Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/05/2024 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York December 5, 2024 10:03 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN —Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member 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 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Church of the Redeemer#7962 3 -6 Kathryn Steinbuglar#7963 6 -8 Pote Videt/MDC Trust#7964 8 - 14 Richard James McBride and Frank McBride and Sons, Inc#7965 14- 19 Yasmine Legendre and Corey Worcester#7966 20- 25 Patrick M. Dowden #7968 26- 29 Ahmad Sadar-Afkhami #7969 29 - 33 Jennifer Shipman #7967 33 -36 Richmond Creek Partners, LLC#7970 36 -63 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for December 5, 2024. Let's begin with the State Environmental Quality Review requirement, this is a Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCCRR Part 617.5c including the following: Church of the Redeemer#7962, Kathryn Steinbuglar #7963, Pote Videt/MDC Trust #7964, Richard James McBride and Frank McBride and Sons, Inc. #7965, Yasmine Legendre and Corey Worcester #7966, Patrick M. Dowden #7968, Ahmad Sadar-Afkhami #7969, Jennifer Shipman #7967 and Richmond Creek Partners, LLC#7970 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7962—CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Church of the Redeemer #7962. This is a request for a variance from Article X Section 280-46 and the Building Inspector's May 31, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an addition to an existing religious building/house of worship at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 132256 Sound Ave in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? Come to the mic please and state your name for us. DAVID MANN : Hello, my name is David Mann I'm the architect and applicant. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning, welcome. This is a side yard setback at 7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10 feet. This is off of Pike St. and its near Pike St. it's off Westphalia that you're proposing to put an addition on the side of the building. DAVID MANN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, what would you like us to know about this application? DAVID MANN : This is an addition for a one room addition for bible study, choir practice, coffee meetings and what we are attempting to do is to align the extent of our addition with an existing addition which is an office wing of the church which you can see a little bit further to the north. Our projection is in alignment with that, that's an existing non-conforming structure which is also less than that's actually 5 % feet setback as opposed to 10. That's basically the extent of our application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that the setback is the same as what is as what is already existing. Westphalia is a pretty wide street, we've all been there to inspect the property. I think it pretty much looks like it's conforming except for a bay window. DAVID MANN : That's a cantilevered bay window. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's not even (inaudible) elevation. DAVID MANN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a residence across the street, I guess you have a parking lot over there. DAVID MANN : Across the street is a resident and then to the north is parking, to the east is parking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cemetery also. DAVID MANN : Cemetery is to the south. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Quiet neighbors. DAVID MANN : And this is a theater and the Presbyterian Church also across the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we're all quite familiar with the neighborhood. Let's see if the Board has any questions, it's a very straightforward application. Pat, anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : I'll just say I know we granted a variance to the theater a couple of years ago and we granted a variance to the Presbyterian Church a couple of years ago and I mean I grew up going to this church and my kids are in the choir in this church. That's my only comments, I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No, pretty benign applications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application, in favor/support or with questions. HELEN CORSO : Helen Corso, I'm (inaudible) Church of the Redeemer and this small application for a small salon is to be able to provide services to the community and the parish for outreach in addition to the bible study. It affords a (inaudible) level access which is very easy for (inaudible) church noisy they can just go into the next room and again for easy bible study, for practice for our church to try and bring the community into the church. We're trying to build the church and make it more and more part of the community and we feel that this addition which is the setback is the same as the existing office building would be a very nice addition to the church and would provide us a lot of flexibility.Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it looks like it's going to be very handsome and very sensitively done with stone work and so on. HELEN CORSO : Just to your point, the architect has done a beautiful job of matching the appearance of this small building to the rest of the church and we think it looks quite lovely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. A determination will be made at the next meeting of the Board of Appeals, we'll have a draft decision just to let you know procedurally between now and then. We've closed the hearing so that's that, we're going to be preparing a draft, we will be deliberating on that on December 19th in the other building starting at usually five o'clock, open to the public. You don't need to be there but can attend via Zoom if you want but you can call the office the next day. A decision is signed by me the next day which legalizes it, sent to the Town Clerk and you'll get a copy of it in the mail. HEARING#7963—KATHRYN STEINBUGLAR CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kathryn Steinbuglar #7963. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 25, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 600 Orchard Rd. in Southold. Is there someone here to represent the application? KATHRYN FEE : Good morning, my name is Kathryn Fee and I'm the architect for this addition. I'm here with the homeowner Kathryn Steinbuglar. We're asking for a variance, a setback variance for a small addition. The addition is 15 x 18 feet and one-story high. We need a variance because this is a small lot only 22,090 sq. ft. in an R-80 zone. The minimum lot size in an R-80 zone is 80,000 sq. ft. This is almost four times the size of our lot. The original house was built in 1950 and is a non-conforming structure. The rear yard setback in an R-80 zone is 50 feet and almost half the house encroaches into that rear yard setback. Aside from the small lot size, the lot is also an oddly shaped triangle. If we apply all the setbacks, the front yard, the rear yard and the side yard setback we're left with a little more than 2,000 sq. ft. that can be developed. This is less than ten percent of the lot size. I did a diagram that's not part of the application but it shows the size of this area in relationship to the lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to submit that to the Board? KATHRYN FEE : I would. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please come forward and give it to Kim, she'll make copies for us. KATHRYN FEE : The addition is placed in the rear of the house aligning with the rear wall of the house and this property borders a large field. We feel this addition has a minimal impact on the neighborhood and is in keeping with the size and scale of the surrounding properties. It's because of these factors we hope that we will be granted this variance request. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome and thank you for your commentary. We've all been to the property and there appears to be no adverse environmental or visual impacts (inaudible) this being cited. You do have severe limitations about what you can build on such an irregular triangular shaped lot. The rear yard looks to be flat, open grass with some deer fencing along the property line which is conforming. It's one story, I don't see any possible impact on anybody. You're keeping the same setback as what currently exists so this is not really a big deal. I have no questions, I'll see if anybody else does, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No it's really benign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions just sort of like a statement, I don't understand how the Building Department issues a Notice of Disapproval, I get that it's an extension of an existing structure that does not meet the code but the garage is attached with a breezeway so I just find it amazing that you have a garage attached; it's 16.6 feet from the rear yard which is even deeper into the required rear yard setback. I think Eric said it's benign but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) 35 foot setback but they do what they do. It's true it's a very complicated site to do any kind of development on and it's not the first time we've seen. Fishers Island has thousands of triangular and irregularly shaped lots all over the place and they're within our jurisdiction as well. Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No, pretty benign application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application?There's nobody on Zoom, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER DANTES : Second December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7964—POTE VIDET/MDC TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Pote Videt/MDC Trust # 7964. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14, Article XXII Section 280- 116A (1) and the Building Inspector's June 14, 2024, amended July 3, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, 2) the proposed construction located seaward of the top of the bluff is not permitted located at 2515 Soundview Ave. in Peconic. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. Yes, as Leslie mentioned we're here for two variances, one rather insignificant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One is de minimus. MARTIN FINNEGAN : One is de minimus which is the side yard setback for the 4 inches, slightly more significant perhaps not as benign as the prior application as the bluff setback. Let's talk about that. We have a property that is about 2.4 acres with a little less than an acre of buildable land up on the Sound. The existing structure is a relatively small 880 sq. ft. one- story residence. It has a screened in porch and there's a rear patio, I assume you've all been out there but it's pretty ugly and horrible structure that exists there. That structure itself for a small portion of it actually leads into the top of the bluff. The bulk of the house and the accessory structure are within the 100-foot setback but landward of the actual top of bluff line. What we're seeking to do here is essentially eliminate that concrete albatross as I call it December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting in my submission and replace it with a (inaudible) deck on the back which is a modestly sized deck as well all within the existing footprint disturbance that is there. My client's engineers had gone out to the property with the Trustees I guess it was late last year and reviewed what was proposed with them. Actually, the design of this project was really guided by the feedback they got from the Trustees. There was talk maybe of a second level addition the Trustees encouraged actually that landward one level addition that is proposed and the reconstruction of the removal of this concrete mess and replacing it with a deck that would have flow through decking would decrease erosion and having a permeable structure there so that's what we did. That's how the project was designed. The Trustees didn't voice any objection to the actual addition, alteration because it's all within the pier line the neighboring structures on either side are actually seaward of this structure. While this is obviously a significant request for variance it's all that is proposed is within the existing footprint or landward of that and it is within the pier line. Just to address the criteria, with respect to the character, we do have letters in support from the surrounding neighbors that as you know is a very heavily wooded lot. You cannot even see the structure so in terms of impacts on the surrounding community we would submit that there aren't any it's not going to require it was actually specifically designed to stay in an area where it wouldn't have to be removing trees or disturbing the existing terrain. The addition which is only 560 sq. ft., this is really about trying to make this house a livable home, it's barely a single-family residence by definition and just to expand it slightly to make it more livable. We obviously submit that it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood and will have no detriment to nearby properties. However, we obviously do need the variance relief to achieve the benefit of an updated and functional home. What was designed is again not as substantial expansion and it's really the best you can do under the circumstances with what exists there with the pre-existing non-conformities that are there. Obviously mathematically it's a substantial variance because what is ,there is entirely within the bluff setback but because of the fact that we're staying within the existing footprint moving landward of that and creating an impervious deck and removing this concrete mess we would submit that it is not a substantial practically. In terms of adverse environmental impacts again, with the removal of the concrete structure and the flow through decking to facilitate drainage and reduce erosion will be a net positive for the environment with no impact on the surrounding community. Again, the Trustees went out there, looked at this and did not indicate any suggestion to doing this. They wanted to pull it back, stay within the retaining wall that is there and in doing so they were okay with that. Obviously, we need to get through your review before we can proceed with them. I did see Mark's LWRP, I would dispute the inconsistency because we're not looking to replace the if we were replacing the patio I could see, we're not going to replace a structure like that but by adding this deck it would seem to me that it does solve the issue of contributing to erosion. It's helping that so it is meeting the policy, the landward addition is getting as far away from 9 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting that top of bluff as possible. With that I'm happy to answer any questions, I'm also joined here by Kate Samuels who is the project's architect who can also answer any questions the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a couple, the house is in considerable disrepair, can you be a hundred percent confident this is not a demo per town definition? You're not going to renovate more than fifty percent of the existing value? KATE SAMUELS : Hi, Kate Samuels of Samuels and Steelman Architects. I talked to Amanda at the Building Department, we're very careful to replace only what's in disrepair down to you know just the sheathing for example of what needs to be repaired. The roof shingles will need to be removed and repaired but we're really trying to keep the existing structure intact. Obviously, the interior will be completely changed, gut renovated but the existing structure as it stands and as the engineer has reported is in pretty good shape. So, just a repair and removal just as needed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're not changing the interior walls or you know is there a bearing wall in there, is any of that coming down? KATE SAMUELS : So we are going to be removing portions of interior walls but we have made a considerable effort to keep the structure as it stands. Instead of most of the bearing wall it's going to be a few columns so we're really trying to keep you know even the form of the roof as it stands currently. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because typically when a structure looks like that and it's on a bluff there is mold, there's rot and so on and you start construction and you tear into a wall and suddenly there's no wall. We try to avoid that because we don't want you coming in fora de minimus because I'll tell you right now, there is no such thing as a de minimus that's a demolition and we will have to deny that. So, I'm just suggesting you proceed with caution knowing that we've inspected the property and that there are unforeseen problems that can occur. Did you have a pre submission conference with the Trustees or no? KATE SAMUELS : We did have a pre submission conference with the Trustees, Cole Environmental was the leading that effort but I was also there as well. They were pretty amenable to the addition rear of the bluff line; it was actually their idea to begin with so that was really kind of the motion that we move forward. In our site we actually have the removal of some trees and other plants that are not natural to the area so that is part of our submission as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How are you planning to remove the concrete without land disturbance? 0 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting KATE SAMUELS : Well, you know we don't have a contractor yet on board but I've talked to my structural engineer and they're thinking of doing hand removal not really using jack hammers or anything like that something very you know minor to try to break up the concrete. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Have you investigated underneath that concrete patio are their piers or anything supporting it? KATE SAMUELS : So there's a retaining wall, it goes down about 3 feet under the actual patio itself. It is basically you know all of the runoff from the patio has you know eroded the land in this area so you know those concrete piers are being more and more exposed to the elements, frost and things definitely kind of come into account there as well so it is in quite disrepair as Martin has stated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When we see that kind of erosion on a bluff I mean obviously that concrete is a large part of the erosion that's taken place there, removing it is fine but it's tricky and we don't want to see anymore erosion. The long thin structure that's landward of the whole thing, what is that all about?You have some high windows in it, is that a garage? KATE SAMUELS : Yes it's an existing garage a one car garage with kind of a small workshop as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the application it says, outhouse renovation, is that the tower structure what is that? KATE SAMUELS : Yes, so our original plans had some renovation work on the outhouse structure. We had sent in revised plans calling for no work on that structure so at the moment we have nothing proposed. Obviously, it's in the side yard setback and it's a second accessory building so it wouldn't be allowed in any case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's all I have, Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : Sure, so the retaining wall that's there that stays where it is and then you just build a new deck? KATE SAMUELS : No,the retaining wall would be removed as well. The new deck will have sono tube concrete piers under the land and then we would have a post going up to the deck as is a typical deck construction. MEMBER DANTES :Then what's going to hold the bluff back from further erosion? December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting KATE SAMUELS : You know at the moment we don't have any sort of retaining walls just because we were thinking that it would be more you know construction on that bluff and it would be more potential for erosion so at the moment we don't have a current design for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'd be surprised if the Trustees which is why we really were trying very hard to work more closely with them because we don't want do something that then is working in opposition to them and having you bounce back and forth and it makes no sense. So, we haven't gotten any comments or anything in writing from them other than what your application says about the informal conversations you've had and of course this will all be subject to Trustees approval but it would be strange for them to suggest removing that retaining wall. You can remove by hand the slab that's all broken up on top of it but they'll probably require or we might revegetation of the bluff. MEMBER DANTES : I mean even for us I mean I'd like to see a demo plan for the house showing that it's not a code conforming demolition cause if you figure out it's (inaudible) it's easier for us to handle that now than to do it later. KATE SAMUELS : Okay MEMBER DANTES : I just something in writing about what the plan is to maintain the bluff stability once the retaining wall is gone. It's kind of a big criteria for us to approve a variance like this if we were to do so. Then if you have any Minutes or from this Trustees meeting if they keep Minutes maybe you can send them to us or if Cole or you had kept some Minutes, can you submit the Minutes so we have a written record of what was discussed? Those were my only questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, no they're good, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I agree with Eric, good point because that bluff really is of concern. It's not in the best of shape. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did we have I walked in and tried to figure out where the rubble of the driveway was underneath all the piles of leaves because I wasn't gonna drive in I had no idea where I was going. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I made the mistake of driving in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ah see, no turn around over there, no you gotta back up a long way among the trees. All of the houses along there are way too close to the bluff that's clear and they do the Trustees do create this pier line situation you know which I still don't understand frankly but that's what they do. The landward addition of course is fine so we'll just have to I December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting think that's a good idea. Why don't we do this Martin, with your agreement I'd like to maybe just adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks and see what you can produce, give you a little time to get some more things together cause you're going to need a little time to look at a demo plan. I think that would be very helpful, that way we won't run into the problem later on about you're over fifty percent. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea I mean I know Kate has been very careful with Amanda to go through (inaudible). I do have a copy of the Trustees field inspection report from CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that'll be good. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean it's on Laser Fiche and all that but if you guys I can just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it at least verifies when they went and saw it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : August of so I'll just give you one. There's more on Laser Fiche to that but it's just the letter requesting it and all that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure well we can also just check the Laser Fiche. Kim, can you make a note to do that and send us the link. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Alright that's fine I mean we can certainly I agree we don't want to come back, we'd like to try and get this done but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't mind seeing you but not for the same project. MARTIN FINNEGAN : If the Trustees want us to keep the retaining wall, we're going to keep the retaining wall. I mean I think that that was part of the conversation when they were out there. I agree, it seems to me you want to keep something there to fortify it but we'll take a second look here CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a wraparound bluff on top of it so you know at this point it's just complicated. MEMBER DANTES : If you have another mechanism just tell us what the other mechanism is. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay, I don't know what that is but I will find out. MEMBER DANTES :There's more than one route to Rome. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay, so we will try to get something to you before your well before two weeks is up, okay? December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else in the audience who wants to address the application? Nobody on Zoom either. Okay, motion to adjourn this meeting to the Special Meeting of the Board of Appeals which is December 19tn MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Eric, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#7965—RICHARD JAMES MCBRIDE and FRANK MCBRIDE AND SONS, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard James McBride and Frank McBride and Sons, Inc. # 7965. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's May 1, 2024 amended June 13, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a three-lot subdivision and for existing accessory structures at 1) proposed Lot 2 at less than the code required lot size of 80,000 sq. ft., 2) proposed Lot 2 at less than the code required minimum lot depth of 250 feet, 3) accessory garage on Lot 2 located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet, 4) frame barn on Lot 3 located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, 5) accessory shed on Lot 3 located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 25 feet located at 10625 Oregon Rd. and 10725 Oregon Rd. in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? RICHARD LARK : Richard Lark, Main Rd. Cutchogue, New York good morning. I believe I'll check with the secretary of the Board and I believe only notices have been sent out and everything so I think we're okay jurisdictional. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about I enter into the record what the actual variance specific variances are? RICHARD LARK : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Proposed lot 2, the lot size is 43,832 sq. ft. where the code requires 80,000 sq. ft. in that zone district a minimum. Second, the lot depth is 128 feet, the code requiring 250 ft. minimum. Three, the accessory garage has a rear yard setback of 8.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15. On proposed lot 3 the frame "as built" barn will have a side yard setback once the lot line change takes place of 8.8 feet where the code requires 20 ft. Number two, the existing accessory shed will have a 7.6-foot side yard setback where the code requires 25 foot minimum. This also requires site plan approval from the Planning Board. Lot 1 conforms to the bulk schedule. I think that covers it. Lot 1 is to be used for Laurie McBride to build a new home, right? Did you get a chance to see the comments from the Planning Board Mr. Lark? RICHARD LARK : Yeah I looked at them, it was about a week,or so ago yep. We've discussed that with them I'll cover that. I can cover that now or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because I'm just wondering where that came from, where those comments came from. RICHARD LARK : Yea right, they were out of the blue. I went back and it turned out that one of the staff members Mr.Terry at the time had written them and he hadn't consulted with other Board Members. So, when I consulted with the Board Member who lives nearby, Mr. Sider he says no, no, no, no, no he says what you're proposing was discussed with us ahead of time when you had your pre submission and I approved it then I'm not going to disapprove it now by drawing crazy lines. You and the surveyor and us did all kinds of jiggling for that lot number 2 okay. He said just disregard it and as far as we're concerned if you get your variances we're going to go through our routine and we're going to approve the subdivision cause we want you to have a subdivision there. Then when I went to the Building Inspector to get to here then he wrote up his things accordingly but he had also talked to the Planning Board so he was aware of the overall picture. So, what started out in 2017/18 when Richard McBride to reduce he wanted to keep the farm as a farm and Oregon Rd. has been changing as you're all aware and (inaudible) there is family so he decided that he started the negotiations with the town to sell the development rights to assure that the farm would remain a farm. In those negotiations it was interesting because they took the view that we want to not sell development rights unless you can attach a residence somehow to it because we've had too much trouble in the town where the development rights have been sold by an out-of-town person and the agricultural dies and the place goes to rack and ruin with trees and weeds and December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting everything else, brambles. So, we want to make sure that if it's ever sold that it would have a residence with it. They put in the covenants which you have there but 80,000 sq. ft. has to remain if that's ever sold with the development rights, even though they didn't pay for the 80,000 sq. ft. you could build a house do whatever you want on it but it's gotta go with it. So that was a filed covenant and a condition for them to buy because they wanted, they agree with Mr. McBride that they wanted to keep the house a farm. Then what happened was the daughter Laurie who is here she said can I build my house on the place? Well, the way that had been rigged up that lot 2 indiscriminately it cut into the farm field and it presented all sorts of encroachments which you just read off with what the variances were. It became somewhat of a nightmare so the surveyor and I went out to the property with the McBrides and we decided to figure out just what the heck to do to do,it. The Planning Board in the pre submission and talking to them they said, no we don't want a lot setoff cause that would have been the simplest way to resolve this whole thing but we don't want a lot setoff we want to make sure that we want a regular straight subdivision and we know that you have to get variances and if you get the variances we'll approve that subdivision. So, that's what happened, that's why we're here okay. Then the Building Inspector when he got involved, he did his Notice of Disapproval which he did one originally and then he amended it, you have that. He realized that all these setbacks weren't permitted so he said, I'm not doing anything until you get a variance. He said then, I will issue whatever I have to do to cooperate to get this subdivision through. So that's why we're here for the variance. Basically, the purpose of the three-lot subdivision was one, to allow the farm parcel which is lot 3 to remain an active farm and family ownership right now and that as you read off that's going the title is going to stay in Richard McBride. The second one was to create a legal lot of 80,000 sq. ft. for the daughter Laurie who is here so that was the second objective and the Planning Board agreed with that at the time. Then the third one which created all the problems why we're here to straighten out all these encroachments because it turned out that when I did the deed and had the surveyor the barn the big large barn encroached on the other property and there was a reason to that because when that was originally built some of it was built right after zoning additions or it was built before and the farm progressed, different buildings were built but the family all treated it as one so nobody paid attention to side yard, rear yards and they got believe it or not most of them I think all the structures on the place except maybe one has a C.O. on it if you can believe that; farm buildings and so on and so forth. Even the original house which they renovated over on which will go with the lot 3. So, the idea was that we'd end up with lot 3 is going to go with the farm, that will be sold that's going to be the substitution the 4 acres for the 80,000 sq. ft. in the covenant so we more than meet the covenant. The McBride's are absolutely happy about that because then if the farm is ever sold which they don't intend to but if it ever is sold the third party has an operational place they can move into. He'd put his machinery in and it's all set to go so that was the theory. We December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting ended up here because that lot 2 even though we extended it a few thousand feet to the west and everything it ended up as where we are in trying to get all these variances which you read off. So, the family after seeing what the situation was, they decided then we'll go ahead with the subdivision and