HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/06/2025 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
February 6, 2025
10:06 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Absent)
MARGARET STEINBUGLER—Member
ROBERT LEHNERT— Member
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member (Vice Chair)
KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant
JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney
ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant
DONNA WESTERMANN—Office Assistant
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Steven and Kim Sweeney#7974 (DECISION) 4
Linda Frankenbach #7980 5 -8
Stefania and Michael Bopp#7981 8- 12
Gal and Noga Ohayon #7982 12- 19
George Cambourakis#7983 19- 29
600 Glenn Road/James Roberts, Member#7984 29-35
Jacqueline Kassman #7985 35 -41
JoEllen Cortapasso#7987 41 -49
James Clous#7990 49- 70
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the
Zoning Board of Appeals for February 6, 2025. Please all rise and join me for the Pledge of
Allegiance. Let's first begin with the SEQR Reviews, Resolution declaring applications that are
setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II
Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality
Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following, Linda Frakenback, Stefania and
Michael Bopp, Gal and Noga Ohayon, George Cambourakis, 600 Glenn Road/James Roberts,
Jacqueline Kassman,JoEllen Cortapasso and James Clouse, so moved.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a possible resolution to close for Sciara and Hilbert
#7978. We received the information we've been waiting for so I'm going to make a motion to
close the hearing reserved decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. At the request of the applicant, I'm
making a motion to adjourn Richmond Creek Partners to May 1, 2025, is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I'm going to make a motion to table the Stritzler Trust #7975
application. We still are working on a draft for that decision. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Now we have a decision for Steven and Kim Sweeney#7974.
Margaret will you review some of the facts in this decision?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes, this was a variance to construct a 30 x 40 foot accessory garage
in the northeast corner of the parcel. The amended application resulted in a setback of 6 feet
where 15 is required. Upon examining the property and deliberating we found that the
variance as amended would produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood. While accessory structures are common the neighborhood they are generally
in line with the design of the associated primary dwelling. It seemed possible that the relief
the benefit for storage could be achieved by some alternative method. As a result, I make a
motion to deny the application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? Is there any discussion, anybody want to
comment on this. Okay is there a second on this?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7980 LINDA FRANKENBACH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first hearing before the Board is for Linda Frankenbach #7980.
This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
September 24, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct
additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling, 1) located less than the code
required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required
minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 3140 Minnehaha Blvd. (adj. to Corey Creek)
in Southold. Is someone here to represent the application?
LINDA FRAKENBACH : I'm Linda Frakenbach the owner and Nick Mazzaferro should be on
Zoom. If you would direct most of the questions to my engineer that would be great, I'm here
though to help.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. So, this is a front yard setback proposed at 23 feet 8
inch where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet and a rear yard setback at 19.8 feet
where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. What else would you like us know about this
Nick?
NICK MAZZAFERRO : This is a pre-existing house, pre 1957 with C. of O.'s. The work we're
proposing is all on the second floor, we are not changing any of the existing perimeter of the
house. Basically, the project is to put a second floor over an existing back porch, enclose the
porch to make it actually the porch is already habitable space, we're going to maintain that.
We'll put a second-floor above that and the goal of the project is to simply make the two
existing bedrooms on the second floor larger and install a bathroom on the second floor and
put some dormers on the front of the house, little dog houses in order to let some light in.
Nothing else on the property is changing and that's it. There is a Pre-C. of 0. on the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The setback is to the actual dormers, so they're actually setback
farther from the front property line than the front fagade of the dwelling, correct?
NICK MAZZAFERRO.: That's correct, the dormers are back, setback about on the horizontal
plane they are 3 foot 8 inches further back from the front of the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the rear yard setback going to?
NICK MAZZAFERRO : They're looking for the rear yard setback they're showing the proposed
deck at 20 feet but the existing rear yard setback is I don't know what the exact corner is
probably about 8 feet more than that give or take.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nick, could you just clarify regarding the proposed deck which has a
family room below it, doesn't that family room exist? I'm a little confused.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : Yes the family room below it already exists, what they're going to do is
remove the roof, put a reinforced floor in there and put a new second floor on top of it but
the perimeter of that already exists.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You just contradicted yourself cause you said that the proposed
family room exists and the current setback is 19.8 for the rear yard but you said that it would
be that the actual house is 8 feet less than that so I'm confused. Isn't the current setback the
rear yard setback 19.8 to the existing family room?
NICK MAZZAFERRO : No I thought she was talking about the front of the house, the dog
houses in the front are further back from the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's talking about the rear yard now.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : Oh I got you, Linda is there a deck on the back of the house now?
LINDA FRAKENBACK : No, what we're doing is there's a family room and then we're putting a
very small if you just go up we're not going out any further, we're not going out in any
direction we're just going to go up and just above that we're going to put a very small deck
about 6 feet. So, it does not change any of the
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That might be what Nick was just talking about that the deck is set
back or that the deck is 6 feet over the existing
LINDA FRAKENBACH : No, that's not correct, it's straight up. It's not going over
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's not cantilevered but the deck as proposed approximately 6 feet
wide whatever the distance is, is over the existing family room.
LINDA FRAKENBACH : Yes, so the end of the deck is on the (inaudible) wall of the house now.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, so again Nick and that's where I was confused cause you
mentioned a different number, the existing rear yard setback is the 19.8 and there's no
further encroachment whatsoever on the 19.8?
LINDA FRAKENBACH : That's correct.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : Yes,that's correct.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Thank you.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
NICK MAllAFERRO : You can see on the cross section here that the deck is basically is the roof
of the existing family room.
MEMBER LEHNERT : You're removing a pitched roof and replacing it with a flat roof with a
deck over the existing walls.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly, without any encroachment on the setback.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : None of the existing setbacks are changing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anybody any of the Board Members have questions?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had one more question, probably I don't know how to read the
plans correctly but the application mentioned that the existing ridgeline was not going to
change but it looks like it is increasing in elevation. Could you just indicate the before and
after height of the ridgeline?
LINDA FRAKENBACH : Look at that top picture, if you look you can see it.
NICK MAllAFERRO : If you look at I don't have the before this is a new extended roof. Yes,
that's correct, that ridge line does go up, so that would be so by scale it's approximately going
up another 8 feet. Look at the horizontal scale to the left and it looks like the from the dash
line to the top would be another 8 feet.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I did a similar look but I couldn't find it explicitly identified. Do you
know what the total height is for the proposed
NICK MAZZAFERRO : For the proposed it would be 23 feet 2 inches the new height.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Thank you,that's all I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from anybody else? Is there anyone in the audience
who wants to address the application further? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay, hearing no
further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a
later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we should have a decision at our next meeting which is in two
weeks.
HEARING#7981—STEFANIA and MICHAEL BOPP
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stefania and Michael
Bopp#7981. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's September 27, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct a porch addition attached to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) construction
located less than the code required minimum primary front yard setback of 35 feet, 2)
existing accessory swimming pool located in area other than the code required rear yard
located at 16615 New Suffolk Ave. in New Suffolk. Is there someone here to represent the
application?
MICHAEL BOPP : I have Nick on to help as well and my wife Stefania is on too. So, we're
applying for a variance in order to build a small oh I'm sorry Michael Bopp. We're applying for
a variance in order to build a small porch covering, our side yard entrance at 16615 New
Suffolk. The porch (inaudible) the architect and designed to merge seamlessly with the look
and design of the existing structure which was completely renovated and rebuilt in 2024. The
new home merges with and enhances the existing look, feel, architecture or the New Suffolk
Village area. The proposed porch will be approximately 50 sq. ft. covering an existing
entryway and small portion of a path near the side of the house. It will not be visible from the
street as per the photographs included in the variance application package. The roof will
match the existing cedar roof and the overall look will match that of the current front porch
covering the front door entrance. It will allow us to have coverage over an entrance to the
house which will shield us and the house from the effects of rain, wind and snow. There is no
other way for the benefit to be sought given this to an existing side door entrance to the
house. In the denial the application the ZBA referenced two separate issues with the porch or
two separate issues with the application, that the proposed construction is a residential R40
district and not permitted because lots measuring less than 20,000 sq. ft. in total size require
primary front yard setbacks of 35 feet and secondary front yards of 20 feet and the accessory
pool is in the secondary front yard. We believe this is an incorrect application of those
articles, the front yard position is already established and exist as per the Certificate of
8
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
Occupancy issued in 2024 and the current code which allows the position of the porch based
on Article XXII Section 280-104, established front yard setbacks. We have attached the two
C.O.'s including the C.O. for the pool which again was issued in 2024 to the variance
application one for the home and one for the pool. Given the two issues the ZBA referred to
in the letters have been addressed hopefully been addressed both in the application and this
hearing we request approval for the construction of the 50 sq. ft. porch that's described in
architectural plans. All plans have been submitted in accordance with the variance laws and
we look forward to answering any questions you have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The setback of the proposed porch it would appear that that is the
same as the existing dwelling?
MICHAEL BOPP : It's on the exact same line, correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you describe what this porch looks like?
MICHAEL BOPP : It's the porch so it would be the easiest way to think about it is probably I
don't know the exact dimensions maybe six to seven feet away from the house covered with
cedar roof and then two to three pillars that are attached again that four to six feet out. So,
the main portion will cover the door then there'll be about three to four feet to the left of the
door where we put the small bench or something where we can take off our shoes and do
things like that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is not enclosed?
MICHAEL BOPP : It is not enclosed, there is no enclosure whatsoever.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a roof, columns and a roof?
MICHAEL BOPP : Correct that's exactly right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :To keep the rain off when you're
MICHAEL BOPP :The rain,the snow and days like this.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Please clarify, you just said it's six to seven feet wide?
MICHAEL BOPP : I don't know the exact dimensions
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The site plan shows 4.8 feet so it's
MICHAEL BOPP : I apologize it's 4.8 by
CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : That's the depth of the
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MICHAEL BOPP : I apologize, we have an existing walkway there so we just measured from
there so it would be 4.8 we don't need more than that cause there's actually a driveway
beyond that section.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then it's approximately 10 %feet or 10.6 feet wide.
MICHAEL BOPP : Exactly so half of that approximately half would be covering the door, the
other half I don't know if it's less than half would be that little area where we could put a
small bench or something like that to
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's 4' 10" by 10' 6".
MICHAEL BOPP : Right I think it's close to 50 sq. ft. in total the total coverage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yep you just confused me when you said a greater depth.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember granting the swimming pool.
MICHAEL BOPP : That confused us a little bit just because of the C.O. for the swimming pool
so maybe the application of the Article made a difference in how we referred to the
swimming pool but we have a C.O. for that as well.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can we talk about the swimming pool? I'm very confused about
what's going on there. It's I guess my role that I should know these thing's but can somebody
clarify?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was approved for the previous owner in that location by this
Board.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's just a statement.They're just making that statement,.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : Two things, one just for the record, the new porch is setback 18 inches
from the front of the house, it's not in the same line as the front of the house. Our original
attempt was to get into the side yard but that's another story. The pool for some reason was
shown on the site plan so I think at the Building Department when they wrote the denial, they
through the pool into it not realizing there was already a C. 0. for the pool. That's where the
confusion I think came in because we didn't take it off the site plan, we just used the auto cad
plans that we already had to define the porch. Then like I said, we intentionally set the new
entrance back eighteen inches from the front of the house so it wouldn't create a new we
thought it wouldn't create a new front line but it does.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well the thing to note is that the pool legally exists already in
it's current location.
:10
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only-thing going back and I don't know if it's necessary or not
but on the site plan but Nick you mentioned the eighteen. inch setback from the front fagade
that's not illustrated on the plan I think we can just accept that.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : If you look at it on the elevations maybe it's twelve inches you can see
on the elevations where there's a little bit of distance between the end of the roofline and the
front molding on the front of the house.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You can see the gutter coming down. I didn't remark on that and I
didn't see any distance noted or dimension but I think we're fine with the statement that it's
18 inches even if it was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's pretty de minimus.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you were to put an addition on this house or anything these are
the natural locations that you would do the work.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, does the Board have any questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Just one sort of Kim, I have a survey here that's kind of hard to read
I don't know if yours is that way but my copy is very fuzzy.
MEMBER LEHNERT :They all are.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have an electronic copy Nick of the survey?
NICK MAZZAFERRO : I'm in Aruba right now so I'll be home in a couple of weeks. Ink Spot
probably had that issue cause I just I had them do all the printing for me.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could you just ask maybe sent a quick email to maybe Nathan and
ask him to email us one.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : Yea, I'll get you a cleaner copy. Who should I send it to?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Send it to Kim, she'll forward it.
NICK MAZZAFERRO : Okay very good, I'll get a copy either from the architect or from my file
itself.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I think we're all set, is there anybody in the audience want
to address the application? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is
there a second?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries.
