Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/03/2025 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 April 3, 2025 10:05 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 DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Ohayon, Gal and Noga#7982 3 -4 Decision for Fishers Island Community Center, Inc.#7986 4 Joseph Charles Casarona Trust#7995 5 - 15 Rainer Gross#7993 15 - 19 Philip Loria #7498 20- 35 Crab Cove, LLC#7998 35 - 37 Chistopher and Sofija Shashkin #7999 37-45 Hugh Benedict McBride and Leah Elizabeth Volk#8000 46-47 Peter and Donna Ruttura#8002 48-51 North Road Hotel, LLC, Hotel Moraine#7927SE 52 - 61 North Road Hotel, LLC, Hotel Moraine#7953 52 - 61 April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for April 3, 2025. Would you all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Let's begin with 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 NYCRR, Part 617.5 © including the following: Joseph Charles Casarona Trust 7995, Gross 7993, Loria 7498, Crab Cove 7998, Shashkin 7999, McBride and Volk 8000 and Ruttura 8002 so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have two draft decisions before we get to the first public hearing, the first one is Ohayan # 7982. Margaret, do you want to tell us what the salient points are on this one? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes, in this application the applicant sought a variance to allow a covered front porch with a 29 foot 10 3/8 inch setback compared to the 35 feet required. The variance for lot coverage of 20.8% where 20% is required as maximum and to legalize an accessory garage in the side yard when a rear yard location is required. During the hearing the Board noticed that there were elements present at that time of the inspection that were not included on the survey for the lot coverage calculation. The reassessment of the lot coverage indicated that lot coverage was 23.9%. The front yard*setback and the garage are not out of character for the neighborhood but the excessive lot coverage it's not clear that that is common in the neighborhood. I make a motion to grant the front yard setback variance and to legalize the "as built" garage in the side yard and to deny the lot coverage as amended of 23.9% and grant alternative relief of 22% subject to the removal of structures to get the lot coverage to 22%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Very good, any comments or questions? I'll second it, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO-: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Then we have Fishers Island Community Center you want to do a quick review of that one? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : For Fishers Island Community Center, this was a request to remove an existing mobile home that was in a deteriorated condition and construct a new single- family dwelling largely in the same footprint. The issue that raises is that there would be three uses on the lot where the code requires only one use per 120,000 sq. ft. There's a front yard setback variance needed, seven feet versus forty feet minimum, a rear yard setback of 40 feet versus a 50-foot minimum. In the initial application the sky plane was exceeded. The Board received an amended application that increased the front yard setbacks to 13 feet (inaudible) reduced the rear yard setback to 33 feet 5 inches and eliminated the sky plane issue. Additional uses had previously been approved by prior ZBA decision; the site is constrained by a berm to the west and the site or the lot width is just 70 feet at the dwelling location which makes it impossible to comply with the 40-foot minimum front yard setback and the 50-foot minimum rear yard setback because the sum of those exceeds the width of the property. I make a motion to deny the application as applied for and grant the relief as amended with the conditions that Suffolk County Department of Health approval be obtained for the septic system and that occupancy of the dwelling be that the occupant of the dwelling be qualified or on the Town of Southold Affordable Housing Registry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And Covenants and Restrictions will be filed keeping it in perpetuity as an affordable unit. Is there a second on that? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#7995—JOSEPH CHARLES CASARONA TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Joseph Charles Casarona Trust #7995. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207A(b) and the Building Inspector's October 15, 2024 amended November 14, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new single-family dwelling and an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area located at 55 Glen Court (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. We have here a single-family dwelling with a pool with a front yard setback proposed at 25 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet, a proposed GFA of 3,695 sq. ft. where the code permits a maximum of 3,147.75 sq. ft. maximum and a pool at 82 feet from the bluff where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet. ROB HERRMANN : First, I'd just like to say this has really good project to work on, it's been in a design phase now I think for about the past three years maybe more prior to my involvement well before the passage of the GFA code limitation that necessitates one of our three variances. (inaudible) Architecture is the design professional and Tyler Fox and James Manacone are both here with me. I was just talking about the length of time that we've been in the design phase,the fact that it's been in the design phase since prior to the passage of the new GFA and sky plane limitations. Joe Casarona the applicant who I hope is able to join us by Zoom this morning is a long time Cutchogue resident. I could actually say he's been planning this project for almost thirty years. It was in 1997 that he petitioned the Planning Board to merge and effectively,absorb what used to be the westerly end of Glenn Ct. into the property that exists today. It is both the additional 50 feet of depth relative to the other parcels on the north side of Glenn Ct. and its position between the end of Glenn Ct. as it exists today and the deeper Oregon Rd. parcels to the west that make the subject parcel unique when considering the various relief being requested from the Board. The parcel was originally created as lot 1 of the map of Birch 'Hills, a town approved subdivision in 1967 long before bluff setbacks never mind the GFA limitations. Thus, the majority of construction of all the homes north of Glenn Ct. occurred prior to current,zoning regulations and or pursuant to some form of variance relief. In our written application, for example'we reference three prior decisions, case 2134 in 1976, case 6166 in 2008 and case 6865 in 2015 each of which allowed a new dwelling to be constructed with a 25-foot or lesser front yard setback from Glenn Ct. which is the same as the 25-foot front yard setback requested for the proposed dwelling; because of the lot's absorption of the original end of Glenn Ct. it should also be considered that unlike those parcels,the front yard setback here does not actually back up to the northside of Glenn Ct. and April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting thus does not encroach upon or represent an insufficient setback from,the public roadway itself or properties located across the street as there are none. Rather the house would be located 25 feet from the southerly lot line (inaudible) with the adjacent parcel to the south whose dwellings located 70 feet away from the same property line. Just quickly on this, aerial photo this is the end of Glenn Ct. so all of these lots as you go east are to the north of Glenn Ct. whereas the subject parcel here backs up through the landward side of Glenn Ct. and it was determined by the Building Department that the bluff side is the rear, these are the sides and the front remains on the south side but instead of being adjacent to the road it fronts this adjacent house to the south. So, it's a little bit of a different really unique front yard setback request for this subdivision. Furthermore, as you can see on the site plan the majority of the house does in fact meet the required 40-foot front yard setback, it's only the attached garage that triggers the need for the setback relief because the garage must extend southward so that it can face the road to the east. It's also worth noting that this would become the only house from the Birch Hill subdivision ever to meet the 100-foot bluff setback. Now relative to the 82- foot setback requested for the swimming pool we note that previously mentioned case 6865 also authorized construction of a new swimming pool at 445 Glenn Ct. with a 50-foot bluff setback which is four parcels to the east and in 2001 case 4990 granted relief for a new pool located roughly 90-feet from the top of bluff on a physically adjacent lot to the west which backs up to Oregon Rd. The pool the proposed pool here will be located significantly farther from the bluff than the one at 445 Glenn Ct. and what appears to be actually about the same distance from the bluff as the adjacent pool to the west based on current site conditions. It is also worth noting that although based on the survey submitted with the application at the time, no bluff setback variance was required for construction of a swimming pool that is present two properties to the west but again, based on current day conditions that pool appears to be located just as close to the bluff if not closer than the one on the immediately adjacent lot to the west and that did receive a ZBA variance in the case I just mentioned. It should also be noted that the small 10 by 25 plunge pool proposed here is smaller than all three of those surrounding pools. We hope that we have demonstrated in the application that both the proposed front yard setback and the bluff setback for the pool are in fact substantially consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood are insubstantial when compared to these other property conditions and will not cause any harm to nearby properties. Now the size and location of the Casarona parcel also placed it in a unique position when evaluating the requested GFA relief relative to the other parcels located on the northside of Glenn Ct. again, those created by the original subdivision. The additional area gained through the merger of the former portion of the roadway allows the dwelling as I mentioned earlier to be a deeper lot and to become the first created by the map of Birch Hills to meet the 100-foot bluff setback and its location at the west end of the subdivision and also west of Birch Lane as you can see on that aerial actually (inaudible) this parcel surrounded on April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting all but one side by larger parcels and larger dwellings than the waterfront parcels that are on the northside of Glenn Ct. farther to the east. As noted in our application and depicted in the photo array I submitted and if Donna you can hear me this is where you may want to pull it up to the second page, figures,three and four thank you very much. The dwelling that's on the physically adjacent parcel to the west which Donna is pointing to in that photo currently has roughly 4,716 sq. ft. of GFA which is a little over a 1,000 sq. ft. more than the 3,695 sq. ft. GFA proposed by the applicant-That house is depicted not just there but Donna if you wouldn't mind jumping to the next page it's also depicted on figures six so at the bottom there that's a shot from the property roughly where the proposed house would be and then on the next page it's also on figure seven which is a view of that house from the bluff. The dwelling on the property two to the west which if Donna goes just a little bit lower is pictured there in figure eight has roughly 3,263 sq. ft. GFA but on a parcel that allows more than 7,100 sq. ft. GFA and the adjacent dwelling to the south which I mentioned is the parcel that from which the front yard setback is required which has buildable land that is unencumbered by a bluff and Donna if you jump back to figure five I think yeah that's the figure at the top, that's the house to the south the existing house is less than that now but it could be expanded to more than 4,800 sq. ft. GFA by right. There is also a vacant parcel located diagonally across the street that will allow for a 3,628 sq. ft. GFA which is about 66 sq. ft. less than what is proposed. Now the lots on Glenn Ct. to the east are obviously much smaller than all of these other lots that are surrounding the applicant's-and for three of the five closest developed parcels to the east there are no recent building permit records or house plans that the architect could pull data from although as we describe in the application it looks like they are smaller homes with quite a bit less GFA than would be afforded even by those smaller lots. We do detail on our application that the architect was able to find more recent plans for the other two closest waterfront parcels to the east which are 645 Glenn Ct. which is located six parcels away and has 3,985 sq. ft. GFA so a bit more than what the applicant is proposing and 445 Glenn Ct. which is four parcels away and has 3,520 sq. ft. GFA so a bit less than what the applicant is proposing. As we noted in the application, when considering the four most recently constructed or renovated waterfront homes within 600 feet in both directions, both to the east and west, two of the four have GFA greater than what's proposed and together they average 3,871 sq. ft. which is also,greater than the proposed. Now, what I have learned from researching a couple of excess GFA applications I've handled since the new law was passed is that the availability of these records and variability and lot sizes and existing GFA versus what would be allowed by right if an existing house were expanded whether that was two months from now or two years from now, they make these GFA comparisons.difficult and certainly anything but an exact science. What we hoped to have demonstrated in this case both qualitatively and quantitatively is that despite its common origin with the smaller lots on the northside of Glenn Ct. to the east the majority of the dwellings which in fact immediately April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting surround the Casarona parcel currently have or could have by right greater GFA than what is proposed by Mr. Casarona. Now we also understand that this quantitative consistency doesn't necessarily obligate the Board to grant the requested relief which is why we also dedicated extensive discussion in our application to the need for and the reasonableness of the additional GFA and its lack of impact on the nearby property owners. I don't want to spend much time on this here verbally also unless the Board has specific questions and I believe Mr. Casarona if he's with us may wish to speak to some of it himself. I just want to summarize as briefly for the record as I can (inaudible) consistency with the other variance standards. I think it's also critical to understand that the need for the excess 547 sq. ft. of GFA which represents actually 17% relief does not result from an excessive footprint or even an in fact second floor living space. Based on the dwellings actual floor area the total GFA is one square foot less than what's allowable by code but there's a 548 sq. ft. area of the first floor that has a 22-foot ceiling height rather than a 15-foot ceiling height which based on the GFA code requires this first floor space to be counted twice in the GFA calculation. Now, we understand that the inclusion of these higher ceiling spaces was likely required by the Town Board since theoretically a higher height could allow for a second and in fact second floor to be added in the future. I believe Mr. Casarona would submit to a Covenant prohibiting any such future renovation. I don't want to speak for him on that case but I believe that he and I had discussed that. Because of the importance of the open space over the first floor being so critical to him and critical to the design and relates in part to his ongoing recovery from a catastrophic accident several years ago. Again, I'll let Mr. Casarona discuss that with the Board if he wishes or the Board has questions and or the architect wants to speak more to the design elements in that regard if the Board wishes. We also highlight in our application that the sky plane and building height are code compliant and that the two existing adjacent homes to the south and to the west will actually still be looking downward at this dwelling which has a maximum height of only 25-feet which is 10-feet less than allowed by code and that's why I asked the architect to provide the two renderings that I submitted. I have copies cause I don't know how well you can see that on the board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob you submitted copies of the priors, did you not? ROB HERRMANN : I did. If you don't mind, I could hand you up just a couple of these quickly, I don't want to spend a lot of time with it but I'll give you one more and everybody should have one. What we've tried to do with the rendering is to demonstrate what this proposed house actually looks like in the landscape of these larger homes and you can tell from the scaling that this home certainly would not have in terms of its massing or height have any possible impact on these surrounding properties. Leslie, to answer your question, yes with respect to the priors that I referenced in the application and just mentioned a few minutes ago at Kim's request I April 3,2025 Regular Meeting submitted copies of all of those decisions and we also supplied sort of a color-coded locator map that shows where each of those decisions have been made relative to the subject lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob just so you know, in future because you appear before the Board frequently and always do cite priors, we will require the submission of the complete ROB HERRMANN : I'll start submitting that same package all the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's great thank you. ROB HERRMANN : That's the map that I'm mentioning that just that's really there's no GFA variances in this neighborhood since the code was passed so those all relate to the front yard setback cases that I mentioned that had the 25-foot front yard. setback variances granted for construction of new dwellings or reconstructed dwellings. Then the orange lot all the way on the west there, that is the physically adjacent lot to the Casarona parcel which has the little red star on it and that deeper lot is where there that lot and the one to the west but you can see an aerial, each have much larger swimming pools located about the same distance from the bluff as this smaller proposed plunge pool. Like the front yard and bluff setback relief we're hoping to have demonstrated that there would be nothing