior right you had to go through the bathroom to go in. ` T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right that was just newly created. There are some things that it's hard to figure out because there's no photographs for the Board to look at and you know changing something from a storage area to living space does constitute an degree increase in non- conformity. 331 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : That's why I said, if the Board had you know an objection to the second room being a bedroom and just keep it as storage that's a minor modification to the plan. We want to give people a comfortable living space and dining area so that I think has more importance in the just the functionality in the living space for a tenant. If it,remained as storage, she doesn't have to spend money on an egress window so T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm not talking about the garage remaining storage, I'm trying to get out everything for the record that needs to be considered that's all. It doesn't have to be debated it's just agree to disagree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The footprint was not enlarged correct? PAT MOORE : Correct,just interior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's also commendable frankly that this whole thing came into focus as a consequence of the applicant attempting to follow the law. PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a refreshing change. The sanitary is being upgraded is that correct? PAT MOORE : Yea the contract has already been signed for public water which is now available right there in East Marion so that's being connected. The sanitary system had been replaced at some point. We know that because the original brick system is not there anymore. I have my client has made contact with a contractor for the cost of an upgrade of the sanitary. If the Board wants her to do it, she will do it. Really the Building Department depending on the alterations, interior alterations might ask for a certification of the existing system so we kind of left that. I said, good that you're contacting the contractor regarding the sanitary system, let's wait one, obviously till we get the approval and two, talk to the Building Department and see do they want us to upgrade a sanitary system or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it connected to the principle dwelling or is it separate? PAT MOORE : One system connects to both. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that would be up to the Health Department and the Building Department. PAT MOORE : Yea it's the Building Department where they're going to send us to the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They'd have to determine what the existing sanitary flow and all of that. 34 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : We didn't go that far. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright but I think you just mention it in your application. PAT MOORE : Yea because at the time we were we started working on the sanitary replacement but I said, whoa, whoa slow down a little bit I didn't want her paying the contractor to replace a system not knowing ultimately where we were going. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nobody is on Zoom. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question. I'm looking at the Notice of Disapproval, you talked about 280-123 and you think it should be 280-122. Is that the section of the code that says that a non-conforming building with conforming use can be changed as long as the (inaudible) isn't changed, is that what you're arguing Pat? PAT MOORE : Correct, yes it's 122 says a non-conforming building which I think a second dwelling might be considered a non-conforming building containing a conforming use and residential with a conforming use, provided that such action does not create any new non- conformance or increase the degree of non-conformance with regard to regulations pertaining to such building. Then that becomes a degree you know an interpretation of whether or not the extra bedroom would be considered an increase, whether the reallocation of a living room where you have a living room but you're making a larger living room and dining area whether that would be considered an increase. I would point out also that 122 (b) allows for reconstruction even of a damaged building so it wouldn't in my analysis I wouldn't think that the reallocation of space of an existing structure as long as you're not changing the dimensions of the structure would be considered an increase in the degree of non-conformity since if you look at (b) if the whole building burns down you're still allowed to restore.it whether fire, flood, explosion blah, blah, blah. It does not prevent you from restoring the building as long as you do not exceed the dimensions of the building that was destroyed and that's 351 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in place and in kind. PAT MOORE : Yea in kind and place. So, ultimately 122 which is the provision I think should be applied, a and b are consistently written, where the 123 is the you know you really you have a use equivalent almost like a use variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because this is a pre-existing cottage and not an accessory apartment the standards are very different, more flexible actually. PAT MOORE : Precisely that's why I thought it was more important to keep it as a pre-existing than to go jumping into an accessory apartment criteria that imposes all kinds of an umbrella ownership use restrictions for something that would for example if you were trying to convert a garage into a living space clearly that would have been an accessory apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A different story. PAT MOORE : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the other thing 'is I'm not even sure they qualify as an accessory structure since the Pre-C.O. was for an existing cottage which is not an accessory structure. PAT MOORE : Exactly yea, the Pre-C.O. has its own legal blessing which is very valuable harder and harder to come by and you don't want to eliminate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are a number of properties throughout the town that are older properties like that. PAT MOORE : East Marion in particular. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Peconic PAT MOORE : Peconic, definitely Peconic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Eric did you have something else? MEMBER DANTES : For the Zoning Board of Appeals vs. Dawson, do you have the original zoning T. A. MCGIVNEY :The original Zoning decision? PAT MOORE : That's what he was going to ask, I don't have it. 361 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : I found it along with the actual Supreme Court case, I have that Eric I can get that to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric Julie found the case law. MEMBER DANTES : No, I'm looking for the (inaudible) decision we made (inaudible) vs what the case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're breaking up. You're not looking for Dawson you're looking for something else. MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking for the actual Zoning Board decision. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I have that. MEMBER DANTES :Just so we know what we're talking about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, Kim will scan it and send it out to all of us. I want to see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? NANCY MESSER : My name is Nancy Messer and I'm a neighbor and it's a great apartment. I'm also on the Affordable Housing Advisory Commission and we're thrilled to have any place that is so well upkept and that is giving people a place to live, we need it so badly. So, we're in full support my husband and I. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anybody else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have a question if I may Leslie. RICH HARDT : Hi, my name is Rich Hardt, I'm a next door neighbor. I just want to say I'm here in full support of Ms. Cataldo, everything is upkept really nice.There's really nothing that I can say that would be negative. She's a great neighbor and I guess that's about it.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you so much. LORRAINE HARDT : Hi good afternoon everyone, my name is Lorraine Hardt and we live right next door to Lynn. Richie's family has owned the house since 1906 when it was built and I've been coming out since '84. 