with the variances and that's why we're here today because they figured in the long run the goals of the family would be achieved. The farm would be preserved and the house would be transferred then to Mrs. McBride and then Laurie would have a building lot to have her house on, they decided to go here. Then I explained to them that the Board the Zoning Board of Appeals here has statutory criteria to consider the five factors which I'll cover in a moment to make a determination so that the proposed subdivision could be approved because we can get the required variances to make it happen but the test then is to the benefit, we are obviously a tremendous benefit to the McBride family because they get their desires achieved. Would there be any detriment which I don't think cause nothing is going to change, everything is going to be the model if the variance is granted as it was before the day before nothing is changing there just lot lines on a map and legal title that's all to make it work. The first criteria whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, the answer is I think clearly no. The reconfiguration of the home parcel, lot 2 and the elimination of the encroachment and the proposed subdivision which creates the three lots will not create an undesirable change or have any impact on the character of this farming community as it presently exists or nearby properties because they're getting out of the vegetable industry up there into the farm to the east is in the Christmas tree business and but fortunately Richard has been able Richard McBride has been able to team up with John Fabb and they've been planting sweet corn and stuff on this one so even in his retirement has been able to keep it active. He recognizes that if you don't keep it plowed and you don't change things around it goes with trees and woods and brambles and everything else. He's very interested but I don't think there'll be any undesirable change. The second criteria that you have to consider whether the benefit can be achieved by another method other than a variance well, if somebody can figure that out the Building Inspector to the Planning Board and they said no this is the only way you gotta go, you gotta get variance, we got to legalize the Building Inspector calls it legalize make lot 2 a legal lot that the Planning Board can approve cause he said lot 1 there's no problem and then lot 3 will be no problem because you're going to put that as part of the farm that four acres so he said that was his attitude on it. Now on the big requirement of is it substantial, yes it is substantial because we're asking for so many they're not little piddly ones but we're trying to straighten out the past sins of encroachments and building too close to this and building too close to that because like the framed garage was put there on the house lot was put there after zoning but there was no mind to it because nobody paid attention to the rear yard or anything because it was all part of the farm but there it is we have to get it a variance. When you consider although they are :1.7T December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting substantial as you read off but when you consider them and keeping an active farm these substantial deviations to create the subdivision have been in there for a long, long time and the big value of keeping the active farm and legalizing everything it's not substantial considering the accomplishments that would take place because the main benefit as I look at it, I've been a life long attorney is what they want to do is we took the 80,000 sq. ft. that was required in the negotiation with the town and we transferred that to 4.231 acres. In other words, we went from 80,000 to 184,000 and some odd feet that would go with the farm because that pretty much guarantees that that would remain a farm because you can't do anything with the 23 acres anyway because the development rights have been sold. To me that made a lot of sense because I happen to agree with the Town Preservation Committee that too much of the development rights are sold and then the land just sits fallow nothing happens and that's not a good thing. Again, I covered it but the fourth one, would it have an adverse effect on the physical environmental and of course the answer to that I submit is, no when you look at the big picture. A lot of the buildings they go back, the original house on the property goes back to the 1850's and it's been renovated several times so the beauty of the four acres going with it there's a house that goes with it also so it's a complete move in job for somebody who wants to go to farm the parcel and live there. That to me was a huge, huge benefit and the house has been renovated inside and it's very livable, it's very comfortable. The only think it might have in the kitchen area is a lower ceiling other than that it's very, very, very accommodating. The basic question as I see it before the Board here is, in deciding to grant this or any other variance, will the strict application of the zoning ordinance for all those little multiple variances that we're requesting will the strict application serve a valid purpose that will outweigh the difficulties for the applicant and I submit that it won't because really nothing is gonna change. Viewing the statutory factors, it's clear that it's an obvious benefit to the McBride family but I don't think there's any adverse effect to the town, to the community or the neighboring properties. So, in weighing all of this and there's no evidence of any detriment to the surrounding properties of the neighborhood I respectfully ask that the variances be granted so that we can go forward with the Planning Board and get a subdivision and make it happen. It's been a saga for years trying to figure out what to do. Are there any questions that I can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I would proposed since there is a storage facility on one side and a farm on the other, frankly the McBride family farm defines the character of Oregon Rd. it's been there long before any of us were. I really don't have any questions; I think it's rather straightforward. RICHARD LARK : I tried to make it as simple as I could. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know as soon as you start changing lot lines on a farm everything winds up that way, nothing was really built with concerns for setbacks it's an AG property they put a building wherever they put a building. Most of it pre-dates zoning anyway. RICHARD LARK : It did, both of these structures do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any problems or any questions, I'll see if anyone else does, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No, I mean it's pretty straightforward so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions, you're basically creating a conforming lot. RICHARD LARK : Yep that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Still, nobody on Zoom, we're good. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,thank you nice to see you again. .91T December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7966—YASMINE LEGENDRE and COREY WORCESTER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Yasmine LeGendre and Corey Worcester #7966. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-116 A (1) and the Building Inspector's June 26, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions to include a pool, hot tub, trellis and deck additions to an existing single-family dwelling and to construct a two-story accessory garage at 1) accessory structure located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) proposed construction located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 4355 Aldrich Lane Ext. in Mattituck. LISA POYER : Good morning, Lisa Poyer at Twin Forks Permits on behalf of the applicant. The existing property has a house and an attached garage, some decking on the property. It all does have a legal C of 0 throughout the different years of construction on the property. The r owner is looking to construct a swimming pool on the bluff side of the property however given the unique orientation of the house in relation to the bluff we advised them to tuck it behind that front line of the house and to kind of tuck it into the armpit of the house. It is pretty private back there; I believe you guys did go to the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did yes. LISA POYER : There were flags out there for the seaward most portion of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We saw them, very helpful thank you. LISA POYER Those are for the Trustees as well, we were at the Trustees last month in November and they did approve the project. Their one requirement was to do a 15-foot-wide buffer on the backside of the bluff crest which we have shown on the revised plans which were submitted to you after we went through the Trustee process. The Trustees also wanted to lower the height of the pool coping, the pool was sitting about 18 inches out of the ground and they asked for that to be reduced to 12 inches so we obliged them and had no issues with it. We're here I guess for the bluff crest setbacks. The proposed swimming pool and accessory the spa and the decking will be located behind the line of the existing house and decking. All decking in the back is going to be less than 6 inches from grade so it's going to kind of follow the natural contour. The bluff crest is significantly higher on this property than where the house does sit so all the runoff CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Runoff is going backwards. LISA POYER : comes back to the house. There is proposed pool equipment that's located.back by the attached garage. There is a separate pool drywell proposed which is located landward December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting of the swimming pool area. We're also asking I guess for the side yard relief not side yard relief but the pool located in the side yard of the primary house and then the same thing for the detached garage. 'We're about 120 feet for the swimming pool to the neighboring property to the east from their main residence for the pool and then we're about 190 feet the house to the west for the detached garage. So, it's a fairly significant distance and there is vegetation between the two. We're not asking for lot coverage; we're not asking for setbacks as far as side yard setbacks. The LWRP report was issued and I believe they indicated that it was consistent and they also recommended the 15-foot-wide buffer. I have some ZBA decisions that were issued recently that I could submit. There's do you want me to read the numbers into the record or just submit the copies? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you do that. LISA POYER : ZBA decision #7885, 7905, 7872, 7922, 7931, 7949, they all cover a variety of accessory structures located in other than the rear yard as well as some other bluff crest setbacks just intermingled in each of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are they within the general area, the neighborhood or are they all over the place? LISA POYER :They're just scattered all over. MEMBER DANTES : Are any of them on this block or on this road here? LISA POYER : No,there's nothing anything recent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll take them but just for your future reference because what we're doing is we're looking at the character of the neighborhood and if there are small lots with non-conforming lot coverage then that bodes in favor of the application but if they're just scattered all over town then they really don't have much relevance on the subject application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) Harbes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it was a bluff setback actually it had to do with that water line we're talking about Harbes Family Farm which is right on the other side of that MEMBER LE'HNERT : It was way past the 100 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think they had a bluff setback. MEMBER LEHNERT : Side yards or something. 2.11 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea LISA POYER : This is a quiet like five or four houses at the end of this long extension and they're all oversized lots and all the houses are built up on the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did another one, there was another house up there that we did some variances for. MEMBER DANTES : We didn't make a decision on that one, it changed owners, it might be still sitting out there open. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's possible. LISA POYER : Like I said it went through the whole Trustee hearing, there were no neighbors that came to that hearing. MEMBER DANTES : Did you get an actual decision from the Trustees a written one? LISA POYER : It is coming, I paid the fifty dollar they were waiting last week for one other Trustee to come in and sign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just to sign. LISA POYER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, can you submit that? LISA POYER : I will once I have the copy of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, will submit copy. MEMBER DANTES : Sometimes they let the applicants go before us sometimes they don't. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's still an approval in their record it's just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's fine. LISA POYER : I mean it was just recent timing wise it happened to be close to each other so that's why the field the little flags are still there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean the bluff looks quite stable actually over there, I didn't see any runoff because as you said the slope is back toward the land and not over the bluff. The existing deck that's seaward is very narrow and very small, I don't see the enlargement which is minimal having much of an impact at all. All of the property lines are screened by very large mature trees and fencing also. How is the existing attached garage used? I mean you're December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting proposing an accessory garage, it's going to require a very large tree to be cut down at least I would think in the area you're looking at. LISA POYER : Yes, it is out of the it's more than 100 feet from the bluff crest setback of the detached garage is so it's out of that required setback. The existing garage I think is going to be kept as a garage. They may be using that one more for storage and parking cars in this other one or visa versa. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems the garage is proposed with a car lift also, the vaulted ceiling. LISA POYER : Yea, people have a lot of stuff. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A lot of cars. LISA POYER : A lot of cars. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it possible I get confused how things are cited as far as how the Building Department determines what is in fact a side yard versus a front yard. The application we just heard, McBride the swimming pool was permitted because it was in the rear yard and it didn't follow the line of the roadway but if you look at the back of the house even though it was what it looks like in a side yard it was considered a rear yard. Here if they pulled the garage forward 24 feet or so, would it then be in a front yard which is compliant and the variance would go away? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably, a lot more trees would have to come down. LISA POYER : We wanted to show it as there's a pergola kind of a structure that (inaudible) a trellis, so they wanted to keep it kind of in line with (inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : It looks like the Building Department is calling this a side yard because it's not directly in front of the house. LISA POYER : The garage is in side yard and one side (inaudible) pool is in the side yard on the other side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know why they're calling it a side yard. MEMBER LEHNERT :That makes no sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because of that LISA POYER : The line of the front of the garage. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Also the road is on an angle at the front yard line. I think the angle of the front yard line and scale it back with a ruler going to grade. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but then on the McBride pool which wasn't part of the subject hearing the pool should have been in a side yard and it was considered a rear yard, it had nothing to do with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : McBride? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea the three lot subdivision we just heard, they had a swimming pool which had a C of 0. but it visually looked like it was in a side yard. However, if you use like a ruler as I was showing Julie it was actually in the back. So, this just strikes me if they just pull it-forward 20 feet the variance goes away. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you make it equal with the pergola it probably goes away. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other question is, if the pergola is attached to the house isn't it all part of the same house? So, is there even a variance need? MEMBER LEHNERT : No that wouldn't be attached. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's too long of a breezeway. MEMBER LEHNERT : It might make the side yard go away. MEMBER DANTES : Even the breezeway is allowed to be a certain amount of feet. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's gotta be 80 sq.ft., it's gotta be conditioned LISA POYER :This is all open. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Frankly given the fact that there will have absolutely no environmental and absolutely no visual impact on anything and it's functionally more appropriate for the applicant, I think the variance is probably in favor of the applicant. I mean you're right in general we try to make the minimum variances and if we can make them disappear, we suggest that but given this situation I just think the benefit to the applicant outweighs MEMBER LEHNERT :This lot is so large. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's benign. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's benign, you're correct. 4 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Saving some trees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: We're saving a lot of trees. I mean look at the slopes in the front. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That too, absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The closer you get to a front yard the more trees would come down, the (inaudible) away from the house and the more complex plus you gotta redo the driveway. LISA POYER : It's a nice driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it is, after coming down Aldrich Extension you. need a nice driveway. Anything from any Board Members on any of these? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'm suspecting that the bench that's there is going to be removed that's up at the top of the bluff? It's kind of sitting into the ground, it's so scary, you would fall off the bluff if you sit on that bench. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's from the fifties or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, really. I approach bluffs like very gingerly. I don't have anything, anything from anybody else? Is there anyone in the audience? Close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. I'm not going to do it not subject to receipt. LISA POYER : I will submit the Trustees as soon as I have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. Close hearing reserve decision. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Leslie, I'm recused from this next one. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting HEARING#7968—PATRICK M. DOWDEN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Patrick M. Dowden # 7968. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's July 9, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling and for the existing accessory shed (under 144 sq. ft.)' at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 3) "as built" shed less than the minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet located at 385 Wendy Drive in Laurel. Would you state your name for the record please? JOHN STUMPF :John Stumpf, Architect 220 Main St. Hempstead, New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a front yard setback at 35.6 feet where the code requires 40 feet, a rear yard setback of 36.3 where the code requires 50 feet and a shed with a rear yard setback at 2 foot 1 inch where the code requires 10 ft. The house was built in 1984, is that right? JOHN STUMPF : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With a conforming setback of 35.5 for the front yard and rear yard of 40 and you're proposing to alter the second floor attic space for a master bedroom? JOHN STUMPF : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the rear yard setback is to a second floor balcony, is that correct? JOHN STUMPF : That's to the limit of the balcony, correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But the footprint is not changing? JOHN STUMP : I made the assumption as the architect that it was there so it met all of the current codes and we had a terrible problem with water infiltration so we prematurely started it with the anticipation that it would be issued promptly and then the non-conforming situation came up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, the front yard setback it looks like it's an open entry to a front door and JOHN STUMPF : Correct December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That proposed second story area really won't be seen much from any other properties. JOHN STUMPF : No as a matter of fact the roof structure that was currently there was a very steep pitch so the (inaudible) of what's there it's consistent with the original house in the eighties. MEMBER ACAMPORA : That shed is not a new shed obviously. I'm surprised that it's even been brought up because it should have been grandfathered in because you can't move it, it will fall apart. It's not bothering anyone. It's all open space behind the residence. JOHN STUMPF :That even pre-existed Mr. Dowden taking ownership of the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have two sort of house keeping questions, there was a building permit for a deck, the deck doesn't exist. I mean that might be something you might talk to the Assessors about or the Building Department to have that removed unless I'm mistaken about what the deck is. PATRICK DOWDEN It was there when I bought the house on the rear of the house (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you have a demolition permit? PATRICK DOWDEN : I don't know, I mean it was (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You should probably go to the Building Department and just explain that you removed it. PATRICK DOWDEN : Yea I mean (inaudible) when I bought it so first (inaudible) just clearing out it was a short sale when I bought the house so the first two weeks were just clearing out trees. I believe a tree had grown up through the deck and had destroyed it so we didn't even know that there was a path going from the driveway to the back of the house until all of the trees. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just look into that, I don't know if it impacts your taxes or not and then the other thing is, I didn't see a Certificate of Occupancy on the outdoor shower. Perhaps it's included with the pool or something that you know we didn't have the full file. You are supposed to have a C.O. on an outdoor shower. PATRICK DOWDEN : Okay JOHN STUMPF : We'll add that to the (inaudible) z71 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If it's not it might be covered, it would appear to me that it's not but it may be. JOHN STUMPF : Okay, we'll research it. We have some supporting evidence from the two adjoining neighbors that are in agreeance with (inaudible) and I also have the affidavit of posting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good,just bring it up here please. PATRICK DOWDEN : There was actually a third neighbor that was filling it out and had a cardiac incident last night so the entire block was covered with ambulances so I didn't get that one but he was in agreement. I hope it wasn't because I requested him to (inaudible). I guess the moving of the shed would have to move closer to his property so I'm sure he's a fan of not doing that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look at the shape of your lot where is a conforming location that you could move it to? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Probably when the subdivision was created it was probably the least desirable because it was backing up to you know a farm. JOHN STUMPF : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have anything else that actually hasn't been covered, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nothing more. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob is recused, we have a quorum it's not a problem. I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye 2.PA I December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We should have a decision in two weeks on December 191n over at the Annex building. Motion to adjourn for lunch. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7969—AHMAD SADAR-AFKHAMI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ahmad Sadar-Afkhami #7969. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 6, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting construct additions and alterations to the sunroom attached to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 580 Jacobs Lane in Southold. Is there someone here to represent the application? AHMAD SADAR-AFKAMI : Thank you for coming by that day because you made me aware of the survey which (inaudible) I threw myself at the mercy of the surveyor and obtained a new survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh look at that, there we are perfect. Well, that was quick. Okay, so we're looking at a sunroom attachment to your house with a rear yard setback of 31.7 feet and the code requires 35 feet. The house is currently at 35 feet, right? AHMAD SADAR-AFKHAM I : Yes it's exactly at 35 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So anything that you attach to that is going to require a setback. You're enlarging this by 3 foot 5 inches, is that the idea? AHMAD SADAR-AFKHAMI : That's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 167 sq. ft. addition, yea? AHMAD SADAR-AFKHAM I : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know all of us at one point or another were out to inspect the property which is what we do for all applications and that rear yard is overlooking an open field. It's not going to be seen from the street, it doesn't have any visual impact that I can see. I don't have any questions about it, it's pretty benign in my opinion, let's see if anybody else does. Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : One question and not about the project, when this is done did anyone do the setback off the front of the garage so it doesn't come back here to end up in a side yard? If you draw the line, it's pretty close.Just saying check before you MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's an existing enclosed porch that's where's the original December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm just saying when you draw that line will it cross the back of the house,just be sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so. MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't think so either,just make sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, they saw it in the Building Department and they didn't call it out. You know what happens sometimes, it has a code conforming legal detached garage in their back yard and you go to put something on the back of your house MEMBER LEHNERT : You get your foundation survey and the next thing you know you're back here for like two inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and now part of your garage is over here and the back of your house is here so some of it is in a non-conforming side yard. Unfortunately, we have to go look at that then which seems kind of crazy cause it's a perfectly legal building that you're not even touching but this is not the case here. That addition, on the back is not going you know this is what Rob is talking about. MEMBER LEHNERT :Just trying to avoid problems down the road for these guys. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nobody has any questions on the Board? Is there anybody in the audience who wants to make a comment?Yes, please come to the mic and state your name. HOWARD DICKERSON : My name is Howard Dickerson and as was just mentioned, my mom Betsy Dickerson actually owns the entire property on three sides of the (inaudible), I was hoping she might be here today. We have a short letter to put into just saying that we have no objections at all to this change. I have bear with me just for a minute a couple of interesting things about this property in its past which reflect on what's happening right now. My dad first off actually lived in this house in 1938 after the roof was blown off of his house and the owner of the entire estate Ms. Mary Dayton actually hired my grandfather that year to manage her farms in addition to his and so the surrounding area has been part of our family since long before I was born. When Ms. Dayton passed away in the fifties the estate was subdivided, my grandfather and dad and uncle bought as much as they could of the farmland and this house was subdivided as a small lot right in the middle of all the rest of the farmland that we had. Now at the time nobody worried about things like setbacks and what have you. However, the last document in that file from back in the sixties was signed by my uncle who was on this Board at the time and that was it may have very well been to do with the roof or the back porch or whatever but in any case, it's just an amusing thing. In 2002 and 2003 when my dad and uncle shut down the farm, they sold the development rights on the December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting surrounding farmland. So, since this was already a lot and the owner at the time was basically for the last thirty years just rented it out to people, nobody worried about issues of lot size. In retrospect I think my dad and uncle did try to contact the owner at the time to see if she wanted a little more land on that house because in a neighborhood where there's all these two-acre lots and everything else was (inaudible) one-acre lots this is the almost the only really small lot in the area. It didn't matter as long as it was in the middle of the big field and then it didn't matter until the development rights were sold right up to the property line at the time. The previous owner or a couple of previous owners to Ahmad had not been interested in purchasing anymore because she was just you know an absentee landlady and rented it out for decades and I've been friends with most of the tenants in there over the last decades and been in and out of that house most of my life and I will attest that that back porch has always been a problem. When we would have dinner parties there you could not walk around the table. There's no other room big enough in that house to have a decent dinner party. So, I'm really glad that Ahmad is able to do this. The main reason I say all of this is that I know for a couple of decades the town has flirted with the idea of a transfer of development rights program and has never taken hold here in Southold for one reason or another and that would have been an interesting and a fairly straightforward way for us to increase the property size so that this type of issue would not have ever arisen on this property had the town had her transfer of a development rights program in sight. I only bring that up really because most of the discussion about TDR's have to do with moving of development areas in and out of you know village centers and things like that. Yet smaller issues like this would also have been handled by that kind of a program. Since it's not I'm here to say, yes we have no objection to this and we are very happy that this is happening so thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for the interesting history. Dickerson is a very well- known name in this town. HOWARD DICKERSON : Unfortunately my mom left home this morning without signing this letter but here it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else who wants to say anything? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? Okay I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye 32 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7967—JENNIFER SHIPMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jennifer Shipman #7967. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's August 12, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a second-floor addition to an existing accessory structure (principal use) at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 75 feet located at 2184 Elijah's Lane in Mattituck. ANTHONY PORTILLO Good afternoon Board, Anthony Portillo AMP Architecture. So, the property presented is for an area variance. It's located in a split AC and residential R40. The required rear yard is 75 feet and the existing structure currently rear yard is 47.6. The proposal is for a second-floor addition for storage. This is the only structure on the property and they use this building for storage so it's unheated, unfinished. We are not increasing the non-conformancy it is a completely just a second-floor addition. We don't feel there is any impacts adversely to the neighborhood since the location of that property has other farm land around it. We also found a property that was situated on Route 48 north of Elijah that has multiple accessory buildings which appear to have very insufficient rear and side yard setbacks. I have like a map that shows that property and I sort of you know based on Google I was able to kind of see how close they were to these rear yards and I can provide that to the Board. Actually, I think the Board has a copy of that. Again, you know this has it's hard to find similar properties to this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well actually I mean it looks like it's a separate property but it's really one lot, split and it's in an AG zone which is why the setbacks are so big. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was curious, what is the split zone, I couldn't find it on a town map I didn't have access to the town website changed that you can't see now the zoning lines. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wonder if the tax map got it, no it doesn't. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't have that on here, it cuts through the property though. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it going north, south or east, west? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I believe it's east, west. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a couple of questions Anthony, is there anticipation of any electric, any plumbing, any insulation in this structure? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No plumbing, no existing plumbing, there is existing electric already to the structure so that will me maintained. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well of course you want lighting. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're proposing a dry well to handle the rainwater which there is nothing now so some environmental things done there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any insulation? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Nope CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No okay. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Unfinished, unheated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unheated, uninsulated why is there a it doesn't require site plan approval I know, that's good. We did notice there's an existing three bay garage has tons of farm equipment in it, so there's no habitable space proposed at all? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Nope, it's a Shipman Farms I mean it's not going to be used for habitable space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why is the access on the exterior of the building and not on the interior? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think it was just he didn't want to take up more room in the garage area to put a staircase, that was his idea. It's going to be more obviously it's more for like you know tools or things like that I don't think it's really and then downstairs he's using it for more like parking vehicles and that kind of stuff. I think he just he didn't want to take up more space in the storage area since he doesn't have a building on there any other buildings. I mean I don't want to put this on record but I don't think he plans on putting more storage. 1 341 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting think he just wants the one building for storage I think he just wants the one building for storage. I guess if he did put more storage, he'd have to meet the setbacks at that time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. MEMBER DANTES : The only thing I don't understand really is, having storage is a permitted principle use on an AG property or an AG building so why are they calling it out on the Notice of Disapproval as an accessory use? It's not I mean it's an accessory use wouldn't be permitted CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it is a yeah I don't know why. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Because of the R designation is why Nancy said that we have that they would call it out as accessory use. I think they're also allowed a house on the property if they wanted to. MEMBER LEHNERT : You are. MEMBER DANTES : I mean if you had just a residential property without the farm you wouldn't be permitted to have the barn cause there's no principle use but if there's a farm the building is now principle use the AG building that's why I'm confused on that but either way ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's what Nancy Dwyer explained to me, the split use is why they're calling it accessory. MEMBER DANTES : Oh ok so they going with the more conservative. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because (inaudible) if you could build a residence there then it would be an accessory to a residence but on an AG property an AG building is permitted. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right but I guess it's the split use of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it's confusing. ANTHONY PORTILLO : They went to Planning because I think we asked Planning, do we need Planning approval and they said no. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They said no. MEMBER ACAMPORA : When I pulled up there was someone leaving in a truck and I told him you know why I was there for and he says, oh yea the shed and it looked to me like a container not a real shed, we haven't moved that yet so are there plans on moving that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : We have that on our site plan, we are removing the existing shed that's currently there, the small shed. We show that on our site plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, is there anybody in the audience? I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay, thank you Board and Happy Holidays. HEARING#7970—RICHMOND CREEK PARTNERS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richmond Creek Partners, LLC#7970. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13C, Article XXII Section 280-105B and the Building Inspector's July 30, 2024 amended October 8, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize the "as built" conversion of an existing accessory barn to an accessory recreational building and to legalize "as built" tennis court with surrounding fence at 1) "as built" construction of recreation building and use is not permitted, 2) fence more than the code permitted maximum height of six and on half (6 %) December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting feet in height when located along the side and rear yards located at 3820 South Harbor Rd. in Southold. Good afternoon, Pat. Can we get rid of the tennis court first, because that's easy? PAT MOORE : The tennis court is actually there was an old tennis court there that was restored, it's beautiful. It has a fence enclosure which everybody plays tennis certainly unless their McEnroe needs a fence that's a little higher than six (6) feet so it has the proposed tennis court fence around it and that is what is not to code because it exceeds the six and half (6 %) feet. The only variance associated with the fence of the tennis court. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The height. PAT MOORE : Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we were actually taking about that, it doesn't make sense to legalize a tennis court and not a fence.'That code probably needs to be looked at. PAT MOORE : Yea that's one of those things that has been should have been fixed about thirty years ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a very nice fence. PAT MOORE : Gorgeous fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not that high all the way around either. PAT MOORE : No, it's sculpted and it's extremely lovely. CIARA EDMUNDS : I would say it's appropriate. PAT MOORE : It's an appropriate fence given the architecture of the property and structures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly nobody in the world is going to be adversely impacted by it or is even going to see it so not on that property. PAT MOORE : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, does anybody have any questions or comments about the fence? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now let's get to the rest. PAT MOORE : So, as you can see from my application the our position is that the uses in the barn, it was a barn obviously. It was a barn that has existed there for over a hundred years December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting and at one point it was a cow barn. For those of you who went through the barn you could see that the cow stalls are below and they go out to the grass pasture so that's what it was. The barn sat empty and it was deteriorating and my clients decided to make use of the barn for something that is functional to the family. Nobody has cows anymore or hoofed animals on the property and the barn was more appropriately used for the family as accessory to the residential structure. I would point to the code and it seems to me very straightforward and you got very close to this when you analyzed the art studio accessory use. Looking back at your decisions you were so close but the zoning code specifically says that a let me read to it, and it's 280-13C and I apologize I my eyes must have skipped, I referred to 280-15 in one place in my submission but it's 280-13C and it lists accessory uses limited to the following uses and number one before you get to any of the other fifteen uses, number one is, any customary structures or uses which are customarily incidental to the principle use except those prohibited by this chapter. Well, everything that is going on in this building could be in the residence, they're all residential uses. You went through the building, you saw that there is a little computer area, a desk, there is a room that has gym equipment, there's a bathroom with a shower for those when you're done with the gym equipment. There is a large open loft area the entire second portion of the existing barn, you can see the rafters in the original structure has a foosball table it has a ping pong table and another table and there is a small bar area for drinks but there are no sleeping quarters, there are no eating there's no sleeping and there is no eating in this structure. It is all associated with typical residential accessory uses if it's allowed in the principal residence then it's allowed in accessory building. There is again the language cannot be clearer that under accessory the definitions of accessory building or structure an accessory building says, a building or structure detached from the principal building located on the same lot which it is, and customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal building, the house. Then we have the accessory use itself which says, the definition is a use customarily, incidental and subordinate to the main use on the lot whether such accessory use is conducted in the principle or the accessory building. Again, couldn't be more clear and why we the Building Department and why this town, we've always had such difficulty coming to just reading the standard language of the code and coming through all kinds of contortions on what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Everything going on here as you saw for yourself is residential in nature. We don't think we need a Use Variance however, to meet the burden of getting through the application process and again, think the code is very clear and it could doesn't take much interpretation and it doesn't take much to override the Building Department's determination. If we get to the Use Variance criteria then I submitted for the Board prior part of the paperwork was the first document and I have additional copies in case you need them, so a Use Variance makes me go through an appraisal of the property listing all the permitted and the special permits uses. Andy Stype who is a licensed real estate appraiser went through every single use, clearly I mean it doesn't December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting you know for yourself it doesn't take much expertise but all of you would probably come to the conclusion that if we had the best use of this property for the family which it has been in residential as a residential use for the last two, three hundred years since the property was first established and you saw I've given you paperwork and through your inspections you saw that the property used to belong to the wife of Waldo Emerson, Ralph Waldo Emerson's descendants for a hundred years, Ruth Emerson Cook was married and divorced from Alaster Cook and built a house on the property and we also showed you when we were walking around another Emerson was a New York State Commissioner of Health and there's a commemorative sundial in the garden which we all those of us that were together, we noticed. The Anderson family which is Ciara's mom and dad they purchased the property in 1992 so this property has been consistently as a residence as a private estate property and a residence. When we went through the analysis from Andy Stype it's an exercise and we proceeded to go through that exercise. If you want me to go through each and every use I will but it's in your record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for a Use Variance the biggest hurdle usually is that for every use that's permitted on the property the applicant cannot realize a reasonable profit. PAT MOORE : Okay so that's my next CHIARA EDMANDS : There is no profit there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It requires financial records to be submitted you know. PAT MOORE : If I may. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You may. PAT MOORE : Okay, thank you. So, in order to come to that analysis because clearly the property is in residential use so we have to anticipate what it would be to make the property commercial. So, we reached out to a Michael Bonacasa Consulting, his background is he was the former Chief Building Inspector in Southampton and was a Building Inspector in Brookhaven; he's been a Building Inspector for over thirty years and in his retirement, this is what he does good for him. I have his review and the first thing we needed him to do is to take a look at this structure and tell us how we would have to modify this structure in order to make is a commercial use because it's either residential, we need nothing more maybe a thing or two that the Building Department might want. If we had to make this a commercial building then we would have to meet all of the state building code requirements of a commercial building. It's actually what he gave me is consistent with a conversation I had with Amanda because when we first started this process, I said well, could we convert this to a commercial property something that might be acceptable to the family and December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat if I can interrupt, when you say commercial it's agriculturally zoned so what sort of commercial use are you PAT MOORE : Well AC has some MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Farm stand? PAT MOORE : It has more MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Winery? PAT MOORE : Yes it has winery, it has I mean I'll go through, let me there are uses MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Commercial in the sense of PAT MOORE : Like to the public, if it's a commercial property and we want to use this property for commercial purposes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Like Breeze Hill Farm. PAT MOORE : So you want to make it a winery and allow people to have tasting inside or any other of the commercial uses or a special permit commercial uses we'd have to convert this building to a commercial building under the New York State code. We had him review all of the alterations that would be required to convert this building to the commercial code requirements. He provided that and I'll give that to you because I also attached some additional information so let me just give that to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please go the mic and state your name. CIARA EDMUNDS : Ciara Edmunds, Richmond Creek Partners. This is to prove that it's not commercial correct? PAT MOORE : No, let me clarify. CHIARA EDMANDS : Cause we're not commercial. PAT MOORE : I anticipate we're going to carry this over because I do want to submit a memorandum of law but I want to go through all of this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay PAT MOORE : What Michael provided is, if hypothetically if we were to have if we wanted to keep what we have and use it as a commercial property because or commercial open to the public commercial, right now it's residential, it's private it is an accessory to the residence. If it December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting became used for as a winery or part of any of the commercial uses listed in the AC zoning district either by permitted or special permit use this building would need to be modified. So, Michael provided all of the modifications that would be required under the state code which are substantial because now egress has to meet current code, handicap access and elevator to go to the second floor, bathroom has to be handicapped access. There are just the list is quite extensive. Then attached to Michael's opinion letter I attached his curriculum (inaudible) or his credentials so you could see his expertise. I was going to say that when I first spoke to Amanda at the Building Department, I said well, what if we use this as a private club for example and that's one of the special permit uses. It could be a hunting club or something else, something that would be possibly acceptable to the family just hypothetically. CHIARA EDMANDS : If you want me to call it that I will. PAT MOORE : Exactly,the attitude that I was getting was I just want to use my building for my family but okay if we have to jump through a different hoop let's consider what those hoops might be. Amanda was actually gave me the same opinion that Michael gave which is well, now you've gotta meet commercial code provisions and that's the list. Now the financial, what is it going to cost us to do all this? We got from UBS Builders a proposal because again this is hypothetical and UBS provided a cost analysis of all of the provisions that Michael listed. In total it would be about 1.9 million, that's what it would cost to convert this building which the family only wants to use as accessory to the residence to a commercial use. This again is jumping through a hoop that is absolutely unnecessary because the code says this accessory use is a permitted use in an accessory building. That's what I provide for you attached to Michael's is the financial the dollars and cents of what it would cost to do this. MEMBER DANTES : Question for you Pat, why not add a kitchenette or something and turning it into a dwelling and subdividing? CHIARA EDMANDS : Cause we don't want anybody dwelling in it. It's not what it's for you know, we purposely didn't want it to have a lot of bells and whistles, we just want it to be secure and safe and we put a pool and ping pong table in the you know a gym and a bathroom for the gym so that's why. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do realize, if it's on another lot it can be occupied or unoccupied. As long as it's considered a dwelling your family can own it, anybody in your family could use it or not use it, it doesn't obligate you to do that. What it does is, essentially all the things that Pat said were permitted in residential like a home office is permitted in a house but we have tons and tons of precedential decisions by this Board based upon Notices of Disapprovals from the Building Department that say you can't have an office in an accessory structure. You can't have a recreational facility in an accessory structure. What you 4:1 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting have is an accessory structure that was a barn okay which was permitted as an accessory to the house. What you put in there beautiful as it is are a bunch of things that historically this Board has been told cannot be legally put into an accessory building so all we have is a ton of precedent. Now Pat you are now asking for maybe three different things, interpret the code to say that it is permitted, look at a Use Variance we don't think we need it and then what grant it on the basis of what? PAT MOORE : So let's back up CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you understand what I'm explaining sort of? PAT MOORE : I understand so if I had to explain it that's alright. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want her to feel comfortable with our explanation. CHIARA EDMANDS : You think it's on a different lot? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it's the same property, you change the lot lines nothing changes in reality, everything stays where it is but you go and get a subdivision of your property from the Planning Board. It has to be a certain size lot which should not be a problem and if it's not then we can grant a variance for being too small let's say but it just means that that structure becomes a principal structure. If you put a little kitchenette in it doesn't matter how you use it, what matters is what you PAT MOORE : Actually you need three things for a dwelling, has to be at least 850 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of which she has. PAT MOORE : It would need a full kitchen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which she could have. PAT MOORE : And it would need sleeping quarters, it would need bedrooms. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) lower level you could put PAT MOORE : I understand but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Believe me it would cost a lot less than conversion. It's not going to cost you a million dollars it'll cost you maybe twenty. PAT MOORE : So here, a subdivision application is not the simplest or cheapest process to go through. 4a December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not. PAT MOORE : The simplest process is and I understand you, say precedent, has this determination ever been reviewed by a court? I don't know that anybody has actually bought an Article 78 to challenge this conclusion that the prior owners have wanted to put a little desk chair and their computer in a garage. I'm very familiar, I know the Board's feeling that you can't have any of this in an accessory building, it took a lot of effort for art studios finally after thirty years that the Board through an interpretation said, okay we'll go with an art studio but that's it. I think as a matter of law that's wrong and the next step maybe we have to get a court to determine whether or not is the town correct in their analysis of saying no you can't have accessory uses in accessory buildings. It has so far what I found is all of the prior precedent is quite frankly the Board legislating. The Town Board has never said you can't do this and I'm very hopeful that in the master plan when the code changes are made that we will come into the twenty fifth century or whatever century we're in because people work remotely. You may have a new a possible Bill Gates that needs a little area away from parents not in the garage but in the accessory building. There are endless things that can be done in the accessory building that if the town is concerned or the Board raises a concern, well we don't want to open up that can of worms okay call it a special permit, call it whatever some review but to say that it is not allowed I think as a matter of law it's wrong and should not continue and we may be going to the courts to argue that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just so you're aware Pat, we do have a zoning update in place and I have discussed with both Planning and with the consultants the fact that they ought to take a look at, we don't know what the outcome would be uses that are permitted in accessory structures. PAT MOORE : That's wonderful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We said the same thing you did, people are working at home now, COVID changed it, digital communication changed that.That's in process, unfortunately all we can do is what is here now not what might be coming. PAT MOORE : But I understand that but what is here now is that the code is black and white. Your precedent through prior decisions or the Building Department's first it's kind of it's-a vicious circle. The Building Department doesn't want to make a decision they throw it to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board says no, no, no we're not really sure we don't think is or whatever and the Building this is not this Board we're talking thirty year of MEMBER DANTES : As Leslie said, we don't write decisions that we're not really sure. 431 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : No, the conclusion is that no you can't do it and then the Building Department says, ah see the Zoning Board has said you can't do it and now you know, even now with trying to explain I have a client right now where they put in sheetrock and nice flooring material in the storage area and the Building Department is saying no, no we can't approve it even though it's storage. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Okay but that's the Building Department. PAT MOORE : We're having a dialogue so T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just want to add to that because you're saying that the precedent has been set by this Board but isn't that how case law evolves over years, a different situation takes it in a different direction?The code cannot actually specify every single possible thing under the sun that could be used there or what could be used wherever. So that's how the Board has to continue PAT MOORE : I respectfully disagree on zoning. Zoning is interrogation of people's property rights okay. If it's not in the code then you don't presume it's not allowed alright. If the code is clear and that's why I keep pointing to the language which says customary accessory and when I talk to other municipalities okay be it Southampton not directly like Village of Greenport which follows pretty much anything Southold does but if you talk to Southampton or East Hampton, they either have legislated the uses of accessory buildings or through interpretation like Michael. I said Michael how can they do what was the interpretation in Southampton. He said, if it's accessory use it's an accessory use, the Building Inspector says sure get a building permit. So, I'm trying to bring us bring the Board back through this application because quite frankly somebody who is trying to put a little desk chair in their garage oftentimes doesn't have the funds to go and appeal. The options are gorgeous improvements that you're telling her either you have to put a subdivision line to create to make this property its own structure and now where the property lines are going to fall, where they're going to fall with the barn next door. There's a pre-existing old barn next door that's probably fifteen,twenty feet from this building and you have the tennis court. All of the accessory buildings and structures were originally designed in this general area because it was accessory to the main house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't mean to interrupt your train of thought but fundamentally I'm trying to understand the property, I don't know abut the other Members but how many lots does the applicant own, contiguous lots? PAT MOORE : Well we have this property which is 71 acres. There is a subdivided one-acre lot subdivided by closer to the road that has a single-family dwelling on it 441 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMER PLANAMENTO :Also owned by the applicant. PAT MOORE : Yes, yes it was all part of the same homestead so that was a subdivision that was done and it looked like about the same time they were considering doing a subdivision of the waterfront. I saw a map of various lots along the waterfront which never MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, so far we have two lots that are owned by the applicant. PAT MOORE : Two lots, there is a house a caretakers house which is over by the west side of the property no sure go ahead. CHIARA EDMANDS : All in and it might be wrong but I want to say seven lots. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was thinking. CHIARA EDMANDS : Not contiguous. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They're all within the same area. CHIARA EDMANDS : Yea MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But your vineyard is on a separate lot? CHIARA EDMANDS : Yea PAT MOORE : Yea, the other property CHIARA EDMANDS : Nancy Pearson's driveway cuts through so we're not contiguous. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand, the other questions I wanted to ask relative to the subject parcel which is 75 acres where this "as built" barn conversion exists, how many houses are on this particular property? CHAIRA EDMANDS : This is the interesting part, my parents spent a few thousands dollars the tax map was wrong and they spent a few thousand dollars to correct it with the town. It never happened so there's a bit of discrepancy with when you go on the on-line tax map and you go on my legal property paper records it's a little different. So that's a little up in the air in terms of the property that this barn is on because what happens is, you've got the house itself which I think is I don't think the barn is part of the house lot. I think the barn is part of the caretakers house MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When you say the barn are you talking about the barn converted? CHAIRA EDMANDS : The one we're talking about, yes. 451 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you don't think that that's on the 75 acre parcel? CHIARA EDMANDS : I don't know. PAT MOORE : The surveyor had it on this property so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The survey shows smack in the middle of the 75 acres. PAT MOORE : I mean what old maps may show, I don't know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just using the survey that we have in the application there's a main house, there's a house further to the east CHIARA EDMANDS : Yep, that's another historic special spot built by Emerson who MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's a separate lot Pat. MEMBER DANTES : That's a separate lot, if you had an old map that shows the barn on a separate lot we'll take a look at that. PAT MOORE : I'd love to see that, I don't know that I have it. MEMBER DANTES : if that exists it's something we can look at. PAT MOORE : What she's saying is she thinks that it might be part of the caretakers lot. MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay so there's already a house there. CHIARA EDMANDS : That's the house that was built by an Emerson who was head of architecture at M.I.T. that's an old PAT MOORE : Where's the house that we went down by the water? CHIARA EDMANDS :That's it. PAT MOORE : That's it okay so that one is on its own piece of property according to the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's your survey, that's what you submitted. PAT MOORE : There's a property line here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes so that's not part of the application,that house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So now going to the east you have the main house with the pool building, the garages CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep MEMBER DANTES : I see what she's saying now, if you look at the tax map it's just a big SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : May I say something? Hi, I believe the one all the one to the right Donna is you push it all the way to the right that little that's not a separate lot, is it?The one with the house, we didn't go in that. CHIARA EDMANDS : That's a separate thing. PAT MOORE : It shows up as a subdivision from 1980's I think the 1970's I think. CHIARA EDMANDS : No, I don't think so. BOARD SECRETARY : This is the one we're dealing with right now, that's the subject barn and this is the house. PAT MOORE : Yes BOARD SECRETARY : And it's all on one lot. PAT MOORE : It's all on one lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but my point in bringing this up is, there's a house to the east I don't know what it's called. PAT MOORE : That's a separate lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think Donna moved it, no that's the west, right there the mouse is hovering over a house with out buildings so it would seem to me that since the applicant PAT MOORE : Oh, that is that's another caretakers house, the little house the ranch as you come in whose house is that? CHIARA EDMANDS :That's (inaudible) subdivision, that's the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The neighbor. PAT MOORE :There's the driveway CHIARA EDMANDS :That's the caretaker cottage,that's the one that we're talking about. 