about the Boards granting of the GFA relief that would be inconsistent with the character of or adversely impact these surrounding. homes. Finally, our application details various mitigation measures that are incorporated into the design to ensure the project as a whole, will have no adverse impacts on the physical conditions to the property including the adjacent bluff. Again, I think it's important to note that the house itself meets the 100-foot bluff setback, there's no natural resource relief required for the dwelling.There will be obviously an IA sanitary system installed to treat on-site septic waste, stormwater drainage system is proposed including for pool back wash. The small pool that's proposed would utilize saltwater filtration system and there is a 25-foot-wide vegetated non-turf buffer that would be perpetually maintained adjacent to the bluff. With that we hope that the Board will agree with our conclusions and consider the granting of relief. Obviously if you have any questions either the architect can answer them and I don't know if Joe Casarona is with'us and wants to speak or if he wants to wait to see if there's any questions, specific questions the Board might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : Not right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, I think the bigger thing you`brought forward was just the double height for the 548 sq. ft. I mean I kind of in my minds eye sort of equalizes the GFA issue but it's still obviously an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would the GFA be if there was not a double height? What if there was a second floor in that space? ROB HERRMANN : Ask that one more time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there wasn't a double height theoretically okay, if it was a regular second floor over that void which is double height, what would the GFA be? ROB HERRMANN : So if it were in fact second floor it would be the same because the way the GFA code treats this is that, a so in other words let me answer a slightly different question that you didn't ask. If the code did not require the double counting, the GFA would be 3,147 sq. ft. which is one square foot less than what's allowed but because the code counts the double space it puts us over by the 547 sq. ft. Again, there is no second floor and that is the entire and I didn't get into this in my testimony but that is the entire purpose of that space is to have this wide open space with full sunlight coming in as part of the design. Again, I'm assuming I don't know but I'm assuming that the Town Board passed the code that way because if you didn't then somebody can come in and say, well this is just open space and then after the house is built actually go in and put in an in fact second floor thus creating the additional in fact GFA. That's why I mentioned Mr. Casarona there's no game being played in that regard here. He would be willing to submit to a covenant that would prohibit any in fact second floor from ever being added to that space. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If I followed the description of the parcels that have homes with GFA larger than what is proposed and I read the application I tried to read it carefully, there are four in the neighborhood, I think two to the west and two to the east and both were built prior to the GFA law or code being enacted. If I understand correctly, you're averaging of the GFAs of the homes in the neighborhood included those four parcels but did not include I think it's three of the parcels to the east that have not recently been renovated or improved. ROB HERRMANN : Because there's no records for us to pull those actual numbers from so we're trying to rely I mean, in a way there's a way ideological element to it where again we're trying to go back to what is the spirit of this code and the spirit of this code is to not allow the new construction of these massive homes that's going to dwarf all of its neighbors. So, we've done two things here, one, we've pointed out that the neighbor to the west for example will continue to dwarf this house. The house immediately behind this one will continue to look down on and could be expanded by right with no variance to be much larger than this one April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting also. The lot that's immediately to the east is vacant so there's nothing to compare it to there. Trying to expand out farther to the east and west was difficult here because when you expand out to the west there's only those two lots to the west on Oregon Rd. that are actually developed. If you look at the next, I think it was as Margaret just mentioned in the application, the next five parcels to the east, three are smaller but much, much older and would appear to have currently less GFA even than the lots would likely afford just having been involved with a couple of renovations on the northside of Glenn Ct. So, we don't have numbers to average but we were able to find the more recent renovations obviously because those are modern records that have building permit records and or variance plans, there's much more detailed records available. So, those two both within six properties to the east both within roughly six hundred feet to the east; of those two I had mentioned one has greater GFA than what's proposed I think it's 3,900 sq. ft. and the other has lesser GFA I think it was 3,500 something like that square feet. To your question, yes, I mean just because of the recentness of the code I don't think there has been any new dwelling construction in this area since the adoption of the code. So, any GFA that's being referenced here would naturally be pre-existing to the current code. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think what the code allows is for averaging of homes in the neighborhood, so if a dwelling is proposed to exceed what is currently permitted by the GFA law I believe the code allows averaging, it does not restrict that averaging to only large homes or recently renovated homes. I think it requires that all the homes and I think it's a rule of thumb, five in each direction or in the neighborhood. So, it would seem to me that you have left out of the average several homes to the east that probably have a lower GFA. ROB HERRMANN : So, we haven't provided a full neighborhood averaging and elected to leave those out conveniently. What we've done is collected the records that are available from all of the homes to the west and the east, use those numbers that we can actually calculate and provided those. As I've stipulated in the application there are three of those to the five that are older, have not been renovated, are smaller and I'm sure have smaller GFA but that's why given the difficulty of that calculation what we tried to focus on, again, is what is in fact surrounding this parcel? I mean if we go far enough in any direction that we chose we might be able to find worse or better numbers but what we're trying to look at and what we've tried to demonstrate and Donna if you don't mind pulling up those photos again, I think it was figure six maybe. So that's the house to the west, so regardless of the size of this house whose roof I think will end up I don't know maybe in the second-floor elevation of that house, that's physically what's there. To me in the spirit of this code it's our argument to look at what is not only around you or what could be around you. Again, that house could be expanded to over seven thousand square feet, the house to the south could be expanded almost to five thousand square feet. April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Rob if I can interject one thought, just from a fairness of application of the code, I think that house to the west is in a different zoning district. ROB HERRMANN : Of course and it's a bigger lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So from an averaging standpoint and again correct me CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not apples to apples, that's part of the problem. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It needs to be the R40 zone not the R80 zone. So that house is actually pulled out of the average. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is very difficult to ROB HERRMANN : In reality it shouldn't be. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't disagree about that, I'm just reminded of something as we're cause I would also think well why didn't you take the average or add the house to the west one over, they're two identical homes which would really skew the average? MEMBER LEHNERT : Guidelines make a difference between zoning districts? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, it has to be in the same zone. ROB HERRMANN : Not in the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our guidelines verify ROB HERRMANN : Your guidelines do but it's not in the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not in the code and the code has some complications that the Board is attempting to grapple with in fairness to the community and to property owners and that's why we help clarify what we meant by immediate neighborhood because we are barred by the code from granting greater than the average. So, if we can't confirm what the average is we don't know what we're doing. ROB HERRMANN : Well I won't argue with that but that you generally know what you're doing but for this particular code and I've been one of the people saying it since it was adopted, its purpose seems to be clear what the end goal is. It's sort of up to this Board how strictly you want to interpret the language related to it versus its intent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN-: Well that would require a code interpretation from us. April 3,2025 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : So for the Board to look at the homes that are physically surrounding this one and say, well you can't build this much smaller home because there's an even smaller home four doors down. There just doesn't seem to be any fairness or equity in that to me which is why we're trying to look at what is in fact comparable to this lot. If the Casarona parcel were the middle of Glenn Ct. I wouldn't be standing here having this conversation, we couldn't be having this conversation but it's not. The parcel really reflects a transition point between these smaller lots that are physically north of Glenn Ct. and are all smaller than this one. The two larger lots, as Nick mentioned which are in a different zoning district and back up to Oregon Rd. which are much larger but they're still there. I mean think of it I'll just say one other thing Nick, think of it this way, think of what the intent and spirit of this code was right. Let's say, you own a small cottage somewhere and the person right next to you on the bluff is in a different zoning district so they can build a house six times the size that's still going to be staring down on top of you, has the code succeeded in its mission? I would say it hasn't because it's out of character with what's there. The point of this code was to stop these overbuilds where you were building this tremendous Mcmansions on top of small cottages. That's physically and in reality, that's not what's happening here, this house is still going to be smaller or consistent with the homes that are immediately physically around it. To Margaret's point, if you want to stretch this out to every smaller lot on Glenn Ct. it'll eventually force the average down. In other words, if it's your intention to try to deny the project you can find the math to do it and you can say, well we can find the math to try to support the project. What I'm trying to do is something more reasonable in the middle which is just say, well what's physically around us? If you look at what's physically around you and you look at that rendering down there on the bottom of the page that's what that house is going to look at relative to the house to the west. Whether it's in a different zoning district or whatever is irrelevant, it's physically there. So, is this proposed house adversely impacting them, I don't think so. Is it impacting the house behind it, I don't think so. That's why we've taken the approach we have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's move on because in the interest of time, we've spent forty- five minutes on this. Go ahead Margaret and then I'm going to ask if Pat has any and then we'll open it up to the audience. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The application indicates that the applicants physical disability will largely restrict his living experience to the first floor of the home and that's part of the justification for having this double high height on the first floor but the home includes an elevator and I'm wondering if that does not mitigate this restriction of the applicant to the first floor. April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : I'm not going to speak to how the applicant wishes to live or how he has been living but if he's here he Donna can you see if I know Leslie mentioned that she was going to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob that's not necessary. We can't really with all due respect to everybody, we can't personalize these decisions and you know that. ROB HERRMANN : Margaret asked the question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know, I understand but I want to look at the time and see how to spend our time appropriately. It was a reasonable question but the fact is, a person's disability is a private matter and you know GFA is what's before us, right? ROB HERRMANN : I agree with you. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? OFFICE ASSISTANT : Mr. Casarona is on Zoom but he doesn't have his hand up. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I don't have a copy yet of all of the decisions that you sited but the ones that you were speaking of the pools being closer to the bluff, are those an addition to an existing home or was it built with a do you know whether it was built together? ROB HERRMANN : So, the one to the east on Glenn Ct. which is case 6865 it's 445 Glenn Ct. it was Sack, that was a complete redevelopment of that site and a new dwelling and new pool were constructed simultaneously with that relief. I believe I don't want to give inaccurate testimony but I believe that the development of the lot to the west was the same way but I can't swear to that.The pool may have been added afterwards but I'm not sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the priors will tell us that we'll just have to read them, that's all. It's important to have it in the record, it was a perfectly question but I'm saying we do that's why we want to read the priors. It's not enough to just give us the end result (inaudible). No one in the audience, no one on Zoom. Anything else from anybody, do you want to just close, reserve decision? Alright, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Second April,3,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7993—RAINER GROSS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rainer Gross #7993. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-121 and the Building Inspector's October 23, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" alterations to .an existing commercial building at 1) non-conforming use building shall not be enlarged, altered, extended, reconstructed or restored or placed on different portion of the lot or parcel of land occupied by such use located at 35315 Rt. 25 in Cutchogue. ELIGIO LOPEZ : Good morning, Eligio Lopez representing Mr. Rainer Gross. We're just seeking approval of this since I was told when he bought the building it was as is because-he was trying to close the permit. He didn't impact the footprint; it was any remodeling was done inside prior but I urged him getting the building (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Mr. Lopez the code says if a buyer purchases something that doesn't conform to the code it's their problem. ELIGIO LOPEZ : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't just say, I didn't do it they did it therefore it's fine. That would make life a whole lot easier for everybody but that's not how it works. Thank you for taking the time for allow an interior inspection yesterday, we were all there. We know that the Board previously granted this commercial building in an AG zone as a carpenter shop which was maintained for a long time. It is now used as an artist studio. Mr. Gross is a well- April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting established well-known artist and a couple of questions. Does he sell any of his work out of that building? ELIGIO LOPEZ : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Has he done any alterations or does he plan to make any alterations? ELIGIO LOPEZ : Not to my knowledge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The alterations consisted primarily of changing windows, doors and walls on the inside. ELIGIO LOPEZ : What I noticed from the previous drawings was there was a room a couple of walls put up. One of them was to keep like the boiler room separate but I don't have access to the old drawings. Like you said, when I came in, I was just looking to get a C of 0 and then we needed to do this process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we do have access to those old drawings from the Building Department. In 2015 there was an inspection, there was a permit and all of that and what I went and did is I looked at what's here now and what wasn't there. There were a lot of rooms that were created basically not by Mr. Gross but by the former occupant.That's what triggered this because you're not supposed to enlarge this building, it doesn't have a conforming use, you're not supposed to alter it. That is what is before this Board at the moment and there's a slight change in use from carpenter workshop to an artist workshop whatever you want to call it, we'll have to grapple with that. There was a 1998 Certificate of Occupancy alright. A lot of amendments to the building permit, I don't need to go through all of them. There was an approval to replace an existing access window with an access garage door on and on and on. There's a full bathroom in there and a kitchenette. I think the thing that we should clarify because we have in our record a survey that says single family dwelling and we know that is not what is there or how it's being used. It would appear that that was something the prior owner planned to possibly do with that building. What's the zone district, its AG district, right? Yeah, it's zone AG district so a dwelling is permitted I presume if he didn't want his carpenter shop anymore, he was maybe going to make it into a dwelling. What I want to make clear is that that structure is not correctly labeled, that survey is not correctly labeled, it is not a single- family dwelling and you're not proposing a single-family dwelling. Is that correct? ELIGIO LOPEZ : No, not at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what the Board has, anything from you Rob? to April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm wondering Eligio, is a shower necessary? ELIGIO LOPEZ : I don't know, I wouldn't be able MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) it was there when the applicant acquired it but I just wondering is a shower necessary? ELIGIO LOPEZ : Again, I cannot answer that question since I don't know the answer. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then the other question would be relative to the kitchen, is there an actual kitchen proposed or it's going to be just a ELIGIO LOPEZ : No,what it is there a kitchenette, I believe he has a hot plate that's about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He has a microwave and a dishwasher. It doesn't have a stove; it has a sink you saw that. ELIGIO LOPEZ : I saw yes. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : We saw it with you. ELIGIO LOPEZ : Yeah I did see the hot plate but I missed the dishwasher. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The dishwasher is in the spot where possibly a stove could go, it's kind of an open space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I don't believe that's what's proposed, it's not going to be a full kitchen, I think it is what it is likely. What we're attempting to do is make sure we understand clearly what the use is, what it's proposed use is so that we can address that properly. What is really before us is the fact that this non-conforming building was altered. ELIGIO LOPEZ : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not by your client but by the previous owner. He got it that way and it suits his purpose as an artist studio. ELIGIO LOPEZ : That's what he's trying to maintain like a workshop, a personal workshop basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So there's no sales out of there, he's not'selling his work. ELIGIO LOPEZ : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are there any other artists or other people using his space? 171 April 3,2025 Regular Meeting ELIGIO LOPEZ : No, he does by himself. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : His own occupancy. ELIGIO LOPEZ : Nobody comes to see anything I mean like whenever he has to sell or transport he moves it to a different area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just two other sort of questions relative to the conditioning of the building, the heat and cooling, is that part of this application or is that there? I don't have the benefit I haven't seen the building permit. ELIGIO LOPEZ : I didn't apply for any of that. The only thing I was in charge was to get the C of 0 and that's why we are here. The only thing is the electrical inspector he required all the specifications of the hot water heater which I submitted to the town but that's about it. Then of course the electric has to conform but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO So the electrical inspection or actually this is by John Jarski it indicates that he does need specs for the air/heat and hot water etc. I don't know if it's something that ultimately would need to be conditioned but it's all part of the application. ELIGIO LOPEZ : I did submit all of the pictures and all that. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) kitchenette and a dishwasher, can they live without the shower? Is your client available? ELIGIO LOPEZ : He's not available, he will be maybe tomorrow or Monday. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically this is a commercial building, it's not an accessory it's a principal building. Accessory buildings let's say you had a garage you're allowed a half bath a sink and a toilet you're not allowed a shower. Usually those are restricted to habitable spaces. This is a habitable space but there's no sleeping in it. ELIGIO LOPEZ : Not that I know of. I'm sure if the shower has to come out, I'm sure that he will have no problem. April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what I wanted to know. ELIGIO LOPEZ : If that's he doesn't live there, he lives in Greenport. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was down as originally I guess as Cutchogue and now it's Greenport and you put down Carpenter St. but we know that's in Greenport but you didn't put down Greenport in the application. ELIGIO LOPEZ : Oh no, on the paperwork he does say that he lives in Greenport. A few times that I have chat with him and I said you know he said I'm at my house in Greenport so he mentions a house in Greenport. I'm sure the shower CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : His work has been exhibited widely on both the North Fork and in New York City and elsewhere, Germany. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the kitchenette without a stove is fine, so the only thing would be that no stove facility. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No stove, no full kitchen, no shower, no sleeping and let him have his workshop his artist studio. Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? No hands are up. Anyone in the audience want to address the application? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#7498—PHILIP LORIA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Philip Loria # 7498 adjourned from October 6, 2022 and amended. This is a request for variances from Article XII Section 280-18, Article XIII Section 280-56 and the Building Inspector's February 5, 2021 amended November 22, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a single-family dwelling on a pile foundation at 1) located less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 1090 First St. (adj. to Cutchogue Harbor) in New Suffolk. KAREN LORIA : Good morning, Karen Hoeg of Twomey, Latham on behalf of Philip Loria the property owner who is here today. Also here is Joan Chambers who worked on the revised house design with Mr. Loria. In this amended application Mr. Loria .proposes a construction of a new modest sized three-bedroom house on pilings with a footprint of 1,023 sq. ft. The revised house requires relief from the front yard and rear yard setbacks for the primary dwelling, no accessory structures are proposed. As noted in the November 22, 2024 amended Notice of Disapproval from the Town Building Department the applicant requests variance relief from the yard setbacks as follows: the proposed house is located 4.3 feet from the front boundary line where 35 feet is required.This is the distance from the front property line to the covered entry and steps. The setback to the house is 13.2 feet from the property line. The proposed house is located 24.2 feet from the rear boundary line where 35 is required. The 24.2 feet is from the bulkhead to the first-floor wood deck on the northside and the setback on the southern side is actually 28.6. The distance from the bulkhead to the proposed house is 31.3 at its closest point. By way of background, the lot is 6,170 sq. ft. located in the Marine II zone. The proposed house is in flood zone AE. Based upon the interpretation of the Town Building Department the setbacks fall within the residential zoning HD requirement, requirements which was confirmed at the ZBA hearing on August 5, 2021. The applicant applied to this Board for several variances in 2021 but after listening to comments from the neighbors and the Board the applicant went back to the drawing board and made the proposed modifications which are the subject of this amended application. Most importantly, Mr. Loria noted that several neighbors were concerned about the proximity of the proposed sanitary system to the bay. With that in mind we asked our engineer, Jeff Butler of Butler Engineering to design a low nitrogen sanitary system and apply to the County Health Department to find a feasible location to satisfy the Health Department requirements while setting the system as far from the bay as practical. We spent a few years in Health Department process and reviewed various iterations with Health Department engineers. A Board of Review variance hearing was required due to setbacks from surface waters and the applicant received variance approval from the Board of review on December 7, 2023. A copy of that Board of Review decision and latest notice of complete from the Health Department was submitted Zo April 3,2025 Regular Meeting with the amended application. As per the Health Department notice number five, dated December 18, 2023 the issuance of a permit to construct a subject to one, a town zoning variance approval and also a Trustee approval. So, I'd like to highlight some of the changes in the amended plans before you. The house is now proposed on pilings with breakaway siding, no garage is proposed under the house. On site parking is proposed, there are no mechanicals on ground level and all utilities are being placed on the first floor.The second story rear deck is proposed on open pilings. The height of the house is complying to zoning, proposed at 33-feet where 35-feet is permissible. While the height to the ridge is 33-feet,the height of the roofline that extends the length of the house is 30.4-feet.The house first floor was previously proposed at 1,350 sq. ft. and is reduced to 1,023 sq. ft. The second-floor was previously proposed at 1,350 sq. ft. and that has also been reduced to 884.6 sq. ft. The house has been shifted so that both side yards comply with the town code. We shrunk the length of the house to 53-feet where it previously was at 60 and we also shrunk the width of the house to 19.2-feet where it previously was 25-feet at its widest. The amended plan complies with lot coverage which is at 21.29% where 25% is allowed. Side yard setbacks are complying and both sides are now over 22-feet from the property line where it previously a side yard setback of 10.5-feet was proposed. The rear setback was previously at 15.7 and we pulled the house and decking further from the water so that the first-floor deck is at a setback of 24.2-feet from ,the water and again the house is 31.3 from the rear yard setback. The plan before you shows native planting proposed at both the front and along both side yards. The Building Department has informed that the project will be grandfathered under the prior town code requirements as we had consistent communications with the Health Department and unfortunately got caught up in a very long Health Department process. We believe that the proposed changes are in keeping with the neighborhood and present a better overall project than what was previously before the Board. The various standards pursuant to Town Law Section 267E were (inaudible) in our application, I did want to discuss them in further detail. I've read the letters submitted by the neighbors both in support and in opposition which were filed as of yesterday and want to make a few comments as we believe Mr. Loria's amended project will not present an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The subject lot pre-exists the enactment of zoning and is non-conforming as are many of the lots in the surrounding area. Requesting variance relief for development or additions in the neighborhood is not uncommon and neighbors in the vicinity needed to apply for variance relief in some respect over the course of,their ownership. I'd like to present which I think would be helpful to the Board to see is an aerial overlay of the subject parcel and some of the adjacent properties. In turning to the property which is the adjacent property to the north, 1200 First St. which is the property owned by Kramer. The neighboring property was formally Grella/Osbourne and is now under the ownership of Kramer since 2022 received variance relief in 2014 for the construction of a primary dwelling located to First St: than the subject April 3,2025 Regular Meeting proposed dwelling and that was ZBA decision 6773. The dwelling is located 3-feet from the front property line and in that application the applicant sought six variances to partially demolish and reconstruct and make additions to an existing dwelling. As part of the Board's decision in 2014 granting the variances the Board also granted relief for side yard setbacks of 2.7-feet and 13-feet, lot coverage of 38.2% and a bulkhead setback of 21-feet. 1200 First St. is 3,621 sq.ft. half the size of the Loria property. The property is improved with a 2 % story house on a piling foundation with a two-car garage at ground level. In 2014 a new sanitary was installed however based upon my research it appears that's a conventional system and not a low nitrogen system. The proposed Loria house will be in line with the height of the house at 1200 First St. and again, a height variance is not needed in our application. Turning to property at 1175 First St. the Katsoulas property, this property is located directly across the Loria property, has a pre-existing non-conforming front yard setback of 4.4-feet. In 2009 an application was made for a one-story addition to expand living space and add a new bilco door. The property received a variance, ZBA 6270 to maintain that front yard setback in a non- conforming location and also received a lot coverage variance in order to make additions and alterations to the existing house. The Board noted that the proposed increase in lot coverage was not substantial and that the applicant already enjoyed the benefit of lot coverage beyond that permitted by code through a prior ZBA variance. As apparent in Mr. Katsoulas's letter of April 1, 2025 what was good for his property in terms of variance relief is not okay for Mr. Loria's property across the street. Further his letter misstates several facts and it is clear that he wishes that no house be built on Mr. Loria's property. Any development on the property would require an area variance due to the size of the parcel'and site constraints. The applicant has taken careful steps to ensure that the proposed dwelling is as conforming as possible and has amended their application to comply with the Health Department standards and the redesign in front of you today is the best possible option for the subject parcel. We believe that there's no adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions to the neighborhood. A copy of the Health Department Board of Review decision was submitted with our application. As noted in the decision, all leaching structures and expansion structures are located over 50-feet away from surface waters at 61.8-feet and 54.8-feet from surface waters where 100-feet is required. The proposed affluent pump station will be located 54.7 and 57.6- feet from surface waters. The location of the proposed sanitary was derived after several long meetings with the Health Department. Most important to note, in the Board of Reviews decision there's the following: The Board of Review decision specifically states, in compliance with Section 760 612 A1A, the proposed variances are in general conformity with the sanitary code and the variance should not impair ground water, surface water and drinking water supplies and as such is consistent with criteria specified in the Health Department code. Further, the Board of Review decision notes that the granting of the requested variances will not adversely affect the design of an adequate on-site water supply, sewage disposal system April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting which takes into account soil conditions, depth to ground water and site-specific physical conditions.The Board of Review approval of the variance was found to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the sanitary code to protect ground water and drinking water supplies, surface water and other natural resources including public health, safety and welfare. As noted, the applicant has taken great strides to limit the affect to the surrounding environment specifically the adjacent bay. The applicant will install a new IA system and has received the necessary variance approval. The proposed house has been modified to conform with a feasible location of the septic system as approved by the Health Department. Finally, while I understand that the neighbors have enjoyed the open vista that the current vacant lot affords, New York Case Law establishes that there's no legal right to a view and Mr. Loria working with Joan Chambers to great strides to minimize any potential view impact.The house ' was reduced in height, cut back on square footage, complies with side yards and moved as far from the bay as possible. The house also complies with lot coverage. Mr. Loria does not lose any of his property rights solely because he has decided not to build until now. We hope that the Board will agree to the granting of the variances that we are seeking and we're available to answer any questions that you have and I know Mr. Loria who is here would also like to make a statement to the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to do that now? KAREN HOEG : Sure and then we can answer any questions that the Board has. MR. LORIA : I have a copy of my statement. I'm Phil Loria, a lot of people know me as Captain Marty, I'm the owner of the First St. property. Karen and Joan have done a great job both a legal and the design reasons for you to grant a setback variance. I'd like to add a few things that I think are important to you for your consideration. I'm not a developer, I'm not seeking to build a mansion, we're trying to build my very modest retirement home something that I look forward to for many years. More than forty-five years ago when I returned from serving in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, I bought Captain Marty's Fishing Station and the First St. lot. The Fishing Station has been an essential part of life in New Suffolk. One of the few businesses that brought folks from all over to our town. Over the years I hired countless neighborhood kids, they grew up with my three children. I was also happy to help my neighbors because that's what makes me a good neighbor not just the business. I was active in numerous civic organizations including serving as President of the Mattituck Gun Club, working on early efforts of town planning for which I received an award. I've had many friends in Southold some have passed; many remain and I value all of them. I listened carefully to the suggestion of the ZBA at the last hearing the concerns of our neighbors. We've given a lot of thought, time, money, work to address these concerns. I got a state-of-the-art septic system to protect the bay. We redesigned the house to blend with the aesthetics of our community. We've reduced April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting the square footage and lowered the height (inaudible) significant portion of the house. Even though they don't deserve a legal right we created open site lines that allows neighbors walking by (inaudible) nearby homes to have some of that great view. Virtually every property in New Suffolk is non-conforming including mine which is why we're seeking the setback variance. When we began all the Trustees came down and gave me an okay to proceed. The D.E.C. has given us approval, the Health Department has pre-approved the septic system. We hope that the Zoning Board will value our thoughtful changes and my lifelong contribution to the quality of life in New Suffolk and grant this variance.