HEARING#7982-GAL and NOGA OHAYON
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Gal and Noga Ohayon
#7982. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-
124 and the Building Inspector's July 2, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application
for a permit to amend the current construction of an accessory garage and to construct a
covered front porch attached to a single family dwelling at 1) accessory garage located in an
area other than the code required rear yard, 2) construction located less than the code
required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum
lot coverage of 20% located at 745 Gagens Landing Rd. in Southold.
MEGAN CARRICK : Hello everyone, my name is Megan Carrick I'm here from Chuck Thomas'
office. I have an additional two green cards. I'm here today representing our clients the
Ohayons to request approval for two items. The first being, to construct an open air covered
front porch that we are proposing to be 12.6 feet wide and extend 4.8 feet from the edge of
the front of the house. The porch will feature a reverse gable roof supported by two columns
which will complement the existing hipped roof and enhance the front entranceway giving
them some protection from the elements as they enter their house. This should align with the
character of the neighborhood and it is similar in nature to the neighbor to the north. The
second item we want to address is that we're also seeking to legalize the location of an
accessory garage that was constructed in the side yard instead of the required rear yard. The
garage was designed and built before our involvement with a valid building permit however,
due to a misunderstanding and maybe some faulty information during construction it was
placed in the side yard. It was believed by those who are involved that this was acceptable as
long as they did not extend in front of the front edge of the house and they maintained the
a
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
side yard that was approved. So, I'm here to answer any questions that you may have and
thank you for taking your time today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret why don't we start with you.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Sure, I'm kind of interested in the timeline and I understand that
some of this.may have occurred before you were involved but there was a building permit for
interior alterations and a garage conversion do there was an attached garage to the rear and
that was converted to interior space. That was building permit 47649. The Notice of
Disapproval from the Building Department references building permit 47596, that was not
included in the application so it's a little hard to understand the mix up or misunderstanding
that you mentioned. I guess what it comes down to in my mind is timing; there was a building
permit like I said its timing and details of the building permit. Did that building permit have
the garage in a different location?
MEGAN CARRICK : It must have, to be honest I'm not sure so I, Chuck and I became involved
after the garage that is built there, the accessory garage was already constructed and the
house had already had its alterations completed. So, we were hired by the client to draw "as
built" drawings for the accessory garage and we filed those with the town and then we were
told that, hey this is not where it should have been which makes sense because it's not
behind the rear line of the house which would have been the required rear yard. To be
honest, I'm not entirely sure the entire history before we became involved which was to draw
the existing conditions. I do have copies of the building permits that I was given by the clients
if you'd like to see those but I think they're the same ones that you referenced just
referenced.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well the confusion in my mind is that one of the building permits
that's referenced was not included in the application so it's hard to know what it permitted.
MEGAN CARRICK : Oh, I'm sorry.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It was 47596.
MEGAN CARRICK : This is what I have here.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that something that maybe Liz can look up?
MEGAN CARRICK : I just have this, this is all that I was given.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but it doesn't outline what
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I attempted to find it in Laserfiche and was unsuccessful.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, a lot of time the Building Department doesn't scan active
files.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The other question is one of timing, the Stop Work Order from the
Building Department was issued on February 6, 2024 incidentally a year ago today but it was
revised and renewed two more times afterwards in April and May was building occurring
during that period of time after the Stop Work Order was issued?
MEGAN CARRICK : I don't believe so, we were probably hired the beginning of last summer so
I'm not sure. It had been constructed and finalized when we were involved.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Do you or does anyone here know when the garage was built?
MEGAN CARRICK : I don't off the top of my head when it was completed. I can find that
information out for you if you'd like. This building permit for an accessory garage expired on
9/23/2023 is the one that I have so I imagine it was being constructed around then. I have a
survey here from March 1, 2023 that shows the garage where it's located currently.
SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I pulled the Building file let me look for a minute okay?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While she's looking at that I presume you've been out to the site,
you've
MEGAN CARRICK : Yes, I just posted the sign.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to question a little bit about what's going on in that garage.
There's beautiful French doors on the rear to a patio area, sitting area, it really looks like it's
habitable space, it looks like people would be living in there.
MEGAN CARRICK : I don't believe that it's finished inside, the last time I was there it was not.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It looked sheet rocked in my opinion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it was sheet rocked. The garage door itself is operational, I
mean I looked inside and it does work as
MEGAN CARRICK : When I originally went to measure it I got in through the garage door so it
is operable.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they have a sitting area in the breezeway they're using and then
there's French doors on the rear to another patio/sitting area in the rear yard. There's a large
in-ground swimming pool, I'm just referring to my site inspection notes What I observed.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEGAN CARRICK : I'm not sure what the design intent was with the French doors in the back.
When I had gone, I had figured it was to get you know some furniture in and out of there that
they would have been using outdoors but I haven't been inside of the garage since I measured
it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's two refrigerator freezers in there also but that's not you
know something that's not legal I mean you could put a freezer in your garage if you want. I
did observe that the side property lines in the rear yard are densely they're screened by very
dense massive evergreens the whole rear yard is screened that way. Are there other front
porch entries along that street?
MEGAN CARRICK : There is directly to the north I think it's 645 Gagens Landing. There is a
similar reverse gable that comes off and based on Google Earth it looks like it projects a
similar distance into the front yard. It looks as if instead of it being one-story reverse gable
that comes off it looks like it's a two but it's an open-air covered porch.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, it looks like the one we saw previously, it's a colonnaded roof
entrance to just the front door. It's 4 foot 8 inches deep by 12 foot 6 inches wide. Anything
else from the Board, any questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a couple of things for clarification, we did I believe the house to
the south we recently granted relief which is a similar porch but setback a little bit. I'm trying
to understand actually what we're looking at here. The garage "as built" is clearly in a side
yard but the breezeway doesn't qualify as a breezeway because it exceeds 80 sq. ft. so isn't
this all part of the house which then begs the question for the side yard, it's a 5-foot setback
from the lot line. So, shouldn't you have a minimum of at least 10 feet?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, if it was not considered an accessory structure.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But this isn't an accessory structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The way my understanding maybe Julie can correct me if I'm not
right but, the only way it could be considered part of the house would be if that was a
conditioned hallway that was enclosed rather than a breezeway.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Kim and I had a contacted Nancy Dwyer who issued the Stop Work
Order and her interpretation was that the breezeway connecting the dwelling with the garage
made the garage part of the dwelling and therefore the setback for the dwelling not for the
accessory structure should apply.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that's not called out which I think it should be called out.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then that should have been in the Notice of Disapproval.
BOARD ASSISTANT : Because they're calling a garage in the side yard and that's an accessory
as opposed to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I mean, that's why it can't be both. It's either an
accessory in the side yard with a 5-foot�side yard setback or it's attached to the dwelling and
it's part of the dwelling which requires a larger side yard setback.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then if it's the accessory in .the side yard and again I don't mean
I'm just trying to understand what we're granting relief on the side yard setback is still an
issue for an accessory because of the height.
SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I found the file in the Building Department. The building
permit 47596 that was issued it was to construct a new accessory garage in the rear yard of
existing single-family dwelling as applied for with a minimum 5-foot setback required from
rear and side property lines, must maintain 20-foot separation distance from existing sanitary
system. I'm looking at the plans, they changed. The original plans were from the engineer
Joseph Fischetti and the inspection ticket says garage in side yard and not where approved for
permit. ZBA required, do not continue. The plans have changed, from the Fischetti to the
Chuck Thomas ones they have changed design as well; the doors are different.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Liz, was the pergola off the back of the garage included?
SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : You mean the connector?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No not the breezeway cause we know that exceeds. Off the garage
there's a pergola.
SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Oh I see what you mean, no not on the original permit
no.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it's on the current permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not on.
SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : On the original plan the doors are different. There are
two garage doors that cars use to go in and out, there was no pergola; so that was on the
Joseph Fischetti plan and then I guess Chuck Thomas was brought in, the inspections
happened and they said that the garage has changed. The garage is now in the side yard, it's
changed and do not continue. John went out 3/9/23 then Nancy went out 12/27/23,
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
construction note: garage not in location approved and attached to house, "as built" and site
plan needed possibly ZBA so that's why they're here cause it changed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, Liz there was no prior ZBA approval required then because
then it was in a conforming rear yard, is that correct?
SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Nancy says the "as builts" ZBA needed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea now it does cause of the location. What I'm saying, previously
it was just a building permit issued for an accessory garage in a rear yard, is that right?
SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Correct
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Without the embellishments.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right
SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Right, because when,John went out in March he didn't
find a problem he just said amend plans for changes.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Was that March of 2023 or 2024?
SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : John went out March 9, 2023 and Nancy went out
12/27/23 and then 2/5/24 when she said do not continue.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right so it seems like the construction would have been underway at
that time for her to have observed that what was being constructed was not in line with what
was permitted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, we have plenty to grapple with here.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other thing that I was going to add, since the pergola is not part
of any application they need to have a permit for the pergola as attached to the attached
garage (inaudible) it's unclear.
MEGAN CARRICK : No it's drawn on the
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I saw that, so that I understand what I'm looking at. Also, this is
sort of housekeeping you have a gazebo that I didn't see a C of 0 on and an outdoor shower.
So that's stuff that needs permits.
MEGAN CARRICK : Okay, I'd be happy to do so.
171
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : As an architect, is there any way to resolve depending on how you
look at this, the Notice of Disapproval called out for an accessory in a side yard or as even
Nancy described it from what Liz just read or what I interpret it as, the garage is actually an
attachment to the house the side yard is there anything that you can do to lessen the
requested relief?
MEGAN CARRICK : Without tearing down the garage? I don't know and I thought that coming
in I didn't question the Notice of Disapproval that we got cause I thought that the breezeway
was larger than what you considered to be a breezeway but it was not conditioned space so I
did not think that that was something that was connected to the house but I'm not sure how
to make this suitable without tearing down the structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the first thing perhaps would be to just go back to the
Building Department and talk to Nancy and just say, we have sort of conflicting information
whether this is determined to be a side yard setback for a principle dwelling or is this in fact
for an accessory in a side yard in which case the breezeway is not calculated as attaching it to
the dwelling per say. It's there, it's a roofed over open space.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO Or even maybe the breezeway roof could be reduced thereby
making it an accessory.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well that's something she should talk to Nancy about and see
that's just a conversation. Why don't we in order just clarify what it is we're actually looking
at and make sure that we make the correct decision. Talk to Nancy and we'll adjourn this to
the Special Meeting in two weeks and then you can let the office know what that
conversation was all about and they'll inform us and if everything is in place at that point,
we'll close it and then we'll either deliberate it depends on how fast the information comes
in, we'll try to get it ready for deliberation if we get the information from you and Nancy soon
enough. If not, we'll close it assume we can close it and then we'll deliberate at the next
Regular Meeting cause we won't have time for a draft to be prepared.
MEGAN CARRICK:.Sound good. I will gather as much information as I can.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anybody else on Zoom?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think one other thing to your point about the French doors across
the back or the finished nature of the garage, if as Liz pointed out it was supposed to be a two
bay garage, maybe it could be restored as applied for if its to be a garage or find out if they're
proposing a pool house or because it's finished on the inside whatever the proposal would be.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we also noticed here kitchen cabinets installed and stuff like
that in there but we're also aware that that's the kind of thing that often happens in a garage
if you renovate a kitchen you have these nice cabinets.There's a lot of tools in there and all of
that so we just need some clarifications what it is we're actually looking at cause it looks like a
hybrid at this point.
MEGAN CARRICK : This has been going on for a while so I really have not been inside of the
garage since I measured it originally and it wasn't finished in there at that time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it is now.
MEGAN CARRICK : I apologize for not having
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's alright.
MEGAN CARRICK : I'll forward over as much information as I possibly can and I'll speak to
Nancy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom now? Is there anybody in the audience
who wants to address the application? Motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting on
February 20th, is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7983—GEORGE CAMBOURAKIS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for George Cambourakis
#7983. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
Inspector's September 26, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
construct an in-ground swimming pool and an accessory pool house/cabana at 1) swimming
pool located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) pool house located in other than
the code permitted rear yard located at 200 Cedar Dr. in East Marion.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Good morning, Hideaki Ariizumi I'm the architect and I'm representing the
owner George Cambourakis. I'm here for answering any questions but starting with I think we
can briefly explain what the problem was or is. The basic problem we have is the existing hill.
The existing hill is along the west side of the property completely occupying right against the
existing deck. We tried to make it possible without any kind of ZBA kind of stuff but we
decided we found out it is impossible. Even if it is the pool and pool house is behind the
existing house but we can't make it behind the existing deck. Partially it is pool and pool
house both partially in the rear yard, I tried to make it possibly push to the hill but partially on
the side yard that is what we are come to discuss here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know from our record that you had conversations with a neighbor
about the drainage.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to say anything you gotta go to the mic and state your
name.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Maybe just a couple of days ago I added one sheet which is a detailed the
storm water retention the system (inaudible) landscaping deflecting the discussion with the
neighbors.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see that you're proposing a trench drain and a Swale for on-site
drainage.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Right
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know this, every Board Member has visited the property,
we do that for every application prior to a public hearing so we can see what the
neighborhood looks like, see what impact it might have on adjoining properties, how close it
is to the neighbor and so on. So that was one issue, let's start with you Rob with some
questions.