1 know that little cottage has been there forever, the footprint on it has never changed and when the work was done, we actually went into see and you know what I noticed was Lois who did the work did all the paint colors everything really was kept up beautifully. Like I said, nothing outside changed it was just a little extra doorway here and there and a little bit more living space to live in. I'm in full support of everything that everyone has said. 371 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? PAT MOORE : Nick had a question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sort of unrelated but related, does the subject applicant does the applicant own the corner lot the vacant land? It's on the survey shown as owned by the Lois M. PAT MOORE : Oh,the adjacent, yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ida (inaudible) Revocable Trust. PAT MOORE : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that your property? The reason why I ask is cause there's the shed, it's like over the lot line and it's like a Rubbermaid shed or something I don't remember the material. LYNN CATALDO : I'm Lynn Cataldo. The lot was in it was in an Irrevocable Trust in Lois's name but that was recently changed, it is in my name now. I am aware that the shed is a bit over onto the lot and arrangements have been made to move it. I just have to Lois's car is a truck that's there is being taken by someone so as soon as that truck is out of the way the shed will be moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To a compliant location? LYNN CATALDO : To a compliant location, yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else from anybody? Pat any closing comments? PAT MOORE : No this is what I think a reasonable application, I just hope that my interpretation of the law is correct. I think it is, I leave it to the Board but even if not, then the application should be approved as a (inaudible) for a variance of interior space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Pat. Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we should have a decision at our next meeting which is in two weeks. We meet in the Annex Board Room over in the other building and you're free to listen in. This is for all applications, we deliberate on draft decisions as soon we have sixty-two days but we generally try to do it by the next meeting which is two weeks later unless there is something extremely complicated and you're welcome to either attend in person, it's open to the public, it's available on Zoom if you want listen. We take no testimony if the hearing is closed that's it but we will be discussing our decision before the public and then voting on it. HEARING#7960SE—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF SACRED HEART CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Roman Catholic Church of Sacred Heart #7960SE. This is a request for a Special Exception pursuant to Article III Section 208-13B (2) and the Building Inspector's July 10, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a parish center upon property located at 14300 NYS Rt. 25 in Mattituck, New York. PAT MOORE : This time I have assistance from the architect which is more important than I am at this hearing. We are here on a Special Exception application which as you know when you're dealing with religious institutions, they are presumed beneficial to the community and consequently proposed religious uses should be permitted absent of convincing evidence that they pose a direct and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare. It's always nice to start with a quote. The parish center is part of the overall campus of the church which you all know very well. The existing parking area is already in place. There can be some modification to the parking to allow for the parish center but everything there this is quite a large piece of property and there's ample room for the use and the parking. For the most part, there is overlapping uses if it's bible school or whatever; when the kids when the parents are in the church there may be a movement of the kids by, I don't know how you guys operate sorry I'm in a different church and so the religious education will occur in the parish center. To a certain extent you all know that Cutchogue facility has been sold to the school, ultimately the school will be taking over the entire campus of the office building so all of the church activities will be relocated to this property. There is coordination and a little bit of 391 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting urgency with respect of having the parish building built because the school certainly will want to move into the administrative offices what is currently the offices of the parish. At this point you do have my Special Exception application all in writing, I don't feel it's necessary to read from it so I rather just address whatever questions you have and have the architect if you'd like a walk through the parish center, he's here to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just enter into the record a few odds and ends here. Site plan approval by the Planning Board is required in addition to the Special Exception from the ZBA. The lot is a split zoned lot which complicates it a bit but not really that much. It's developed with a church, a single-family dwelling that has a C.O. #431015 from 2022. Is Planning doing SEQRA on this, are they the Lead Agent? I think so. PAT MOORE : We have we can't have a public hearing yet until the Special Exception but I think it's planned for I'll say maybe January hopefully. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we're supposed to be getting comments from the Planning Board but we haven't received them yet. PAT MOORE : I know that they discussed it or they had it for discussion Monday but I don't know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just haven't gotten the comments yet, we will get them shortly I'm sure. PAT MOORE : When you do get them if you could CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course we will make sure you get a copy. Just so the applicants are aware, the Board of Appeals, Members of the Board always do site inspections prior to the hearing so you see us sculking about, we trespass with impunity so that we can see what the character of the neighborhood is because we have to address it, we can look at any potential environmental impacts all of those things. That has been done and it's very clear that there is a kind of wooded buffer between where you're proposing the new building, where the house is. Certainly, ingress and egress is easy from its already off the side street which is fine and that dwelling is setback quite a ways from the actual wooded buffer and heavily treed. I guess we're sort of waiting for comments from Planning that doesn't necessarily have to hold this up but I'm sure we'll get it soon. Pat, do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions from you? 40 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is quite straightforward and we just have to follow the Special Exception standards which you've described in your application. PAT MOORE : I just want to point out, if you hadn't noticed the site plan there's been a very sincere effort to limit the amount of clearing to try to limit to the one acre threshold for the SWPPP managements I think we've met it. One, it really simplifies the drainage but two, it preserves a lot of the wooded vegetation, natural vegetation which is a nice buffer from the residential homes that surround. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a good transition also to the PAT MOORE : Yea from the Main Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible)to the residential neighborhood. PAT MOORE : To the west is the library and commercial development and to the east residences. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? PAT MOORE : Do you have any questions for the architect? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll get to that. Actually, they were very clear plans and it's very contextual it's going to look very nice. It has a little bit of relationship to the architecture to the actual church building itself with masonry and stone work. Please state your name for the record. KATHERINE HARPER : My name is Katherine Harper 2600 New Suffolk Ave. and I'd like to address the Board as a Historic Preservationist as well as a neighbor to the site. It is documented in photographs and in text done in 1885. The community gathered on that land on many Saturdays to watch the Mattituck Baseball Club swing their bats and run the bases. So, traditionally since the mid eighteen hundreds it has been a place for the community to gather. In nineteen hundred the Mattituck Baseball Club won the championship and you better believe that the community even more greatly gathered. In 1916 1 think the Mattituck Club just grew too big and they found another place to play but the land was purchased by the Catholic Church and in 1931 the church building was built and it was another place for people in the community to gather. I think this parish hall offers a continuation of the tradition that was started in the 1880's for people to gather and I think that's a real plus in terms of the appeals success. I also think that the building is very it's the architect did a very 4: November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting sensitive job in making it very compatible with the stone facade of the church, I really appreciate that. As a neighbor we've lived there in our house for thirty-five years and I only wish that more neighbors would be as respectful and as responsible to the community as the parish has been. Even when the rectory was built, I hardly knew that it was being constructed and so I add my support to this appeal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony and for your history. It's always fun learning