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mr. Loria. Just a couple of things before we open this up to questions from the Board and or the audience, I know a number of you are here for this application. First of all, the former Grella/Osbourne property was a rebuild. That front yard setback even though it doesn't look like it, that front yard setback existed, this is brand new. I just want to put that in the record. Secondly, you're proposing a 9-foot-deep entry off of the street, if that were removed you would then have a 13.3-foot entry and you could certainly have a stair and a landing that wouldn't count toward that front yard setback. Another thing, on the waterside of the dwelling you have proposed a 10-foot 7-inch deck that is almost 30- feet long, 29 x 9 feet. If that was reduced substantially to basically just a landing and something big enough for maybe a barbeque and then stairs down and if you wanted to put a permeable pavers down a patio of some sort that's fine. The length of it is almost half the length it's more than half the length of the house, if that was substantially reduced or eliminated, you're going to have an almost conforming rear yard setback of 35-feet. So, I think although we know what it originally looked Like and we know the changes that are being proposed and it is certainly not as challenging as the former application was in my opinion there's still some room to make this even more conforming to the code. Does the Board want to say anything before,we open it up to the audience? Pat anything from you, do you want to start? MEMBER ACAMPORA : You've said it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you heard what I wanted to say, however is this an opportunity for them to amend the application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's possible but let's see if we have questions here and then we'll open this up to the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a drastically different application than previously so thank you for making those changes. April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting KAREN HOEG : I think in regards to your comment Chairwoman, we can certainly talk to the architect and Mr. Loria about making those modifications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's hear what the audience wants to say. Does anyone like to address the application? I should enter in to the record that we do have five letters of support, most of them were form letters and many of them were not located on the same street. One was over on Grathwohl and everybody knows New Suffolk, that's not exactly a heavy impact of this house for someone who lives on Grathwohl. Although we know New Suffolk well and people are very engaged in their community and that's a good thing, I think. We do have two letters of support also for Mr. Loria's proposal. Two letters of support and then the others are letters of objection. Five of support, two objections let's make sure that's right. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's the other way,two support and five objections. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I knew it was two and five. GEORGE KRUG : Hi, my name if George Krug, I own a home at 1175 Second St. First, this construction would have a direct impact on the enjoyment of my home. I currently have partially obstructed water views; this will be an additional obstruction. Right now, I have a view of Cutchogue Harbor I will instead have a view of the front of the new structure. I may not have a legal right to that view but those vistas are a major part of the character of the community. The spirit of the codes earlier in this session today is to preserve community character and as we all know who know New Suffolk the waterfront of New Suffolk is what defines the character of New Suffolk. Clearly the setback regulations were formed after many of the homes in Southold were already built, many homes including mine are grandfathered in and could not be built today and there's a reason for that. I'm certain that the town and its wisdom saw the ongoing trend and the threats proposed by the trend and said no more and created the code to save what was left of the community's character. That as I understand is the spirit of the codes for setbacks. These are not just substantial variances they could be fairly called extreme. The application is not asking for a few feet, it's asking for a 32% relief of the setback in the rear and a whopping 88% of the setback at the front. Even if the landing was reduced as was just discussed, they're asking for relief of more than half of what the setback requirement is. The height of the structure even within the code would just add to the wall of homes that blocks the shoreline from the community. On the applicant narrative form, the applicant admits that this is a self-created dilemma in that the lot was non-conforming when purchased. What would stop anyone if this were to be approved from purchasing other non- conforming lots and making similar applications knowing that an 88% or a 60% variance was doable? Precedents like these are powerful things, you guys are dealing with precedence all 2.. April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting the time. It came up over and over again in today's session. Even if a new rule is not a rule if everything is granted an exception. I object to the application and I ask you to uphold the earlier denial.Thank you for the opportunity to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your testimony, is there anybody else? DAVE KRAMER : Hi my name is the aforementioned Dave Kramer, I'm the new owner of the Grella house. I've met Phil we have cordial relations. I think just you know many of the issues which George brought up affect me in the same way. I didn't have the opportunity to write a letter I just wanted that on the record. When we bought the house originally in '21 1 think when negotiations occurred you know this process was going on with the prior application. I am new to the ZBA process, I live in the city I am new to how this works. I appreciate all the work that you guys do and I went through all of the filings at that time and all the letters. There was a voluminous correspondence at that time. I'm assuming given the same amount of time allowed with what happened back then perhaps it was a longer period it would be a similar (inaudible) correspondence in regards to the views many people in New Suffolk. understand Phil has his right to go through this and you know his property rights and everything and I would just like to see that process go through appropriately as you guys are doing. I do want to reiterate what you said previously about our property,. all that work was done before I owned it but it was pre-existing and all those variances are in a different nature which was never mentioned by the lawyer until you brought that up. With regards to the front setback, I think you mentioned 3.6-feet, I'm just thinking about my property, that seems a little shorter than how is see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 4.3 feet. DAVE KRAMER : 4.3 it seems a Kittle further back than that. To the house itself it's almost the length of a car. I don't know what you consider structure there. If you look at the aerial pictures that I have provided if you look at our driveway it can almost fit the length of an SUV. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible)town right of way for the road not your property. DAVE KRAMER : Okay, I just wanted to (inaudible).Another issue, I don't know if this is the ZBA or the Department of Highway and I don't know if this new building will affect me in any way. We have had some flooding issues that primarily comes from not from the bay but from you know rainwater coming down Orchard St. and the flow of water is down Orchard and then down First St. towards Legends and Minnow and it often gets trapped around my house. We had you know an episode last year where it washed through our garage. We also have you know a mud room; it came into our mud room. I don't know if this in any way will impact that, April 3,2025 Regular Meeting I'd like them to as part of this consideration that drainage is considered so that I'm not negatively impacted there either.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. We know very well what happens on First St. with regards to flooding. We know the (inaudible) very well and watched Legends literally under water, the Galley Ho and all those things. Lots of improvements have been made in-that whole area thanks to mostly the Civic Association and you know it's considerably better but it is a very heavily challenged area in terms of flooding. Nick, anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO I think (inaudible) discuss the front yard setback and rear yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they said they were willing to talk about an amended one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) to remove those and just have a landing, I think that would be helpful. The other thing that I'm just thinking about, perhaps that the audience isn't fully aware of, the site is a Marine II zone. I mean there's a more intensive use that while someone might be upset the potential view encroachment or other things, there are other uses that could be proposed that might be more detrimental than a single-family house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's certainly true. LINDA AURIEMMA : Hi my name is Linda Auriemma, I live in New Suffolk, 460 Fred St. I'm not anywhere near this lot in question, but I have a lot to say about somebody who just lives in New Suffolk. I have a question first; the last time Mr. Loria filed the application we submitted over a hundred and forty signatures from New Suffolk residents who you know were opposed to having a house built there. Is that still part of this file? I mean it has the same file number, the petition? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep LINDA AURIEMMA : Okay cause it's still applicable. I mean from looking at the application and hear all the accommodations that have been made for the house, the bottom line is, it's still a big house and it will still block a lot of views for all of us who live there and we cherish our views in New Suffolk yes so that will be a big section that's going to be wiped out for us, that hasn't changed. The first floor is now on pilings so it's just about as high as the first application house was. The house is going to be built supposedly on .14 of an acre. Now the town in current zoning for new lots to build, they require 2 acres. Now we're talking about ten percent of one acre I mean it's minuscule. This lot was created in 1923, is that to say that every single lot is entitled to have a house on it. I mean they're making strides on the setbacks and stuff but the bottom line is they can't make those setbacks fit, it's too close to the water. If the house Z17. April 3,2025 Regular Meeting was a quarter of the mile away from the water it would be a little bit of a different story. It's going to be right by the bay and how far away does the septic have to be? Isn't it 75 feet? The lot isn't even 75 feet deep. That's probably a Trustee issue but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it's also Health Department issue and apparently the Health Department did approve a variance for the location of an innovative alternative wastewater treatment system. LINDA AURIEMMA : I'm not that knowledgeable, I thought it was up to the town to specify but I thought the Health Department said that to be honest. I think it's 75-feet, I was trying to ask the Trustees but they didn't get back to me. We talked a little bit about the house next door and that has been there well not that house, our house has been there for a long, long time. There used to be like a little bungalow there and what happened with Sandy was really a crazy abomination you know the house got so flooded that who knows what got put in there afterwards. We weren't happy about that but it happened. I'd like to talk about the LWRP, since I'm under the impression that you can't approve what's not consistent with the LWRP. That's the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. The policies that are specified in that say that, it should foster a pattern of development that enhances community character. This will not enhance the character. That it preserves open space, obviously it's not preserving open space, it's not even preserving open waterfront space. Just a little on the side on that, I've been talking quite by accident with Catherine Stark who is the Suffolk County Legislator for District One and they're working on a program to help oyster farmers and baymen and bay women to purchase waterfront property so they can do their work. It's so hard, so expensive and there's so little of it. So, she's been working on that. I believe with Peconic Land Trust and maybe even with the town to help oyster farmers buy. This would be a perfect spot for it cause actually the lot next door directly next door was just purchased by an oyster farmer and then the Old Captain Marty's Fishing Station is Peeko Oysters. So, this would be a great use and I think everybody in New Suffolk would be happy about that something low key. That's something to consider of course you know it's up to the owner who was trying to sell the lot originally before he started submitting application, but it didn't sell though but maybe we can talk to or her would want to talk to Catherine Stark about the program. The other thing the LWRP says, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, we don't think it does that at all. A final, enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources, it definitely doesn't do that cause we'll all be robbed of the view we have now every day. This lot is the heart of our hamlet and if it's allowed to be built it will go against the policies, I just outlined in the LWRP. We talked about the petitions, make sure that everybody is aware of those. Please read one of our residents Robert Persell's letter that he just submitted I believe yesterday (inaudible) sorry. I read it, it speaks for all of us in New Suffolk and how we feel about what this will do to our little hamlet. The lot is just too small, not every house should have a house on it. There are other things that April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting may possibly work and allow the homeowner or the lot owner to be paid. As I said before, it would be one thing if the lot was not right on the water but it is and it's not going to be helpful to the bay whereas an oyster farmer will help the bay. Please deny this variance and I think I speak for ninety-nine percent of the people in.New Suffolk.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your testimony, anybody else? KAREN HOEG : I just wanted to clarify something, so I've gotten six letters in support that were in the ZBA files and only a copy of one letter in opposition from a Steve Katsoulis. I just want to make sure that I have all the information because I thought you said you had six letters. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have in my record as of yesterday, five letters of support and two letters of objection. BOARD SECRETARY : Everything on laser what we received midday (inaudible) today KAREN HOEG : Okay, I'll check it again later,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe something came in today, we'll check, we'll make sure everybody has access to it. They'll all be up on Laserfiche for anybody who wants to access it to read it. Go ahead,tell us your name. BARBARA SOLO : Hi, I'm Barbara Solo, I live on 1400 Fourth St. I grew up in New Suffolk; I am one of the few natives that are.left. I now live in my dad's house, he left me the house. Okay, as far as these people who don't live on First St., when I was a kid growing up there was no view. All there were, were scallop oyster houses, shacks all along that waterfront. It didn't matter because nobody had barriers up or anything so you know you'd go from. one to the other, see your neighbors this and that. It was pretty nice open you know as far as neighbors; you want to go down to the water you go see the water. We had a boat yard up where the waterfront fund is now who has taken over New Suffolk with their views. I don't believe that someone that doesn't live there or own property should have an opinion because they belong to this whatever organization. There are two sides to the stories in New Suffolk of those waterfront people and us locals that wanted things to stay the same. I just want to say it real quick, oh they want to preserve and all this, they've preserved nothing but made a bunch of noise, crowds, cars and brought all these outsiders to town which screws up our way of living out here. But neither here nor there, where Phil's house is there was a little outhouse structure there for a while you know remaining. I don't feel that that is going to corrupt the spirit of New Suffolk. Phil has been a good neighbor; he's had that property forever. I consider him a local because I met him when I was fourteen and I'm way over that now. These nitpickers over here that neh, neh, neh, neh, neh that don't live there because they want to see it when they walk, well let's wipe everything out so they can see it while they walk. I'm for Z April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting Phil. I don't think it's a big project and yes if you go around town you see a lot of these little changes that how the hell did they get away with it. There's a house on stilts at the end of Second and First on the water. It doesn't bother anybody. It went up, you can see through it no problem. I really want to speak for New Suffolk and the spirit of. We've all been it's always been kind of a I don't know Bohemian community, kind of everybody's from different walks of life and everything. When I was a kid there was a light on in every house. Phil is not going to Air B&B it and have people in and out of there. It's just for the summer mostly right Phil? Just for the summer just so they have a place. I believe he's owned the property long enough to be entitled and like you say maybe a couple of little changes but he's willing. That's all I have to say is there's two sides to New Suffolk. There's those that came later that really didn't know the spirit of New Suffolk. I mean they took down the old barn, that was there forever when we were growing up and I'm seeing changes that they have made that weren't consistent with preservation. I guess that's all I have to say is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you for your testimony. Anybody else? I want to get everybody here and then we'll go to Zoom. COLEEN LORIA : Hi, my name is Coleen Loria I'm Captain Marty's daughter. When my dad sold the station he had the opportunity to make a lot of money to developers or whoever and decided that the best thing for New Suffolk would be to sell to not the guy who owns it now but Kyle who is going to keep it the way it was. He didn't want it overdeveloped, he wanted to keep it in the form of New Suffolk so he lost a lot of money in that sale just to do what's best for the town. He's owned it longer than I've been alive as well as the property across the street that Steve Katsoulis owns it used to be my family's house so. My dad is not one to ask for any support or help but I'm sure if he asked people to come up and speak for him, he would, there would be a lot of people here. The number of letters in support don't really match the people who actually support my dad or my family so I just wanted to say that. LYNN KRUG : Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Lynn Krug and I live at 1175 Second St. in New Suffolk and we bought our home in 2018. 