NIKI MANGOS : My name is Niki Mangos and I'm the property owner to the south, I share the
southern border.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay why don't we hear from you and then we'll start with Board
questions.
Z
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
NIKI MANGOS : So I'm here I think we have a couple of more neighbors who are on Zoom. Our
biggest concern is the drainage issues which happen to exist currently in that location. What
we're concerned about is that the pool area and the patio may cause substantially more
drainage issues which would affect I can tell you my property may be affected in that my
understanding through discussions over the last two weeks, the grading would towards my
property and that's why we added what's called a shale in additional drainage construction or
whatever it's called on the southern side of the property which makes me more than happy. I
believe there's also a drain an 8 X 6 which is in the southeastern part of the property as
proposed and we are hoping that that would be enough to alleviate the flooding issues that
we're currently experiencing let alone the ones that would happen given that this pool area
would be built. There have been some substantial changes to the plan, I believe that our
neighbors I'm satisfied with it, our neighbors are satisfied with it included Mike (inaudible)
who is an architect who spoke for us. We just asked that it be done as we've agreed to. We
ask that the quality of the construction to avoid the drainage issues be monitored by whoever
is monitoring it. I don't know if this is applicable here but if drainage issues are experienced
even after all of this, we ask that Mr. Ariizumi and Mr. Cambourakis show some responsibility
in taking care of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believer that one of your letters indicated that you requested a
conditional approval. As you probably know, stormwater management of the town code
requires that all drainage be on-site and managed on-site and not going onto adjacent
properties or into the road and so on. The way this is drawn it would appear that's what this
proposal represents including silt fencing and hay bales during construction to prevent mud
and all of that stuff.
NIKI MANGOS : We're quite happy with that. Can I ask, is that that is not the plan that we
have seen that's an old plan I would take it.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : That's the drawings I made just a couple of days ago deflecting the
discussion.
NIKI MANGOS : Okay, so the question here is, if the extension of this new pool deck, is this
substantial and I'm not a professional by the way so I'm just using common sense. If the deck
is being expanded, this is not a plan that any of us have seen as of Monday we received a
different plan than this. This is a substantial surface, is there more consideration to be had
here around drainage? I don't know.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think and I'm only looking at this from a distance but I think what
you're talking about it's labeled as a drainage area.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
NIKI MANGOS : Is that what it is?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think that's meant to be a surface like a deck or a terrace.
NIKI MANGOS :Thank you, I have not seen this plan so I don't know.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Additionally I can explain, that is a patio and I am going to use the
permeable pavers which actually even help them existing because that absorbs the rainwater
coming down naturally at this moment coming down the hill. That will be captured with the
patio so it's even better.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a wood deck, it's permeable pavers.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : It's a paver, permeable paver.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On grade.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just to clarify that we're speaking Donna not around the pool but to
the left no, no the other side the cross hatch.
NIKI MANGOS : I've never seen that before.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : This is a drawings I made for (inaudible)to continue
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a drainage area, not a deck.
NIKI MANGOS : That's fine yes that's great.
MEMBER LEHNERT: So he's calculating what's going to drain onto the patio.
NIKI MANGOS : Fabulous thank you very much.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just to be clear, that drainage area is going to be left in its current
state, it is not going to have permeable pavers or anything of that sort? What will that surface
of that drainage area be?
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Except the diagonal down which is patio, that is a permeable pavers. The
others are naturally or landscaped grass or the (inaudible) area.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So where the pointer is now will be
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : That is a hill so it's all the water comes down to that patio actually,
naturally.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Did I hear correctly that that portion with the diagonal cross
hatching will be permeable pavers.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : No, no, no that's the natural existing
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Natural vegetation.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Yes vegetation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :'
EISMAN :,Also there's some shrubs and so on proposed, those roots will also
help with drainage,they will absorb some of the water runoff.
NIKI MANGOS : Yea this is what we agreed to with Mr. Cambourakis and Mr. Ariizumi on
Monday.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie two comments, one, Kim just reminded me, the area that I
brought up that Margaret and I were talking about the cross hatched, maybe it can be better
identified that is not a paved area, it's not decked and that it's part of the drainage.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : It's written.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says drainage area.
MEMBER LEHNERT : He's just showing his calculation on what's actually draining onto the
patio.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right, he's looking at the existing hill, part of area
contributing to pool/patio. So, it's saying that that area is draining onto the pool area.
MEMBER LEHNERT :And everything else around it is not.
NIKI MANGOS : Well actually if I understood correctly, the,area from the southern side of the
pool patio and pool house will be graded one third in my direction and that's where my
concern came from. So, it's going to be regraded in my direction?
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Right and that will be captured with a swale and going down to the
leading to the dry well (inaudible) I'm sorry dry well size was calculated. Basically, that area is
almost very sandy so even the calculation is very conservative, I think.
NIKI MANGOS : Okay,that's great I appreciate that very much.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I know it's on the plan we just need to I guess acknowledge that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's fine. Where is the pump equipment for the pool proposed?
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : It's (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I'm just looking on the plan to see if it's identified.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Oh I forgot to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see it on the plan Hideaki.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : I think it's located in other plan, between existing deck and the pool patio.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, it's near the house?
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Yea
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Near the house, okay that's good. What we try to do is make sure
that pump equipment which can be a little noisy and we require that it be in a sound
deadening container but we want to get it away from side yards and the neighbors so that's
why I asked where they were planning to put it. Is there anything else from anyone on the
Board at the moment?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just had a question about what options did you consider to reduce
the degree of variance or have you considered other I'm sorry for the location and size of the
pool?
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Size of the pool was determined by the client so I don't have a way to
reduce it in fact. We did test it a little more try to percentage of violation change. For
example, make the pool angled a little bit to almost parallel to the natural slope but he didn't
like it. I think we did push a little bit to the from original plan the pool house to (inaudible) a
little bit but that (inaudible).
MARGARET STEINBUGLER : So just along the same lines, I think there is a 5 foot space
between the west side of the pool and the vertical line, maybe is that pool decking that would
surround the pool?
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : The hot tub and the pool (inaudible). Oh, that is the distance between
wastewater and the pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is required minimum required separation. There's a lot of
information going on in here. I just want to make sure we understand it all.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : (trouble)to even fit it.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea really fitting it on is hard but that many contour intervals
require, so just for the record tell us a little bit more about why this can't be in a conforming
location?
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Because of natural existing hill that is the basic problem. We could if we
make that (inaudible) in the air even more worse for the neighbor.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's like the least amount of cut and fill.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly. I just wanted to make note of that. Alright, somebody was
on Zoom that wants to say something.
EVAN ANTONINI : Hi I'm Evan Antonini, I live across the street from the proposed pool and my
concerns are obviously we're at the lowest point of the area and when it rains all the water
settles right in front of my house. Now I do have an issue with the road but it hasn't been
leveled properly but however are all the trees in the back going to be removed?
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI :There are no trees being removed, it will be added.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He said that there was no removal of existing trees.
EVAN ANTONINI : That would be my concern. Should they remove some of these trees it's
going to disturb the viability of the integrity of the land because it is a big hill and yes, it's a lot
of sand. My biggest concern is as that happens the drainage is going to come straight down to
where they have that drywell. Now we have a couple of instances where when we have very,
very, very bad rain that these dry wells do not drain immediately so it pools. We have one the
property to the north of this when they did the landscaping there is a big flood and during rain
season like last July when we had all that rain and humidity it-was absolutely pooling and
forming (inaudible) because of the drainage issues. My concern is obviously I'm in the lowest
point I'm getting ready to put in a new driveway but if I'm going to be dealing with more water
then I'm a little concerned about that. Now, where when you do like back fills and stuff like
that for the pool, where is that draining into?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be it's proposed to drain into a dry well for pool de-
watering.
EVAN ANTONINI : Which one? There's a couple of dry wells. Right in front there's a 6 X 8 and
then there was if I can remember there's another circle where it says steps and landings
there's another smaller drain there. My biggest issue is right here down at the bottom towards
Niki's yard that is .right directly across the street from my house and that is a very low-lying
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
area. So, obviously depending on how much of the hill is going to be so no proposal of altering
the hill in the back and you're leaving all the trees that are there?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No some of them have to come down, where the pool area is.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You can see in the photos that were submitted.
NIKI MANGOS : There are trees that aren't shown here.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Here I'm looking even at my site inspection we have a presentation
you can see (inaudible) it doesn't look like the trees are really being hurt.
EVAN ANTONINI : Hold on you guys, about four or five trees.
MEMBER LEHNERT: (inaudible) he is going to contain his water on his lot.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I would add, you can see right on the plan there's a trench drain
running the width of the pool deck that drains into the dry wells.
MEMBER LEHNERT : He submitted a drainage plan and done the calculations as per the code.
NIKI MANGOS : One of the reasons why we're so concerned is because it is really bad now.
think we have an appreciation for what the gentleman has done on his plans. We appreciate
the fact that he and Mr. Cambourakis after we spoke to them last.week added the shale which
wasn't there before. It is so bad now that we kind of missing a little faith and are concerned
and that's why I mean Evan's front yard currently gets completely overrun. I mean she has to
wear wading boots to leave her house and if that water (inaudible) Cedar Lake.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are properties all over Southold town like that, it's just the
way it is.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't think he can (inaudible).
NIKI MANGOS : Ultimately my concern is that I want to see pictures of the trees I'm concerned
that the drainage right now is going from left to right into the road and the question is, how
effective for Evan the question is, how effective is that 6 X 8 drain? (inaudible) the question is,
is that flooding gonna then be redirected in this direction given the specifications of the new
slope?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He stated he's not changing that slope, that topography that you see
where Donna is showing now.
EVAN ANTONINI : But he's removing trees.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hideaki can you address this again, where you're going to put the
pool and the patio, will any trees have to be cut?
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Maybe I forgot about the existing kind of independent tree not the bush
area yea a couple of the trees need to be cut.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A couple will have to come down. On your plan I don't know what
shrub A Type means but I would suggest two things, one, the planting of additional trees or
shrubs to compensate for the ones that were removed. Moreover, than that you also want to
provide some visual screening from the street. You don't want to be having a swimming pool
where you know everybody is in their bathing suit waving at their neighbors.
NIKI MANGOS : And the gentlemen have agreed to that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would like to consider the possibility that we would require
some sort of evergreen screening that
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Yes evergreen.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : you are proposing some on here which will both be a visual screen
and absorb additional water.
NIKI MANGOS : Yes and we completely understand that and we're grateful for it. I think Evan
I'm going to paraphrase what you're trying to say if I may.
EVAN ANTONINI : It's about the trees up on the hill that I'm concerned about that once those
are removed it takes away the integrity of the soil on the hill. That's my only concern. All the
other trees that's at the house they're fine they need to come out and half of them are half
dead anyway but there are about four or five pretty substantial sized trees on that hill that's
what's concerning me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that's in the rear yard correct?
EVAN ANTONINI : Correct
NIKI MANGOS : The proposed drainage that's here that we thought was a patio they're in that
area.
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : As far as I remember I don't really remember the existing trees where is or
are
EVAN ANTONINI :They're huge.
Z71
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Yea huge, probably where the pool and pool deck pool patio will be could
be a part of it not the whole of it and also as I mentioned the patio will be paved with
permeable pavement which actually captures the water and going into patio into the soil so
it's probably even much better than the existing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hideaki will you be needing to remove any of the large trees that
are in the rear yard up on the hill?
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Up on the hill, no.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No
HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : No, no other than the pool patio area we're not touching it except just a
little bit over adjustment to the (inaudible) south side of the pool patio.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It looks like the remediation he's proposing is going to be much better
than what's even existing which is nothing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean these are calculated you know engineering drawings and we
typically do when someone has a license to do this respect that they have the expertise to pull
this off.
EVAN ANTONINI : That's appreciative. The problem is that I'm showing six trees that are not
identified on this plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's not identifying this plan does not identifying all the existing
trees.
EVAN ANTONINI : Fair enough thank you,that was just my concern cause I'm not seeing them
identified. They're identified behind the house and on Niki's property but I see the new
proposed landscaping which looks beautiful but my only concerns were if they cause they're
going to lose a lot of afternoon sun with those trees so they're just going to have morning sun
till about noon. I'm assuming that they're going to want to take them down. If that's the case
that could disrupt the integrity of that hill that was my only concern and I didn't see it on the
plans so I was just trying to get that clear. Other than that, I think we're going to be fine.