more about your town. Is there anybody else? Would you like to show us the plans now, actually there may be people here that haven't seen them? Is there anybody here that hasn't seen those plans that is interested? I think the next application is what a lot of people are here for. Let's have a look. JOSEPH NEITZEL : My name is Joe Neitzel with JMN Architecture, I'm the principle of JMN and the architect for the parish. We're proposing a partial basement on the property, it'll be an unfinished basement for storage (inaudible) means of egress down via a staircase from a main hallway and the rest of the building will slab on grade. Moving to the first floor, we have a common central hallway with a vestibule which will service the new parish offices with two private offices within the main office. We're providing Father Mike with his own office in the back separate from the main office. We're proposing eight meeting rooms, a small warming pantry it will be an electric stove there won't be any gas or anything or open cooking, chair and table storage. What's unique about the plan is, on the left there as you're looking at it those meeting rooms are going to.be constructed out of foldable mobile partitions so that in the event that the parish has a gathering or what not that space is going to open up into one large meeting room. It was kind of a unique requirement of the parish to help save on cost in building square footage so we're utilizing it for two separate purposes at different time during the day and when the building is being occupied. The building will have a brand-new IA septic system in the parking lot. We are adding drainage to the parking lot as required by Planning. It will be fire sprinkler and have a full fire alarm system. For the exterior we're proposing a mix of stone to match the existing church as much as possible, an asphalt shingle roof with a mansard around it so the center of the roof will be a flat roof but it will appear as a sloped gable roof to hide all of the roof top mechanical equipment and the siding on the exterior will be either a James Hardy type wood product or similar. We're still trying to figure out the,most cost-effective material for the outside but it will be a wood-based product to match that rendering. Beyond that I mean that's kind of a high-level overview of the building and what we're proposing, if anybody has any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's just I'm grateful that we have so many libraries and churches that are willing to open up their spaces for community gatherings of all kinds. 4Z November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting They're very critical to our small-town government and our civic associations make good use of them so this looks like this is going to be a really nice upgrade. JOSEPH NEITZEL : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything from anybody else? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Wait a minute, we gotta get comments and SEQRA, I just realized we have to get SEQRA from Planning as Lead Agent and we have oh wait a minute you actually did that. You put it in the Legal in the Resolutions as waiting for Planning. So, I'll just close it subject to receipt of comments from the Planning Board and a SEQRA determination from the Planning Board. PAT MOORE : Has Planning indicated they're going to issue a separate SEQRA because sometimes they don't do it until the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They'll just send it to us, it maybe you know it won't be a Type II but it may be Unlisted or Neg Dec. PAT MOORE : They're not going to wait until the site plan approval? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I doubt it, particularly since we're attempting to make our determination but we can't make a decision without a SEQRA determination. We'll be in touch with Planning and ask them what their time frame looks like. I don't see any need for further public hearing on any of this. Does that make sense to everybody? Okay, so the motion is to close subject to receipt of SEQRA and comments from the Planning Board. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 43] November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7961—NOBLEHOUSE SEAPORT, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Noblehouse Seaport, LLC#7961. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14, Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's July 23, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on.an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" habitable third story and create additional habitable third story space to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) "as built" habitable space is more than the code permitted two stories, 2) proposed habitable space is more than the code permitted two stories, that's funny it's twice and 3) the gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 80,000 sq. ft. in area located at 2345 Main Rd. in Greenport. ANNE SURCHIN : Hi, I'm Anne Surchin, I'm the architect representing Jeffrey Lax who is here. Basically, this house has been around for a long time, it's a landmark in Southold Town and it was originally built by David Gelston Floyd who was a grandson of William Floyd a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Supposedly it was built in 1827 according to a real estate listing, another listing said it was completed in 1900. It's sometimes called the Grace Floyd House because David Gelston Floyd built it for his daughter Grace. Supposedly, on the west end of house that part of the house was moved there and it was from a mill. When the structural engineer came, he felt along with the builder that with those heavy timbers it may have been constructed out of timber framing from a schooner. Then on the town website it's listed as having been constructed in the late seventeenth century so we're a little bit all over the map on this house but it is very old. In terms of what we're doing, we're not changing anything on the exterior of the house whatsoever. So, what you see when you drive by and you walk up to it, it remains exactly the same. To legalize the third floor to make it habitable we did put in egress windows that were identical to what was there; they were custom made by Green Mountain Windows and they're casements that look like double hungs. In addition, we simply want to legalize a bedroom and a sitting area that has probably been used as such for a hundred years. When we first came in there, we ripped them out now to put in HVAC but there were built in drawers,under the eaves in the knee walls, there were two closets in that bedroom and the sitting room is really a passageway. I mean you can't turn that into something else cause you have to walk through that to get to the existing bedroom. That's on the one side of the house which is easterly, on the westerly side you had an unfinished attic space which has a rather high ceiling, a tray ceiling and that's a room they want to convert into an exercise room. Again, we're not changing anything, there is one bathroom upstairs in the sitting room and the house currently has seven bedrooms. The legalization of the bedroom on the attic floor would be the eighth bedroom. My client has put in a ten-bedroom septic system on his property a brand new. We also were told in the Building Department that we need a fire suppression system and that has been rigged up to the third floor, it's ready to November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting go. The (inaudible) is an exemption to historic houses where you have a third floor so that you can (inaudible) for a third floor and then continue with a critical path out the house, you don't have to sprinkle the entire house if it's landmarked. So, that's been set up and my client wants to do that in any event because he had a house in Napa that was part of a flash fire along with a hundred other houses that were burned down in recent years. He doesn't care what anybody says that fire suppression system is going in. Additionally, he has a large family and they come and visit him, he has cousins in Sag Harbor, he has cousins on the North Shore and one of the reasons that he bought the house in Greenport, it was central to where all of his relatives could come and get together as a family. Basically, the other issue is that by converting and legalizing the third floor we're over the GFA by 499.5 sq. ft. We have 6,066 and the allowable is 5,566.5 sq. ft. All of the space is already there, it's already constructed we just want to make it legal and safe and we hope that you can see the value in this for my client. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anne there is an option for gross floor area averaging in the immediate area, are you anticipating submitting that or no? It's an option it isn't by any ,means a requirement. ANNE SURCHIN : I mean if we did that would that be of any advantage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Only if the average gross floor area within to the right and to the left of that property of the subject property and across the street, I mean this is where it's really hard because it's so different. One side of Main Rd. is very different than the side that your client's property is on. You have Brecknock Hall which would help, but the idea is the code was passed to say, if somebody is exceeding their lot size but all the other houses around there have bigger gross floor areas than what you are proposing then we can grant it boom that's it. If you are proposing more than what that average is the Board is prohibited from granting it so I can't say whether it would advantage or disadvantage your application. I mean because it's a landmarked building I think it probably is best to just leave it but I'm obligated to ask if that's a choice you want to exercise. You can look into it. ANNE SURCHIN : I can look into it and I don't know that's something JEFFREY LAX : Hi, I'm the owner of the house, my name is Jeffrey Lax. I fell in love with the house, it's a beautiful old historic home. I have a background in historic preservation, I think it's a spectacular property, I think that Greenport and Southold are fantastic towns. I love the architecture; I love the history of the community and we want to be responsible good citizens in this town. It abuts the Brecknock Hall which is extremely large property and I think and then to the east I believe is the golf course really, I don't know that there's a house in between us. 45 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting ANNE SURCHIN : (inaudible) in front quite large. JEFFREY LAX : I mean they're extremely large property it's set way back from the road. I think on the other side of the street perhaps where the cemetery is maybe the houses are slightly smaller but it's kind of all over the place. It really depends on how big of a radius you want to you know draw from where the house is in terms of what you're suggesting. So, I honestly don't know the answer, I don't know the size of Brecknock. ANNE SURCHIN : That was going to be my next question, what radius is in effect that we should go by? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, because the code said within the immediate neighborhood and no one knew how to define immediate neighborhood, what does that mean? We've had some people come in with you know a large house that was basically in the subdivision that the subject house wasn't even in cause it was behind it. So, we decided to provide guidelines to clarify that which we can certainly give you and you can look at them but basically, we're defining it as the subject property, five developed lots to the right of it, five developed to the left of it, the property immediately across the street and then five going that way and then five going that way. That's quite a few lots and it's clearly not going to work for every neighborhood because some lots don't have developed properties, some of them have all different sized lots which is very different than a subdivision where they're all the same sized lots and ANNE SURCHIN : We have the cemetery across the street. JEFFREY LAX : We have the cemetery I mean you couldn't ask them I mean they're really small lots so it's a little difficult. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's developed with deceased, probably in this instance the Board should simply look at the nature of your property as a landmark building and then perhaps some of the more historic properties along that side of the road, maybe looking at character of the neighborhood rather than GFA and trying to put in context that way. ANNE SURCHIN : (inaudible) setback from the street very far. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it is. JEFFREY LAX : And in the context of Anne has already suggested, I mean when we bought the house we wanted to really respect the legacy of the house, we weren't looking to make any alterations. When I bought the property there were people living up in that attic, I just want to legalize it and make it legal for the town you know. I put a fire suppression system in and 461 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting do all the things, and upgrade the water service and the egress windows and the septic system to make it compliant. It was and I don't know how the town works because I bought it before really completely thoroughly vetting all that so I'm not suggesting that I have a precedent but I bought it under the assumption that well since it's illegal now it's not really technically legal I want to make it legal and I want to make it right and that's why we're here before you to try and,legalize something. I didn't realize a third floor technically in Southold is not legal but and I don't know what the definition of a two and a half story house what that means versus a three-story house. That was a little CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we just changed it because of that, it is now a two story house. ANNE SURCHIN : It's just changed now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's been changed for a while but now the Building Department is finally starting to put two-story in the Notice of Disapprovals. JEFFREY LAX : When we bought the house my attorney said it's already a two and half story house so I didn't really know is a half story that third floor? I have a vertically challenged household in case you can't already tell so it was just barely eight feet up there but anyway, the bottom line is we're trying to do the right thing with the home. We're sparing no expense to make it a really spectacular property, bringing everything up to code and trying to make compliant with the town. We're hoping that you guys will see to it that you know we're not changing the exterior character of that it's all within the context of the existing third floor that's there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think there's a distinct difference between an existing property especially a historic property and somebody building something from scratch brand new on a property and wanting to go beyond what the GFA permits. That's quite different than something that's there already. ANNE SURCHIN : (inaudible) as a pre-existing non-conforming for over a hundred years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just did actually a historic property out in Orient that had a third story. It was typical, that's how they were built. JEFFREY LAX : If anyone has any questions for Anne or for myself I'd be happy to answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Eric do you have any questions on this one? 47 November 7,2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Yes, on the Pre-C.O. it refers to the attic as an unheated attic, does that mean that there wasn't any heat up there that the finished area was already finished or what? ANNE SURCHIN : I believe so.There weren't any radiators up there. JEFFREY LAX : I think half of it was heated, the east side was heated and the west side was not cause the east side you know is sheet rocked and finished and all done and people were living up there but the west side was not. I don't know if it had robust heat because all the you know these old houses, everything goes to the attic so if it was hot downstairs, it was hot upstairs and if it was cool downstairs it was still hot upstairs. So, I think you know it was an old drafty house so I think there might have been some but I don't think it would have been to the code that you would require today for heating and cooling. MEMBER DANTES : Okay, no the finishes all looked like they were very, very old when I did the site inspection up there. The other question I have and this is for Anne, there's a section of the gross floor area code that says, the gross floor area is calculated based on the ceiling height whether or not the structure is conditioned or unconditioned in the main dwelling. If that's the case, would you say that there isn't any change to the gross floor area based on what's existing and what you're proposing. ANNE SURCHIN : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that was mostly to deal with double height volumes like great big cathedral ceilings and so on. ANNE SURCHIN : (inaudible) we might have gained an inch or two in height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's not going to do anything. MEMBER DANTES :Those are my only two questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you hear her answer? MEMBER DANTES : Yes that there's she's not changing the existing GFA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, Rob any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. 48. November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? Okay, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing, reserve decision to a later date. We should have a decision in two weeks for you. JEFFREY LAX : Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Nick you're recused from the next applications. Wait let's do the Resolutions before you leave. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, December 5, 2024 at 9:00 AM so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held October 17, 2024 so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye 49 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to Grant an extension to #7557 Levent Temiz 57305 CR 48 Greenport, New York SCTM No. 1000-44-2-3 a one-year extension to expire on November 21, 2025 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve a design change for a proposed artist studio/watch tower reverse ZBA decision letter of October 21, 2021 Appeal No. 7827 CI,JSG 38015 Rt. 25 in Orient SCTM No. 1000-15-2-15.7. 