471 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I was identifying the wrong houses the caretakers cottage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So what you're calling the caretakers cottage is a second house on the lot. PAT MOORE : Yes CHIARA EDMANDS : Cause it's not with the main house, the main house is on it's own little seven acres situation so I think we're wrong. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So wait, this house that you put an addition on is on a separate lot you're saying? BOARD SECRETARY : So you're saying that these are three separate lots? CHIARA EDMANDS : What I'm saying is and I can't believe I don't have I could go on-line now and look on the map. You know how you can it's an interactive tax map but this house here, this barn and this somehow, I feel like one of the lots is kind of it's not with the house and it's long. BOARD SECRETARY : Cause we're seeing all this here as one lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It makes sense we need a correct survey. CHIARA EDMANDS : Sorry, this one? PAT MOORE : This is a brand new survey. MEMBER DANTES : Yea but whether it's subdivided by tax map or subdivided by zoning. PAT MOORE : Yea we don't know. (inaudible) subdivision that BOARD SECRETARY : Does this need to be updated, this survey? PAT MOORE : It's brand new. I waited all this time for this survey, this is a brand-new survey. MEMBER DANTES : Just because the tax map line thing doesn't mean the zoning map line changes. CHIARA EDMANDS : That's interesting MEMBER LEHNERT: What does the subdivision map show? PAT MOORE : The minor subdivision of Emerson, Ruth Emerson Cook and Claire Emerson from 1979 is that 481 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : It says denied by Planning Board 1981. PAT MOORE : Oh, okay. MEMBER LEHNERT : That's what it says, I don't know if it was that's just what it says. PAT MOORE : I don't know that it was. MEMBER LEHNERT : That shows what you're calling the caretakers cottage on a separate property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's the same survey that we have this matches that. T. A. MCGIVNEY : So who's saying that this one is different? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The applicant said that this is that the house is on a separate lot from the barn in question. CHAIRA EDMANDS : I could be wrong. PAT MOORE : I didn't see that so. We can look back at all our old surveys. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) dwelling the barn are on the same lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Along with the caretakers cottage which is a second house. PAT MOORE : Yea and that's where the caretakers (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that was not set off to a different lot then yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would seem to me which is part of where I was going after this cause you got a lot of going on, it's a large parcel, you have a vineyard it would seem that you have options that as Eric pointed out you could do a subdivision which would cast off each of these structures in their own compliant lot that would allow you the rights and enjoyment of single-family homes even though you don't need to live in them you could still use it as you'd like as a single-family residence or despite what you had said from the cost analysis it would seem as a bona fide farm whether it's a tasting room or some sort of farm related use you could have all of your uses in that structure. I don't know the cost of taking the barn from what it was to what it is today versus making the improvements but you're dealing with a very valuable piece of real estate. PAT MOORE : So the barn but converting the barn to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A separate lot. 491 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : So a separate lot is certainly an option, we can talk about what kind of property line but you know not too simple. The Planning Board generally wants to see sixty percent open space and I mean it's we only have we either have conservation subdivisions or standard subdivisions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) conversations also, I'm not suggesting you should strip the development rights. PAT MOORE : Well that's the only if you think a conservation subdivision is through the sell of development rights,that's a business decision that you would have to make. MEMBER DANTES : So, you mean even just for one lot they're going to want sixty percent PAT MOORE : A set off, a one lot it's a standard subdivision. There is no set off, there is no one lot subdivision it's a but again to go through a subdivision T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think it's worthy of looking into whether it's PAT MOORE : We can look into it, I'm going to ask for an adjournment anyway so it's not a problem. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) matches the survey. CHIARA EDMANDS : Well the survey got it from this. MEMBER LEHNERT: Yea they're matching the survey exactly. CHIARA EDMANDS : I can tell you it's wrong but no one is going to listen to me because it's all you know what I mean cause if the survey is right Trn the one that's wrong but what I have is something different. MEMBER DANTES : Well no the surveyors just go to the taxes at the county and sometimes people find older records that are then considered valid. Just because they just go with the easiest record they could find. PAT MOORE : I'm not so sure, the surveyor is certifying metes and bounds. It's certifying based on deeds not tax map. Oftentimes we have discrepancy (inaudible). MEMBER DANTES : Sometimes metes and bounds skip deeds you've probably have seen that PAT MOORE : I've seen it all yes. So, to be honest I have no we have to go back to old maps but whether or not the old maps wherever deeded to match the map versus however it was done, I don't know. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I do think you should look into it because it solves a lot of problems, a lot of problems. CHAIRA EDMANDS : If it's on a different lot? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I mean but it's still you own it you can use it however you want you just have to put a small kitchenette in there and you know what do they care whether that bar area is a sleep loft or a bedroom or a rec room? I mean you have plenty of room there to meet the standards. PAT MOORE : (inaudible) windows and (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : During the site inspection MEMBER LEHNERT : Make the library a bedroom and that solves the problem. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Or alternatively during the site inspection you had said that you wanted to make additional improvements to the third floor, the lower level the walk out and there was a whole conversation during the field inspection relative to fifty percent of it being a cellar or basement or whatever it's all sort of irrelevant to this conversation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You should not condition you remember that? CHIARA EDMANDS : Yea I do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But there's more than enough space to have multiple bedrooms, whether you want to use them or not as bedrooms you can clean everything up. It would seem to me the accessory buildings that you mention the barn etc., would be in the back yard of that newly created residential lot. PAT MOORE : Side yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Partially a side yard here, it depends on the structure but depending on how you look at what you might cast off it would seem to be a very clean, easy way to achieve the goal of having what is very clearly a compound. MEMBER DANTES : The other thing I'll say about the accessory uses incidental to the principle use, yes we have approved like artists studios and a single use in an accessory structure but I don't think we've ever approved multiple uses in an accessory structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we haven't. Things have changed over time with under certain circumstances a workshop which is only personal use not commercial use you know that it was linked to the same time as the artist studio again, with nineteen standards that have to ,5.:l December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting be verified. We also now have pool houses which is an accessory with their own standards. We have accessory apartments in accessory structures with their own standards. So, it's not like we've been sitting here not looking at uses. PAT MOORE : No, no I understand that but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Given the timing of this, this Board is going to be very hard pressed to do a code interpretation when the code is undergoing rigorous re-examination. PAT MOORE : What's the timing for the code do we have an idea? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's like a moving target. PAT MOORE : Is it taking this long because of all the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all been waiting, we've been waiting from Zone Co., I'm on the committee and we're waiting to look at we gave them a memorandum based on all of our reviews and everything of things and to make sure that they're in compliance with the Comp Plan the goals of the Comp Plan and we're waiting to see what they're coming back with. It's a little frustrating but there we are. PAT MOORE : Let me just put on the record I have the LWRP response that I want to make sure I get in the record because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause he said inconsistent. PAT MOORE : Which is I have my opinion on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it's based upon the fact that the structures were built without required permits, you had a Stop Work Order. PAT MOORE : Yes and there's absolutely no basis an LWRP for his interpretation based on that. So Code Enforcement is an "as built" is Code Enforcement,the LWRP specifically has that provision. LWRP Director has no say in that and in fact that's why I wrote it down just in case MEMBER DANTES : Right cause whether it's "as built" or not is not supposed to affect the area variance. PAT MOORE : (inaudible) no basis for an LWRP determination and in fact I think that there are other provisions in policies, I listed the policies for you why this would be consistent so I wrote it all down for you and it's submitted as well. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : You are correct, they're supposed to do the environmental analysis but it's "as built" or not it's not supposed to PAT MOORE : Exactly and it's technically it was adopted as a coastal consistency form and it was also supposed to be an interim step to the Master Plan and once the Master Plan was adopted LWRP was supposed to no longer be required but we created MEMBER DANTES : It's supposed to say (inaudible) as a government agency, right?The closest thing to immortality is a government agency. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can we go back to the accessory use? PAT MOORE : Yes T. A. MCGIVNEY : So, what is the size of this building?An estimation, what is the CHIARA EDMANDS : Four thousand. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Four thousand, okay so CHIARA EDMANDS : I made that up, I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Don't make it up, let's check. PAT MOORE : I mean you have a set of drawings that I submitted that's a lot of work to put together. Does the survey give you a footprint? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea I'm doing that now. It's plus or minus 1,887 sq. ft. on the first floor. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but it's three floors. PAT MOORE : But it's a basement too but yea half of it is T. A. MCGIVNEY : So, it's about what, MEMBER LEHNERT : 3,700 call it round numbers 3,700 sq. ft. T. A. MCGIVNEY : So it's a 3,700 sq.ft. accessory building and there's three stories. PAT MOORE : Two stories finished stories and a half story T. A. MCGIVNEY : For each of the rooms for the exercise room I mean they're all different sizes because I'm not getting caught up in whether or not you can do in the principle and you can do in the accessory. I haven't gotten passed how this is a customary accessory building. 1 53 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting don't see, are there any others in this neighborhood that have this size? I don't see this accessory structure are customary. PAT MOORE : I mean it is a pre-existing structure that was converted. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It was converted but I mean at this point an accessory structure with these types of rooms or activities that are going on, I don't see this as being customary in the neighborhood and or MEMBER LEHNERT : But can we compare a 75 acre lot to your average 2 acre lot in the neighborhood, 1 or 2 acre lot in the neighborhood? PAT MOORE : And I haven't even asked for an area variance, I don't need an area variance. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm not saying that you need an area variance, I'm just speaking to what constitutes what is customary and incidental. CHIARA EDMANDS :The property is not customary though, this is PAT MOORE : Wait, wait, so legally a customary accessory structure is one which is subordinate to the other structure. The house is 7,500 sq. ft. I don't know how big it's quite large. T. A. MCGIVNEY : When you research as we know when you research case law there's plenty of case law about what is customary and this size of structure is located so far from the house is not something that would be considered customary and incidental. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Customary to an agricultural property. PAT MOORE : But that's what it used to be. T. A. MCGIVNEY : But it isn't anymore. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It isn't now. PAT MOORE : You still walk from her home to this building you can't change the location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand but we're talking about uses here. PAT MOORE : Yes but the use is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's no longer a farm that's why there was no need for the barn. CHIARA EDMANDS : That's absolutely incorrect only because we farm hay, it's a little incorrect because we farm hay for our AG rights. 54 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On that property? CHIARA EDMANDS : Part of it and then we also farm grapes on one lot that's 19 acres. MEMBER DANTES : Right but you're not using it CHIARA EDMANDS : You know what, this is interesting the hay could be on this lot that we do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point is, in order to be considered a bona fide AG operation you have to have 10 acres in production. MEMBER DANTES : It's 10 (inaudible) $50,000 or more income. CHIARA EDMANDS : If you look at the map she has up, the barn this particular map is saying the barn is part of that's farmed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look, what we're really trying to do is figure this out together. We understand the value of your property, the uniqueness of the property, the value of structure, the amount you put into it all of that is very clear but we can only do what we can legally do not what we feel but what the law allows us to do. So, we're trying to sort out options which is what Pat was actually trying to do. If not, this then look at that, if not that then try looking at that and we're walking our way through it and I think you're right. We will adjourn because there are some things you want to rethink; you want to put more stuff in writing plus I really think it's useful to find out what Planning would think about doing here. They have the right to grant variances too. PAT MOORE : I don't know that but okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But they do legally. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's a different story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but I'm saying something is not look you already have it sitting there, it's not hurting to wait a little longer to get it legalized properly and if that's what it takes that's what you should be doing. Just because it might take a while, I mean what you're waiting to build it, no it's there so it's not a hardship. PAT MOORE : Yes, so yes I will I respect your opinion, I think it's a good one to go to Planning and see what they would do to us to split the barn from the house. Technically without any change whatsoever MEMBER LEHNERT: It's a line on a piece of paper. ss December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE :Just like the line on the map of the caretakers cottage which may or may not MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) you don't even know how many lots you own. CHIARA EDMANDS :That's what scares me they get the lots wrong. MEMBER LEHNERT : The other thing, Pat in your research are there any other properties like this PAT MOORE : Nowhere in the Southold town to my knowledge. Indian Neck Farms may be the closest but do they have this amount of acreage? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's 116 plus acres on one lot. PAT MOORE : It's interesting, Indian Neck Farms was doing a hunting club. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct PAT MOORE : So, I don't know MEMBER LEHNERT : I remember Indian Neck Farm when I was an employee of Robins Island when they originally built that. Something like Breeze Hill you might look at. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Or even suggesting Robins Island. MEMBER LEHNERT : Dig into Robins Island. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point is though there are very, very few properties that fall into that plus I have to admit as I have been sitting here thinking about what counsel has just brought up, if you think about ordinary and customary an accessory building unless it's an apartment typically has maybe some storage and another use in there or something. It's a single use, it's one building, it's not generally that big again unless it's an AG building in which case they're much bigger usually which is why that's what you inherited it was an AG building. It wasn't a typical like an accessory garage or something like that. MEMBER LEHNERT : But again, ordinary and customary to what? A small lot or a farm which neither of these are, we're talking about a 75-acre estate. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's customary to (inaudible) structure so it's a 3,800 sq. ft. accessory building is not customary to a principle structure. PAT MOORE : I would actually vigorously disagree with you vigorously because I think you're coming to conclusions based on what you and I might own a one-acre property that may okay accessory use maybe a garage with a second accessory use. December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : No, no, no how many square feet is the principle residence? CHIARA EDMANDS : Bigger than the barn. T. A. MCGIVENY : Okay it's subordinate. CHIARA EDMANDS : Much bigger. MEMBER LEHNERT : This stuff does exist in the Town of Southold. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just saying customary and incidental. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not an ordinary structure and it's not an ordinary property and so we're trying to come to grips with a fair you know path forward see what I'm saying? You know enough about stuff to know that this falls between a whole lot of gray areas. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But what I wanted to share is contrary to what Julie just shared relative to what is or is not customary, I think in your earlier statement about using this structure perhaps and I don't like the phrase commercial but it that's the euphemism, a commercial use would become customary cause it's a large farm property. Whether they're growing corn or hay or grazing cattle PAT MOORE : Exactly that's why (inaudible) consider an alternative the commercial but 1.9 million to (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Even the list you gave and I mean maybe Rob could chime in PAT MOORE : Even if I half it okay$800,000 to convert a building that she doesn't want to use commercially right? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : She doesn't have to open it to the public it could be for friends MEMBER DANTES : By the time you sprinkle it, the ADA compliance PAT MOORE : The elevator MEMBER LEHNERT: You'd have to make it commercial and not use it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was going to say, I have no idea what the cost of the conversion of the cow barn carriage structure from the condition it was in whether it was three, five or ten years ago before what we witnesses when we did our site inspection but somebody made a big decision to spend a huge amount of money, well beyond the average home in Southold for one accessory structure. 5,71 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHIARA EDMANDS : Didn't intend to. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We're trying to offer solutions, if you don't want to do the subdivision path I think that that's a smart path to go. CHIARA EDMANDS : Listen, the Emersons it was in their family since something like 1700 something. My family bought it in 1992 1 thought it in '90 but and they the goal for me is to keep it in my family and to keep my family coming MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Selling the development rights helps that, who know what estate planning leads from here. CHIARA EDMANDS : That's a completely different subject. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It is a different subject and I don't want to get off line but CHIARA EDMANDS : My point is, I'm just trying to create a place for my family to keep coming back for generations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the bottom line is, if that was on a lot surrounded by your other lots, your big lot and there's a lot within a big lot which is what you thought the caretakers thing was but it does appear to lot line next to it, that's what it would be for your family for residential use. CHIARA EDMANDS : What about making it a clubhouse for my family and I charge them each a dollar? MEMBER LEHNERT: Then you'd have to be commercial, you'd fall under commercial. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Pat can I ask you a question? How did we get here, why are we listening to this application? It's such an unusual property. For me as a resident I've always wondered what was on the other side of the fence when I drive up and down South Harbor Rd. (inaudible) You have no idea what was beyond the gate other than and I want to say it was twenty years ago when I first heard of On a Bay Vineyard which I've never seen a bottle somewhere for sale or whatever. The question is, how was this discovered, what are we here listening to this application? PAT MOORE : Well because the builder was speaking with the Building Department, nobody wants to build things without a building permit. Let me give you an outline, this I apologize this came from the builder Don Wilson, he was on the plane or he would have been here to be able to explain all this but in short and this is going to be a problem for a subdivision too because the South Harbor Rd. has public water, the property touches public water. The December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting Health Department is mandating that they connect to the public water. So, it would require a main and it would require a booster pump with PSEG and it would require probably a new road to replace the road after the water line was run. That's not the biggest hurdle, Suffolk County Water Authority does not want to connect this property to public water because it'll strain the system on South Harbor Rd. For the past years because it has been years Suffolk County Health Department and Suffolk County Water Authority have been at odds. I use the wording, at odds but the builder said well, that's too strong I can't prove that they're at odds. I'm like it looks like they're at odds. So, that's where we've been and finally, I spoke to the engineer and said you're not going to get anywhere go to the Board of Review. I don't know what's going to happen at the Board of Review, Don says well it's the same people telling me no on the Board of Review and I'm like yea but under their mandate their code they can give relief based on the situation. So, what they'd like to do is keep the wells that they've had for two hundred years and they're fine, no issues with the wells. Because the property touches the water main that option is not available for now, we'll see what the Board of Review does. If you subdivide now, I'm dealing with now subdivision review is going to say wait a second now you're subdividing so we can throw all of the requirements and once again we're back to having to connect to public water and we're again at odds with the Water Authority. So, this is the reason that this project is "as built". I'll give you the letter, it was partly you know a year and a half of COVID, then it was the Health Department and it's been with the Health Department and the Water Authority for years. They actually put in an application for-an IA system for the house and that's been held up. So, we have been they have been just at odds they just can't move forward and so again nobody ever wants to do these things I mean there are some but they did not want to do this "as built". MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you get the C of 0 on the addition of the house? PAT MOORE : So we split it, we did it as a renovation and an addition because the addition can't be can't get an addition without the Health Department and the renovation MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're increasing the bedrooms? PAT MOORE : The addition, yea but again that's the Building Department has been John has been there it's been very cooperative because the property doesn't bother anybody. Nobody even has a reason to even know what's going on on the property and CHIARA EDMANDS : For the record, out of the $165,000 a year I spend on taxes, when I call the Police, guess who picks up the phones, Southampton. MEMBER DANTES : What? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Southampton? 591 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CHIARA EDMANDS : I don't even have for some reason the cell tower MEMBER LEHNERT : You're closer to Southampton, that happens out on the water too. CHIARA EDMANDS : Anyway, we want to do everything on the up and up, we're not here you know what I mean? T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think then Pat when you come back over, I'm a little confused about that nobody wants to do this "as built". I'm confused about that because why would PAT MOORE : I'm sorry I wasn't listening. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm confused about why you said nobody wants to do this "as built". PAT MOORE : Nobody wants to be in violation, nobody wants to have T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right, you made it a three story beautiful, beautiful, beautiful building all without the permits so how do you continue to do that if nobody wants to do this "as built"? PAT MOORE : Well that's okay. T. A. MCGIVNEY : So that's part of the question. PAT MOORE : I don't get it either. T. A. MCGIVNEY : You did it. PAT MOORE : Okay yea. CHIARA EDMANDS : What's your question, I'm missing it, I'm sorry. T. A. MCGIVNEY : The question really was just stating was that all this work was done without permits that's doing it "as built" and Pat said nobody wants to do this work "as built". PAT MOORE : I was saying theoretically nobody wants to do things without T. A. MCGIVNEY :Then why was is done? So, PAT MOORE : Because five years, I think I explained it but you have there's a process, you guys do not have it's not your position to punish people for "as built". You review the merits and I know you don't do it because but you have a punishment scheme. We paid you paid $7,000 in application fees here okay, we are in Justice Court where she's paying me to show up to Justice Court and the Judge is saying, well how are you and like we're at the Zoning Board we're here. 601 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Why in the Justice Court? PAT MOORE : Because it's a code violation they don't have a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They built without permits. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You said that you were trying to do everything on the up and up and PAT MOORE : Well when we did not when she didn't get a permit the work was done to code but it was done without a permit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well why was the work started then? I mean I get CHIARA EDMANDS : Cause we (inaudible) cause of the Health Department, cause of the water T. A. MCGIVNEY : That's not a reason to do it "as built". PAT MOORE : Well I don't know, how long do you have to live? CHIARA EDMANDS : We would never, ever be able to live there I'd have to sell it, subdivide it, make a (inaudible) it wouldn't we wouldn't be able to live there peacefully the way we've been meant to live for two hundred years. T. A. MCGIVNEY : In the accessory structure? I'm talking about the accessory structure. CHAIRA EDMANDS : Anything, they won't let me do it cause of the town water. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Usually when somebody says you shouldn't do it you don't do it. PAT MOORE : So you make a decision, you make a business decision. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there a process and Julie maybe you or Eric can answer this, can you get a variance from either the County Board of Health? MEMBER DANTES : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you apply for CHIARA EDMANDS : Yes we made an application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then you've made progress to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :To the Board of Review that's the Board she's referring to. ft December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, but this is what I'm saying then which is what Julie just said why would the work be started? If you're PAT MOORE : It's been five years is that progress? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) after the first year or because of COVID nobody (inaudible) at some point you should have said, there's these two Boards at odds let's get a variance to allow the septic system be installed and (inaudible). MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) CHIARA EDMANDS : We really tried. MEMBER DANTES : We just need to make a decision.There's ways to legalize this but you just need a decision to tell you what the best way is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think it's us to tell. PAT MOORE : Our course of operation is going to be let's adjourn this let's give it two months if that's okay with you CHIARA EDMANDS : Sure PAT MOORE :Two months because right now it's the holidays so getting the Planning Board is not even giving me appointments for things I've had requested for at least a month. So, I'll go to Planning right away and ask for a meeting but realistically I don't think they're going to give me one until sometime in January. So, February we can February 6th? CHIARA EDMANDS : Who do I talk to about the tax maps? PAT MOORE-: The problem is, the person who used to know it all died. Remember I forget his name now but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the Assessors Office? PAT MOORE : Yes in the Assessors, he did all the mapping for Van Tuyl, Sherwood. Anyway, let's pull your old maps and start there. CHIARA EDMANDS : Cause it changed again on the website that's why I was like what is happening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting. Is there a second? 67- 1 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye okay we're adjourned. Alright, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn at the applicant's request North Road Hotel, LLC/Hotel Moraine, 7927SE and 7953 to January 9, 2025 so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to close the meeting. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 631 December 5, 2024 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape-recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : December 17, 2024 64