NIKI MANGOS : Yes I think we're going to be fine, I think quite frankly the only reason why
we're so concerned is because there was no accommodation for drainage that was going to
be redirected until we spoke twice and brought in an architect of our own. At this point from
my perspective, I cannot have any concerns. I think that what is being done is probably what
needs to be done and that's pretty much it. If there are any issues post construction that's a
whole other story and we don't know that that would even be the case.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
EVAN ANTONINI : I'm the only full time resident in this vicinity so I'm there and I look straight
into this area so I'm going to be sad losing that beautiful space but listen a pool is nice and
they blocked it and I think it's going to be adequate. I think it's going to be very pretty but
anyway I voiced my concerns,that was the only question I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you for your testimony and your questions. Is there
anyone in the audience who wants to address the application further? Any other questions
from the Board? Anybody else on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a
later date, is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7984—600 GLENN ROAD/DAMES ROBERTS, MEMBER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 600 Glenn Road/James
Roberts, Member #7984. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and
the Building Inspector's September 23, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for
a permit to construct a roof deck with the associated guard railing attached to a single-family
dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted maximum height of 25 feet for a flat roof located
at 600 Glenn Rd. (adj.to West Creek) in Southold.
JAMES ROBERTS : I'm James Roberts.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is I don't know if you received the LWRP, did you get him a
copy of the LWRP recommendation? This has been determined to be inconsistent because it
does not conform to the code for heights.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
JAMES ROBERTS : the 25 foot height, I believe it's the railings itself is about 18 inches higher
than the 25 foot mark so that's why we're here today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also received a letter from a neighbor who apparently sold the
property to the current property owner. Their concern is that the deck is going to overlook
their entire back yard and their bedrooms windows and really destroy their property, the
privacy on their property.
JAMES ROBERTS : Which house is that, I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the house that's adjacent to the side. If you're facing it from
the street I believe it's the house to the right.
JAMES ROBERTS : The house to the right, I believe that we're going to be looking down to the
left of the creek, their property is wooded in the back area there so we're not obstructing any
views and we're also actually higher than their house so I don't know how the railings would
be obstructing their view.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not the railings it's the deck. They're concerned about people
JAMES ROBERTS : (inaudible) on top of the roof so it's above their house so there's no
obstruction to their view.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not about their view it's about the ability for people sitting
on that deck overlooking their back yard and their house (inaudible).
JAMES ROBERTS : (inaudible) the deck is to the left of the house it's not on their side so their
house if you're facing the house the property you're talking about to the right the deck is
actually is to the left side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe it's to the right I might be wrong.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Are you sure it's not the house to the left?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might be to the left.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It looked like the roof deck is more on the left side of(inaudible)
JAMES ROBERTS : Actually it's set a little bit behind their property because their property is
wooded so really we're not overlooking their property we're actually overlooking their woods
and the creek.
301
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It appeared to me that the house on the left side there would be a
line of sight from the roof deck to that house and its windows. That's how it appeared to me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me tell you what the, they're at 600 Glenn Rd. is where
your
JAMES ROBERTS : Yes ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They live at 700 Glenn Rd. directly adjacent to the subject
property.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the numbers increase as you drive away from Main Bayview.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be on the left.
JAMES ROBERTS : I do want to express their concerns but also we have substantial windows
on that side of the house which kind of overlook their back yard so I'm not sure what a
rooftop deck would invade their privacy, I don't understand. I don't want to downsize their
concerns but I don't understand how that it's more looking towards the creek and the woods.
are their back yard not into their cause it's higher than their windows or their side yard. I
don't you know
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Isn't there a lower deck?
JAMES ROBERTS :There's also a lower deck in the back of the house to the right, correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why is it desirable in your opinion for a second deck?
JAMES ROBERTS : The rooftop deck brings character to the house and also brings a value to
the house as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How is that, can you elaborate a little?
JAMES ROBERTS : More entertaining area, more to access to the creek you know view of the
creek so it you know it brings a certain value to the house as well.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a similar question and maybe I'll ask it just a little differently. In
addition to the proposed roof deck there is a rear second level deck and a front second level
deck, is that right?
JAMES ROBERTS :The front deck is off the one bedroom, yes a small four by yea
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : What's the I'll call it the marginal, additional enjoyment value of a
roof deck compared to the two that are already part of the plan?
31
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
JAMES ROBERTS : (inaudible) the reason why purchasing the property is obviously to view the"
creek and the you know what it has to offer the property and sitting on top of that rooftop
deck has to be because of the trees being so high it has a value of looking at that creek and
you know the serenity of being by the water. When we proposed the house, the Trustees had
you know had a non-disturbance so the only access we had to that creek is a four foot so we
had to leave a lot of trees up, fifty feet of trees so we're trying to access some kind of value
and view to the house and the rooftop deck obviously offers that.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had another question and it might be a little nitpicky but the
project description indicates that the gross floor area is 2,965 sq. ft. for the house but the
Trustees permit has a value of 3,499 sq. ft., am I misinterpreting or is there a reason for the
two GFA's being different values?
JAMES ROBERTS : I don't know if they considered the roof they might have considered the
roof I mean the decks part of the square footage, I don't have that answer on hand, I don't
know why the difference. I know we were allowed to proposed up to 3,500 sq. ft. so I don't
know if it was under.That's something I don't have the answer for right this second.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are there any roof decks in the neighborhood?
JAMES ROBERTS : Not in that particular Glenn Rd. but there are these kind of houses with
ones that do have
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In the town but not on Glenn Rd.
JAMES ROBERTS : Not on Glenn Rd. particularly, no. I actually built a house on 1665 Glenn Rd.
down the road a little bit and we have a high deck there that overlooks the creek on that side
of the area so it
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's not a roof deck?
JAMES ROBERTS : It's not a roof deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Is there any way you can mitigate the neighbor's concerns about privacy?
JAMES ROBERTS : I can do a solid rail on that side of the deck, I mean but you're still
overlooking you're still above the rail height so I'm not sure how to address I mean I can put
maybe taller trees, but there are tall trees on that side of the property. I don't know if you
guys
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We were there.
3Z"
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
JAMES ROBERTS : There's huge trees on that side of the property so I mean I don't know how
to address her concerns. Again, I don't want to down play them but I would love to if you guys
have any suggestions I would certainly
MEMBER LEHNERT: We're open to suggestions.
JAMES ROBERTS : I'm just not sure how to address her concerns.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's part of the dilemma when you get up that high even
planting trees I mean they're just fifty years to grow a tree that tall you know evergreen
screening is typically not going it'll help at a ground level but once you get up that high you're
going to be overlooking if you planted five, six-foot high evergreens you'd still be overlooking
them.
JAMES ROBERTS : Like I said, the thing is that with the eighteen inches of you know the
overreach of the eighteen inches I'm
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying that the railing is eighteen inches or that the deck
itself is conforming in height?
JAMES ROBERTS : Yes, correct the only thing that's over is because the railing is thirty-six
inches, eighteen inches of the railing is over that twenty-five cause the house has 10-foot
floors so you have ten, ten and then you have actually the floor joists and the roof beams so it
adds another two feet. Really the only thing that's above' is the railing which is eighteen
inches above the twenty-five-foot conforming height.
MARGARET STEINBUGLER : That doesn't square with the notes I've made and I don't know if I
made my notes from my own look at the drawings.
JAMES ROBERTS : If you look at the floors you have a ten-foot first floor and a ten-foot second
floor, that gives you twenty feet. Then you have you know obviously floor joists in the middle
of the two floors which is usually a foot and then you have roof joists which is a foot. That
basically that height of the deck is about twenty-two feet, twenty-two, twenty-three feet and
then you have the railings which is thirty-six inches which is three feet and that's what brings
up over the twenty-foot-high mark, roughly eighteen inches or so.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I guess I assessed 2.7 feet which is a little bit bigger.
JAMES ROBERTS : Maybe a little more exactly.
331
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You had said that there are other roof decks in the town, are you
aware of any roof decks that have variance relief? Can you provide examples of relief granted
previously?
JAMES ROBERTS : No, not on me but I could get them but I don't have the exact locations but
I've seen them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Notice of Disapproval calls out the height of the flat roof at 27
foot 9 inches.
JAMES ROBERTS : When they say flat they mean the railings too, the railings are incorporated
into that height.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then the code says it needs to be a maximum of 25 feet.
JAMES ROBERTS : Correct with the railings and we're at 27 something with the railings.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so that's more than eighteen inches.
JAMES ROBERTS : I thought it was eighteen I didn't realize it was (inaudible). I was told
eighteen inches by the architect so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 2 foot 9 inches.
JAMES ROBERTS : that was what was in my head, I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one other question, on the survey it shows a proposed pool
which is also granted by the Trustees to have a swimming pool.
JAMES ROBERTS : Correct
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are you putting the pool in?
JAMES ROBERTS : Yes
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Doesn't the pool need Zoning Board approval because it's within
the Trustees the 100 foot flagged wetland setback?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, if the Trustees approval we don't
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So we have the Trustees approval on it which was granted and then
this is considered a conforming rear yard location.
341
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so it's not before us for that. Anything from you Rob or
Margaret?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think I'm set.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, is there anybody on Zoom? Is there anybody in the audience
who wants to address the application? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing
reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks probably. We deliberate
on draft decisions. It's a meeting but not an open meeting, there's no giving testimony. It's
over at the Annex where the office is and you're more than welcome to attend or you can
also attend on Zoom. You hear us talk about the application and deliberate, we decide and
the next day I go in to sign them, then they go over to the Town Clerk for stamping and then
we send them out to you.
HEARING#7985—JACQUELINE KASSMAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jacqueline Kassman
#7985. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section
280-207 and the Building Inspector's August 16, 2024 amended September 3, 2024 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing accessory structure
and to construct a new single-family dwelling, an accessory garage and an accessory in-
ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 2)
gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lots containing up to
20,000 square feet in area located at 155 Tall Wood Lane in Mattituck.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : Good morning, my name is Justin Bertuch I am the project manager to
Emilio Susa Architect P.C. located in Jericho, New York. 155 Tall Wood Lane is.a non-
3
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
conforming lot in an R40 zone. The lot area is around 12.500 sq. ft. when the required lot area
in an R40 zone is around 40,000 sq. ft. We are proposing a 1,481.56 sq. ft. first floor and a
1,343 sq. ft. second floor giving us a total proposed gross floor area of 2,824.56 which is
22.60% when the maximum allowable gross floor area is 2,412.5 which is 19.3%. We are
asking for relief of 412.06 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Within a five-hundred-foot radius only
eight out of the twenty properties have a lot area less than 20,000 sq. ft. The majority of
these properties in this area have lot areas over 20,000 sq. ft. which would allow these lots to
have a maximum gross floor area of 3,350 sq. ft. which is more than we are asking for in gross
floor area. The proposed lot coverage is 2,852.5 sq. ft. which is around 22.82% when the
maximum lot coverage is 2,500 sq. ft. which is 20%. We are asking for relief of lot coverage of
352.05 sq. ft. We believe that this is not a substantial request just because of all the houses in
the area that they are larger lots and to be in character of the area we would like to stay
around the same size that they can build up to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've all visited the property, we've seen what the road looks
like and other dwellings around there and just curious, do you happen to know what's going
on on the property across the other side?
JUSTIN BERTUCH : I don't know what's going on.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're cutting a lot of trees.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : I was just there last week and I just saw that it just drops down all on the
other side.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Leslie, I was going to ask that too, isn't that town property? I'm
confused, when you look at the tax map as provided it illustrates
JUSTIN BERTUCH : I don't know if that's an agricultural property over there or not. I know
there are agricultural properties within that area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I guess that's where the old barns came from.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : Well there's a dilapidated barn on our property that we were wishing to
demolish.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, well I guess the obvious question is, this is a small lot, this is
brand new construction why can't you conform to the code? Why don't you just design
something that conforms to the code?
JUSTIN BERTUCH : The owner wished to have as many bedrooms as it does have in the house
so I mean we do meet all of the setbacks of an R40 zone so we're not asking for any relief
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
other than the gross floor area and the lot coverage. We could probably get the lot coverage
down but I believe that the homeowner would still require the amount of square footage for
gross floor area to meet all their needs in the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, that's part of the dilemma I think that we face in this town is
that people buy lots and then they have the wrong lot for what they want to do. They need a
bigger lot to build a bigger house.
JACQUELINE KASSMAN : This is Jacqueline Kassman and I want to thank you for allowing us to
present this application today. I'm sorry I can't be there but I'm having some mobility issues. I
just want to address some of the questions from before. Across the street because it is a
private road that is owned by the homes in the area Michael Navarra one of the residents has
been removing some of the trees because they are diseased so that answers that question.