1 vote no on that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You need a second or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I vote no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, oh I'm sorry I forgot you can't vote. Okay so the motion is denied. Resolution to amend decision to remove Condition No. 1 and allow electricity for lighting in a gazebo and further approve a design change expanding the size of the gazebo in 7825 Janet van Adelsberg on Wells Rd. in Peconic. I'm going to poll the Board on this one. I vote no, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I vote no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No November 7,2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries.That's it on the Resolutions and Nick is recused from the next applications. So, we're going to say goodbye and thank you. HEARINGS#7893SE,7894,7914SE&7897—SILVER SANDS HOLDINGS, I LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next applications before the Board actually consists of one, two, three, four applications which we have entered into the record on numerous occasions. I'll just indicate that one is for a Special Exception for restaurant, another is a variance for a setback, another is a Special Exception to convert a single-family dwelling to a commercial kitchen and the final one is a code interpretation of a Certificate of Occupancy. We adjourned because we had not received comments from the Planning Board and this requires site plan approval. A lot of what's possible on that site is going to depend upon what's allowed in terms of egress and ingress and parking and so on. Can you please I know you have those comments, can you state your name for the record again please? ALEX PERROS : Sure Alexander Perros CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alex, can you address some of those comments, would you like to address the comments the Planning Board made? ALEX PERROS : Sure, I mean would you like me to do some introductory comments again for the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whatever you'd like, the floor is yours. ALEX PERROS : It's been a while and then I can address any of the Planning Board comments which I received yesterday afternoon. As mentioned, my name is Alexander Perros and I represent Silver Sands which is a cherished local motel resort establishment dating back to 1957 and it's been a cornerstone to the community since then. The property includes twelve lots that are south of Rt. 25 and both sides of Silvermere Rd. This includes a fifteen-acre riparian lot that's in Pipes Cove that we've preserved as an oyster farm. (inaudible) shell fish company out of Orient they do their seed out of the Orient farm but all of their oysters up to six million oysters are in the bay. Obviously, there are several historically significant structures across the property, some of them are dating back to the nineteen thirties including one of November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting the couple of the structures that are in question on our application. In April 2022 after sixty- five years of family ownership I was part of a group that acquired Silver Sands. We are also owner operators, I'm there every day we run the business,we employ ninety percent of our employees year-round that come from the town of Southold. It's something we're very proud about. We chose to preserve and rejuvenate those historic buildings rather than pursue denser and more upscale redevelopment such as condos, second homes but quite frankly even an upscale luxury resort which is a lot of what other people wanted to do with it. We also thought that importantly that would detract from exactly the sense of place that is the Silver Sands that people have come to love and know. For the last couple of years, we've collaborated extensively with pretty much every town department in successfully closing out dozens of Building Department applications, Trustees applications etc. One of the key challenges that we face and that's what kind of brings us to today is we inherited a ton of incomplete and inaccurate property records. Many of the structures including the boathouse that we're talking about today predates zoning codes and that's understandable since some of them are over a hundred years old. I think this is a critical nuance that shouldn't be lost as we consider these applications. Anything we're talking about nothing is being constructed, there's no ground up construction, we're not building anything, everything we did was within the existing four walls of all the existing structures. Ownership on some of the parcels has also changed hands many times and so what we're hoping is you know that we can finally once and for all kind of align I guess the historic and intended uses of the property with the property records and I think these applications in front of us are really kind of the last piece of that puzzle. I think as I mentioned a crucial aspect is that we're not building or constructing anything from the ground up. I think another important thing which is important to what our initial approach was is, all of our operations and the uses are strongly aligned with the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan specifically preserving and enhancing the communities "sense of place and its residential rural and historic character". There are probably few properties around the Northfork that are as historic or as iconic as Silver Sands and like I mentioned instead of building condos or second homes we chose to preserve this unique property and the unique character. Encouraging diverse types of housing in HALO zone that includes lot 11 is in the HALO zone balancing density while preserving farmland and open space. Silver Sands has a ton of open space for overall forty-five acres. The properties that have the buildings on them are only about eight or nine acres in total so we have invested a significant amount of money especially in landscaping, in preserving this unique ecology. We have an eighteen-acre salt marsh that's across that's on the east side of Silvermere, we've rebuilt bulkheads, we have planted a hundred percent native plants all throughout the property, we've preserved century old oak trees, we've gone to a great extent to kind of do the right thing. Safeguarding scenic resources through thoughtful design standards to prevent sprawl that's been the cornerstone of our redevelopment efforts and rejuvenation efforts and sz November 7, 2024-Regular Meeting then supporting industries that sustain agricultural and aquaculture. Again, we work closely with Oyster Pond Shellfish Company, they have the largest oyster.farm in New York State that's in Pipes Cove and we're very proud of that. I think a lot of what we're talking about doing with restaurants and things like that, it's a way to rejuvenate this property stay relevant so we can stay open year-round and also, I can't tell you how proud people are when they see that they come to our place and eat the oysters and they come from a couple of a hundred feet away that means a lot to them and it means a lot to us. As I mentioned, we feel that the proposed uses will further enhance our alignment with the Comprehensive Town Plan and for us it's really important that without a viable year-round business it will be more financially logical to reposition these properties for denser developments. It's hard running a year-round business in a seasonal area especially in a hospitality business which is a difficult business to run be we're committed to it. As it related to some of the specifics of our application, we can go over these in more detail but as I mentioned the boathouse is over a hundred years old, it pre-dated the existence of zoning codes and even the Building Department as well as all the neighboring residential houses that were built in the 1950's and 1960's. The boathouse is currently classified as an accessory structure despite of being the oldest building and housing a bar and having a certified kitchen there for decades and that's unreflected in the 1989 records when the entire property at Silver Sands was reclassified as residential property. The cottage that we're talking about converting to a commercial kitchen is actually served as transient housing for the last forty years, despite that it's currently listed as a single-family home. So that's another example of how the actual uses are not even aligned with the property records. Then the diner and the motel have been around since the 1950's and it serves as a vital community hub. I think our commitment to the preservation is evident and I hope that's kind of considered in our applications. If you'd like me to kind of reply to some of the Planning Board comments I can go through their letter point by point. I think the happiest thing that I saw was that overall,they say overall the Board is not opposed to a restaurant use and an attached kitchen by Special Exception in this location. I had a work session with them, think it was Tuesday of this week. Look, a lot of the questions and