1 respect the community, when I did my house, I was before the Board I think it was in 2020. We needed to expand by three and a half feet so I could have a decent staircase to go up to my attic and into my basement and we did receive ZBA approval. I follow the law. Follow your rules, if a permit is required, I get a permit. I'm also an environmentalist, we do not use chemicals on our property because we're close to the bay. We're very pro let's get sewers into New Suffolk; we cannot afford what's happening to the bay we have to keep the bay pristine. I'm really here today to speak in opposition to this 'project. The construction will indeed have an impact on our community character. Any time the connection between the community and the waterfront is disrupted. The character of the community is changed. Once those views of the waterfront are gone, they are gone forever. 1 April 3,2025 Regular Meeting moved in after the waterfront fund changed the character and I have to say I think it made a big difference. I love walking down First St., I love seeing the open vistas, I love the fact that I can see Robins Island anywhere I walk down on First St. but I'm also acutely aware that we have a major flooding problem on First St. The water that comes down King St. has gone into Dave's garage and recently on the end of First St. and Orchard there's a private road that goes to some houses. That road has collapsed due to the storm activity'that we've had in the area. There's a sign up, you can't even go down and it's crumbled. We know what happened during Hurricane Sandy, not Hurricane Sandy, Superstorm Sandy. I worked for ConEd at the time and. I know the damage that such a storm can do. Let's face it, we have climate change going on. I know it's a risk to build on the water that's Mr. Loria's prerogative but let's face it, can we really afford to have a septic system even though it's an innovation, has it been tested against flooding, has it been really vetted out. It's the latest and greatest nitrogen thing, who knows next time it'll be something better. My concern is, all the pollution that goes into the bay when we have such a storm. I was pleased to see that Southold recognized the impact of so-called monster houses on the commun,ity character. What really is the difference between a:monster house and a series of smaller houses-built shoulder to shoulder if the affect is the same? Do we really want every inch of waterfront to be built up until Southold is no different than Long Beach or Freeport in Nassau County where our main residence is? I want to be able to walk down the street and see the water but, in those communities, you don't even know where the water is because of the build close to the shore. The code to prevent this is already in place and it is there for well-founded reasons. In addition, the Marine zone 11 under which this property falls is intended to preserve waterfront access for those who engage in activities such as aquaculture and other marine uses. As Linda pointed out, efforts are underway to make it easier for oyster farmers and baymen to buy waterfront property and open up such businesses. This kind of uses (inaudible) and keeping with the character and the history of New Suffolk and I ask that you do your due diligence to deny this application on that basis alone. I'm very, very concerned. New Suffolk where I live my we're not in flood zone because our street and I live on the I guess you can say the northside of the street we're 25-feet above sea level and we didn't have flooding during any of the storms. Steve who lives on First St. across from this property the water went up to his staircase. He has like a small staircase going up because his house is built up and he had flooding. You can see the high tide line on his property at the time. We've had Nor'easters this year, more storms are expected I mean the climate is changing. I don't care what Washington says, we live it, we live on Long Island, we know what's happening, we can see it happening. We have highs, lows, major storms, freezing cold we have to do something to preserve our community. We are a hamlet, if we were a village, we could have our own laws and enact them. I sit on Boards in Garden City, New York that's my full-time residence and we make some difficult decisions and I know these difficult decisions affect all of you because you want to do the right thing. In closing, I really hope that April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting you've listened to the residents and you have all our papers in the file because this was short notice for me. I don't come out that often in the winter but we left yesterday to be here because we felt our voice was needed so you could hear from a concerned resident. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, I'm going to see if someone on Zoom wants to, Donna you want to bring that person in? ARLENE CASTELANO : Good morning, Arlene Castelano, I've lived across the street from the property on First St. for thirty-three years. I guess in that sense I'm a newcomer. I submitted a letter of opposition of opposition to this application but I just wanted to say a few things. submitted the letter last night around seven so I don't know if it's on line yet. In 2017 Phil notified the Trustees about his desire to build his retirement home on this lot. Three years later in 2020 he listed the property with Douglas Elliman for $865,000 citing, development status permit application pending. So, it's all well and good to say that Phil has been a good neighbor who loves New Suffolk who owned Captain Marty's and that he wants to build a retirement home but Phil has every right and it looks like every intention to sell this property. I think this application has to be judged on the facts and the facts are, regardless of when this lot was created there was never a house on it and the construction of a house now would change the properties historical use. This project would still be grossly non-compliant with the Trustee setback of 100-feet from the water. The Loria's purchased the lot in 1974 well after the zoning code was created and they used the property for boat storage, repair and servicing associated with their businesses which were consistent uses for the size of the lot and its MII zoning. The waterfront houses to the north of Phil's property at 1200 and 1230 First St. are pre-existing houses on non-conforming lots and received variances based on the fact that they were pre-existing houses. This lot is located in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area with the entirety of the lot located in the AE and VE flood zones and even though the septic system was moved from the VE flood zone to the AE flood zone it's still a flood zone. I think an approval of this application by this Board will no doubt substantially increase the value of Mr. Loria's property. I believe it will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, be detrimental to the health of the wetlands and create a terrible precedent. Thank you for the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome and thank you. Is there anybody else on Zoom? Anyone else here want to make a final comment? ALAN DINIZIO : Hello my name is Alan Dinizio. I've been in front of Phil since 1987 when I first moved to Cutchogue. I was born and raised in Greenport, I was exploring around with my son and we stopped to see Phil and we became good friends. I think that if the law says that he can April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting have the house there it doesn't matter what anybody else says cause to ruin somebody's view? There's a right in the United States that if he gets a variance and all that he has every right to build that house. If he sells it or if he lives there, it's s#ill'his property since 1974. 1 just don't understand why everybody is fighting because they're going to lose their view? A view is a view, you could go any place, if that same variance was done on Second St. no one would say anything about it move it his way or that way, whatever. Since it's on the water and is taking away people's view when they want to go for a walk doesn't make it fair to Phil that he-has every right to build a house there and go through this process. That's all I want to say, thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mr. Dinizio. I think there was one other hand and then I'm going to, I'd rather hear from somebody who hasn't spoken yet if there's anybody else. Okay one final word,that's it. T. A. MC61VNEY : I just also want to remind you just to a public hearing is for you to comment on the application and not on the community, the people in it and your interpretation of what is and isn't what the community prefers. UNNAMED SPEAKER : I was involved in getting the petitions to the Board the first time so I wanted to make sure that it was still part of the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's still there. UNNAMED SPEAKER : My other question is, there were several letters submitted the first time around, are they now in the file? BOARD ASSISTANT : In the record. UNNAMED SPEAKER : Okay thanks, one last comment, next door to this lot that we're talking about today is almost an identical lot and that's the one I mentioned that an oyster farmer just bought and purchased. If Mr. Loria is allowed to build a home on this lot, then we worry down the line, will that lot also be buildable and that would be another chunk of the hamlet that we all have a part in will be changed forever.Thank you. KAREN HOEG : I just wanted to, I'm not going to get into commenting and all the neighbors comments obviously but I did want to remind the Board that I will explore the amendments that the Board had mentioned regarding the front entryway as well as the rear deck in order to minimize some of the variances. So, we're happy to do that and I don't know if it's something where the Board is inclined to close the public hearing for written submission so that we can do that. I know that's something (inaudible) April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me poll the Board and see what the preference is whether we MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I prefer to close it. MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't think we need to hear it again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, then what we'll do is if there are no further comments or questions the Board are you ready to vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it fair to ask the applicant if they want to amend the application here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They just said they would. I presume that what you're talking about is, we would close subject to receipt of an amended application. KAREN HOEG : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's up to you as to how to amend it based upon the comments you've heard here and from the Board. Is that correct? KAREN HOEG :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended application. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries.Thank you all for your attendance. UNNAMED SPEAKER : I want to ask a question about procedure, if an amended application is received, do we have the chance to comment again? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as the well no not really, the hearing is closed and the Board will determine whether or not the amended application is acceptable based upon what the code requirements are or not. If we had left it open then you could have submitted written April 3,2025 Regular Meeting comments but the Board has heard a lot of testimony and I think we have sufficient information to make an informed decision. We'll wait and see what they propose to do. HEARING#7998—CRAB COVE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Crab Cove, LLC #7998. This is a request,for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's December 3, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) Tess than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 85-feet located at 12060 East Main Rd. (adj. to the Chocomont Cove) on Fishers Island. Sam what are we looking at? We're looking at this is in a R-120 zone district so substantial setbacks. This a 113 sq ft. addition to kitchen and dinning area and a 421 sq. ft. deck and porch extension. S'AM FITZGERALD : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a conforming rear yard setback, existing dwelling as a 68- foot rear yard setback and the lot is large and irregularly shaped. What else should we know about this? SAM FITZGERALD : It's a pretty modest project.The part of the deck extension that's out of the buildable area that's non-conforming is 235 sq. ft. so again it's pretty modest. This project will not be visible by any neighbors or from the public right of way. It's pretty well hidden back from the Main Rd. It will have no impact on the'character of the neighborhood or the environment. We met with the Trustees about last month on this project and they didn't have any objections. I think that's probably CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As usual your presentation makes it extremely clear in the kind of massing model that you've done exactly what's going on and most of this is conforming. This is an impossible lot like most of Fishers Island. I don't really have any questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to share that we did a site inspection last year we toured the property. There's also an unusual landscape, everything sort of exists for lack of a better word enhancing what's there,this makes a lot more sense. April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for reminding me of that. Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea just a few to clarify. The application indicates that the additions do not increase the non-conformity but if I interpreted correctly, the rear yard setback is reducing from 75-feet to.68, is that right? SAM FITZGERALD : Right and I guess that was just a semantics point on my part, I was referring to the additions to the livable area not the MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Livable area, right, right and this is just the deck? SAM FITZGERALD : Correct MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to clarify, thank you. The application references any work to a portion of an accessory structure within an existing non-conforming setback must go through a variance process but (inaudible) accessory structure we're talking about. SAM FITZGERALD : Right, that would be a typo, what they would call a (inaudible) business, sorry. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, that's it those were my questions,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN": Pat, anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom? Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? 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 April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7999—CHRISTOPHER and SOFIJA SHASHKIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christopher and Sofija Shashkin #7999. This is a request for variances from Article XXXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207, Article XXXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's November 15, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35-feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10- feet, 3) less than the code required minimum combined side yard of 25-feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 5) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 sq. ft. in area, 6) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plan as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 1105 Captain Kidd Drive in Mattituck. Hi, would you state your name for the record please. ZAC NICHOLSON : My name is Zac Nicholson, I'm the architect of record and representing Christopher and Sofija. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that what you're requesting is a front yard setback at 20.5-feet where the code requires 35. You can apply averaging front yard setback averaging which is 26.7-feet rather than the 35, you are proposing 20 so that's still less than the average. A side yard setback at 6-feet where the code requires 10 minimum, combined side yard setback at 24.7-feet, the code requires 25 so that's almost de minimus really. A lot coverage of 21.5%, the code allows a maximum of 20%. A GFA of 3,310 sq. ft., the code allows a maximum of 2,350 sq. ft. so you are 960 sq. ft. over. A sky plane intrusion which apparently is only for dormers over the garage right and the garage is included in GFA calculation. It's not connected by a breezeway it's just a kind of a lattice wall, one piece. Is that right? ZAC NICHOLSON : I would just like to start by saying again I'm the architect of record, my client who I'm going to ask to come up and make a statement in a few minutes has been designing this house for over two decades and due to several different factors the project has been April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting postponed. The architect prior to me actually passed away during COVID so we are finally in front of you now trying to build our dream home. My client has lived in this house his whole life and they have outgrown the house. There is a great need to expand and so while it does seem we are requesting a lot of different variances here most of them are very minor and some of them have actually been previously approved. For example, the side yard setback was approved in 1974 for the garage but because we are putting a second-story on the garage we are requesting that variance is kept. I think the next thing would be best for Chris to sort of give you a little history of the house so you can get a better feel for his need, his families need to expand the home on what is a pretty troubled lot in terms of its size and restrictions put on it with the new code that has not always been in effect when they were designing what you see in front of you. CHRISTOPHER SASHKIN ; I guess it's good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is Christopher Shashkin and I am the owner of the property with my wife Sofija. Hopefully I won't bore you but I just wanted to give you some background. The house was purchased by my dad in 1960 which it was a two-bedroom cottage. It was built in 1949 and already in 1960, the (inaudible) of the house. (inaudible) he married my mother or I was born. We would come to visit friends that had a summer house in Mattituck. He fell in love with it and he purchased the house. He upgraded it first by adding a basement and then in '67 he added two bedrooms in the back and a full bathroom. In '74 he applied for the variance for the garage because at that time they told him, oh put the garage in the back and he said, well I don't want to be shoveling you know a hundred feet of snow. They allowed it with the saying that it had to be connected to the house and that's why the trellis was built and the trellis has been there since the garage was built so technically according to the Building Department the house and the garage are one unit. That may not be the way the code works now though. He added heat and then in '71 the house became our weekend getaway it was no longer limited to summers and the (inaudible) season. The house wasn't finished the extension I mean the wiring and the plumbing was there but Mattituck was his D.I.Y hobby. He insulated the walls, hung the sheetrock, paneling, wallpaper, tiled the bathrooms, created a larger living room from the former living room and master bedroom. Created a larger kitchen from the kitchen and former bathroom. My poor mom always living in constant renovation or unfinished project. In '82 we added the dining room but that was mercifully finished by the contractor. He wanted to retire here but unfortunately cancer took him away in 1992. For me Mattituck was always my home. I went to Queens for school and work but every weekend I came to Mattituck. I got my license in Riverhead, I voted my whole life in Southold. If I traveled when people asked where are you from, Mattituck I never said I'm from New York or New York City. Of course, no one anywhere knows where Mattituck is well at least twenty years ago. After getting married and having kids my wife and I repeated my life experience with our kids, always out to Mattituck. After my April 3,2025 Regular Meeting mom passed in 2013, 1 lost my job because of restructuring and we had already commenced on plans long ago as the mid-nineties that was two architects ago. We had them redrawn but due to the financial situation we actually filed them and then got the rejection but did nothing during COVID, the changes in the code so we never pursued it (inaudible) now we're able to move forward with some kind of project. Right now, as he mentioned we have definitely outgrown the house. We have five people living there, our three sons are all adults although the youngest is away at college. We're very attached to it, it's our family home and we hope that we can come to some kind of agreement with the ZBA and of course I was not surprised when I learned that we-were like ticking off every single if it wasn't that it wouldn't be my project. I don't want a Mcmansion so I wanted to state that. I thank you very much for your, ZAC NICHOLSON So, over the last couple of months I've has the pleasure of getting to know Chris and Sonfija and visiting them at their house and seeing how they live and get to know the structure quite a bit, again, I wasn't the original architect. The site and the existing structure has several limitations, the basement-is the bottom of the joist is less than 7-feet so we can't make any of the basement livable space. The rear yard we can only go back another 8-feet before requiring for a variance. The best way to get the necessary bedrooms and livable space was to go up so that's why we have presented in front of you this two-story the second story addition and the addition on top of the garage for a future you know livable space but at this moment it's just for storage. If you go down the list of the variances we're requesting, the minimum front yard if you look at the property two houses to the east, they have a wood porch which is actually closer than our requested front of the house. We are requesting to expand the front of the house to one, create a covered entry, have room to put a coat closet make a little bit more of a comfortable entry into the home. The side yard setback as I had previously mentioned has been approved in the past, we're just looking to put that second story on the garage. Three, the lot coverage is very minimal, we're only 1.6% over the allowable. I guess our largest request is for GFA and again, this is mostly out of necessity and not out of luxury. I suppose I can answer any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you looked at the possibility of doing GFA averaging in that along Captain Kidd Drive? ZAC NICHOLSON : To be honest, the first applicant that was here was the first time I heard that that was a thing so I can certainly do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When that code was passed and it's complicated way to have to calculate something actually, it's spelled out in the code. The problem with averaging is that it's difficult to find other documents, dwellings on either side and across the street,five in each direction and across the street directly across and that way. This is not impossible to do on April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting Captain Kidd because you know it's a subdivision and the lots are similar and so you should be able to actually do it unlike some properties where there's big lots and little lots scattered all over the place. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm curious about that, I think just based on visual inspection of the neighborhood they're all small houses. I don't know if it necessarily helps. It's a project not a project but a task. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea they are. Well, we are not allowed by code to grant more than in excess of the allowed gross floor area. We can grant up to what the average is but we can't grant more than the average, we are barred from doing that by the code. So; that's why I'm saying it maybe worth looking at. We have guidelines to explain all that stuff, the office can provide them. Obviously, any project that was planned for a very, very long time paid no attention to that because it wasn't in the code. One of the things I wanted to ask you though is, this Hampton Home Tech Site Plan it calls out lot coverage but it doesn't do it by footprint of the building, by the proposed pergola, by the framed shed cause I'm thinking it maybe possible to get a conforming lot coverage since you're so close to the 20%, you're 1.5% over. You might be able to eliminate a variance by either removing the shed or not doing the pergola. So, perhaps you want to take a look at that and figure out the square footage there and what the lot coverage would be reduced to if those structures were not there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie to that point I'm sorry, that was something I was going to bring up, I'm confused by the site plan, there's like a new shed I couldn't tell what it was in the back. CHRISTOPHER SHASHKIN : Sorry that wasn't on the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They're both smaller sheds but I think that needs to be there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That has to be on there, it will affect the lot coverage. So, we just need to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Scale it back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, so I would suggest looking at that because if you can eliminate one of the many variances needed to do what you want that would be useful. I don't know whether the averaging will come out in your favor or not but at least if you want to take a look certainly willing to give you an opportunity to do that. ZAC NICHOLSON : And I am in correct in my understanding that bedrooms, livable space in the basement does not count towards the GFA, is that correct? 401 April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bedrooms count. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No basement he said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No basement does not count. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The basement doesn't count. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not habitable space. T. A. MCGIVNEY : But you didn't have the height in the basement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a double height space here? ZAC NICHOLSON : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, so it'll be fairly simple to calculate. ZAC NICHOLSON : I recognize that we're probably going to have to make some revisions to this design, I just wanted to fully understand what the parameters we can work within our cause if we're almost 1,000 sq. ft. over the GFA I don't know that that averaging is going to help based on the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) houses along Captain Kidd small lots they all have the ZAC NICHOLSON : Yea instead of going up we may need to have some livable space downstairs. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that's a question to really address to the Building Department to make sure that you're compliant. I believe the finished basements do not count against your GFA but that's something that you do need to verify. ZAC NICHOLSON : I do recall them saying that it didn't but we didn't have any livable space down there other than this small rec room to count but I wasn't sure that bedrooms would then count if we decided to put one of these second story bedrooms down there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It sort of sounds like maybe there is a discussion. I was just going to comment on things that Leslie already kind of spoke about but the front yard setback it sort of is what it is just based upon the design but I'm a little confused, if you're asking for 20.5 there's a bump out at 19-feet and I'm not quite understanding why it's not cited at 19-feet? ZAC NICHOLSON : On the site plan you'll see it well, in the description of the requested relief you're saying it's not cited at that? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The Notice of Disapproval. 41 April 3,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department said that your front yard setback is proposed at 20.5 but when we look at this site plan there's a bump out actually at 15.5. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the landing,that doesn't count. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh alright so yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The 19 1 didn't understand. CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : 19 must be yea what's that? ZAC NICHOLSON : The 19 is the bay window. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it doesn't go down to the earth it's just like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that's why it's 20.5 okay. That makes sense now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then the side yard setbacks, you're not altering that it exists, on the garage it's 6-feet and on the side of the house was 18.7 so it's just extending for the sun room. ZAC NICHOLSON : Yep MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We discussed the lot coverage, my question was also relative to the sky plane on the garage. I don't know if perhaps there's a way to eliminate that if you just reverse the you have a dormer on one side but if you put it or redesign the actual pitch of the roof you might not need the dormer but on the interior side you could just kind of flip it and that request goes away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That would eliminate that. ZAC NICHOLSON : That is certainly one of the things we've discussed as an option and again this was the design ten years ago and we wanted to present it all in front of you and sort of get your feedback before redesigning the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That makes sense. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a couple of questions. I just wanted to clarify about the space over the garage because in one place in the application it talks about it being living space and elsewhere it's storage. So, the intention is that in the future make it into livable space, habitable space is that right? CHRISTOPHER SHASHKIN : It would really depend on how the plan is redrawn because I guess full disclosure, we got an estimate for the work on the house and the deceased architect he was telling us, oh it's this much to build per square footage blah, blah, blah but what he didn't 4Z April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting go into the detail of some of the things like the curve sloped of the roof to give it that sort of French farm house effect is extraordinary expensive. So, we're probably going to have to scale back and then if so then the space over the garage might become a would become a bedroom potentially. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have an idea, what if we adjourn this to next month, give you time to sit down with each other and have a look and what's happening next month?June, okay so May is already full, well you're not going to put a shovel in the ground tomorrow. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Zac was suggesting he was going to sort of work with the design once he has feedback from us, so whether it's a one month postponement or two I think he needs more time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's fine. I would just be doing it based on the normal adjourn. ZAC NICHOLSON : It would be helpful for us to know and what relief we will or you're open to granting cause that greatly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The law requires that when variance relief is appropriate and justifiable it's the absolute minimum if you can do a little better than that lot coverage or eliminate a variance that's what we have to do. So, things that are there and are not being altered they're there and you know MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But those are all the setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, the setbacks are not so critical it's mostly the GFA and you can probably do better with lot coverage and you can certainly do better to eliminate the sky plane. So, whatever you can get rid of by redesigning or reduce the GFA or whatever that is what we're looking for. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, I think the two things that maybe it would be helpful to the applicant CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Especially if there's a cost consideration too then you should probably just based on what you've heard, sit down with each other and take some time and you know plan the new house the renovated house appropriately. Does that make sense? ZAC NICHOLSON : Oh, absolutely yea. 43 April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think Margaret was bringing up something relative to the GFA however that if the garage space at some later point converted to habitable space that's going to definitely require variance relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, I think here what I'm wondering and I don't know if this is putting the cart before the horse or if it's even appropriate to discuss but from what I see, the existing structure we have all the setbacks, those aren't ever going to change whatever the design is. ZAC NICHOLSON : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So we're really left with the things you just mentioned, is it possible or would it be desirable to the applicant that we offer the relief that we want to grant if there's relief to be granted and let them design the project? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I think the better thing to do would be to let them sit down they've heard what we had to say and let them make some decisions, it's a personal decision it's his house. I think that what you could come let's see what you come back with and then we can ZAC NICHOLSON : Can we just touch a little bit closer on the front yard relief because there's you know so the house two doors down has a 19-foot setback but that is to a deck, uncovered deck. We are requesting finished living space to be depending on how you look at it either 20 1/2 -feet or 19-feet. Do you see those two things to being one of the same when granting a variance, a front deck versus a front foyer? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's pretty what you're asking for is pretty minimal as far as I'm concerned. It's a very common amenity to have an entry. All those lots over there are small, most of them are non-conforming. A lot of them have had variances for setbacks and lot coverage for that matter. The thing to do now is to really just consider all that we've said and come back with the bare basics that whatever you can offer to improve or reduce or eliminate a variance that's what we suggest you consider doing. Some of them are pretty easily solved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just want to, if you're going to back and caucus and kind of work with the design there were just two points I wanted to make that you may want to consider. One is that the structure between the home and the garage is described I think on the plans as a breezeway but in the application, it's called conditioned space connecting your existing side yard garage. So, if you decide which it is that might (inaudible). April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting CHRISTOPHER SHASHKIN : That was the other confusion with the Building Department because when I asked initially they said, oh you can only connect it with a breezeway but then when I asked the second time they said, no it can be living space since the garage is technically connected to the house so you don't need a breezeway if you want to use it as living space. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just to clarify that. The other point was, with the question regarding the use of the space over the garage I think the current home has two bedrooms, I think the future without a bedroom over the garage has four bedrooms, my question was does the IA system designed for and to make sure that you have capacity to expand the number of bedrooms. CHRISTOPHER SHASKIN : I'm in the process of filling the permit for the grant and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the IA CHRISTOPHER SHASHKIN : Right, right, right, exactly so yep that's ZAC NICHOLSON : It's for a five-bedroom system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? ZAC NICHOLSON : That's all I have, Chris? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in Zoom? Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to June 5th. We'll let you know what time you're on the agenda closer to the time. ZAC NICHOLSON : Great,thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO-: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8000—HUGH BENEDICT MCBRIDE and LEAH ELIZABETH VOLK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Hugh Benedict McBride and Leah Elizabeth Volk#8000. This a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 28, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35-feet located at 1180 Navy St. in Orient. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. in Mattituck for the applicants. This I hope is going to be a little simpler than what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You already have HPC approval correct? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes we do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The front yard setback is 23.11 instead of the code required 35. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So, this is a rather shall we say simple, small bump out on the northside of the property existing of about 160 sq. ft. to accommodate a master bedroom expansion and on the southside it is even smaller, about a 50 sq. ft. bump out to create an exterior stair to the basement which right now has a very wonky existence inside right in the middle of the living room. I am joined by the way by Meryl[ Kramer who is the project architect and who is available to address any specific questions you might have regarding the design. All in all, we're here just simply because the pre-existing non-conforming front yard setback at 23.11 requires us to be even though we're not we would hope we're not obviously going into that setback any further. As to the southern improvement it's even further back I'm not even quite sure that that's part of the Disapproval but we're including it in the application. The lot itself is a small 12,567 sq. ft. lot in the R40 zoning district. It is a landmarked property, we don have HPC approval that we obtained back in January the Certificate of Appropriateness which I believe I have submitted for the record so you should have that in the file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Otherwise everything here is conforming to the bulk schedule. I would suggest that what is proposed is entirely within the character of the surrounding 464 April 3,2025 Regular Meeting neighborhood, it's respectful of that. There's ample screening on the northside of the property so this bump out on that side you wouldn't be able to see really by the neighbor's view. Unfortunately, we do require variance relief to achieve the benefit of a functional primary bedroom and basement access. We would argue that the relief requested is not substantial because we stay within the existing non-conforming setback. Obviously, I can't think of any achievable environmental impacts stemming from this modest addition to the home. Again, the HPC reviewed it, it had no issues or concerns with what is proposed. With that, if there are any questions, Meryll and I are available to address them. I do have what I'll hand up that Meryll showed which is just a like a rendering that you can see what this little bump out will look like. I don't know if I have enough for everybody but if you want to share and that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know we've all been out there, there's not going to be any visible impact on anything really. There's a huge you know side yard on the adjacent house. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I have another view from the back yard, I didn't know whether that would CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the back yard is screened, it's you known MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea I think it's from the front, it's the front yard variance that that perspective is important. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot coverage is conforming. MEMBER ACAMPORA : You have a good hedge in the front. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea it really is, it's kind of those invisible ones. (inaudible) should put on that list that doesn't have to bother coming to you guys. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone want to speak to this application?Anybody on 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 PLANAMENTO : Aye 47 April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, okay one more before lunch. Y. HEARING#8002— PETER and DONNA RUTTURA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Peter and Donna Ruttura #8002. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A (1) 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 less than the code required 100-feet from the top of the bluff located at 900 Sound Dr. in Greenport. This is a house that's well under construction but the house is conforming. We're basically dealing with the swimming pool. FRED WEBER : I'm Fred Weber, I'm the architect for the project and also the owner is right here Donna and Peter Ruttura and the contractor Eugene Burger just if any further questions come they are here. The property is on an undersized non-conforming lot located in R40 zoning fronting on the Long Island Sound. A moderately sized house which conforms to the allowable gross floor area is now under construction. It was positioned so that the driveway, the garage and the sanitary system which did require a leaching field located on the landward side of the house. The arrangement of these items and a workable layout established the location of the house. The resulting allowable area on the waterside of the house will be used for a patio and a small swimming pool 16-feet by 30-feet to have view of the Long Island Sound. To provide a reasonable patio width between the house and the swimming pool which was 16-feet the variance sought to reduce the bluff setback for the swimming pool from 100- feet to 92.6 or either 92-feet 6-inches. I believe this is a reasonable variance considering approvals given to adjacent neighbors all along the bluff line. The neighbors directly to the east which is 800 Sound Ave. received approval February 16, 2023 to construct a swimming pool 80-feet from the bluff, much closer. The neighbor directly to the west 1000 Sound Dr. was given approval for a swimming pool 65-feet from the bluff and the house 82.3-feet. There are many similar examples east and west along the bluff. All other aspects of the proposed construction are conforming including all setbacks, lot coverage, accessory structures and gross floor area. In addition, the project was viewed as consistent with the LWRP. Therefore, we request your consideration of this variance request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My only question is, with building a brand new home, I know there's the bluff I guess the top of the bluff is not exactly parallel to the dwelling which is partly what's causing the problem. It's only a corner of the pool actually that's not conforming. 4. April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting If this there was no way, you had to site it this way for the side yards and so on to be parallel but the bluff setback is at an angle and therein I think lies the problem with the non- conformity. FRED WEBER : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, I mean it's hard for us when you start with a blank slate it's.really annoying to have to grant variances. I mean it seems as though one should be able to design your way out of it. FRED WEBER : I can just say that the lot is very tight, it's a valuable waterfront lot, you don't want to build a tiny house but we built a conforming house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we are so grateful you don't have to give us a GFA. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If I can comment on that, I think a GFA was provided and it doesn't require a variance but it's 3,456 1 think sq. ft. if my notes are correct which I think occupies every available square foot of GFA permitted on that lot. My question is, kind of extending Leslie's point about a clean sheet design, was any consideration given to making a combined design of home and swimming pool that would not require a variance? FRED WEBER : Well I guess you know we were interested in getting you know four bedrooms on the second-floor so the house was basically reduced. We did a lot of reductions in the house to get it underneath the gross floor area. Based on the size of the house that resulted in a legal approvable square footage I know that you were talking about the angle of the house, the house almost had to be like that otherwise we were going to have setback requirements from you know from the side yards and pyramid and all those other things happening. That was the reason that that was done. We're looking for a reasonable patio width, you don't want people splashing in the pool and then it splashes on the house, it's you know you need some separation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only way you could do that would be if you move that pool inward toward the patio to get that corner out of that setback. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Or an alternative design I mean you can do like a kidney shaped pool or something.There are options here,you could actually build a larger pool. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : On the western side. MEMBER ACAMPORA :The pool size is small. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is, it's 16 x 30 it's small. 49 April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : We're talking about a corner of the pool here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I mean it is not that egregious I have to say, it really isn't. The majority of it is conforming. I don't know how many square feet that would come out to but it is a long narrow lot relatively speaking. The other good thing about it is that the bluff itself is very heavily vegetated. There's almost a very big non-disturbance buffer before the top of the bluff even starts. I would suggest that should we decide to go ahead and grant this variance that I would want to see a condition of a non-disturbance buffer remaining intact, no clear cutting in that buffer just for environmental protection of the bluff. It's already there I'm just saying don't cut anything in it that's all. FRED WEBER : If we do get approval we have to go to the Trustees next and they'll be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're going to give you a MEMBER LEHNERT: (inaudible) same non-disturbance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They will. FRED WEBER : So I was thinking maybe they would be the ones that would do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't really matter who does one way or the other it's related to the variance, it'll be related to-the variance from them too and they'll probably look at it the same way we have I suspect. Is there anything from Board Members at this point? T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just had a question about the pool fence,that's proposed fence? FRED WEBER : Yes T. A. MCGIVNEY : It cuts through the CEHA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The coastal erosion hazard area. T. A. MCGIVNEY : You probably have to bring that in. FRED WEBER : I was told that it had to be I think 20-feet from the top of the bluff but I'll investigate that further. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 20-feet minimum. FRED WEBER : Minimum from the top of the bluff that's what I was told so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're saying landward just FRED WEBER : Yea that's where it's shown I believe 20-feet landward. M April 3,2025 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : So you have to make it like 25. MEMBER LEHNERT : Move it outside of the hazard line.. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have another triangle to deal with. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's very minor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is. FRED WEBER : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that's not a big deal. Alright, anything from anybody else? 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 PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. Motion to adjourn for lunch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second April 3,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7927SE &#7953—NORTH ROAD HOTEL, LLC/MOTEL MORAINE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to open the public hearings for North Road Hotel LLC/Hotel Moraine #7972SE and at the same time #7953. These were both adjourned I guess the last time was January 2025. One is for a Special Exception for a permit to construct a new motel building of ten units and to build an addition to an existing motel building of four units. The parcel size is 3.251 acres and it's located at 62005 CR 48 adjacent to the Sound in Greenport. The other one is for an application for a permit to construct this new motel building of ten units and an addition of four units on an existing building where the parcel is less than the code required minimum size of five acres, same location. So, one is Special Exception, one is variance. Now we're caught up to date. So, what besides everything that you have submitted do you want us to know, welcome and state your name. DANIEL PENNESSI : Yes, this is Dan Pennessi for North Rd. Hotel LLC, my wife and I are owners of the hotel, good afternoon Chairman Weisman and other Members of the ZBA. We tried I first let me thank you for adjourning the motion as you did, we last were here in January so we certainly appreciate giving us an opportunity now. We tried to send in and build the record and send in some written information. In an effort to save some time but we're here to answer any questions, I assume you've gotten my March 5th letter, it kind of laid out some of the developments that we've had. We've performed a number of additional analyses on sites within the town both proximate to the hotel in the hamlet of Greenport but also town wide. We are here first for a Special Exception permit and then as you said we're looking for a variance given that we don't meet the five-acre threshold. I think the facts you know from our April 3,2025 Regular Meeting perspective speak for themselves that we've submitted given the unique characteristics of our site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any update, I know last time there was a moratorium on the Greenport Sewer District? I think it was December of'24, 1 don't know if they extended it or not. Can you give us any update on that? DANIEL PENNESSI : Quite frankly I should have checked, I don't know. Our existing agreement allowed for additional capacity. There was a letter sent in by an attorney for the village noting that there was a moratorium and given that we didn't really know how long this process would take and the fact that we had to go through site plan approval with the Planning Board. We've asked the Planning Board and would ask the same of you is that if any approval should it be issued have a condition on it that we get the village to approve it. Our expectation is that that moratorium will be resolved by the time we get through the Planning process here with the town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where are you with the Planning Board at this point? DANIEL PENNESSI : We went through several meetings with the Planning Board, they did issue to the Zoning Board their recommendation letter which denied it on a three two basis. We're kind of at a standstill until the Zoning Board makes a decision on our two applications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, let's see, there's an awful lot in our record. I got there's the application so I just didn't know if you had anything in addition, we did get your submission recent submission. DANIEL PENNESSI : I think our May 5th submission is kind of a summary of what we've submitted previously. Given the comments from the Planning Board again, two of the Members of the Planning Board did support the project and included (inaudible) opinion in their recommendation to the Zoning Board here. The uniqueness of the property is very apparent and when you look at other parcels within the RR District particularly those in that section of the hamlet of Greenport you know there's only a handful that exceed the five acres. For example, the Soundview which is just down the street we've got they've got twenty units on a parcel of 1.84 acres which would represent a variance of 63% from the current requirement. They've also got thirty-five units on a parcel of 2.83 acres which is a 43% variance. Silver Sands has got and neither of those two parcels by the way have public sewer, they do have public water but not public sewer. Silver Sands which has public sewer has twenty-one units on .91 acres. When we went through our redevelopment process of the existing property, we oversized our sewer pump station and have an agreement with the village for the existing units. Again, our interpretation of the agreement is that we can add 5, April 3,2025 Regular Meeting units. So, if we did get an approval for the additional fourteen units, we'd be at thirty-five units on 3.251 acres which is a variance of 35%. That variance is much smaller from other similarly situated projects or hotels in that section of Greenport. I think that's the most important, the other letters that we've submitted previously than this one we went through that the RR District really represents only about .25% of the land area in the town. I think .0005% of those parcels in the Resort Residential District have public water and public sewer. Most of them again are less than five acres. The sites that are greater than five acres are much bigger than five acres like Eastern Long Island Campground, the old oyster processing facility in East Marion. We think that you know we did a deep dive into the governing Planning documents. Notably the zoning code itself in Section 280-34 encourages this type of development, it states that the purpose of the Resort Residential District is to provide the opportunity for resort development in waterfront areas, or because of the availability of water and or sewer is more intense development may occur. Our contention is, is that it behooves the town to approve the expansion of existing local businesses that are highly regulated by both the town, the county, the state as we are, the Department of Health, Agriculture and Markets etc. This was supported I know the town is going through a modification of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning consultant for the town agreed that the purposes and the effect of the Resort Residential District is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and I don't believe they're even recommending many modifications to it. Lastly, there was a I believe the towns in house consultant on the LWRP had issued a recommendation showing it was inconsistent. We do have a summary that objects