We feel that there is in the back of the home that lot is no longer buildable. I'm not sure what
occurred in the past but that is not no longer a buildable lot. There is a buffer between our
home and the (inaudible) residence and our intent is to create a buffer to the home that
would be on the left if you're looking straight at the house. We don't feel that this would
negatively impact the neighborhood in any way and we're just looking for relief to have a
home that can accommodate our family. This property has been in my family for over three
generations, I was born and raised on the North Fork and I think we're very respectful and our
intent is to build a home that beautifies the neighborhood but also it doesn't impact our
neighbors.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony. I believe you're proposing an IA
system, you'll be required to put one in by the Health Department.
JACQUELINE KASSMAN : Of course.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have a question and maybe it's more for us than for the applicant
but,the detached garage is in the side yard?
JUSTIN BERTUCH : It has a breezeway also, an 80 sq. ft. breezeway connecting it to the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's conforming in size and is therefore considered attached, is
that correct?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then the pool is
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the pool location looks okay, it's in the back.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in the back that pool is a pretty big pool.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The applicant stated that he can remove one of the requests.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well he said he could reduce the lot coverage.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : If I was to get rid of the trellis alone we wouldn't have to go for a lot
coverage variance on it.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a question relative to the topography of the parcel. I believe
the project description indicates there are no plans to change or alter the land contours and it
says the parcel is flat but the survey suggests there's perhaps a two-to-four-foot slope on the I
think it's the east side. I think the project description says no grading is going to be required
but it seems like something is going to have to be done with that slope. Can you comment on
that?
JUSTIN BERTUCH : I would have to do a little bit more research into that. I was pretty much
aware that it was flat overall. I didn't see that; I don't have the topography survey on me right
now.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The contour lines on the survey are what I'm commenting on and
my experience climbing up the little slope when I did my site visit.
JACQUELINE KASSMAN :There is a little small slope on the east side of the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, there is a little one, it's not a very dramatic.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : The majority of the site is at contour 30 (inaudible). I don't really know too
much (inaudible) it's cause where it slopes down is in that front corner of the property. I don't
really believe a lot of grading would have to be done at all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With regard to the gross floor area, we do have available gross
floor area averaging. I think he's trying to address some of that
JUSTIN BERTUCH : There's such a drastic change in the lot sizes in this area that you have a
16,000 sq.ft. home that is just a block it's not even it's within the five hundred (inaudible).
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then that should be submitted.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : I do have it but you ca.n't find it's so hard to find all of the actual floor areas
of all these homes with it's either you can file a FOIL for it and then a lot of time you have
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The Assessors Office you get the property card and based on that
you calculate.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
JUSTIN BERTUCH : You're never really going to know (inaudible) space for anything in this
house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can find the square footage but finding the GFA- is another
story, it's just challenging.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : You have lots of 387,000 sq. ft. in the same area within a five hundred
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So based on your research, what is your average GFA?
JUSTIN BERTUCH : The average GFA would be 2,743 sq. ft. but that's only based on fifteen
residences that I found the area for.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) at all what's applicable, there's the guidelines that we
offer. So, again to repeat, the average for the home or rather for the area the neighbor based
upon our guidelines is 2,743 sq. ft. and you're looking for substantially higher GFA.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : Yes, based upon the fifteen residences within the five hundred feet radius
out of the twenty-eight residences that are there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait, say that again.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : That gross floor area was done on fifteen properties that the information
was found on out of the twenty eight properties that were actually within the five hundred
foot radius.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're saying that the GFA is 2,743?
JUSTIN BERTUCH :That is correct of the fifteen residences.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You are requesting 2,824.56 is that correct?
JUSTIN BERTUCH : Correct
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that's 412 over.
JACQUELINE KASSMAN : Right but the character
MEMBER LEHNERT : Hang on, if the this is the 2,743 it's substantially less than the 400 over.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's about 80 more than the average.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Give or take.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's 82.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 82, can you submit those calculations to us? You're maintaining
that if you remove the proposed trellis your lot coverage will be conforming.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : Yes it would be conforming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code does not permit this Board to grant more than the
average GFA. We are barred by the definition in the code from granting more than the
average. Would you want to consider an amended application a, removing the trellis to show
us a conforming lot coverage and b, creating a proposed dwelling that is 82 sq.ft. less?
JUSTIN BERTUCH : I would ask Jacqueline Kassman, is she still on? I mean we'd be willing to
conform to that. I would like to see what she has to say though.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't grant it to you, we don't have the option so I'm
saying that rather than a denial
MEMBER LEHNERT : If something conforming was put in front of us.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well it wouldn't be conforming you're still getting a GFA variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're getting a variance but you're getting the average and no
greater.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the maximum this Board is allowed to do.
JUSTIN BERTUCH : It's about 83 sq. ft. you said?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's 82 sq. ft. I think Nick said.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Based on the math that we used, it was 81.66.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what, does it make sense for us to adjourn this to the
Special Meeting in two weeks so you can talk to your client and see what you can com up with
in the way of an amended application?
JUSTIN BERTUCH : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with the Board Members?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes, no problem.
40
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ms. Kassman do you want to say anything else or are you okay?
JACQUELINE KASSMAN : No, I'm in favor of that, thank you very much for your suggestions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you're welcome. Motion to adjourn this to the Special
Meeting, is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7987—JOELLEN CORTAPASSO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for JoEllen Cortapasso
#7987. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
Inspector's October 8, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct an in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in an area other than the code required
rear yard located at 4830 Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel. Good morning, Rob where would
you like to start?The pool is proposed in the side yard.
ROB HERRMANN : Correct and we saw in the record that there are several comments that
appeared to have been offered by some of the neighbors both in support of the application
but also expressing concerns. I noticed that some seem to reflect some confusion about the
proposal itself and also some misunderstanding with the town's zoning requirements as far as
they pertain to the proposal. I want to try and clarify them and use them sort of a structured
present the application. The proposed pool which you can see on the screen actually complies
with all of the town's zoning requirements except that it is located to the side of the house
which of course is why we are here and why we're required to seek this one zoning variance
from the Board. Relative to some of the zoning requirements we can note and I believe it was
Q,
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
in our application that after the addition of the 312 sq. ft. pool and removal of the existing
shed, lot coverage as defined in the town code will increase from 13.7% to 16.4% as
presented on the survey. What is referred to in some of the public comments as a deck
around the pool which is typically a raised wood structure is not a deck, it is a grade level
masonry patio and as you know grade level masonry patio surfaces are excluded from the
town's lot coverage calculation which is why it is not included in the calculation. A couple of
the neighbors were understandably concerned that the pool will be close tc a shared
property line which is true but for a parcel having an area less than 10,000 sq. ft. the zoning
code allows a swimming pool to be located as close as 3 feet to both the rear and side lot
lines. The proposed pool here is located 7 feet from the rear lot line and 11 feet from the side
in both cases more than the minimum that's required. The zoning code does not govern
setbacks to grade level patios but the proposed patio is specifically designed to be no closer
than 3 feet from the rear and side lot lines because that is where the code would allow the
pool itself to be located. We saw a couple of comments that raise a few understandable
concerns that are unrelated to the zoning code which could be raised in connection with the
construction really of any pool located on almost any property. Noise is always an issue, it's
common really for any pool in any neighborhood but in my experience, I would say that I find
that noisy people tend to be noisy people it doesn't take a swimming pool to make them
noisy. Even without the pool the Cortapasso's could build a patio the same size as the pool
and patio shown here without a variance in fact without a building permit and be just as loud
as they could be sitting around a pool. The concern about pool equipment noise on the other
hand is a legitimate one. For that reason, as proposed the pool equipment would be located
physically adjacent to the Cortapasso's own house and if the pool were approved, a sound
attenuating enclosure could be placed around the equipment as is typically a special condition
that your Board attaches to variances for swimming pools. Drainage is a concern that's raised,
I can't speak to the property's elevation relative to every neighboring property but I can say
that the pool and patio are both proposed to be situated at the existing grade level and if the
pool were approved, we could definitely take design measures to address drainage. A trench
drain for example could be designed around the entire patio to capture and recharge
potential runoff from the patio surface and or the patio itself could be designed at least as a
semi-permeable surface for example by maintaining a pervious material as joints between the
pavers as opposed to having a completely solid masonry surface including the joints. Safety is
always an issue; comments were made about unattended children kind of roaming freely in
the neighborhood and wondering into the pool. Regardless of whether it's located in a 9,000
sq. ft. parcel or a 39,000 sq. ft. parcel as you know all pools must be surrounded by a NYS
safety code compliant pool enclosure fence with self-closing self-latching gates as this pool
would be. Interesting that one of the neighbors expressed concern that the pool location is
secluded and there will be no visibility into the pool and on that point we agree. The small
4
'February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
pool, the surrounding patio and a six-foot high enclosing fence have been designed exactly for
that reason to limit any potential visual impact on the surrounding neighbors and roadway as
described in our application. One of the neighbors noted that we mention in our application
the presence of three pools located within several hundred feet of the subject property. We
did not make reference to those pools as any sort of variance precedent for this application
but simply to note that there are in fact other accessory pools close to this property in the
neighborhood including a.couple of lots down on the waterfront. We understand that the
Cortapasso's lot is small and that the physically adjacent neighbors do not have pools. We
understand that other variances as cited in our application that have been issued in this
community and surrounding neighborhood for accessory structures other than in a rear yard
are not pools. We understand that the variance standards require us to consider impacts on
the neighbors and to consider alternatives as you mention, in a prior hearing is there
someplace on this property that a pool could be placed in a zoning compliant location that
would not require a variance. We do detail in the written application that these
considerations are in fact why we are requesting the side yard variance because what may be
unique about this parcel is that despite its small size if the existing 10 X 16 porch at the back
of the house were removed a pool could actually be constructed here in a conforming
location without a variance. In fact, a larger pool could be located closer to both the rear and
side neighbors. Just as an illustration of what's in a written application I'm going to hand you
up this sketch to show what the alternative pool location would look like if they did not
request a variance. So, what is shown on that sketch is the it's basically just a sketch that I
prepared based on the survey with the porch removed and.you can see a 14 X 26 pool instead
of a 12 X 26 pool could be located 3 feet from both lot lines instead of 7 and 11 feet. Now,
obviously the Cortapasso's are not anxious to remove their porch and building a larger pool
(inaudible) both of their neighbors
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rob if I can just interrupt, why would the porch have to be removed
to accommodate a pool in a compliant location?
ROB HERRMANN : Because it would need to be in the rear yard.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But according to your drawing I would argue it's still a side yard but
it's behind the rear fagade.
MEMBER LEHNERT: Yes but if the porch was there it wouldn't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's then in the rear yard.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but if the porch exists it would be in a side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct because that's attached to the house.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
ROB HERRMANN : That's kind of our point, in other words the Cortapasso's came to me
originally and said, we would like you to evaluate what the options are to put a pool in on this
property. What I found is, there really are literally two options. One is to remove their porch
and place a pool in the rear yard in a conforming location where it can be located up to three
feet from both adjoining property lines and apply for a building permit to demo the porch and
build a pool. They didn't like that idea. I don't expect that their neighbors would prefer that
idea but to go through the Board's required exercise of exploring alternatives that is one
alternative. The other alternative is to place the pool farther from both lot lines to the side of
the house which is where it is proposed but then come and ask for a variance. So, those are
really their two options and mulled it over for a long time, we discussed it for a long time, the
family really wants to get a pool there and so I said that's your option and it seemed after
deliberation that this would be a favorable option both to the Cortapasso family and I would
assume to the neighbors. That's why we're here, that's why we're asking the Board to
consider this non-conforming location as opposed to a conforming location because I think
this is one of those situations where a non-conforming location it would be the preferable
one from everybody's perspective because again the lot coverage is not an issue. I know the
setbacks are close but the zoning code allows accessories below a certain height to be that
close on lots this small.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Speaking of small Rob, I just wanted to ask you, when you inspect
the property it looks like it's just completed covered with structure cause it is a small lot and
so I thought well what's going on with the lot coverage then? I must be is it that the right of
way is calculated as part of the subject property that area? It looks like the lot line includes
the right of way.
ROB HERRMANN : Yes, my understanding is the lot area is the lot area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what I'm saying is that it includes this 15 foot right of way that
others use to drive on.
JOHN CORTAPASSO : When a tree falls down we're responsible for that right of way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so that can't be blocked in any way because it's an access
ROB HERRMANN : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : it's almost it looks like an easement over the property in fact.
ROB HERRMANN : Correct
4,41
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Wouldn't that count against your lot coverage that that's already
built out?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's not part of the buildable lot, I mean this is the question
because if you can't build in it or do anything to it because it's an easement over the property
it's not called out in the code I don't thing but
ROB HERRMANN : Yea that's what I was going to say, I don't you can correct me if I'm wrong
but my understanding is that the buildable land calculation does not exclude that right of
way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As I was just looking at it I was trying to figure out how in the world
did you come up with that lot coverage and it had to be that that's considered part of the lot
area although it's not something you can build on.
