Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/06/2025 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 March 6, 2025 10:12 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member (Vice-Chair) MARGARET STEINBUGLER—Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE_MCGIVNEY-Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Carla Sciara and Lester Hilbert#7978 4-5 Fishers Island Community Center, Inc. #7986 6 - 12 8 Jan Court, LLC#7988 13 - 21 Quail House, LLC#7989 22 - 25 Robert and Carolyn Melillo#7991 25 - 27 Philip Sicuro#8001 28- 30 Mary Bogovich #7994 30- 34 Branko Jozic#7996 34-37 Hasday 2023 Family Trust/Craig Hasday,Trustee#7997 39-45 March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for March 6, 2025. Please all rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter before the Board is the State Environmental Quality 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 NYCCR Part 617.5 including the following: Fishers Island Community Center Inc, 8 Jan Court, Quail House, Robert and Carolyn Melillo, Philip Sicuro, Mary Bogovich, Branko Jozic, and Hadsay 2023 Family Trust so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The first matter before the Board in terms of deliberations is for a determination for#7978, this is Carla Sciara and Lester Hilbert. This is a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to about five minutes from now. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Oyahan, that's down here for possible closing#7982, we have a request from the applicant's agent to adjourn this because they were unable to get the calculations of the lot coverage. I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting receipt of an updated survey showing the complete lot coverage on the subject property. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. James Clous #7990, this is a motion to close the hearing reserve decision. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Now we have a decision ready for #7978, this is Sciara/Hilbert, Rob will you review some of the saliant (inaudible)for the record. MEMBER LEHNERT : This application is for a renovation to a dwelling with some side yard, multiples front yard, side back rear yard setbacks most of them are existing and also there is a gross floor area variance here. We heard this and then we asked the architect to resubmit some gross floor calculations based on averaging from the neighbors based on our guidelines and when we received that information back it was discovered that the gross floor area, they are proposing was less than the average of the neighboring properties. This was written to grant the variances as applied for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, as amended. MEMBER LEHNERT : as amended I'm sorry I didn't write that down, as amended based on plans and site plans by Steve Affelt, Architect and also his gross floor calculations and subject March 6,2025 Regular Meeting to the following conditions: the septic system must be approved by Suffolk County Department of Health. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second to that motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. I'm going to make a motion since this is still under discussion by the Board to table James Clouse #7990 to the next meeting for determination, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? n MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, Liz since we have some on Zoom with us would you please go over how they can participate or submit any testimony. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. Good morning, everyone for those on Zoom with us, if you would like to make a comment on a particular application, I ask that you raise your hand and I will give you instructions on how you will be able to speak. If you are using a phone, please press *9 to raise your hand and I will give you further instructions on how you will be able to speak. Thank you. March 6,2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#7986—FISHERS ISLAND COMMUNITY CENTER, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Fishers Island Community Center, Inc. #7986. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14, Article III Section 280-15, Article XXXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's September 3, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to remove an existing mobile home and to construct a new single-family dwelling at 1) parcel is less than the required 120,000 sq. ft. in area for each use, proposed construction will have three uses, 2) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 3) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 4) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at Fox Lane on Fishers Island. Let me just put into the record what we're looking at here in the way of relief. Three uses on the property require a lot size of a minimum of 120,000 sq. ft. per use and the lot size is 32,888 sq. ft. We have a dwelling, we have pickle ball courts and we have a storage building or shop, it used to be an upholstery shop. Secondly, a front yard setback at 7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 in the R40 and the R120 zone district. We have a rear yard setback at 40 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet and the proposed dwelling to replace the mobile home exceeds the sky plane. I guess you're also going to need site plan approval from Planning? No, you don't actually because it's residential. I think that's why. SAM FITZGERALD : I think that's right. There's a lot here certainly, the mobile home was installed on the property in the 1980's and a C.O. was issued in 1988. Since then, the house has been maintained as best as it could, it wasn't sturdy construction to begin with, the house is on its last legs and it's a pretty bad repair and it needs to be replaced. I supposed there's an option by which we could make repairs in a piece meal fashion to give us sort of ultimately a new house but I don't think that's in anyone's interest. The house is used or has been used for year-round worker housing and that's how the new house would be used as well. It would be for a year-round family. As you know, there's a really huge worker housing shortage on Fishers Island and so we would like to get the new house up and running as soon as we can. The current house as you've outlined has quite a few non-conformities; in the context of that existing house, you know the relief that we're asking for the new house isn't necessarily significant I mean in the context of the existing house in that it's really from a zoning perspective a replacement in kind except for a few tweaks here and there it's the same footprint, it's the same shape, same size you know same coverage more or less. We tried to make it as much as a replacement in kind as possible. From an architectural standpoint it's a much different house. We are raising the house up to be above the base flood elevation; the March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting house of course will conform to the current building code; it will have all the structural preventions for coastal conditions. It will conform to the energy code; it will be set up for solar panels so it'll be a significant improvement architecturally over what's there now and as I said from a zoning perspective and in the context of the existing house it would be a replacement in kind. The only new non-conformity that we would be adding here over the existing would be a sky plane and that's only because we're raising the house to get us out of the flood plain. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any way I see there's a lot of contour intervals on this site plan, is there any way to push that back slightly so the sky plane is not exceeded? SAM FITZGERALD : Yea, I think that's doable, certainly we have some flat ground there you know within that 40 foot setback there we have some flat ground that we can move it back to get us out of the sky plane, yes, yes absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I kind of thought so, I could see that it's dramatically sloping but there's some space behind that's a little bit flattish within that 40 feet plus if you're putting in piers in anyway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sam, to Chairperson's point, I was going to ask a similar but slightly different question, I agree about the terrain shift and sort of like a little bit of a berm for lack of a better word cause then it shifts on the other side back down to an AE flood zone, it is possible that you're proposing parking etc. under the house it's a raised elevated home why not just build it into the hillside reversing you know seeking a greater well still reduced front yard setback with a reduced rear yard setback shifting it completely out of the flood zone? SAM FITZGERALD : So actually just right, well we would certainly be up for shifting the house. I think that the just in conversations with our team here, it was felt that sort of maintaining the existing footprint as much as possible would be the more attractive move but we would definitely be open to that absolutely, absolutely yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other question just cause it's a bit of an anomaly that the mobile home that was placed there was allowed by relief by an earlier Board, you have sort of unused upholstery shop what's going on with that building and how does that interplay, could that just be converted to the residence instead of having the mobile home? SAM FITZGERALD : Great question, I think that storage building or the former shop there I think is currently being used for storage for the paddle courts and so it's right now serving as a support function for the paddle courts and they would like to maintain that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are there any planned renovations to that structure? March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD : Not at the moment, no, no they're not. I think there will probably be in the future but as of now no. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That sort of begs the question, you were previously here regarding the paddle ball courts where we actually discussed the mobile home and the upholstery shop and I keep calling it an upholstery shop that's how it was originally but as an alternative to kind of clean up although there will still be the same number of uses and I do appreciate that you said that perhaps the residential dwelling the house could be relocated outside of the flood zone and built into the hill in the X zone but as an alternative because it's a one-story sort of flat roof structure could you add a second story and just put basically an apartment above the existing upholstery store that's used for storage? SAM FITZGERALD : Right, in theory we could yep, I think that they I don't know how the owners would feel about that but in theory yes, yes that could happen. I think that they were looking to have looking to from our perspective I think it is we have this residence, it's in terrible shape but it is a residence and so I think that they would not necessarily like to lose that. I think that they would like to sort of maintain that and the idea was well, it's been there for forty some years let's just would love to keep it and sort of make those repairs necessary to make it livable again and in this case those repairs would be a rebuild. I think they like the idea of having that separate free standing residence. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only thing that I would remind you that if you review the relief that allowed the mobile home to be placed there it was very specific as a residence for the upholstery shop owner.The upholster is no longer there, you're now describing it as just a storage building. I support the idea of having additional residential units you know for affordable housing which we'll talk about separately but I don't know just it seems like there's a couple of things at play that perhaps could be addressed or better addressed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the primary thing is, we previously allowed three uses on this property. The dwelling can be we can increase that front yard setback you'll have to reduce the rear yard setback slightly to accommodate that and get rid of the sky plane variance altogether, that's a good move. I did have a question that you may not be familiar with Sam although I know you know this property really well, previously we approved those two-paddle ball or pickle ball courts and we had ,both a Special Exception approval for it and tied it in with a whole series of conditions relative to the other recreational things in the area, community center and so on. We also had a variance for the height of the fence around the pickle ball courts because they had to be elevated platforms, we now notice that there is night lighting all over the place when in both cases in the case of the Special Exception part of our justification was that there would be no night lighting on those courts and secondly, with March 6,2025 Regular Meeting the variance relief it was actually a condition of approval that no night lighting would be there and now we see night lighting, what is that all about? SAM FITZGERALD : Right, so that might be on me, I wish I had a chance to photo shop that lighting out before I submitted that packet. I would have to go back to the powers that be on that cause that right quite clearly that was someone in the organization the community center organization not understanding what was approved and what wasn't so I think we have to get that cleared up. I don't know how we do that, is that something that the Board would even entertain us coming back with for approval or is it seems pretty clear that a prior approval with that condition would be a pretty clear message from the Board but what do you think is a course of action here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one of two things, either it has to be removed in order to be to comply with conditions of approval or we have to amend the decision. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But wasn't there a request for a de minimum that was not granted? Didn't they ask for it previously and we said no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They did. I made it clear I've got a copy in my file someplace. Sam we should Kim can you send Sam a copy of that de minimus I signed? We denied they asked for it and we denied it. This was dated oh yea, John Bennet submitted this on September 9, 2024 and this was we received I sent it to him then August 28, 2024 requesting a removal of the condition to prohibit outdoor night lighting. The bottom line is, the Board discussed it and stood by its decision so I think we just have to clear that up and you 'have to make them aware of the fact that we are aware that even though we denied their request to remove the condition they went ahead and did it anyway. SAM FITZGERALD : Okay, I wonder if it was sort of if that request was sort of after the well I'm sure it was after the fact thing cause I submitted these I mean you know obviously these lights were installed at some point you know probably a couple of years ago maybe I don't know. I think that they've been there, I mean to say they were there before the request was put in to you guys for the de minimus ruling. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's possible that they went ahead and put them in and then realized they needed approval that they didn't have then they requested approval which was-denied, we upheld our original decision. There was a reason for that prohibition and apparently, they thought otherwise. Look, it's clear what that's about, I think we understand what's before us now. You're going to make some adjustments in order to remove the sky plane variance and so why don't you discuss that with whoever you need to talk to and you want to adjourn it to next month or do you want to adjourn it the Special.Meeting. March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Before we discuss adjournment just one other point, Sam you talked about a local family living there, I don't want to suggest that sort of a (inaudible) I think Fishers Island only has like two hundred and fifty year-round residents anyway so I don't know who the individual would be but I think the spirit here would be that it should be somebody who is a registered individual on the town affordable housing registry or that qualified to be there as a year-round full time resident. I think that and I can't speak for the other members of the Board but it's something that really whether there's Covenants and Restrictions ultimately applied, some sort of measure to ensure that there's a full time perhaps even if it's a whether it's a Fishers Island Ferry District or FIDCO or town employee resident. So we need some sort of languaging ultimately as far as who the tenant would be and I think I would even go farther than saying a copy of a lease some sort of substantial commitment. SAM FITZGERALD : I think that's fine and I totally understand where that's coming from, absolutely. I think they would be fine with that certainly we can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so three things to investigate, the night lighting, the possible C&R's or at least registry because this is you know it's a small lot there's always been several things going on there, the pickle ball courts were not there so there's a lot of moving parts here. Nick's right, I think the Board would like to entertain that the whole purpose of building that house on that property would be for someone who is really going to be registered on the town's affordable housing registry who qualifies. We're going to discuss the night lights and we're going to remove the sky plane. SAM FITZGERALD :Yep, got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sam do you know Gwynn Schroeder the one who is coordinates our affordable housing registry? SAM FITZGERALD : I don't know but I can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She's in the Supervisor's Office. Basically, that can all happen do you know if they already have a tenant in mind or is it the same person who's living there now or what? SAM FITZGERALD : It's vacant but they have there are loads of people that they I mean they can find someone in a second just because you know it's just that you know all of the landscaping companies and those companies that are on island just have you know are they can't you know can't find people can't find workers because there's no housing so they can find someone and 1 March 6,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So to that point if I can just add one other thought and I don't know if that's something that we have purview over but you had mentioned a family maybe it could be tied to somebody that has children within the Fishers Island School District. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't put that restriction (inaudible) as long as an individual or family qualifies that's all we can do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just evidence that they're there year round having children registered. SAM FITZGERALD :Just in the course of conversations with the community center I mean they were assuming it would be a family with kids that's who MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's why I thought to pull in the school district but I would agree with Leslie. I don't know to what degree we have a say in that but I do think ultimately look for some sort of a covenant. I'm sure that it's used according CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In perpetuity because that's one of the reasons that justifies three uses on that property if it's an affordable unit in perpetuity and it's a very strong argument for granting it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm still more in favor of the redevelopment of the upholstery shop I mean I get that it's used as storage but maybe that's an alternative which would allow nothing to be developed in the flood zone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from any Board Member? SAM FITZGERALD : Would a possible approval for the residence would that be conditioned on having some resolution on the lights or would those be separate or would they be tied together? I think the Community Center would probably want to know that information. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we need a legal opinion here. I mean they really are separate issues. I mean one is a matter of Code Enforcement you know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well in the past haven't we written decisions that require a C of 0 to be closed out or whatever the violation might be to be resolved before the issuance of a building permit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do think they are separate issues, I really do. I think that there's we really should be handling one, one way and one the other way. I think the point is to make them aware of the fact that we are aware that you know a big ask was to put these pickle ball courts there and we approved it subject to pretty reasonable conditions and they ignored it. March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting That needs to be resolved. I don't think I want to tie it in with the house, I think they're very separate kinds of issues. Certainly, we would any approval for a dwelling on that property would be conditioned at the very least if not requiring the filing of C & R's which is an option that you should make them aware of that this residence be used in perpetuity by someone who is on or qualifies to be on the town's affordable housing registry. SAM FITZGERALD : Got it. We can turn (inaudible) pretty quickly, do you think that this would be so the next public hearing or what do you think? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two things, we can adjourn it to the Special Meeting I guess that will be in two weeks, March 20th to come up with the things we've discussed and if we think we don't need another public hearing then we'll just close it. If that's not enough time for you we'll adjourn it to the April Public Hearing date. SAM FITZGERALD : Okay, I can meet with the Community Center pretty quickly here and then if we'll shoot for the 20th but if not I will let you know and then yea the April meeting would be great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the March 20th Special Meeting and we'll see where we go and if there's more if you need more time we'll adjourn it to.the Public Hearing in the next month in April. SAM FITZGERALD :That sounds great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that okay with everybody? Okay, so it's a motion to adjourn to March 20th, is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Thank you, Sam. :Xz March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#7988—8 JAN COURT, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for 8 Jan Court, LLC#7988. This is a request for variances from Article VII Section 280-36 and the Building Inspector's October 18, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct alterations to an existing seasonal cottage and construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling both located in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area at 1) dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) seasonal cottage .is a non-conforming building containing a non-conforming use which shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use located at 58525 CR 48 (adj.to Long Island Sound) in Greenport. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Morning everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant. Just for the record, I'm joined today by John Gramlich who is the project architect, he's on Zoom and he will be able to answer any questions. This project is by and large a cosmetic upgrade of the existing structures.This is a .2868-acre parcel in the resort residential zoning district where the bulk schedule differs somewhat from the neighboring parcels to the west that are all in the R40. The project consists primarily of the elevation of the roof on the main house to replace a deteriorating flat roof with a pitched roof, replacement of certain doors and windows and because of the fact that the property lies all of the improvements lay within the coastal erosion hazard area the Building Department has deemed this to be unbuildable and triggered the need for the lot coverage variance. The existing home itself sits at less than a foot off the property line. All of the construction is proposed to be within the existing footprint, there's no expansion of the structure it is just simply essentially exterior alterations as I said and the same as respect to the pre-existing non-conforming cottage. The only structural change if you will is the proposal to relocate the door to the side which is really a practical request because right now you kind of fall out into the road when you come out into the driveway and cars parked there and it just would connect it better to the existing improvements and for safety reasons. There's no proposal to otherwise structurally change that structure, it will remain as is. Obviously, based on the provisions of Section 280-123 of the code we require variance relief. As I point out in my Memorandum of Law this Board has previously granted setback and lot coverage relief to five of the homes that lay to the west many of them which are smaller than this parcel. I did reference those determinations in the Memorandum of Law. So, here I would submit that what is proposed will not have resulted in any undesirable change or detriment to the nearby neighbors. This is in fact going to make what is really not a real nice-looking place look a lot�nicer and will clean up this property. As I said, all construction is going to be within the existing footprint with no new ground disturbance, we're not going to extend anything further into any existing setbacks. The March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting bottom line is it will be a net positive change with no detriment to nearby properties we will however require variance relief to achieve the benefit of an aesthetically pleasing home with an improved roofline and functional windows and access, we obviously do need the requested relief here. As to substantiality, we're only the only new thing is the increase of the pitch of the roof on one side of the house to get rid of that flat roof. I would note that the actual lot coverage here is 19.1% which is significantly less than what's allowable in RR or even compliant with the neighboring R40 properties so we're not looking at a situation where but for the coastal erosion hazard line we have conforming lot coverage here and based on that with respect to the cottage I would submit that the relocation of the door is essentially a de minimum request. It's not something again, that is significantly structural so no increase in the degree of non-conformity there. As to adverse impacts environmentally, as I said this is essentially a facelift of the existing structures within the existing footprint. Five times before the Board has determined that granting of variance relief the neighboring properties did not produce a detrimental impact on the neighborhood any adverse impacts so I would submit to you that there's nothing in the record to suggest that granting relief here would result in any such impacts. With that I'm happy John and I are happy to answer any question the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, let's start with you. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Looking at the property is there any possibility that this might be a demo once they start working on windows and roof and everything else? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, it's windows it's just replacement of windows and I don't think we've kind of been through that with the Building Department, it is mostly exterior siding things like siding and roofing doesn't really count in a demo calculation you don't need a permit for a roof or for siding. I don't believe we get there; we were actually very careful to make sure that avoided that because that would MEMBER ACAMPORA : What about those stairs that go down to the property?Are they up to code, there's no railing there it's very unsafe? MARTIN FINNEGAN : What is proposed is actually to cover them with a deck and not use them anymore. The Trustees approved a new bulkhead, the bulkhead was just done recently, the elevation of the back was lifted up so they're going to just that's going to MEMBER ACAMPORA :They'll be removed. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Or covered with a new deck, what's proposed is to just have a flat MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think that they should be removed. 141 March 6,2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : The stairs. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea it's dangerous. Even if there's a deck over them, they're still there why not get rid of them? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I can certainly suggest that to them but I don't think that would be an issue but the point was to eliminate them. It's obviously just an old situation that doesn't work anymore. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We get extra credit for taking our lives in our hands trying to let me tell you I hung on to nothing. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Try posting the property with cars whipping by at eighty miles an hour. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does his need Trustees approval again or no? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would assume so. MARTIN FINNEGAN : We've been out there with them and they're familiar with it, all the aspects of this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's interesting because we looked at the C.O.'s and the C.O.'s don't mention the cottage they just say the it actually a five bedroom house is what's been sited in one of those C.O.'s but Donna did some very careful research and found attached to C.O. Z7654, 1977 the dwelling was built prior to zoning anyway, the point is she found a building inspection that refers to an east building and a west building on an old VanTuyl survey so it's clear it was there.There doesn't seem to be a C.O. for it MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's not a new CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just saying there's going to have to be an issuance of a C.O. for both of those buildings a new C.O. once this whole thing is over. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie, one more thing, I looked a little bit into it too; the original Pre C.O. that it had, the half bath in the cottage was in the basement, it was in the cellar. We don't know how it moved upstairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well this is like a final upgrade and we'll have to just get a C.O. that reflects what's there now and legalize all those structures once and for all. J March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin can you talk a little bit about the onsite wastewater? MARTIN FINNEGAN : You mean the upgrading MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea tell us what's going on. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I believe it's part of the application we spoke to the Trustees about that. I don't have plans for it or anything yet, I mean this is what specifically are you asking where it's going to be? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Whatever you can share with the location. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think John may be able to answer that question better than me, maybe I can ask him to chime in on that. JOHN GRAMLICH : Hi guys can you hear me? I'm actually on vacation, I'm in the Philippines and sometimes the WiFi is not so stable. I don't have the answer to the sanitary system, at the moment we're not changing any kind of bedroom count so I don't know if there was intention to even mess with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can simply condition approval any approval based on an approved Suffolk County Health Department sanitary system and let them decide what needs to happen there. It's sitting on the water table, it's in a flood zone. JOHN GRAMLICH : (inaudible) certification and make sure that it's still proper and functional. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that's how we would handle that. I don't even know where you would put an IA system on there,there is no room for JOHN GRAMLICH :The neighbor's house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) empty parcel just to the west it's like a beach thing. MARTIN FINNEGAN : But that's not our property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's no bulkheading it's just MEMBER ACAMPORA :There's nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's strange. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I looked at it's not town owned. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's a private beach there Nick. March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have two parking, you have two driveways actually there (inaudible) on the property. I guess the Soundview doesn't have any objections. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) house next door the little tiny bungalow it's not part of the hotel the little beach house. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : One question, I think the plans show that the existing dwelling exceeds the sky plane limit but the proposed dwelling exceeds it even more and I wondered if there was an opportunity to bring that closer into compliance to have a less large sky plane non-conformance? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think the only non-conformity stems from the front (inaudible) on the sides it's just MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes it's the front. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't believe that there's any way that we could address that because of the without there's nowhere to go is the bottom line. I don't know if John could but I mean we show the sky plane from all angles, it's just the with a .9-foot setback from is that what you're talking about? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea, on that image that you're on that's where she's moving the cursor that sky plane non-conformance has grown to be a larger triangle from this view where formerly it was more modest and I'm just wondering if that could be if that non-conformance could be reduced a little? MARTIN FINNEGAN :John do you want to answer that? JOHN GRAMLICH : I also wanted to just back up real quick on that on the stairs, those stairs that lead to the beach are terrible, they're not safe and the idea was either to remove them or cover them. Once they're covered, they're not usable anymore, they're basically hidden underneath the deck right where your cursor is right there, move down a tiny bit you can kind of see that fence. If you go to the floor plan you could see that we're also trying to prevent people from being able to just walk down them. That's the combination of effect, the moving the door to the one more plan to the floor plan. Yes, so once,that deck is in it covers over the stairs to the point where you can't walk down anymore, that's between the cottage and the house. A new entry door so that the head in parking is you know you're going to accomplish that cause a lot of times the way I'm showing it is a lot nicer I think the cars are a little small on that drawing. The car's bumper is so close to the front door that it's just you can't really maneuver, you got headlights shinning in on there it's just very unsafe. We also put a fence, a stockade fence around that little deck between the two cottages so that people don't have March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting direct access into the yard the back yard. Going back to the sky plane, there really isn't yea that's the picture right there, right now we have this little gable on the front and I'm keeping that little gable on the bottom we have that little gable and then we have that flat roof which is really dysfunctional, it's rotting and it just looks ugly. The only way I can avoid the sky plane was to change that into a hip which really does not match the character of the house, it would be very shallow it just looked terrible. The simplest thing I can do is just extend that to cover over the flat roof, make that look a little nicer as you can see in the proposed and yea it does create a more let's say non-conforming sky plane but I felt like there really isn't a lot we can do other than chop that. Have you ever seen what is called a clipped hip where it gables and then at the top of the hip folds back sort of like a barn in a way into a hip, it doesn't match the character of the house at all, everything in the house is gable. There's no way to make the sky plane match with anything but a hip and then I'd have to hip the rest of the house which means reconstructing all the roofs on the left-hand side you can see if you move your cursor to the left a little, keep going to the left, right there you kind of see that it's a ninety-degree angle that's actually on the main house. That's actually a gable, if you're standing looking at the cottage and you turn to your right, you'd see the gable of the house going in the other direction I'd have to hip that too. That's the reason why I didn't do it, it just seemed the simplest thing the nicest thing and there just wasn't any way to avoid the conformance of the sky plane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know a rough idea of what percentage of that new roof would be exceeding the sky plane? JOHN GRAMLICH : Yes, so I would say CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much more is it than what already exists and that's a result of the setback of course. JOHN GRAMLICH : I would say it's in the neighborhood ten to fifteen percent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Increase in total. JOHN GRAMLICH : It looks worse than what it is right there because what you're looking at looks like a flat thing but really that's moving away from you as a gable. You know like (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When you're driving on the North Rd. it's going to be very visible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea of course it will. 1 March 6,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The one thing I would say and I don't know I don't want to make an argument in your favor but part of the house is in the AE Zone and I don't know if that then requires the house to be raised but if this house were raised I mean it would be really detrimental to the community. I much rather see that gable end although it's literally with a zero foot setback I think it's a conversation but I think it would alter the entire design and have a greater impact. MEMBER LEHNERT : Plus we're not talking about a gable that's up against a neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right it's not casting shadows. MEMBER LEHNERT: No, it's up against a pretty well used main road. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A heavily used main road. JOHN GRAMLICH : Yea I really tried to keep this as minimal as possible and still make it look decent. There's only so many style roofs we can do, hip roof, gable roof and then flat roof and you see it I think you've been on the site the flat roof is absolutely hideous. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I guess it's and maybe I'm not interpreting things correctly but it seems like the growth of the non-conformance is largely due to raising the peak of that roof and I don't understand what calls for that ridge line to be so much higher. JOHN GRAMLICH : Maybe I can help you with that, so go to the street side of the house there, the one I was working with before. On the bottom elevation you can see the little gable right, right there yea. In order to make that peak smaller I'd have to reconstruct the entire roof. Right now, what I'm doing is cosmetic, there's nothing that you will see inside of that sort of like it's a little bit of an expansion of the attic space let's say. I'd have to take that right where her cursor is, that peak which matches the cottage and make it much more shallow and even then I'm still not going to you know what am I saving for the sky plane because in this direction of the sky plane you can't really see it's sort of like going into the page right? So, when you're looking at the side view where you can see the sky plane what you're really looking at there is a gable going away from you so that top portion of the gable, if you were to just draw a line from the top of the existing gable and you go straight across it's that top tiny little pyramid there. It looks a lot bigger (inaudible) side view because the view is flat. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think I get it and I guess what I'm asking you is to (inaudible) by the dotted line (inaudible). JOHN GRAMLICH : (inaudible talking over each other) whole roof because I'd have to rip the whole roof off to make that happen. In this case I'm not ripping anything off, I'm only 19 March 6,2025 Regular Meeting replacing the flat roof which again it's corrupt actually that flat roof. It probably should never have been a flat roof and it wasn't installed properly. MEMBER STEINBUGLER': I'm sorry I'm, still just not getting it but where the cursor is the dotted line seems to me the source of the growth in the sky plane non-conformance and it's not clear to me why that could not that new peak could not be just a little lower. JOHN GRAMLICH : Because yea, that peak follows the line of the existing gable. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Wouldn't that variance just go away if you just mirrored the left side with the right side? JOHN GRAMLICH : (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) sloped roof running towards MEMBER LEHNERT :The flat roof is making the problems with the drainage and the water and if you change the pitches of course you're going to have another seam which is another leak. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think what Nick is saying is as he said mirrored. JOHN GRAMLICH : If you take that same blue pencil and you go down to where the existing gable starts on the left go down the other way, it's a lot more construction, it's ripping the whole roof and you're really only gaining a tiny bit because again CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look, the reason the sky plane law was put in place was to ensure that there would be no impact on adjacent properties. There is no impact (inaudible). MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's not even part of the Notice of Disapproval by the way, there's no Disapproval for sky plane so it's not even before you so I think we can move on. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin or John a different question, can you talk about the planter bed that's in the right of way of Route 48, is that being removed? T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's on your site plan but the Trustees required it to be removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The one that's right on the street. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I have a survey that says'22 JOHN GRAMLICH : We want to remove that, it's terrible. Not only that, it's like a water catch for water entering the house so we want to get rid of that. 7-01 March 6, 2025,Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : It was part of the Trustees authorization to remove it so that has to be removed. Martin did you go back you said you have to go back to the Trustees but have you had any pre submission or anything like that? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea I was out there with them. They've been there before because the bulkhead (inaudible) as well so they're very familiar with the property so we all obviously have to go for a coastal erosion as well (inaudible)too. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) comments about being in the CEHA or anything but (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom who wants to address the application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you want to discuss the LWRP at all or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in the CEHA, there's no way to be it'll never be LWRP consistent. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well curiously Mark based it on an "as built" deck which isn't even part of the application so I don't know why he based it on that but we're going to Trustees, we're going to Town Board so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we can just close it. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#7989—QUAIL HOUSE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Quail House, LLC #7989. This is a request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 236 Section 236-V and Chapter 275 and from the Building Inspector's October 11, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and porches and construct a new two-story single-family dwelling at 1) no land having a slope equal to or greater than 20% shall be developed or disturbed except for conservation measures or measures intended to remove debris which inhibits the functioning of natural or engineered drainage and erosion control measures except accessways to shorelines permitted by Chapter 275; furthermore natural vegetation and topography shall be retained to stabilize soils and reduce the volume of stormwater overflow. This is for a proposed dwelling located at 2477 Oriental Ave. on Fishers Island. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Back across the pond we go now. Martin Finnegan, 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant. I'm joined for this one by Bruce Killing who is the project architect. This project is proposing to eliminate a (inaudible) non-conforming house that is essentially sitting in the road. It's an old kind of dilapidated five-bedroom house and construct a new four-bedroom house in a completely conforming location not just to the bulk schedule but also to the GFA and sky plane regulations as well. We are here on the rare occasion that the Building Department disapproves for slopes. I won't get into the history of how big but here we are. I could only find one other time where this came before you guys. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know what it is too. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Santorini, but here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that the electrical engineers? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, anyway this is a very unique property. It is a corner lot; it is shaped like I don't know one of the geometric figures CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That no one knows how (inaudible) MARTIN FINNEGAN : but we have a very old house that has no drainage, no nothing and what is proposed here is to move this thing back and construct a house as I said in a completely conforming location with proper drainage. It's all good, the problem is that there happens to be a small corner of the house about 870 sq. ft. that falls within an area where the slopes range between twenty and thirty percent and because of that small corner we are here today. Just to address the criteria and you can see from the elevations that we have kind of a we're ,trying to place this in what is the best location for this house on this property that has these 221 March 6,2025 Regular Meeting constraints because of slopes. As suggested the construction will be a net positive because of the installation of proper drainage, the removal of a dilapidated home and replaced with a beautifully designed home in a conforming location.The existing slope of the property creates the hardship that brings us here today because the applicant is choosing to build within allowable setbacks. There's not going to be any major change to the property itself and the drainage obviously will be significantly improved. We have a letter of support from a neighbor, the immediate neighbor which was submitted for the record so obviously based on that we don't believe that this project is going to produce a detriment to nearby properties. However, due to the hardship presented by the existing slope of the-property and the twenty percent limitation we do need relief under 236-14. 1 would submit to you that the relief requested is not substantial. We're talking about a corner of the property that would fall within the sloped area and you know in light of the extensive mitigation measures that are going to be incorporated into the project we don't believe that there's a substantial relief. Also, obviously because of the fact that we are removing what is a one hundred percent non- conformity and creating a property that is entirely conforming to the bulk schedule would go against substantiality. Again, no indication of adverse impacts, we're talking about a project that will have an IA system, will have proper drainage. The entire project is already been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health so with all their conditions of mitigation so this will drastically improve drainage stormwater runoff with the proposed new footprint. So, with that again Bruce and I are both available to answer any questions the Board may have and we would ask that the relief be granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick do you want to start? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm surprised in the application, I'm a little puzzled about how the I wasn't part of the Board for the Santorini decision how this slope comes to play but there's an existing house there, it's already developed so it seems to me that this is a good plan that you're actually increasing the level of conformity by adding or embellishing on-site drainage. The question I have sort of is outside of the application (inaudible) but the garage exists in its current location in the front yard, it's not part of the application and I'm just trying to sort of understand how the town code and it's recently been updated to allow existing C of O'd structures to remain but the property doesn't have a C of 0 and it's also being demolished. don't know if there's any dialogue to be had about the lack of a C of 0 and what impact if any there is. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's not part of the application, it wasn't part,of nothing is going to be done to the garage it's just if it's pre-existing non-conforming it's there it's just so I don't know what you're looking for. 231 March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Does the house have a C of 0 on it the existing structure? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I have to look at the it's so old I don't think it does, I think it pre-dates MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think staff may have researched it that there are no C of O's. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't think so but you know yea I mean it's very old the improvements there (inaudible). UNNAMED : I don't know what document it was but one of the documents that we found from the existing home, there was a note on the garage that it was for chauffeur. It had a car I I believe (inaudible) so that's all I know about it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have that documentation available? UNNAMED : I could get it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just puzzled cause I mean if the house had a C of 0 1 think clearly it's all covered. If the house doesn't have a C of 0 1 don't know how it pre-exists where there is a demolition. Is it now a vacant lot? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, even if something exists without benefit of Certificates of Occupancy it still exists it's a developed lot. It may not have been developed legally but it is a developed lot. MEMBER LEHNERT : Just in our package the Building Department gave an electrical permit for the accessory garage. So, wouldn't this (inaudible)? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just asking a question. I personally like the character of Fishers Island where you have these sorts of anomalies, it's a unique location by the golf course. As I said early on about the proposed construction of a new house, I don't understand in a sense why we're even here. I was asking a question relative to the garage just because it's in the front yard. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well it's pre-existing non-conforming and I agree I was a little puzzled as to why we were here. It's a technical thing in the code that is what it is and we were told to come see you. With respect to the if there's any other questions with respect to the variance, I'd be happy to address them. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are we done? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea I think. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#7991—ROBERT and CAROLYN MELILLO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert and Carolyn Melillo #7991. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 18, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in an area other than the code required rear yard located at 1235 Wells Rd. (adj.to Richmond Creek) in Peconic. LEO MANNO : Good morning, Leo Manno for Robert and Carolyn Melillo. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We received a slightly amended plan, site plan I believe because you went before the D.E.C. LEO MANNO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did they approve this amended location? LEO MANNO :The amended plan is pending with them currently. March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's pending on the permit. LEO MANNO : Most likely we will have to go for a variance with the D.E.C.for this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay but they asked you to from what I can see all that did was reduce the surround the patio from 10 feet to 9 feet. LEO MANNO : Yea so the D.E.C.'s concerns was mainly their setback requirements but we adjusted this to be a little more accommodating to what they think it would be more likely to approve. What we ended up doing is we ended up cutting the patio back to give a little bit more of at least a minimum of fifty feet setback to the tidal lands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Based upon the slopes and based upon a site inspection there will be no visual impact in this proposed location on any adjacent properties or the road and certainly setback as far as do you have to go to Trustees on this too, don't you? LEO MANNO : Yes I believe so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 50 foot setback, is that from Richmond Creek the wetlands? LEO MANNO : Yes, this is the only location in the entire property that will allow for a pool without encroaching on the tidal wetlands.The only other location would actually be basically on top of the driveway and within the driveway is the existing cesspool/septic system. They're doing everything they can to make this a non-detriment to the wetlands there on Richmond Creek. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No I mean this is the only location you could put a pool on this property because of the wetlands, can't go in the back yard, can't go in the front, you don't need any setbacks. That's it from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nothing specific to the application, I just remind the applicant that the shed I kind of think is in a non-compliant location but it's there and I don't know I'm not going to ask them to move it but just remind people to place these amenities in the appropriate spot. LEO MANNO : The new homeowner the property owners they're well aware of the differences and where you can just put new structures so especially with this experience for them they've done a lot of learning here. 2. March 6,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Also a footnote here, they do have a location for the pool equipment and the dry well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's included in here. MEMBER LEHNERT: Thank you for the larger survey, the other one was tough to read. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret anything from you? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No questions on this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom? Is there anybody in the audience? Thank you for making this quick. LEO MANNO : I was told I could bring some of the green cards that I had. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We'll have a decision at the next meeting which is in two weeks on March 20th. We meet over in the Annex Building, upstairs. 7, March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8001—PHILIP SICURO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Philip Sicuro #8001. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 21, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in an area other than the code required rear yard located at 490 Victoria Drive in Southold. That's some piece of property, how many roads can you front on. What would you like us to know? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Jennifer DelVaglio, I'm representing the Sicuro's on this application I'm from East End Pool King. I did bring with me three examples of findings and deliberation, determinations for other side yards that we've done in the past. Personally, I've done two of the three and then we found one that was very similar so I thought that I would just give it to you so that you would have some reference. Basically, it you've been to the property which I know some of you have its sort of a bowl of a property, high elevations on both the Victoria Drive that's to the west and Columbia which is to the right and then the back yard actually pools to the lowest point. They do have a tree that they would really like to keep which is why we're trying to offset this to the right-hand side of the property. We will need to do a small retaining wall over there. On the right-hand side you'll see it indicated on the plan, I actually think it needs to be higher than what we've indicated at 28 inches just because of the contours. If you take a look at the contour line it's definitely going to be more like a three-foot retaining wall maybe three and a half but other than that everything else is kind of self- explanatory. We have the dry well and the pool equipment both will be you know maintaining the property setbacks so that it can be as conforming as possible everywhere else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just a question, there's slopes everywhere, it slopes in the back yard too but there's less slopes back there than there are on the side, it is a bowl you're right. There is the option not that I'm saying that they want to do it, keeping the tree but removing the gravel sitting area and putting the pool in a conforming rear yard. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO :They could, they added that deck on during COVID and it would just be very tight for them. They do have two small children so I think the idea is to keep the pool off to the right-hand side and then fence that in so that there's safety. They're also doing an automatic cover too but you can never be too safe. The problem of putting it in the rear yard like that is that with the stormwater runoffs it's going to be pulling towards that patio and we could have an issue with the water conditions there and drainage would become more difficult. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's true. 7_81 March 6,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANEMENTO : I was going to point out that I noticed the neighbor's house immediately behind this house, I was puzzled they're beautifully well landscaped, the day I was doing my inspection it was a very cold windy day; there was a man I guess the resident that lives there who has a beautiful stone fireplace on the back he was building a fire and sitting on his Adirondack chair and I was puzzled cause I didn't realize it was a through lot thinking how did this guy get this whole setup and his I would argue his deck and outdoor fireplace it's a real structure would appear to be you know in a similar location as the pool. The oak tree there has a beautiful crown so it would be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it would really a we do not want to remove magnificent and healthy trees like that. That causes more stormwater problems and removes oxygen from the air and character also. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would say just put the pool as far away from it as possible just to. ensure its longevity and health. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : The other thing too Leslie, with your suggestion is if we put in there it would kind of restrict the growth of the root structure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) it's a beautiful tree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly there is some vegetation already in place but there will be additional evergreen screening or so on that's going to be necessary. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yes, I think the advantage and the disadvantage is the sloping right so cars that are going on Columbia will almost kind of look right over it but of course they'll want some privacy so we're going to do some Blue Spruce like sparsely along the top there to give them some privacy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) retaining wall? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : No it'll be closer to the edge of the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To the edge of the property along Columbia. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The neighbor immediately behind has that exact sort of planting it's right along the shoulder of the road. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any other questions, I think we covered most things. Margaret anything from you? March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have no questions on this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7994—MARY BOGOVICH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mary Bogovich #7994. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 30, 2024 revised November 15, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 720 Founders Path in Southold. 301 March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : Hi my name is Douglas Bogovich, I'm the agent for my mother. Basically we're only one percent over that's the whole ordeal with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 21.56%, we have to be accurate cause that's it's in a conforming rear yard, you have some existing fencing in the back. DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : Yes, it's going to be changed to PVC yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a letter of support from a neighbor so let that be known. I'm wondering, the adjacent lot as you're facing the house to the left, there's some pretty tall cyclone fencing there. Is that on your property or it's higher than four feet which is all the code permits, it may or may not even be yours. DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : It's not mine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wondered if you know anything about it, is there like DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : It's still I don't know if he passed away but it was farmland, he used to farm it.That's all I really know about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not your concern but anytime we go out to inspect properties whatever we see that seems to not be compliant with the code is something we get concerned about. DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : We're going to have to put a fence in front of it to comply for whatever reason is fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you happen to know whether or not there are other we know the area pretty well, we've done a lot of variances in that area, I wonder if you know anything about other prior approvals from the Zoning Board for excessive lot coverage on Founders? DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : There was one but I don't know the individual's name. It was basically on the road behind me, I don't know the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might be a front yard setback, I mean we've had a lot of setback variances. DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : I also have a neighbor that's going to be doing the same thing as I am as well. Originally the house was 33% of you know lot coverage that you could used and it changed out to 20, when did that actually happen? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It must have been a change of zone. It might have been agriculture you know back in the day it was probably an AG lot as you said it was a farm that has a a March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting different bulk schedule than residential and you are now zoned residential for that lot, that's probably when that happened. It's an old neighborhood I mean it's one of Founders it's one of the original neighborhoods. Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask if there's a way to redesign or reduce the size of the pool but I think it's a relatively small pool for functionality. DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : Yea I mean and the depth is not so we don't have to have a dry well either so we don't have that needed as well it conforms to well Done Right Pool decided for that just on that reason. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well your existing lot coverage looks like it's 16.72% so the pool is adding 4.8% but it is a pretty 16 X 32 is not a very big pool and I don't see anything on the property that you could remove. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's something, the brick structure I mean it's not actually your rear deck if there was ever a deck is you know it's just like stairs coming off the back of the house. There's nothing that we can discuss for reduction other than the pool and that defeats the purpose of a pool. You just made a statement of Done Right's design relative to a need for DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : Yea because of a certain amount of cubic volume of water and is when you need to have a dry well for you know for your overflow CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pool de-watering. DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : Right de-watering; so there are certain limitations which you can have in Southold Town which he looked up obviously he's done as many pools I don't know you know what I'm saying. I think it goes by you know the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you have space for a dry well would you be adverse to installing a dry well? DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : I have no problems with it, it would just you know yea the Building Department and if you have this size and this and that the cubic volume of water you don't need it. I mean I have no problem if it's needed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's not required code it's not DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : Yea that's the only thing it's not required because of the size cause it doesn't have a full deep end either so it's MEMBER LEHNERT :The Building Department will sort that out after this. 3 March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a question, the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval referenced two surveys that I think were not included in the application and I'm drilling down a little because this is a lot coverage variance request. The survey with our application is dated May 2, 2024, the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval references a survey dated September 6, 2024 and then an updated survey provided to the Building Department November 14, 2024 and I just wondered if you know the difference among those three surveys. DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : It may have been a little bit of a design change. I think like I said it was just because of the deep end and maybe it was like not that we have a buffer zone but maybe it was just a little bit of a placement away from the corner of the you know the property lines. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Also I was a little confused on the size of the pool because I think the survey dimensions indicate a 16 X 32 but the coverage calculations indicate that the pool adds 544 sq. ft. which is not equal to sixteen times thirty-two. DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : I don't know about that math how it was but MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea, again, maybe I'm picking at it a little DOUGLAS BOGOVICH : Maybe it's because of the coping, honestly I really don't know maybe it's the actual physical area of the water itself and the frame work. I'm not exactly sure how that works. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It kind of goes to what the lot coverage is and whether it's a really, really minor variance of a slightly larger one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to respond to the Notice of Disapproval which says 21.5%. MEMBER LEHNERT : It works out if you do the math. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does it? MEMBER LEHNERT :The existing and the proposed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob just did it and it worked out Margaret. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I do but I'm looking at the date of the survey, the survey was performed May 2"d CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else, anyone in the audience or Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries, we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7996—BRANKO JOZIC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Branko Jozic #7996. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 6, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations (inclusive of an "as built" rear deck addition) to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 12960 Main Rd. in East Marion (adj.to Gardiners Bay). BRANKO JOZIC : My name is Branko Jozic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess you did some construction on your property without getting building permits. BRANKO JOZIC : Yes I did a couple of years ago something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a side yard setback at 4.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10 feet. Then we have a combined side yard setback of 14.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet. The entire parcel is in a FEMA flood zone. There was a Stop March 6,2025 Regular Meeting Work Order issued on this property on 7/31/2024 which was for construction without a building permit. It looks to me like the 4.7-foot side yard setback is to an outdoor shower? BRANKO JOZIC : Shower yea and there used to be outdoor and also there used to be exit to the staircase. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then you are is this a proposed second story addition on the west side of your house? BRANKO JOZIC : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did get a prior ZBA approval for a shed :in a division of the property way back in the day. Let's see what the Board has to say, Rob we'll start with you what questions do you have? MEMBER LEHNERT :The second floor addition that's just going over the existing first floor. BRANKO JOZIC : Yea MEMBER LEHNERT: No expansion of the footprint? BRANKO JOZIC : No expansion, exactly the same one. MEMBER LEHNERT : It doesn't seem to be an issue with the sky plane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's one of those lots that are fronting on the bay, they have a long skinny lots it's typical of that side of Main Rd. As a matter of fact, did you know someone named Treandly? I don't know how long you have been in the house; he was right next door. don't see any I don't have any question's here. Is there anything from you Margaret? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The lot size, the survey indicates it's 9,870 sq. ft., the architect's site plan indicates 9,920.83 and although it seems like a small difference the survey is correct because it's a smaller number it's possible you would also need a variance for lot coverage so I'm wondering if there's a way to determine which is correct? BRANKO JOZIC : Not very easy I mean I have to check the papers, the old survey I want to check what's going on and all that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically if we have two things with conflicts on them most architects or engineers will use the surveyors survey to do a site plan so we would probably say the survey takes precedent over any inconsistency. Are you suggesting that you want to find out if the survey suggests I mean the Building Department should have called that out, they would have used the survey. March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting BRANKO JOZIC : I think they're using the new survey the architect and everybody for any kind of work over there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All we have to do in a situation like this is cite the survey and what the survey calls out. Is this not called out in the Notice of Disapproval MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the assumption is it's okay, that isn't always the case but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) conversation which you can't tell unless you're physically there, where the outdoor shower is, there's actually a gate like the house fagade wall extends to the lot line so it really should be a zero foot setback. It's not cited but we've had other people if you remember the Orient Inn cause they had some sort of a pergola attachment or trellis I'm sorry BRANKO JOZIC : (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, the outdoor shower is open, open air but there's a continuation of the front fagade kind of like a fence for lack of a better word but where a door gate is located so it's just one of those BRANKO JOZIC : Only when my grandkids come over here I don't want any kind of deers inside because they all have big problem with the lime disease already once and that's the reason why MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Even if the gate like even at the driveway there's a gate with a door it actually it made it very easy to get in. BRANKO JOZIC : Normally I usually close that, when I'm there that is closed all the time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it was closed when I went to do the site inspection but all I'm saying is just thinking that the Building Department probably should have caught it at zero in light of the Orient Inn situation but you can't really tell when you're looking at it until you're physically at the when you're looking at the survey or site plan. MEMBER LEHNERT : The plan wouldn't show it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's just a point of conversation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT: I have nothing more. March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat or anybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nothing from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think there's anybody on Zoom. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We should have a decision in two weeks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Resolution for next Regular Meeting with Public Hearing to be held Thursday, April 3, 2025 9:00 AM so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held February 20, 2025 so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye 371 March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one-year extension to 7364 of February 20, 2020 Pnayiotis Basios 2505 Soundview Ave beginning February 20, 2025 to expire February 20, 2026.This is the last and final extension so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant an extension to 7295 of July 18, 2019 Rachel Levin Murphy on Soundview Ave. in Southold, beginning this date and to expire July 18, 2025.This is the last and final extension so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to recess for lunch. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye 38 March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7997—HASDAY 2023 FAMILY TRUST/CRAIG HASDAY TRUSTEE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Hasday 2023 Family Trust/Craig Hasday Trustee #7997. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280- 18 and the Building Inspector's October 15, 2024 revised December 5, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" 9.9 ft. by 22 ft. deck addition attached to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than .the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 200 MacDonalds Crossing (adj. to Peconic Bay) in Laurel. Do you want to represent the application and state your name please? CRAIG HASDAY : Craig Hasday 39 March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome let's see what we have here. The variance that's required for this is the deck that you have which was apparently built without a permit is attached to your home and it has a side yard setback of zero feet to your property lines, it's kind of right there. The code requires a minimum of 10 feet so you're requesting relief from the code to allow it to stay where it is. This is a 9.9 foot by 22-foot deck. When was that deck built? CRAIG HASDAY : I think it was 1972, it was before we owned the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did you purchase the house? CRAIG HASDAY : In 2024 just a year and a half ago or so. I might have that wrong but around that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware, Board Members go out and inspect every property, drive around the neighborhood before we have a public hearing so that we can see what's going on, what your neighbor's property looks like, how close you are, how far away you are. How was it that this came to your attention that you needed to get a variance? CRAIG HASDAY : We knew it when we bought the house cause they were intent on selling it subject to you know whatever problems there were. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You bought it as is in other words, I think that's the term. CRAIG HASDAY : In actuality we intended to tear the house down so we didn't care, we were going to build a new house but then we decided not to do that and we decided to correct the filing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, always good to have some context. Let's see what questions the Board might have, Pat do you want to start? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I don't have a question at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you have any questions on this? MEMBER LEHNERT : No, not at this time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Talk a little bit about the Stop Work Order, tell us what was going on there. CRAIG HASDAY : They had a garage that was dilapidated and frankly it was leaking water and it needed to be renovated so we decided to renovate it into a conditioned storage space and again the idea was we were going to take the house down anyway so we would just going to do it and we didn't get a permit unfortunately and we learned our lesson. 40 March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, in the garage what improvements were made? CRAIG HASDAY : We were renovating it, we were just basically waterproofing it, redoing the walls, removing the garage door because it was going to be storage space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it was when you purchased the house it was a functioning garage. CRAIG HASDAY : It wasn't functioning it was MEMER PLANAMENTO : Well, dilapidated but it was a garage. CRAIG HASDAY : The door yes it was a garage with a it had an adjoining room that had a bathroom in it as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that's what I wanted to ask, from outside when you're walking around the property you can see that there's a plumbing vent I'm sorry? CRAIG HASDAY :There already was a plumbing vent. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, to the best of my knowledge there were no permits,for any of this that's part of the dialogue here. It also appears that there's conditioning in the sense that there's whether it's a split system or something, it looks like there's gas that goes in there into the garage for whatever heat source or cooling. CRAIG HASDAY : Whatever was there is there it was just renovated it just was there we just renovated whatever was there and we planned on using it as conditioned storage, we're going to build a wine cellar in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well in addition to the deck CRAIG HASDAY : We do have a permit now by the way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask about that, so you have a permit for the garage? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I actually had a question about the permit because the permit is written to do include an HVAC system and window, door replacements to an existing single family dwelling but it appears that the improvements were made to the garage, can you clarify that? CRAIG HASDAY : There are two separate permits, one permit for the house and the other permit for the garage it's two separate permits. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think only one came with the application so 4 March 6,2025 Regular Meeting CRAIG HASDAY : So what we talked about there were a couple of defects that warrant that they didn't apply for variances for one of them was I guess a window that was done and then replaced an HVAC or something, it was a window and HVAC system and we applied for permits to correct that as well as to apply for the deck. The deck was denied because of the setback. We have a permit for the window and the HVAC and separately we got a permit for the garage. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : A question I had is relative to the ownership of the adjacent lot, the survey indicates that the lot to the southwest which I think is lot I think the lots are identified as lot 11 and lot 12 on this Young and Young survey belongs to or was formerly owned by an Enna Hasday that's MRS. HASDAY : We own both properties. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I see, you still own both properties? CRAIG HASDAY : Yes MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The reason I ask is, the application asks a question about whether the applicant owns adjacent properties and it was answered no. CRAIG HASDAY : Cause it's two different Trusts. The Hasday 2020 Family Trust owns that property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that the property that has the trex decking? CRAIG HASDAY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause that's the only way you can get to your back yard. The house is sitting on the property line that you can't there is no way to pass. MRS. HASDAY : The prior owner the house that we live in did that. CRAIG HASDAY : We didn't do that either,that was there but that was permitted that house is fully there's a C.O. on it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just hearing that you own the house too that I guess would be to the west that sort of answers a question of mine because on the side of the house that's the subject of the application are kayak racks and there is some sort of like box item that was wrapped. CRAIG HASDAY : That's the furniture that's going to go into the garage when we finish it. We just wrapped it for the winter it seemed like a good idea. We didn't have any place to put it so 4Z March 6,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIREPERSON WEISMAN : Well sometimes the Board suggests maybe cutting back the deck a little to give you know a little bit of a walkway there but frankly the house is there nothing is to be gained. There is a little bit of kind of scrubby evergreens between the two properties and the house that's adjacent is more landward so it's not like from the deck you're looking smack into somebody's house even if it's your house. CRAIG HASDAY :There's actually not even windows on that side so you don't see it at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you're going to have to get Trustees approval for this as well. CRAIG HASDAY : We already have because the former owner when their bulkhead was destroyed they got Trustees approval for the bulkhead and for the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And for the deck. CRAIG HASDAY : But they never did the deck and apparently since it's a whatever they said we don't need the Trustees approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No Trustees now. CRAIG HASDAY : It's very complex. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Trustees permit dated October 19th oh no that's 2017. CRAIG HASDAY : Yea but they said it doesn't expire. We went through that with they said it doesn't expire. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When was that, October what was the date? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : October 19, 2016 Rob Herrmann made the application. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think there was two rounds if I remember right, I'm going from memory, I think there was an original Trustees permit and then there was a modification to it so one was sort of immediately post Sandy and one was a little bit later and it changed some of the dimensions. CRAIG HASDAY : But they had intended to legalize but they didn't which is why they told us the house as is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea I have my notes Trustees for permit for bulkhead was October 19, 2016 yep and then there was a Stop Work Order and then MEMBER LEHNERT : Replace the existing deck. 43 March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the deck is in a FEMA flood zone but so is most of the house. CRAIG HASDAY : Other than destroying the bulkhead there was no Sandy damage at all on the house at our house either. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the bay didn't get it as bad as the Sound did. CRAIG HASDAY : We were one tie away, we had a camera on it we were watching it we were like, oh boy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wow that's scary. CRAIG HASDAY : The little boat which might have been like a 12-foot boat washed up on our all the way up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to know if anybody else is, the roads are small private roads mostly waterfront cottages down there. I don't have anything else really to ask, anything else from any of you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's sort of a corner property so I mean they have a greater I don't know what to call it, it is a second front yard but it's really a footpath to the beach. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no one else in the audience to ask if they want to address the application and there's nobody on Zoom. CRAIG HASDAY : We talked to all of our neighbors and they support us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your neighbors. CRAIG HASDAY :All of them everyone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, hearing nothing else from anyone I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye 441 March 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We should have a decision in two weeks on March 20th. We meet and there's no testimony we're done with that but we will deliberate on a decision. We will have a draft in front of us and it's'over in the bank building upstairs in that conference room. You don't have to be there, it's available if you want to listen on Zoom and that's on our website, you just click on the link or you can call the office and say what's happened?The Resolutions are done so I'm going to make a motion to close the meeting. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye March 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 k�9 &�W4�0 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : March 14, 2025