essentially to that determination. The site in particular does respect erosion control, it has a beach head whereas other properties along the Sound have been I believe manmade most of the rocks that were originally there have been removed resulting in quite a bit or erosion which I'm sure you're familiar with. The purpose of the LWRP is really to encourage additional access to waterfront areas you know the only uses in entire stretch of sound front real estate in the town are the few public beaches that are there, it's otherwise choked by single-family residential or condominiums. You have really only a few hotels where people can come on a more short-term basis to enjoy them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just refresh my memory, I think originally when you bought the property and started to renovate, you didn't have to come before this Board; first of all, we couldn't find a previous Special Exception in any record of the Sunset Motel it pre-dated zoning anyway so I don't know what that was about but the point is, you didn't come before us because you proposed apparently building more or less within the footprint of existing structures and the number of units, I think it was twenty-four was that right? DANIEL PENNESSI : It was a debate,the record wasn't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house was part of that or but the point 541 April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting DANIEL PENNESSI : We settled on twenty-one with the Building Department because the record wasn't great. We basically consolidated, there was the north cottage which we did appear before you for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deck. DANIEL PENNESSI : the deck and to actually CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that's not a dwelling unit.. DANIEL PENNESSI : It's not a dwelling unit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's kind of a clubhouse kind of bar thing. I believe Mike Verity indicated that it was basically a rebuild of pretty much within the footprint and the number of units that was there. DANIEL PENNESSI :That's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now the proposal is fourteen additional units? DANIEL PENNESSI : It would be fourteen and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Four addition to one building and ten in a new building. DANIEL PENNESSI :The ten building unit is (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's going to need Trustees approval? DANIEL PENNESSI : You know we had the Trustees out early because we anticipated it was November of '23 actually that they came out. We paid to have them out there, gave them a tour, they were familiar with the site given that we had to go get the wetlands permit for the north cottage and at the time that proposed building on the east side encroached you can see the 100-foot setback line, it encroached eight-feet into the setback. They recommended that we remove the building from the 100-foot setback and therefore be out of their jurisdiction, they didn't want the building encroaching. So, we went back to the drawing board with our design professionals and the Building Department and we figured out a way to tuck the building further to the south out of the 100-foot setback and therefore out of the Town Trustees jurisdiction, that included in our application we have to reconstruct there are some there is an egress stair that exists the north side of the existing building further to the south as well as a housekeeping closet that we worked through the building code and the Building Department accepted. As part of this application and construction we would reconstruct those parts of the building in noncombustible materials. ss April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The proposed new building is out of the Trustees jurisdiction. DANIEL PENNESSI : Out of the jurisdiction, we do anticipate and we've spoken with Mr. Verity that while we'll likely need some sort of administrative permit from the Trustees given that construction activities wouldn't have some disturbance silt fencing and things. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see, Margaret you're not as familiar with this because you weren't on the Board when we started this, off the top of your head are there any questions you want to ask? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I guess I would just ask about the examples given of hotels that are on smaller parcels, I think you mentioned the Soundview and the Silver Sands. Did they I'm guessing they were created prior to zoning, have they sought any kind of variance relief to expand or otherwise alter since the zoning has been instituted, do you know? DANEIL PENNESSI : I don't know, I don't believe that Silver Sands they have applications and I'm not sure the status of them but I don't think they relate to the hotel rooms on that particular parcel of less than acre. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's for the restaurant,for the diner it's MEMBER ACAMPORA :They're not expanding. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's more of an unrelated question. Those lots like you mentioned, Soundview has multiple lots but it performs as one entity. MEMBER LEHNERT : Same with Silver Sands. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I'm getting at, how does that impact because do they also have them a Special Exception on file? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Soundview? No, it pre-dates zoning. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this is no different. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an expansion. MEMBER STEINBUGLER Thus my question about whether those sought to expand and therefore sought a variance for such expansion. I think that would make them more comparable. I guess it seems to me that they're not great comparables unless they have sought to expand. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that just shows the density. I mean a .91 acre with what did you April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting DANIEL PENNESSI : That has twenty-one units. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh I thought it was twenty-two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it was the adjacent property which is the two story unit, don't you remember they wanted to make them into condos with kitchenettes and all of that, they were before us, the Soundview we did that. We also had to do some signage stuff, some of it is still pending with their valet parking and across the street and the setbacks, the landscaping, buffers it's primarily Planning Board but we did have to weigh in on that. We granted them permission for more than one sign on the property for the Haylard. So far, they have not built the fish mural. So, there was some changes but they were fairly minor, they're most within the footprint of what's there really. DANIEL PENNESSI : If I could respond, one of the reasons for making the comparison and looking at the other parcels was anticipated maybe from where did the five acre threshold come from? If you're going to look at the residential zoning, this is very specific to the Special Exception permits for hotels in the resort residential district. We undertook an analysis to figure out okay, what are those various looks like and which lots could be granted or should have been granted Special Exception Permits now. So, why was five acres chosen and that's. really the purpose of it. You've got really three existing hotels within that area in a Resort Residential District, none of them achieve the five-acre threshold. Those that do are Cliffside right which is a little bit of a different animal given it's independently owned but that's on seven-acres and they've got I believe sixty-eight units there. I can run through, in this Section again, there's a map that I was able to pull in this Section of the Resort Residential District, we're on the eastern most side at 3 1/4-acres, you got Cliffside next to us that's 7.05, there's a single-family residence of 4.37, there's a vacant parcel of 3.48, there's condos on 3.58 acres. Again, Soundview's got a parcel of 1.84 and second parcel of 2.83 and then you've got four parcels which maybe owned by the Soundview further west that run along the Sound of .14 acres, .47, the point is these are much smaller parcels and you've already got'hotels that are more arguably more dense on a per square foot basis than we would be. If the question that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only way you really can tell where that came from and when we do code interpretations this is what we have to rely on if it's available, you have to go back and look at our transcript from the original public hearing to see what the intent of that five- acres was. That's sort of all we have in the way of the tool box. I don't even know where that would be but we have to go find it and have a look at it which might be instructive but that is what we do when we try to figure out what the intent of the code was. We look at what the discussion was about it. The problem in part is, although there are ample examples throughout town of non-conformity the question that it's not just a matter of setting a precedent it's a 57 April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting matter of typically with Special Exceptions you check all the boxes or you don't, not like a variance where you got some wiggle room where we can grant a percentage of relief that it not too egregious and all of that. With Special Exception you just yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no, no, no there's no impact yeah, they meet this, yeah, they it's kind of literally like that. We have to grapple with the fact that this is not literally like that and there's already a lot of stuff on that property. You've done an absolutely beautiful job of renovating; we have some pretty first-rate hotels out here now. I can't afford them but (inaudible) we have to really look at. To the extent that we can sort out these details I mean we're obligated to uphold the code and grant relief when justified and you've tried to provide examples of why it's justified in the case of the variance for the not having the five-acres. Then, this is now an opportunity to grant a Special Exception for a new building which does not relate to the grandfathered whether it was legally established that way or not. So, I'm just spelling this out for the record as to what is in front of the Zoning Board and the things, we have to kind of consider. DANIEL PENNESSI : By the way, we weren't clear on how that was settled, if the Zoning Board would be granting a Special and I'm not sure anybody did frankly is whether we'd be seeking a Special Exception currently for the existing plus any additional or just for the new building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's triggered by the new building. Should that be granted, I mean I presume the Special Exception would apply to the whole property. I mean we're not going to say that one has it and the rest it doesn't make any sense: That would then cover everything on that property. DANIEL PENNESSI : We made the point of footnote, not only had we been before this Board for that north cottage but there had been a fire where the west building had burned down in the early nineties and the ZBA had granted a variance at that time to permit reconstruction of that building without reference to a Special Exception Permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know if ever there was one there, we don't have anything in the record so we don't know. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I did have one other question relative to that, Special Exception sort, of needed to check all the boxes; I'm new to this application, new to the Board but the application calls for answers to what are called general standards A-G, there are a number of questions and I will tell you off the top of my head, F and G relate to emergency services access and stormwater management which I think were well addressed in the various letters and in the Planning Board's site plan review because the Planning Board application out to emergency services for comment. I was not able to discern in the application material that I reviewed the answers to general standards questions A-E. I know you wrote numerous letters and they address a number of factors like consistency with LWRP or consistency with the Sal April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting Comprehensive Plan but I could not get a relationship between the content of the letters and these questions. DANIEL PENNESSI : Okay, I don't have that in front of me but MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I was just looking for them myself, I thought I had a copy. DANEIL PENNESSI : (inaudible) MEMBER STEINBUGLER : But they're part of the application form. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Special Exception leaves out a lot of in addition to the regular standards there's also matters to be considered it kind of goes on and on and on. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yeah I think it starts again at A and goes through Q or P or Z or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean a lot of them relates it depends entirely upon the what the Special Exception use is. I mean you know noxious fumes and noise and all that kind of stuff, there are a lot of things that MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Bituminous pavement CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it doesn't apply to certain uses but it does to others so I think they just tried to cover everything in that laundry list of stuff. DANIEL PENNESSI : It makes for a long agenda for you all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It certainly does. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Dan, in prior hearings the neighbor to the east was sort of a (inaudible) he actually showed up at other hearings that were adjourned etc. he's not here today have you (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's probably so confused. DANIEL PENNESSI :The delays were not on purpose, trust me. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Have you negated any of his issues? DANIEL PENNESSI : We had sent in for your record we had send a letter back in August we have not spoken to the neighbors candidly. We have met with he and his wife before this whole process commenced and learned of you know some construction related things about the electric and I've met with them for three hours before you know we planned to go forward i April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting with this. We certainly didn't want an objection we wanted to be responsive to any issues that residents would have had. We did offer mitigating factors both on his property on his side of the fence as well as ours and reimbursed him for any expenses he had incurred with that construction issue but we haven't heard from him since. That was actually the last time I saw him. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He was co cerned about an additional building noise and all that kind of thing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Lighting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whereas on the other side that's transient that's you know resort, condo kind of timeshare stuff and I think there was at some point I think I recall you saying you moved the parking around because the headlights were going into the windows on there and that issue was solved with them. DANIEL PENNESSI : We did plan it, we notably until it was after that meeting I had anticipated we had actually been negotiating a d drafting a letter of support from that residential neighbor so I was very surprised giv n the fact that we had met with them and had been working on a letter of support that would be part of our application and the fact that we never received any complaints or anything b I forehand that that happened. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that's part of our file anyway, I mean it's part of the transcript from previous hearings an so we can review those easily enough. Anything else Board, Julie anything we should say, no? I don't really have anything and unless your wife wants to add anything there's nobod else in the audience and nobody else on Zoom. So, I guess we can just close the hearing reserve decision if the Board is ready to do that. Are you all set with that? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date on both applications,#7927SE and #7953. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye 60 April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, now we have to write something up. Resolution for-the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, May 1, 2025 at 9:00 AM. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held March 20, 2025 so.moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant an extension to #7267 of April 25, 2019 Fishers Island Fire District, Crescent Ave. on Fishers Island beginning April 25, 2025 and to expire April 25, 2026. 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 PLANAMENTO : Aye 1. April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to reopen the Public Hearing of ZBA #7891 Steven Segouin, 310 The Strand in East Marion for the sole purpose of correcting omissions in the decision dated September 19,2024, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay let's look at what those omissions are and then we will close we will vote to amend the decision and then close the hearing. What we didn't do there were so many variances on here we neglected to include an approval for the setback from the bluff to the swimming pool so that's simply adding that at 80-feet. We just needed to add the word, as amended. That's really it, just to make sure that it's clear to the Building Department what inclusive approvals. It said it on the survey but we just hadn't repeated it in the as approved. That was a condition to submit an updated survey so when Kim got it in the office that's when she noticed the pool was (inaudible). So that's it, you want to approve the decision as amended and then we can close this or we can close it and then approve. I'll just make a motion to close the hearing. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?• MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now we have a draft amended we'll say as of April 3 to include those omissions I just described, everything in the decision is identical to the thing we granted 6 April 3,2025 Regular Meeting on September 19, 2024. 1 will make a motion to amend the decision as discussed. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. I think that should conclude; I'm going to make a motion to close the meeting. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye April 3, 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. �bSSignature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : April 14,2025 . 641 /