ROB HERRMANN : To my understanding that is I mean it's part of the deeded lot area they
own that land over which the right of way passes and my understanding is that that is not
excluded from the buildable land calculation under the code. If that's incorrect we would
have to recalculate it but I don't believe that's the case.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just wanted to clarify what the
ROB HERRMANN : But to your point that is one of the limitations is obviously on that side of
the property there is the right of way, there is the sanitary system. I don't think anybody
wants a pool on Peconic Bay Blvd. here so really the lone location for the pool any pool here is
in that corner. The question is, do you remove the porch and put the-long side of that pool
three feet from the Muller property or do you request a variance to put the pool in a more
sensible location on the side of the house? I think any potential impact associated with the
pool is obviously less with the location afforded by the variance. It's a tough spot that's why
we're here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you talk about I mean I remember this well, I remember the
second story and the fence that we allowed because it was on a berm and it was it looks like it
was three feet from one side although it was much higher from the other side but of course
there's nothing where the driveway is now, there's a little bit in the corner or something but
you know obviously the driveway is not obstructed.
ROB HERRMANN Right, so the fence is proposed well you can see it in blue, it would be just
to the roadside of the pool so the parking would still be come in from the boulevard where it
is existing but then this entire pool area would be blocked from view from the road. I think
one of the letters supporting the project were from the neighbor immediately across the
45
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
street because that was also one of the logical concerns in terms of visual impact would be
you know potentially from the roadway; I mean it's not a really slowly traveled roadway but
from the roadway and from the neighbor immediately opposing the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so now I understand it, I see this. You're proposing to put a
six-foot high fence in what will technically be a side yard which is permitted as of right.
ROB HERRMANN : Correct, not up on the roadway, it's got the little hatch line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're going to keep the driveway the way it is.
ROB HERRMANN : Correct you can see
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will still have two on-site parking spaces.
ROB HERRMANN : You see there's actually a proposed driveway extension that kind of moves
to the side there to accommodate a vehicle. I mean that doesn't have anything to do with
your Board but we're trying to present a holistic picture of what's proposed. That shed that's
shown there is on this that one is proposed to be removed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a good size shed.
ROB HERRMANN : It's right on the line and that would be something that would be eliminated
and that's also what partially offsets what would be the additional coverage of the pool. I
think both those, the addition and subtraction are both if you pan down a little bit are both
included in the coverage table. -
JOHN CORTAPASSO :John Cortapasso there are also two parking spots on the pathway as well
if you scroll down a little bit where that stone driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we've seen that also. Rob anything from you?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything more?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think everything is covered. Margaret?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER I do have a question and its relative to the three pools in the
neighborhood that you noted as not requiring variance relief but just establishing if there are
a couple of three pools I think you said within five hundred feet. It appeared to me just as a
subjective level, they are approximate to fewer neighbors and therefore the number of folks
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
affected by the potential undesirable impacts of having a pool in the neighborhood the
potential number of people affected in those cases is fewer and the density of neighbors is
much lower and I wondered if you would like to comment on that.
ROB HERRMANN : Not aside from the fact that we acknowledge that. The pools are often a
customary accessory in a neighborhood. As I said, if you a couple of them as you mentioned
are across the street, one of them is just basically in this neighborhood two down on the
water. It's a larger lot so the setbacks are greater and we understand that. We're not we're
only offering that observation to demonstrate that there are pools around. The challenges
here are different and we understand that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from Board Members?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nothing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom?
LORETTA MULLER : This is Loretta Muller, I am the neighbor closest to where this pool is going
to be. I think if you would actually physically go and look at the properties it is so incredibly
close. If I sit on my patio, I'm sitting in a chair literally three-feet from where I would be sitting
would be the decking of this pool. There's only a hedge, their hedge is actually on my
property as it is it's just unbelievably close. It's not like the back of my yard and then we have
all this property. In Bay Oaks everybody is on top of each other, literally. I can't even conceive
of a pool in their driveway which is literally what they're doing. They're trying to make a spot
it just doesn't make sense. I know a lot of the neighbors feel the same way. That's my opinion
I mean my parents since the 1930's we've owned this house and I just I'm having a hard time
picturing me sitting there and literally three-feet from where I would be sitting would be pool
activities starting. If you were to visually go and look at this property, I think nobody would
ever agree to this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By the way,just so that you're aware ma'am, every Board Member
here has visited the property, we've inspected it, driven around, driven up and down Peconic
Bay Blvd. the right of way we've seen what you're talking about.
LORETTA MULLER : Okay, where I sit on my patio literally I could throw a ball and it would
land in the pool, it's so close. We don't even know potential would they rent this place out
eventually maybe that's why they're putting in the pool I mean it could get really wild.
Anyhow, I am so against this pool just because their proximity is extremely close to us
otherwise I could care less. I mean yea I could put a pool wherever but that is not an
appropriate place.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else?
JOHN CORTAPASSO : I have no intention of renting the house, that's a family house and
there's no desire to rent it out of Air B&B in the future.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have a rental permit?
JOHN CORTAPASSO : No we don't. Like I said, it was my parent's house, my dad died five years
ago, my brother is having a baby, I have three kids. Safety is a concern as well, the kids like to
swim we're just trying to put a pool to make life a little bit easier instead of lugging everything
down to the bay each time they want to go for a swim, that's really it. They can play ball over
there and be just as loud in that corner as well as a pool being there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Rob did you put where the pump equipment is going? It's next to
the house.
ROB HERRMANN : The pool equipment is it's common I'm learning this from a renovation
next to my house. It's common to take all your equipment and stick it next to the neighboring
property line. So here we're we've proposed the pool equipment adjacent to the porch.
Again, in terms of sound, drainage any of those things they're certainly willing to accept
mitigation any mitigation conditions that the Board would impose if the Board were to
entertain approving the variance. Again, with respect to the proximity I understand it but just
to reiterate, the pool is proposed 7 feet and 11 feet from the rear and side lot lines
respectively where the zoning code allows 3 feet. It seems really close but that's what the
code allows and there is significant vegetation, hedges. If you've been there, you've seen
there in the photos that I've submitted with the application those would be maintained, they
can be enhanced. Obviously if the Cortapasso's got desperate and wanted to put in a zoning
compliant pool and we're going to put the pool physically itself as close as 3 feet to both lot
lines you really couldn't have any screening where as here you can maintain screening and
between the vegetation and the fence it will be as secluded as it can be.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board?Anybody else on Zoom? Hearing no
further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
48
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to adjourn for lunch.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
HEARING#7990—JAMES CLOUS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon everyone. The next hearing before the Board is for
James Clouse #7990. This is a request for a variance from Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and
the Building Inspector's November 6, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a new two-story single-
family dwelling at 1) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot
containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area located at 3805 Bay Shore Rd. in Greenport.
491
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good afternoon, Anthony Portillo for the applicant, Mr. Clous. I believe
and Mr. Clous believes that this is a pretty simple situation. We actually don't understand why
we are required a relief for a variance. The application for this house was filed and provided
the D.E.C. in March of 2021, to Trustees in April 2021 and then to Suffolk County in April of
2021. So, under 280-207C we should be able to (inaudible) this home regardless of GFA, we
shouldn't be regulated under GFA. The Building Department didn't agree and that's why
we're here and I'm looking to the Board to get this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We read the application thoroughly, we looked into the narrative
you provided and we realize that you checked off on the area variance application, overturn
the Notice of Disapproval based upon what you perceive to be an exemption from being
grandfathered. We do have some questions that we want to ask you on the record about that
and some comments. Let me just enter into the record that what is being requested is a GFA
at 4,335.4 sq. ft. where on that sized lot the code permits a maximum of 2,578 sq. ft. Let's
begin with plans, we've inspected the property, Margaret why don't you go ahead and start
on asking those questions.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Sure, I think as you've noted, Chapter 280-207 was the basis for the
Building Department's Notice of Disapproval.The Chapter 280-207 language states that part C
is effective if a complete application has submitted to a discretionary board before the date of
the law going into effect. Is that your understanding as well?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am that's correct and that's why I believe why we're exempt.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : In your narrative letter to the Board you noted three applications
submitted in 2021 which you've just mentioned, the Department of Environmental
Conservation, the Suffolk County Department of Health and the Trustees. Maybe we'll start
with the Trustees, my understanding is and I believe it was included in the application is that
the Trustees denied the application because it lacked an Innovative Alternative Waste
Treatment System.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : In what sense was that application complete?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, at that time there was no requirement by Suffolk County that you
had to file an IA system. In my opinion jurisdiction is to Suffolk County if that system is
required so the owner and the professionals at that time had every right to file with Suffolk
County a passive system and not an IA system. So, Trustees put this regulation on which no
one would you really need to stick to what Suffolk County requires not knowing the Trustees
is going to say you have to put in an IA system. That was a ruling that came from Trustees and
SQ
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
after that ruling the owner went back to his engineer, they redesigned the system, went back
to the Health Department and went through that process with every intent to refile Trustees.
You're not going to go back to Trustees if you don't have an IA system designed otherwise you
would be in the same situation you were in.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, it sounds like you're maintaining that the requirement for an IA
system that the Trustees imposed was unknown to you or the applicant?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know if unknown is exactly the term I would use. I would say
that the regulating party on the septic system is the Health Department. If you go back to '21
even me myself doing designs I would have presented a passive system or a non-IA system
because at that time it wasn't really known if Trustees are going to say if it's okay, if it's not
okay. That regulation is coming down from Trustees but if you're there's nothing wrong with
filing parallel applications to Suffolk County and Trustees assuming that you're following
Suffolk County's regulations which we did or at the time they did.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Was there a pre-submission conference with the Trustees? In other
words
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I wasn't the professional, no there was not.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : My understanding is that the Trustees requirement for an IA system
for new residential construction started in 2019 or earlier.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : There's nothing in their written law saying that you have to apply for
you have to install an IA system. I don't think 2019 is anywhere written that that was a
requirement for a waterfront home.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony, you're correct about that but you also know that both
Trustees and the ZBA began requiring as a condition of approval IA systems on new
construction long before the Department of Health finally required it formally. They were
recommending it but they didn't have it in the law, it became law but prior to that both
Boards as a condition of approval were asking applicants with new construction to install the
IA systems.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Let's talk a little bit about this. Again, I wasn't the architect or the
professional at the time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, Mark Schwartz was.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : One thing about what I have to say about that would be that an owner
you know is getting guidance from a professional. Whoever the architect at that time, Mark
5
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
Schwartz should have provided that guidance, it isn't the fault of the owner that now he can't
build a house that it was designed which it is the same house that was presented at the time.
Let's go back to the record what Trustees said, the first meeting with Trustees the argument
was, it's going to be very hard to fit an IA system in the front yard. They actually asked Mark
to write a letter Mr. Schwartz write a letter to the Board saying this so that went on another
month. The letter was presented and still was denied an application. If it was law that an IA
system had to be in place for that property, why would they be asking for a letter that they
were actually going to maybe consider not an IA system? That's what it sounds like to me.
Regardless, we can't fault the owner of the property cause the professional didn't direct him
properly and he also hired an engineer to design the system. An engineer didn't say that he
had to put in an IA system. So, you have two professionals that did at the time said, well, we
don't have to put in an IA system based on Suffolk County law, right? I'm just I'm not
disagreeing that maybe if I was the professional, I probably would have said, they're going to
make you do an IA system. The owner had two professionals and Mr. Kimack as his expediter
so three professionals. I think regardless of that once it was handed down the owner went
back to Mr. Deerkoski and said let's get that submitted which I put in the record when they
resubmitted. So, I don't think there was ever a situation when the owner was like I'm not
going to do what you're asking me to do. This house is already designed and you know
regardless of filing Trustees application Health Department and D.E.C. was also filed so you
have three applications. I get the Trustees side but we still have the other two applications
filed which I think still exempt us from
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, then let's look at those.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER The Department of Health if I understand correctly from the
application deemed that the application to their agency incomplete, I think you included a
note saying that there were six or maybe eight letters from the Department of Health
indicating the application was incomplete. Am I reading the application correctly?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's not uncommon because an incomplete application when you're
on a wetlands you have to provide D.E.C. and Trustees approval or you're not going to get an
approval from Suffolk County. When you file in a parallel motion which actually, I think that
that's the right way to do it that's how I normally do it. You're going to have an objection;
you're always have a pending objection at the Health Department until you get these other
agencies approval. I still think though the question here is, is the timeline. He had all this filed,
he had the intent of this design, the design has not changed, the size of the building has not
changed. I believe the exemption in this case is valid for that reason.