comments come down to parking, right it's emergency access and parking. We've been working proactively with the Planning Department to address and resolve those parking needs. It's not as straightforward as if we were just applying for a restaurant that has no association with a hotel. The hotel has ample parking throughout the property and throughout all the properties. I think one conversation I've been having with the Planning Board is, the number of seats that we want to have requires X number of parking spots but what that doesn't consider is how many of those people are already at the hotel and I think that's a critical thing. The absolute number of parking spots they're saying are required is ninety-nine across the whole property but that assumes one hundred percent of the people at the restaurant and a hundred percent of the people at the hotel are there for different reasons so obviously people are coming to the November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting hotel to eat at the restaurant. So having that conversation with them of how many credits should be reasonably assigned is kind of what we're in the middle of. I think something that's really important is part of the parking we've totally agreed with them not to use Silvermere Rd. as part of our parking calculations, that happened early on. I don't know if you have the survey up but if sorry my eyes are pretty bad directly across from the motel, we have I think there's five parallel parking spaces, this is SCTM lot 10; Lot 10 is twenty-one feet deep by I forget ninety something feet wide or something like that. We had to rotate those parking spots so they're parallel parking.so that they do not cross over into any town owned land. They don't cross over into the road but into town own land. We can only have five spots there; I can take down some trees and fit I think it's up to fourteen cars side by side there. I've chosen not to do that or if I have to, I'm happy to if that's what they want us to do we can but we thought why remove trees that are in front of the salt marsh that had been there for a long time? I'm hoping that a lot of these things are considered as we go through our applications. The other credits that we've talked about that's important for Silver Sands is when we talk about the number of seats and the seasonality of our business. Most of these seats are outside so we're proposing fifty-one seats in the boathouse building and sixty-one seats outside. I realize it's November and it's eighty degrees out so you could actually eat outside today but normally this is seasonal and so the seasonal nature of this of the property should also fluctuate with how people are accessing the property. Some data I shared with the Planning Board is we have two key other areas of credits. The first one I mentioned is actually like I said there are a number of guests at the hotel that use the restaurant.The other two areas that we have and this is in hard data, 14.6% of our guests since we opened in June of 2023 use alternative transportation. We pick them up at the LIRR or the Jitney or the Orient Ferry. The other thing is, in the summer we have people arriving by boat. We partnered with a tender service this year and the data on the boat traffic was well I don't have it actually here but it was another nineteen people per day are coming by boat. I can find the exact number so our feeling is that that tracks with outdoor seating people are using outdoor seating which should alleviate the need for parking. I think the seasonal nature of the operations that we're proposing should come into play when we consider the number of parking spots that are required, I just think that seems reasonable. The other aspects of the Planning Board include emergency access to the road so Silver Sands going down to the boathouse has the driveway which is a right of way that crosses all the lots, it varies in width from 14 feet to 22 feet wide. Something that came up in the Planning Board meeting, they asked if we were going to sprinkler the buildings cause that would influence the requirement on the road. I previously told them that the boathouse was being planned on sprinklering and that we didn't need to do the cottage. We're happy to kind of put in an Ansel system or a fire suppression system in the cottage if that helps with the determining how wide the access is. I personally think making a 20-foot-wide road in the middle of the property it's kind of not keeping in character November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting especially if they want it paved or something like that not really keeping in character with kind of what's going on around it. I will say that when we redid the road and redid the redevelopment, we certified that road so that it could take Greenport Village's heaviest truck so that is already capable of taking a fully loaded fire truck. We went and installed a private fire hydrant close to the boathouse as well. I feel like the emergency access is being dealt with and that will come to successful resolution with that. They had some comments from the LWRP, I think a lot of this gets into I can't move a one-hundred-year-old building right so we're talking about a four-foot setback from some of the side yards on Shore Drive and things like that. It's kind of impossible to move those existing structures. We're not talking about building anything just working within the existing envelope. We did spend a significant amount of money to rebuild the entire bulkhead on lot 15 to protect against flooding, storms and things like that. Then in terms of outside approvals, they mentioned wastewater management, I don't know why that's on there to be honest because we've already provided our wastewater management approval, we had to do that when we got the diner opened. I'm resubmitting that to them. We are going through the food services division and wastewater management with our application for the boathouse that's ongoing. I actually have open conversations with the Health Department now and sending them new drawings tomorrow. They need a letter of water availability which we will obtain and then obviously the Zoning Board of Appeals. Then there's a whole section about consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, I think I addressed that in some of my opening comments. Insufficiency in the side yard setback, again the building has been there longer than probably the property lines existed so and before the Zoning and Building Department existed altogether. I will you know a lot of our neighbors are here, I pride myself on having good, healthy relationships with them. We've taken a number of measures already at their request and in collaboration with them to provide better screening and things like that. We did that before any of these applications were even considered. We replaced the six-foot stockade fence all along the western side of lot 15, we invested in I think it's over two dozen fourteen-foot now they've grown taller but fourteen-foot evergreen giant trees to also help as a buffer. Our neighbors Kathy they have my number so that when something comes up, I deal with it. The side yard is what the side yard setback is. I think those were the extent of the comments so if there's anything specific, you'd like me to address I'm happy to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well in reading these comments it's pretty clear that first, how close are you to the site plan approval? I mean you just met with them recently you said? ALEX PERROS : No, no, no I hopefully we're very close. We did our application for site plan the same time we did Zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know. November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting ALEX PERROS : I think we're out the kind of tail end of it to be honest. If you read it it's really all about parking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it seems so. ALEX PERROS : There's some administrative questions things like that but again they said they have no objection to it, it comes down to the number of seats so I think having that discussion with them and how many credits are reasonable to provide, that's really the main open issue. There were a couple of administrative things that they requested that we put on the plan but that was it so again I just got those comments less than twenty-four hours ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So did we. ALEX PERROS : To answer your question, I think we're on the one yard line with them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good we'd like it for all of us to be on the one yard line I'm sure you are too. ALEX PERROS : Look this has been a long process, I know this is a complicated set of properties and you know it's complicated I get that. I think we've been we're here to kind of work constructively with any department to make sure that we get through this application and that everything is aligned with Zoning and Planning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean I did want you to address, we got obviously the comments I've underlined a lot of stuff, it says if this parking is allowed then that's how big it should be back and forth, back and forth and so much of the uses on the property depend upon not only safe circulation but obviously how many cars you can accommodate. They did address the data you provided for seasonal uses and for arrival by boat and arrival by other transportation. That really is their authority, we obviously have nothing to do with it but it has everything to do with the way in which the Board can proceed because when things have concurrent jurisdiction both Boards have to like work it out. So, we've seen this so many times at this point I don't really have any questions let me see at this point if any of the Board Members do and then we'll open it to the audience and then we'll see where to go. Rob, do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you at this point? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES': Yes one, after reading the Planning Board's comments how are they conducting their review? Are they doing each property independently or are they reviewing your whole complex as one property as a whole? How are they treating that? ALEX PERROS : That's a great question, something that we've been ping ponging back and forth with so when we first made the application it was for lot 15 the application in front of this Board is for lot 15 that's how we were guided to approach the Planning Board which we did. The applications are still for Lot 15 but they have asked that we submit a site plan for all the properties for later (inaudible). All properties related to Silver Sands where there are buildings on them so things like the salt marsh are you know not your main so to answer your question, the site plan is comprehensive. The last round of comments that we had we initially provided our landscape lighting for Lot 15, they came back and said please provide it across the board so we did. The same thing with parking cause again it all comes down to the parking and so Lot 15 is landlocked from any public road really so being able to use the parking spaces that are available in the adjacent lot is critical to this so I believe they're basically looking at it as an overall site plan which makes sense. I mean all these buildings are interconnected with utilities and what not and it functions as a single property but the application is for Lot 15. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes cause I think we did way early on talk about the merger of those lots, I think you said it would be eventually something you would probably want to do. Certainly, covenants and restrictions to suggest that no lot may be sold individually is sensible because it is one operation and they are al interrelated uses and the parking will all be interrelated. I think approaching it that way makes a lot of sense and it's why we have been hesitant to try and segregate one application from the other application or the other because even though they each have their own parameters they're very interrelated and a number are related to the,fact that it is one operation.There's a different kind of calculus for, if it's open to the public or if it's just for guests. So much depends on site plan that I think since you're getting very close to that we now have comments it kind of makes sense to just suspend this until you finish that and let Planning tell us what they're willing to do with you, work it out with them and see exactly how you're going to finalize those parking spaces and egress and ingress and so on and then the Board can revisit. I don't know that we're going to need much more hearing on this I doubt it but I think finalizing that will then give us the guidance we need to make sure that we can act on your requests appropriately. ALEX PERROS : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that make sense to you? ALEX PERROS : It does and it doesn't if I may. 57 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not really holding you up. ALEX PERROS : It does because look it's November, time passes and honestly being able to run a business and run a business year round I can't just snap my fingers and kind of have everything ready so we've been going through this process it sounds like Planning Board the first thing they said in their comments is, they have no objection to the restaurant and we will come to terms on whatever the parking is. The motel C.O. application with you has nothing to do with the Planning Board and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it has to do with parking. ALEX PERROS : Sure there's ample parking across the property so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But we can't determine that because it's all considered one property with multiple things going on. ALEX PERROS : Sure but even if you take even if you say look Alex, we're not buying kind of your credits and this and that, the Planning Board made comments of saying, if these are the credits we're willing to except it results in a restaurant of this size so it's just a matter of how big it is. So, I thought the questions before the Board are not Planning has indicated that they are going to approve this it's a matter of how we approve it and how many seats we have etc. etc. I think it's really critical for us to continue to make progress here and try and get through some of these applications. It's always been my understanding that if Zoning approves it everything is pending a successful site plan. I do think it's important obviously it's my opinion that we kind of like we move forward. If there's any questions if it's coming down to how many parking spots that we have to negotiate then if that's the only thing I'm hearing is what's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not exactly just parking, I mean if we approve something we stamp the drawings that are in front of us that will mean let's say the restaurant use is approved, we will stamp what we have in front of us. If that changes because of discussions with site plan and the number of occupants permitted as a consequence of the number of the parking yield or whatever then we have to go back and we have to reopen it or we have to amend it, I'm trying to avoid that aggravation for you basically to say, let's try and just move forward together in a way that is complimentary and doesn't wind up contradicting what the Board might approve. Certainly, I can tell you this, I'm only one vote but I think I know what I'm talking about, a variance for the existing boathouse is not an issue. It's there, it's been there legally for a gajillion years, there is no point in attempting to move it. Why do one piece meal like that, I mean we could get rid of it that would make you happier but I mean I think that it would be better for us as a Board to sit down, examine all the gajillion pages of transcripts we have, all your testimony, all your submissions again and look at what Planning Sal November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting does and then we'll be in an excellent position to make coherent and complete decisions that you know are going to allow you to move forward legally with the things you're doing. ALEX PERROS : Understood you're the Chairperson so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can poll the Board but if the Board wants we can adjourn this to the Special Meeting to give us time to maybe talk to Planning, see how close they are, I don't believe that the operations especially going into the winter are being adversely impacted by making sure that everything is in place before everything is legalized. ALEX PERROS : At the moment no, however if and this isn't meant as a criticism it's just a reality, the Planning Board I got my comments back to the Planning Board August 28th. I met with them on November 4th it was the first time they really reviewed this so those delays are real, they're dealing with a whole (inaudible) effort. I'm not being critical of anything it's just a reflection of reality and so I think there is a little bit of a sin drum of like an empty dance floor. I think it's important to kind of you know always be moving forward just in general. I think we shouldn't let perfection kind of get in the way of progress,that's kind of my just mantra and so if the Board would consider you know reviewing the application and making a decision pending successful outcome of the site plan that would be my strong preference. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understand and understand why, what I'm trying to avoid however is, I'll give you an example that's kind of tangential but the same thing happens with Trustees and ZBA when we have concurrent jurisdiction with them. I cannot tell you the number of times because there's nothing in the code that says you guys go first and then you go, we worked out years ago an informal arrangement that it made sense because the ZBA has sweeping legal authority by state law for us to make a determination then the Trustees can have a look. Well now, the environmental impacts are frankly more critical in some cases especially with bluffs and things like that and wetlands than some of the ZBA setback variances. So, here's one example, not that long ago we made a determination and it was a side yard setback on a waterfront property; they wanted it moved farther toward the street. They unknowingly then require a front yard setback from the ZBA because they pushed it forward; back and forth, back and forth. So, one Board impacts the other Board, we're trying our best given the complexity of what we're looking at these days you know it's not a shed in a side yard anymore to just make sure that we're all on the same page moving forward in a way that doesn't require moving backward again to undo something that the other Board inadvertently did without understanding the authority of the other Board. If any of that makes sense this is what I'm really trying to strive for here so that it's a smooth and seamless decision-making process. Yes, it's delayed, we're are so gone darn busy, Planning is incredibly busy, ZBA is outrageously busy, it's the nature of what's going on in our town. You have a November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting beautiful business there, it's a beautiful operation, the renovation is fantastic, it's a great resource for the community. It totally is supported by the Comprehensive Plan for all the reasons you laid out. I look forward to working with them and with you in moving this forward and finalizing all of these various moving parts but I'm just trying to do it in a way that is responsible. ALEX PERROS : Understood CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Having pontificated long enough I think Mr. Cuddy wants to say something. MR. CUDDY : Charles Cuddy, I'm assisting Mr. Perros, I think it would be very helpful if there could be a communication from the Zoning Board to the Planning Board indicating that you are ready to do something as soon as that Board finishes because I was at the last meeting on the 4th and I think they're getting close but I think if they knew that you are waiting for them to finish it would be very helpful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have no problem doing that, is there any reason anybody thinks we shouldn't? No I'm happy to do that, I think that's a very good suggestion. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) since these comments that it was decided that maybe we should hold off and if the ZBA wasn't just because in the last couple of days that they received these that they thought they(inaudible) and maybe they MR. CUDDY : We had asked that they be forwarded earlier but it didn't work that's why I'm asking (inaudible)it would be very helpful just to let them know that you're ready CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's a good idea and I'll put it in writing because although I talk to Heather all the time and Jim Rich, it's better to just have it writing that you'll have in your file too. MR. CUDDY :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that makes sense to everybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I think the better thing to do I think adjourning this just doesn't make sense, I think we just table this for the time being. I'll send that letter out, I'll make sure you have copies of the letter that I send to them. I'm encouraging them to move as quickly as they can so that we can then take action accordingly. The down side of tabling well I 60 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting don't anticipate necessarily another public hearing although I do want to hear what there are people out there I definitely not asking MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we close this subject to Planning Board comments? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the comments it would have to be site plan approval. MEMBER LEHNERT : We've heard everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we did that which we can do then here's the other thing, if something comes up that we haven't anticipated in site plan we have to reopen the hearing which we can do by a unanimous vote of the Board. ALEX PERROS : I think that there's no problem with that, I also think we're so far along in the Planning process like there's nothing coming out of the woodwork these are the same issues that we've been working on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what do you think? I had suggested a little earlier that maybe we just adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks just so we can talk to Planning and figure out a time frame and we'll keep you involved in all of that so nothing is going to blindsided here. Then we'll figure out whether we should adjourn it yet to another date or just adjourn it subject to site plan approval or what makes sense. If they can give us certain reassurances that they're pretty squared away with this then maybe we'll just adjourn it to site plan approval and then that's it no further hearing required. I just don't know what more we can possibly figure out on that property that we don't already know. Depending on what they do on how they finalize parking, one of the things they commented on was it's very close to some residential back yards some of this parking and they may want to consider that. The public has the right to chime in before them as well as us so that's not final cause it has impacts. ALEX PERROS : Those are the areas that I mentioned where we've replaced the solid stockade fence and put in the twenty-four evergreen giant trees etc., etc. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We talked about that at the last hearing, I remember. I also remember a neighbor was concerned about which way the vent was going from the kitchen and from the restaurant. It's our job to remember those things. MEMBER LEHNERT : Do we know if the Planning Board will approve it without a decision from us? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh sure. I mean they're not going to say move the buildings, the buildings are there it's the uses. November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : It was on the list of you know what they were looking for. T. A. MCGIVNEY :Things that have to be completed. ALEX PERROS : One of their notes was that they can't complete the site plan process for this application until the outside permits are required from and remain to obtained from at least the following agencies and that was Suffolk County Department of Health as well as the Planning Board oh sorry as well as the Zoning Board. It's a little chicken and egg thing happening. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah I mean is this thing going to keep going around in circles? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's adjourn it to the Special, we'll talk to them and we'll figure it out. I mean the whole idea is not to adversely impact any of these applications but to move them smoothly and responsibly forward in a way that's coherent. I don't want one Board you know doing something in contradiction to another Board it makes no sense. Let's talk to them and see how far along they are and certainly since it's an open application I can't call you but Julie can or Paul can and they can talk to your attorneys and inform you what's going on and we'll see how close they think they are and we'll see how they feel about us waiting until they make their determination and if they feel they need something from us then we will do it that's it. ALEX PERROS : Sounds good, thank you for I know this is a tricky one so thank you for your patience. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what we're here for. I think that maybe the neighbors are here and they may want to say something. I don't know if you want to say anything or if you just wanted to listen in on this ongoing saga or what. If you want to say anything now is your time. Please state your name. RICHIE STEINMULLER : My name is Richie Steinmuller, I live at 1175 Shore Rd I'm just behind the house. Everything is going very well; construction is going smoothly. Alex has been perfect when we'have issues he's right there. If there is something to do, he will oblige to it in fact (inaudible). I just want to stay in the loop that's all I really wanted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't blame you, you've been very diligent. RICHIE STEINMULLER : He has too.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Anything else, anybody else want to say something. Anything from you Eric at this point? 1 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I think we just move towards making a decision that's where I think we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special MEMBER LEHNERT: Wait we have one more. CATHERINE HEARST : Catherine Hearst I live less than fifteen feet from the barn, I'm a very close neighbor to the restaurant. I have to say that Alex has been a very good neighbor, any complaints anything lighting or noise never noise but if there's too much light too late at night all you do is call and it's put away. He's very willing to keep his neighbors happy which is very nice. I just wanted to add that,that he does try very hard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else? Okay, motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on November 21. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. 631 November 7, 2024 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION S I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape-recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : November 21, 2024