sa
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'd like to explore a little further what you said about the design not
changing and the size of the house not changing. It turns out that the application the Trustees
denied had a different size house than the application that is before us today.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, another error on the professional side in my opinion, he was past
the pier line. All I did was take that addition in the rear that small bump in the rear and I made
it smaller to get inside the pier line so it's actually a smaller house than what was
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have to disagree and ask you to look at the size of the house on the
Trustee application or the Trustee denial. I don't mean to make you shuffle through a lot of
paper.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know if I have the actual denial, I think that maybe what is being
I'm just going to guess here is that there is a legal space above the garage that maybe wasn't
part of the GFA that originally was presented to Trustee and ours does show that GFA cause
it's part of the GFA code. I don't think the footprint has changed; the house is the same.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I was able to find the Trustee denial letter and it describes a 1,971
sq. ft. two-story dwelling with a front porch and a south landing and it seems in terms of
square footage substantially different from the 4,300 sq. ft. application before the Zoning
Board and I wonder if you can explain the disparity.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think that it would be best that maybe we're looking at the plans that
were submitted to Trustees and my plans cause they're the same drawings, it's the same
house. It sounds to me that we're talking two different things, we're talking about GFA which
is a calculation based on like I said there's living, there's habitable space above the garage
which is C.O'd and a GFA calculation for the entire house. That sounds to me like a footprint, I
can verify that but that's I know the house I mean we took the house from Mark Schwartz and
I copied it. I didn't change the size of it and if it is a little bit off, I'll put it exactly as Mark
Schwartz has for that application. Our intent is to build the house from that application.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I will agree with you that the drawings look the same but the
application to the Trustees didn't have the GFA written on the drawing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think there was any GFA code.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It wasn't a code, it didn't have the square footage of the house let's
say that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The square footage is what they would have had.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : But it is written into the application as 1,971 so it's
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It sounds like a footprint to me but we obviously could get the plans
that were submitted to Trustees and I could show you both the plans and again on the record
our intent, that's the house that we're building.The elevations are the same, I think we might
have like shifted the kitchen around on the inside but the building size is not different and I
could show you that and we can I mean if the Board agrees with my statement that we're
exempt I'm fine as a part of that exemption is we have to match exactly what was submitted
to Trustees that's our intent just to be clear.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Going back to the two other applications besides the Trustees, the
application before the ZBA includes letters of incomplete from the Suffolk County Department
of Health and you've pointed out that that's what happens if you pursue parallel permits.
Nonetheless it seems like the application was incomplete, is that an incorrect conclusion on
my part.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I believe so, I think that you have like I said this is the situation is, we
filed I should stop saying we, they filed an application or Mr. Deerkoski filed an application for
a passive septic system. That sort of got stopped, redesigned to an IA system, refile you know
file in the same application an IA system and went through that process with them. Currently
it's basically approved it just needs Trustees and D.E.C. approval very, very common when you
have Trustees and D.E.C. involved. It can sit there for a year or longer until I get all that
approved and then you go back to the Health Department and he's saying and a couple of
weeks later you get the red stamped survey. It's not an uncommon pathway how this was
filed.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Understood, understood.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm sorry I just think at least in my opinion it's intent right, it's I mean at
least the way I'm looking at when you look at how the code is reading in the exemption is the
intent that they were going to build they want permits for that house prior to these date. The
intent is these things were filed to move forward with permit. We can't I mean we can't look
back at the owner who I think is a little misguided in my opinion and I think the Board
probably agrees because the Board is saying to me, well (inaudible).The owners is going off of
what the architect and the engineer and his expeditor.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm sorry to interrupt you but you said that a couple of time already and
there is recourse for him outside of the ZBA(inaudible).
ANTHONY PORTILLO : But he just wants to build his house.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : are responsible.
541
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : He paid a bunch of people not to get into the financials a bunch of
people to get to this point then have well unfortunately we lost Mike but you know sought
my expertise on this situation and, came and started talking to me and then you know that
takes time. You engage a new professional and that professional has to now take the
drawings and redevelop them. Because of the misguidance unfortunately and obviously
there's recourse I get that but I don't think that's what we're even suggesting it's just that the
intent to build that house is always there and the filings show that in my opinion. There was
never a slow down on getting an IA system redesigned going back to Suffolk County to get the
approvals. To me that shows that he was going down that pathway. On top of that there was
conversations with the Building Department that basically told them, yes, you're okay you're
going to be allowed to build this house even though the GFA big house rule came into effect
because he met that exemption. He can testify to that; he spoke directly to the Building
Department and the architect as well. I remember that time too everyone was said, well we
have these applications like are we going to be okay and we were getting the feedback that it
was going to be the exemption if you did file these things.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I didn't see that anywhere in writing, did you have that from the Building
Department in writing that they said that said that
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I believe yea it's here, I put it on the cover, knowing that the big house
code was going to be adopted Town of Southold, Mark Schwartz discussed with Mike Verity
Chief Building Inspector on 11/14/22 the application was going was being over GFA would not
be an issue since applications have been submitted to discretionary boards. Mark received
confirmation that the application will meet 280-207C and that the zoning relief would not be
required. The owner also had the same conversation with Mike Verity to confirm that he
could built the home that was originally designed.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : Do you have it writing from Mike Verity or from someone in the Building
Department that your application
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean the owner he'll testify to it, I think that's enough right?
T. A. MCGIVNEY : No not necessarily, a conversation is a conversation subject to
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay, I mean if we brought in Mark Schwartz as well then you have two
testifying to it?
T.A. MCGIVNEY : But Mike Verity is the one who is now saying that it doesn't qualify for that.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So then let's talk about what is happening in the Building Department
side and I didn't really want to get into this. They're saying that because the last
551
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
communication was eight or nine months from when I submitted my application that we can't
use that 280-207C, where does it say that in the code that I can't that because of eight
months' time lapse and what happened we already explained in the eight months. He needed
a new professional, I had to redraw the drawings, I had to get updated surveys there were
things that needed to get done to be able to present the proper application to the Trustees.
just don't you can't use in my opinion outside a code saying that a time lapse is the reason
that we can't have that we're not allowed to use that section of the code, the exemption.
When I read the exemption, it's based on when we filed the application. That's the way I'm
interpreting it, I mean if I'm wrong, we can talk about that but that's what Mike Verity said.
Again, we can testify to that I might have that in writing actually.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think what just to go back to the basics, I think what you're asking
this Board to do is overturn the Notice of Disapproval and
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Our interpretation of the code and because again if you guys want to
speak to Mike Verity his interpretation again was that there was too much time gap from the
time this discussion happened or when the application that I put in for. There were a lot of
things that happened between that time that needed to happen because whatever the
comfortability with the certain professionals that the owner was working with wasn't there
and he sought other professionals you know also we lost Mike so he didn't have that guidance
anymore so that was a lot of what happened.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I understand that there were many reasons for delays and there
might have been some confusing or misguided information but what I as a Board Member am
focused on is the letter of the code and whether the applications that you sited in your
narrative were complete. So, I'm back to asking
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So objections to an application are not a complete application? I know
my understanding a complete application is we're filling out the application, the paperwork is
going in, the date of the filing should be the application was submitted. You're going to have
objections that you have to resolve and go back and forth. It's really I think it really comes
down to really the Suffolk County Health Department situation because the original
application wasn't for an IA system, then you have to go back to the drawing board and
design an IA system; (inaudible) is very tight on the site so there was a lot of back and forth
with Deerkoski which Jim Deerkoski does this a lot so he obviously knows how to design the
systems and eventually it got to the point where the last two things needed was Trustees and
D.E.C. which is very common. So, I don't think it's an incomplete application, I think that's an
application that's being worked on and you know running through that system or through
that judiciary board that you know I mean I don't think if you read it that's what it says right?
February 6,2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we're doing is exploring your narrative relative to the letter
of the law which we have to grapple with, what does complete mean because it clearly states
a complete application. Now, it doesn't mean a completed application.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It doesn't say, approved application either.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't say approved and it does not say completed. In other
words, it doesn't say it was finalized it just says it was submitted as complete. So, we're
getting a little caught up in what does that mean exactly?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Also from twenty plus years of dealing with the Health Department a
complete application is when they accept it and give you a number and you can go through
the incomplete stuff multiple times until you get to the end result. Once they give you that
number the application number that you're there it's just like us, we deem it complete the
application not the outcome.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's true too, when we calendar it's because you submitted
a complete application to the ZBA.
MEMBER LEHNERT :That doesn't mean you have an outcome or a result.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : There's no like there's no like you know incomplete we never pulled the
application from the Health Department. Again, the same application just changed to an IA
system because of the Trustees ruling.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony, can you tell me, what is the proposed square footage of
this house?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : GFA or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Square footage.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I have on the first floor 1,971.3 and then on the second floor, habitable,
the gross is different cause it has a stair hall in the middle, habitable is 1,628.4
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at you know I'm trying to corroborate that it's the
exact same house that the Trustee denied without prejudice and according to their document
to construct a proposed new foundation in a 1,971.3 sq. ft. two story dwelling with 113.5 sq.
ft. front porch, 20 sq. ft. south landing, 15.7 sq. ft. north landing, install 35 sq. ft. bilco door
and you know IA system with gutters and leaders and so on OWTS sorry.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's the first story then (inaudible).
571
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're looking at footprint.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's right so they don't have the second floor but there was floor
plans submitted to the Trustees during that application that we can definitely again, I'm fine
with making sure this matches and everyone is happy with that we can verify that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if the question was asked early on has been answered,
what are we actually doing here?Are we looking to overturn the Notice of Disapproval?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes
ANTHONY PORITLLO : Yes
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : as opposed to (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Even though what they checked off on the application for a
variance which is what the Notice of Disapproval cited was, overturn other, overturn the
Notice of Disapproval and the narrative they provided is all about overturning it based upon
280-207 that the application was complete prior to this code being adopted. So that is what is
really it's a little confusing because you know you basically said not applicable to all of the
variance standards
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's what I thought would make sense if we were going I guess it's an
interpretation but I would say overturn based on interpretation right? Because if you guys
feel the same way I feel that we really do get the exemption or the exemption is valid in this
case then I would say it's overturned or you know based on your interpretation.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I agree with that but Julie have we had any other situations that you
would be aware of where similar issues have come up where Amanda or Mike have said
there's a time frame limit? I mean I don't know where that would have come from if it's an
actually completed application because it's being reviewed.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I don't know of any and I don't know I mean I'm sure you
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I researched I mean zoning variances for GFA and the only ones I found
were GFA but you know average GFA or getting an approval for GFA but not for an
overturning.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : It just seems to me that a lot of your argument is based on a conversation
with Mike Verity. I know you've been working the town long enough to know that a verbal
conversation isn't going to be something that you can hang your hat on.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I never had a verbal conversation cause I (inaudible) email right after
that but I'm just letting you know that hold on one second, let me just to answer your
question, regardless of the conversation with Mike Verity it's an interpretation of the code in
my opinion. It's, are we correct by saying we filed this at this time, there is no such thing as a
time line currently in the code if the Board deems it that they should write one in that would
be later on from when this argument is being presented. So, that's what I think but and James
if you want to
JAMES CLOUS : I'm James Clous. We have an email from Mike Verity saying it was a tenth
month pause so therefore you can't use the grandfathering exemption. So, we do have
something from Mike Verity.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : So he's saying that you can't use it.
JAMES CLOUS : Cause of the nine month pause not because of the GFA.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did he say what the pause was, if you're actively submitting
documents and moving things forward with the variety of Boards why would he consider it a
pause?
JAMES CLOUS : When we went through the activities that we prepared for doing the whole
thing, we ended up getting the final notice of incomplete from the Suffolk County which only
had the Trustee requirement and then after that there was no activity until we ended up
getting AMP involved in 2024 so that was end of July of 2023 to 2024. 1 was off working on
actually my mom passed away during COVID and her house came out of the estate and I was
working on that for a couple of months so there was no visible activity. I couldn't show
another document or we didn't respond to Suffolk County because we were down to just a
Trustee Wetlands comment and we didn't apply to them yet so we had to go back and deal
with that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then you agree with Mike's statement that there was no activity
for that ten month period but the question still sits whether or not
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No I disagree with that.
JAMES CLOUS : I wouldn't say no activity.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well let me tell you why I disagree, I have a proposal that I wrote to Mr.
Clous with a date on it when he signed the proposal so there was activity it wasn't activity
maybe directed to the Building Department but we had to redraw the plans, we couldn't file
9
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
plans until I redrew them and got them prepared and that takes time. There was activity just
.not activity the Building Department and
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The question there is is what is fair from the Building Department's
standpoint relative to a time frame or since the code is silent on the time frame what is fair to
the applicant?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't think though if there is no timeline stated in the code we can't
make up a timeline cause that timeline could be twelve months right, why is it nine months.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Twenty-four months.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right that's my point, so it's a very arbitrary timeline that's not in the
code that's all I'm getting at.
JAMES CLOUS : Certainly had I known there was any issue time wise we would have done
something.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's a great argument if there was a six-month timeline then we
would have rushed to get to the you know what I mean? That's very hard to put on someone
after they go through that and then it's like oh well the timeline is this, well that's an arbitrary
timeline and it's not stated anywhere. That's really the argument here, I just if it was stated in
the code that would have gave the ability to the applicant or the owner to make sure that
they hit that timeline or made sure that activity was still going through the process but if
that's unstated and then it's brought up when we're ready to submit an application to me it
just seems to be very arbitrary and that's all.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I understand your response to an arbitrary timeline and I'm not
trying to invoke that as a reason for my interpretation of 280-207, I'm just back to a complete
application before a discretionary board and to me if the Department of Health issues letters
saying you're application is incomplete that seems like evidence that the application is
incomplete.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : But the filing for the D.E.C. was completed as well.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean there's multiple discretionary boards here.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So the D.E.C. in this case did not issue you a permit, did they?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No because
6Q
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They needed Trustees.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea you have to go through like, you can file parallel but you're kind of
doing that and then sort of working the blocks as you're moving on down that road and that's
the professional's job. So, when you want to build a brand-new house filing parallel motion
it's important to expedite getting to a building permit otherwise you go Trustees, Health
Department, D.E.C. you know now you're three years down the line in getting.an approval. If
you parallel motion it which is acceptable and I, do it all the time, then your kind of setting it
up so that you can get your permits sort of in line and then go to the Building Department.
The incomplete portion that's the statement on their denial on their objection letter, it's
really an objection to so sometimes that can say please explain why this is your or you might
need to go get a variance because you're four feet from the property line because the system
doesn't fit. I worked on a house two houses down from Mr. Clous and we had to get a
variance and that process took us nine months after we submitted the application because
you have to file for a variance with it doesn't mean my application isn't complete it just
means that I'm working towards getting an approval. If you submit something that's a great
example right, cause if you're going for a Health Department variance you have to submit a
completed application, get a denial, get not even a denial letter, get basically the objections
then you have to go back and go okay, I'm filing because I can't meet the property line
setback or whatever the case may be. It doesn't make my application incomplete; it just
means I'm trying to find further evidence or requirements to get to a permit.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Again,the crazy part with the Health Department, in order to get a notice
of incomplete application you need to have a complete application.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Let me put on the record, I'm sorry they shouldn't D.E.C. did give us a
non-jurisdiction letter for our application so that(inaudible).
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was discussed.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Which is almost same as a permit.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Anthony, when or Mr. Clous when you got this letter or email
from Amanda that announced the time has expired, there's been ten months of inactivity did
you question this letter and what was the response and do you have anything in writing?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, so go ahead.
JAMES CLOUS : Yes so, we had a follow up phone call with Mike Verity who basically repeated
what he put in the letter and said you ought to go to the Zoning Board because of the nine
month lapse.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But he never cited a reason or where he came up with this nine
month lapse and not a twelve or six month?
JAMES CLOUS : He just said something about applications you know I don't know timeline
goes on I really don't
T. A. MCGIVNEY : A conversation with Mr. Verity?This was your conversation with Mike?
JAMES CLOUS : I was on the phone with Mr. Verity, yes.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm just trying to figure out who he was speaking to.
JAMES CLOUS : He basically said you had a nine month lapse, it didn't look like you were going
ahead I think I mean that's what I think the conversation
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And he never cited any code or any reason or justification for his
decision?
JAMES CLOUS : No, no code citing, definitely.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony just mentioned you hired an attorney?
JAMES CLOUS : So, after that then I was like what do I do now so I went to a local attorney
and said what can I do and they said well, maybe we can write a letter to the Zoning Board
and I think you may have gotten a letter from Pat Moore with the same kind of set of facts
thing tell us if we're within reason on this (inaudible) whatever this transition guidance is in
207. The Zoning Board came back saying since we hadn't gone through the Building
Department to get a denial letter, we had to go to the Building Department to get a denial
letter which we did.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the only way we can act.
JAMES CLOUS : Then we came back yea I wish we had known that cause it would have saved
some time and gone straight, anyway.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So basically Pat Moore was looking for an interpretation and in reality
we probably should have gotten a denial letter at the time and been here a couple of months
before this did but Pat decided to write in to basically get an interpretation from the Board on
this code. Again, this was her guidance that we maybe request an interpretation
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well based upon what the conversation with Mike
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So you see that we've been going through this I just I think the question
is, are we within the code or not or do you guys agree with that or not and I think an
interpretation of that code would decide if this is valid to be overturned I guess as a denial.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Wouldn't it not be an interpretation but just a reversal of the Notice
of Disapproval?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be a reversal. We could use part of what's in the public
record to support or overturn the Notice of Disapproval based upon our understanding of the
timeline, the time frame, the activities that were involved and what that term complete
means based upon your testimony here and
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think it's even I mean thank you for that, if you're talking about
complete means approval well D.E.C. provided a non-jurisdiction letter and that was filed
prior to in the time of the enactment of this code, that should be valid then if we're looking at
just the D.E.C.They approved our application.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : They issued a letter of non-jurisdiction.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : But that's a submission you have to submit an application to the D.E.C.
to get a letter on non-jurisdiction.
MEMBER LEHNERT : In order to get that you (inaudible) application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you do but the point is it's not an approval from them their not
issuing a permit they're just saying it's not up to us. We got your information and we have no
jurisdiction over it that's all.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, hold on, I don't know if that's true though I don't know if agree
with that because it's in their jurisdiction but because of the bulkhead we can get a letter of
non-jurisdiction. So, we filed to a judiciary board saying we need you to at least approve us or
give us that jurisdiction. I still think the question is the timeline of the filing is within the,letter
of the code and there is not timeline in the letter of the code. I think as Nick said, if it was
twenty-four months we wouldn't have to be here, if it was twelve months I wouldn't have to
be here. This happened six months ago because it took us six months to get here. Hopefully
we're not penalized for that cause now we're seventeen months.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do any of you have any questions that you'd like to ask of Mr.
Clous or Anthony?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would ask, was the D.E.C. acting in a discretionary capacity when
they issued you a letter of non-jurisdiction?
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : But they have jurisdiction, it's basically saying it's a non-jurisdiction
letter based on the bulkhead thing there. The jurisdiction is there for D.E.C. it's just a way of
not having it go through a full permit with D.E.C. You're still filling out a full application, filing
with D.E.C. and using the bulkhead as a reason for non-jurisdiction so there's a review process
it goes through their
MEMBER LEHNERT : As I understand it they have the jurisdiction seaward of the bulkhead
and not landward.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct.
MEMBER STEINBUGLAR : We're they acting in a discretionary capacity?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : In my opinion, yes.
MEMBER STEINBUGLAR : Could you elaborate on it, how you arrive at that conclusion?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Because their jurisdiction is 300 feet, the non-jurisdiction portion of this
is the bulkhead. So, they're looking at the project and saying, is this something that we can
get precedence over or make an action on or is it a non-jurisdiction cause the bulkhead is
there?So, I mean I think that would be the reason that they are discretionary.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think the discretionary board that refers to the Town of Southold
discretionary board. (inaudible) Building Department or discretionary board. It doesn't say
Town of Southold
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can bring to the Board a Health Department application prior to that
date has been used to get a permit for not to have to use that exemption.
T. A. MCGINEY : Is that a Town of Southold discretionary board?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't think it says that, I think it says one or the other.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : The Town of Southold Building Department or discretionary board. It would
say or other jurisdictional it doesn't a discretionary board refers to the Town of Southold
department.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : But I can bring you twenty cases where is the Health Department was
filed or D.E.C. was filed that they use this exemption to build the house. I'm saying twenty, I
can bring you one that it wasn't a Zoning Board application or a Trustees application. They
have allowed you can Mike
T.A. MCGIVNEY : Who has, the Building Department?
641
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO :They have allowed Health Department applications prior to that date to
be used
T. A. MCGIVNEY : For GFA?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : to use the exemption for GFA.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'd have to look into that.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you provide us with that documentation?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, I mean honestly you can ask the Building Department cause
they'll tell you they have. I can probably find a project of my own, I'll look for it.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea, please.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, but I will or I can look through records. I know that a Health
Department application prior to that date has been used for the exemption to the GFA rule.
T. A. MCGIVNEY : But maybe it's because another Board didn't lapse you'd have to show it.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Only Health Department application, it didn't need any other
applications, it didn't need Trustees or Zoning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's all conforming in other words.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea, exactly it was a Health Department and Building Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, why don't we do this.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm pretty sure I've used it a few time so I'll just have to go look for it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's do this, I think we understand the range of issues now. Why
don't we adjourn this to the Special Meeting so you can produce whatever additional
documentation you think we would find useful and if we have everything, we think we need
we'll close it and we'll make a decision.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, okay.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie if I can I just want to ask a separate question sort of unrelated
but related. The Pre C.O. indicates in the garage the garage structure that there's some
rooms, what's going on with the garage? You alluded to something I saw some notes that
other things
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I got some notes too.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's a finished space in the garage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it an apartment, what is it?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : What is it supposed to be as in the C.O?
T. A. MCGIVNEY : There was a complaint that there was an illegal apartment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was a complaint and there was carpeted stairs going up to
the
JAMES CLOUS : There is a guest room, legal it's on the C.O. we're taxed as a multi-family even
though it's not a multi-family it's only a guest room it doesn't have a kitchen or anything like
that it's just a guest room over the garage but that counted towards the GFA.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How many bathrooms are in the garage structure?
JAMES CLOUS : There are two, there is one in the guest room and there's an outside access
bath for the beach, half bath.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are they half baths or full baths?
JAMES CLOUS : Full bath up and there's a half bath and a separate shower room.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the Pre C.O. just eludes to one half bath and the other thing
that I noted during the site inspection that I don't know the origin of the little bump out on
the neighbor side that covers like a Mitsubishi split system, are there permits for it to be
heated or conditioned cause the Pre C.O. doesn't include anything relative to the garage
being heated?
JAMES CLOUS : I don't know about the heat but I do know that there's a little roof bump out
that's been there since we bought the property.There should be two bathrooms on the C.O.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can provide the proper documentation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you do that cause you know what, we might just clear this all
up you don't want to be having anything dangling and there was this question of you know
how it was being used.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rooms above garage with bath, no kitchen and it doesn't mention
heat.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : But it's conditioned right?
r
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, itjust says rooms.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's habitable.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I think the house is quite an old home that back in the day it
was a summer bungalow that (inaudible)
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right but if it's considered a habitable
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : bungalow that rooms were unconditioned
ANTHONY PORTILLO : but if it's habitable then it's conditioned.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it doesn't say conditioned, the Mitsubishi split unit, all I'm
saying is that it looks like it needs a permit.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : If that's the case we can have again, if it's something about legalization
or even We have to we'll talk about it let me look at that a little bit closer but
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would appear that the second bathroom I misread it cause it says
the exterior toilet room and then rooms above garage with bath.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says plural, rooms?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rooms above garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and you said that there was one bedroom like a
JAMES CLOUS : Bedroom and a little living area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so they are the two rooms.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would say that would be covered by the Pre C.O., the heat isn't
but that's a different story.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, I'm going to provide a project that used Health Department
application for the exemption is that correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Is there anything else that you'd like from me?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can't think of anything offhand, anything you want further?
6,71
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If you can find a Trustees permit for new residential construction
that did not require an IA system that was filed prior to the Suffolk County Department of
Health requirement for IA systems, I think my point is I think the Trustees have had that
requirement preceding the law going into effect for Suffolk County.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : For a new building?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : For new construction.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Find a home that did not require an IA system
MEMBER LEHNERT : But they're proposing an IA system here.
MEMBER STEINBUGLER Yes but my point is, I'm looking back at the was the Trustee
application complete.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well they denied it without prejudice which tells me that they
didn't have certain issues with it. Perhaps they wanted you to go through Health Department
I don't know.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's my understanding and again it was also
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to say it is pretty gray, because nothing was in writing
neither wasn't writing with our Board
MEMBER LEHNERT : It was just something we all
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and if we denied something that was the end of it but if we
approved something we did it because it was the right thing to do on a brand new
construction when you knew it was going that way anyway.
MEMBER LEHNERT: So at that point it wasn't the letter of the law.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, it was not the letter of the law, it became a requirement
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Again, cause the ruling board on an IA system was Suffolk County right
it wasn't Trustees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct or rather than ZBA for that matter but we did it because
we were trying to be proactive and protecting water quality in our town which is our
responsibility to do.
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think it was a little bit of misstep on the professional side I mean
unfortunately but if you look at what's ruling here to be Suffolk County in my opinion when it
comes to wastewater.
MEMBER LEHNERT: That's why we say Suffolk County now instead of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's because of the fact that it is now the law and so we just
say approval by Suffolk County Health Department for sanitary system.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll look, again I'll see what I can find.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, fair enough. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this
meeting to the Special Meeting on February 20th. Is there a second?
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have resolutions to do. Resolution for the next Regular
Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, March 6, 2025 so moved.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting
held January 23, 2025 so moved.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
6
February 6, 2025 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. Motion to adjourn the meeting.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye
MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
701
February 6, 2025 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 : February 21,2025