Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/01/2025 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 May 1, 2025 10:17 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member(Vice-Chair) MARGARET STEINBUGLER—Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Carmela Lazio Revocable Trust/Carmela Lazio as Trustee#8003 3 - 10 John J. and Theresa M. Murnane#8004 10- 13 Alexander Lindh and Courtney Bancroft#8005SE 13 - 17 Thomas Smith #8011 17- 35 Kimberly Crumm #8006 35 -44 Demetra Makris#8007 45-57 Pino Licul and Irena Licul, Trustees, Revocable Living Trust#8008 58- 69 Kevin Cierach #8010 70- 84 Richmond Creek Partners, LLC# 7970 84 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for May 1, 2025. Please all rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter on the Agenda is The State Environmental Quality Reviews: Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following: Lazio, Murnane, Bancroft and Lindh, Smith, Crumm, Makris, Licul and Irena Licul and Cierach so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Before I open up for the public hearings, Liz would you please instruct anyone that might be on Zoom how they can participate if they choose to? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, good morning everyone, for those with us on Zoom if you wish to comment on a particular application I ask that you raise your hand. I see we have one phone number, to raise your hand you need to press *9 and then I will give you further instructions as far as what you need to do after that to unmute.Thank you. HEARING#8003—CARMELA LAZIO REVOCABLE TRUST/CARMELA LAZIO AS TRUSTEE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board today is for Carmela Lazio Revocable Trust/Carmela Lazio as Trustee #8003. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's January 24, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for a lot May 1,2025 Regular Meeting containing up to 20,000 square feet in area located at 250 Blue Marlin Drive (adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. Good morning, Nigel. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Good morning Madam Chairwoman and Board Members. Nigel Robert Williamson for my client, Mrs. Lazio who is here with her mother. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just enter into the record what exactly relief you're looking for, this is a demolition of a single-family dwelling and a construction of a new single-family dwelling with one, a side yard setback at 8.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10 feet, secondly, a GFA, that means gross floor area at 3,627.01 sq. ft., the code permits a maximum of 3,326.75 so it's exceeding the GFA by 300 feet plus or minus. Those are the two matters before the Board so it's a side yard and GFA. We've all inspected the property so what else do you want to tell us about this? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The side yard setback the 8.6 feet, that was previously given under a variance I think back in 1986 we just wanted to hold that point on the back end of it there's no it complies with the setback so it's only one setback requirement on the east side of the property. The gross floor area of the 9.17 over this is in a flood zone X but it's in a .1 and .2 percentage chance of flooding which is the fifty and a hundred-year flood zone. I think what I want to do when I'm answering this with the flood zone and everything is basically comment on the LWRP comments which said it was inconsistent with the LWRP and I do not believe that to be the case.There are three items listed on there, regarding the structure being in the .1 and .2 percentage of the annual flood hazard area and that's within fifty years and a hundred years.They talk about also on the second point the expansion of the structure regarding gross floor area within the area should be avoided or minimized. It said, it does not say shall be avoided or minimized and due to repetitive loss from storm damage and including hurricanes and then there's the issue of ground water elevation is expected to rise over time in this hazard area. My response to that is, yes, it's in the flood zone X but the part that the house is actually in is if you look at the FEMA flood map it's to a depth of less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile which would make it 11 feet and again, we're talking numericals we're not talking about actual because nothing has ever happened. The house finished floor level is at 15.1 feet. If you take the disregarding the LWRP and you go back into either FEMA's compliances themselves or the building code, the building code requires you in a flood zone to be whatever elevation you're at plus two feet of design flood elevation above that.We are 3.1 feet above that if you take the 10 feet of the flood zone plus that one foot and that FEMA says on their map.The flood zone as I said covered in flood resistant construction, in Section 4322 of the NYS Residential code 2020 and also FEMA deals with resilience through detailing on manuals that they do on waterfront properties. Regarding the expansion of the structure should be avoided or minimized due to repetitive from loss from storm damage, there has been no repetitive loss in that particular area. Are we going to say that it will never happen, who knows? With construction detailing and everything else the only thing you can do is do the best you can given what the codes are. I'm just repeating again, we're well above the design flood elevation which will be 11 feet for that area based on code and we're at 15.1. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting The damage from hurricanes is addressed in the NYS Residential Building Code 2020 and in our area, we have gone from 120 miles per hour,three second wind gusts to 130 miles per hour, 3 second wind gusts.That is all dealt with dealing and engineering either in the code or ASCE 7,the American Society Civil Engineer 7 which deals with wind design. I think for me the first two points become less questionable because of what we have to do to detail all of this. The groundwater elevation rise, the water elevation on that is at the bulkhead line. The bulkhead is at 5.66 feet to 5.87 feet, it doesn't come up there unless it's spray that's pushed in by wind. All of the house is set outside the 10-foot contour area so either with the house or with the septic system that's in the front of the house the front of the house is at 11.8 1 think and 11.92 feet to 12 feet contours where the septic system is going which is on the northeast side of the property on the survey. Regarding the request for the 9.17% which the 300 square feet, I don't believe it's"excessive I mean you could question whether under the GFA standards you're allowed build in your basement without increasing your gross floor area footprint. Given that there is that one percent and two percent chances of flooding, my client is just keeping that for storage and not for habitable space.That was the reason to request the relief for the GFA. I don't know I think I have addressed the LWRP and there is a second page of the LWRP which is the resilience analysis and planning tool; that shows as does the survey where the VE Zone is on this property. You cannot just take this (inaudible) and say "Oh My God" because it deals with a whole slew of things with demographics, how much population you have and a whole lot of benefits that have been reviewed which are not relevant to this property and I don't think that any property really out here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nigel,to what extent, is this a total demolition or (inaudible)? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : It's.a total demolition under town code and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may, just to that point, are you doing any work to the foundation or are you using the existing foundation (inaudible)? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No, it's a total demolition, everything is down. I don't know if you were all out there CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we were. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : there's a partial basement, there are cantilevers which I don't know how they're standing up, I can't see any structural holding it up. There's crawl space and then at the back of the house under the deck and the living room area they're built on piers. Also, there's the age of the house,the construction of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you aware that the Board is not is barred by code from granting a GFA that exceeds what's permitted by the code that exceeds the GFA average in the neighborhood.There's no GFA averaging submitted here. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because immediate neighborhood was not well defined the Board developed guidelines as is our authority to do and do you have a copy of those, did we give you NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I received a copy the other day about the five houses opposite and the five houses on either side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right cause this houses really vary in size on that you know around there but it's only 300 sq. ft. over and it's possible that the GFA may be allowed. MEMBER LEHNERT :Just by looking at the neighborhood, you might get it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't determine that you have to tell us. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Right, well I wasn't too sure about whether the averages would then because I think it says in the statement it doesn't mean you have to accept those either, correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Say that again. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I believe on the paper about getting the averages of the dwellings on either side and across that the Board would not have to recognize if my client's project if that complied with it correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was really just a sort of caveat to say that although we suggest these as guidelines, we are not necessarily literally going to there are other aspects of an application besides the GFA which will help determine the final determination by the Board whether it's approved or not. What we're basically saying is, if you follow these it doesn't guarantee that you're going to get you know a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It supports the request. MEMBER LEHNERT: It definitely supports your application. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Okay, then I did not read it that way and I did not do obviously I didn't do it because just a quick math in my head looking at the houses I could be close I may not be that close and that's why I did not do it given that you may not accept it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : That's the reason I r May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The. point is, if we have excessive GFA which we have here even though it's 300 square feet, we can't grant it because we don't know if it's beyond what the average in the neighborhood would be. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Right but Madam Chairperson, is all that standing aside can't the Board make a decision anyway on that or not or it all goes back to the average? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No because the plain language of the code puts limits on wheat the Board is allowed to do. It's not like a variance where you know we've got some wiggle room here. We have to follow the plain language of the code at this point basically you read,it, it's straightforward enough. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Right, right, right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions before we do anything else, Rob let's start with you. MEMBER LEHNERT : No, I have no questions other than you know the GFA question we just answered. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's unanswered. MEMBER LEHNERT : Unanswered but answered. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nigel if I can you stated that you're not using any,of the foundation so while this isn't necessarily subject to-the application I'm just wondering and you stated you recognize that the proposed house is technically in the Zone X NIGEL WILLIAMSON :,Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : but the deck which is attached to the house is in the VE Zone NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : my understanding from an insurance standpoint etc. if any part of the house including an attached deck therefore the whole structure isn't then in the VE Zone? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : You are correct in your statement. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What my thought is, while you're doing the design work couldn't you possibly if you're not using the existing foundation as you just said, which means you're putting in a new foundation couldn't you pull the house back so that including the deck it's all within the X Zone and thereby I think have conforming side yard setbacks also? May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No because the property slopes all the way to the front into the front so as I push the house further onto Blue Marlin my point is moving closer and closer to the side yard like this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Explain to me what do you mean by the point?You're saying for the house if you just slid it back on the east side it would get closer if you just slid it. What I'm saying is you pull it towards Blue Marlin, shift it slightly to the west. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The problem is of course is the side yard property lines are not parallel so when you have a parallelogram like that wiggling the thing back and forth creates challenges. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The west side yard setback is 2.1.9 feet so if you were to pull the house back you could reduce the 21.9 and still keep it conforming while increasing the 8.6 unless I'm mistaken. I mean you have septic and other things. (inaudible) that's what I'm saying 15 and 10. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Then I get into problems with my stormwater management I believe. May I address sorry, just one point that you did bring up, yes you are correct about the attached deck to the house in the VE Zone but it's a detached deck. If we went to an attached deck then that would put the house up on pilings. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well that's the other point that I was getting after which I didn't understand but the zoning not the zone but the FEMA designation aside, deck attached or detached I think that you could still and while you were previously granted the 8.6 and I understand that you want to maintain that it would just seem to me that if you're not using the existing foundation you're doing a new foundation plus you're expanding the existing foundation landward that if you just slid the house towards the road west you can have a conforming side yard setback on both sides. I don't know how that impacts the septic plan and perhaps drainage but that's why I wanted to bring it forward. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Okay, then I would have to look at that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, let's see if there's other comments from the Board and then I'm going to make a suggestion, how about you? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I don't have any new questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, questions. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? I think given what we just talked about we should adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks to give you some time to either submit GFA averaging, to decide if you're going to make any slight adjustments on the survey and so on, would that make sense to you? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : That's perfectly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to do it for a month or does two weeks you tell me what your schedule looks like. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we just hold it subject to receipt? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we ought to just leave it open, we can always close it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea, leave it open subject to receipt. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would adjourn it, I don't want to close it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea, adjourn it, don't put a date on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't want to close it because we might have further questions. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Madam Chairwoman if I say two weeks I hate saying two weeks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN. : It doesn't matter because we'll do it to the Special Meeting and if you don't have it we'll adjourn it again. NIGEL WILLIAMSON Ok, then if I may request that from you Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're just trying to expedite it as quickly as possible but if you can't get it to us by then so we can have a look then we'll just adjourn it again. Does that make sense everybody? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely MEMBER LEHNERT : Absolutely CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So GFA and possible amendments, amended site plan. So, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing subject to receipt of additional information on the gross floor area averaging and potential amendments to the site plan. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#8004—JOHN J. and THERESA M. MURNANE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John J. and Theresa M. Murnane #8004. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 14, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) swimming pool located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 125 Bow Rd. in Southold. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Morning everyone, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants John and Theresa Murnane. I am joined today by Theresa Murnane who is anxiously awaiting your determination in the hopes that she can entice her children and grandchildren to come out and hang out with her in her yard here. As Leslie mentioned, this property is located on Bow Rd. in the Nonakoma Waters Community, it is a constrained property having three front yards and that's really what brings us here today. For the fact that we have three front yards the proposed pool would essentially be located in the rear yard of this property. The Murnane's were before this Board previously back in 2017 as you may recall and were granted relief similar relief to located their existing garage in the front yard because of the same issue because of the three front yard issue. That relief was granted based on the Board's recognition of the hardship created by three front yards. There was also reference in that determination to other variances granted in the neighborhood on a three front yard property and similar front yard I'm sorry relief from the rear yard requirement. Here as you may have seen I don't think it's often that you get to actually see the pool that is going to be put in the ground but if you went out to the property it's just sitting there waiting for your determination and you can see it is not a large structure, it's a very small kind of plunge pool that is going to be placed in otherwise conforming location with respect to accessory setbacks in the rear yard with a small perimeter patio. We would submit with May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting respect to the variance criteria that the installation of this pool in the proposed location would not be out of character with the other homes in the Nonakomo Waters Community. It is, a modestly sized pool in the best location it can be. There's pretty good vegetation existing along the perimeter there that would screen it so we don't we would submit that there is no detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Because of the three front yards we do need variance relief to get a permit for the pool. I would submit that the relief requested is not substantial in light of the absence of really a usable rear yard is the depth of this property is limited as well so this is the best location for the pool. There are no perceivable adverse environmental impacts from the proposed pool construction. I'm happy to answer any questions that the Board may have regarding the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you want to start? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions, pretty straightforward seen this before, three front yards. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just had one question, the site plan shows a dry well as per others, I just wanted to verify that that is for the pool? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, yes and the mechanicals are going to go behind the garage so they'll be pretty much screened from view as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin if I may, more housekeeping than anything, I'm just curious I noticed on the C of O's submitted there would appear to be possibly two omissions. One is for and I'm thinking really from more of a housekeeping standpoint but it might impact other things such as lot coverage, on the survey it says pergola temporary but I believe pergolas need Certificates of Occupancy and they count against square footage you know for lot area. It's in the barbeque area on the survey. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't think it's really a pergola more than just a little Home Depot type overhang it's all opened up. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a pergola. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a pergola. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So what are you asking me Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So as I said it's more housekeeping it doesn't have to do with the pool per say but I think it does need a Certificate of Occupancy so that's something you need to check into and I don't know if that then impacts lot coverage in any way cause there was no (inaudible) with lot coverage but just to be aware of that. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you need to get a C of 0 on it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : We will definitely look at it, it was not anything that was called out by the Building Department when we submitted the application but we can follow up on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just check with them when you have to go back in for a permit that's all. Anything else, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Anybody on Zoom Liz? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I had one other I was just curious, I don't know if any other Board Members had seen it, the garage structure I believe according to my notes air compressor outside, did anyone see that and what's going on with the garage? The garage is supposed to be non-habitable? THERESA MURNANE :Theresa Murnane, the compressor the piping is under the ground to the house there's no air or heat in the garage. The pergola does not have to be permanent; we can take it down if that helps. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm not asking you to take it down but I think that it's just a question that it should have a C of 0. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well typically it's a structure so structures usually have to have Certificates of Occupancy.There's no need to remove it, we're just trying to make sure that you have whatever paperwork you need from the Building Department. Martin can check with them and see. Perhaps if it's not anchored to the ground, it doesn't require one. THERESA MURNANE : It's not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It says temporary, I was thinking that but THERESA MURNANE : It's not anchored. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then that's probably why they cited it that way because it's not anchored. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :-Please just check. THERESA MURNANE : I will definitely. May 1,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are we done? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA: Seconded by Pat, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye 1 MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#80055E—ALEXANDER LINDH and COURTNEY BANCROFT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Alexander Lindh and Courtney Bancroft # 8005SE. Applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is owner of the subject property requesting authorization to legalize/establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 2175 Pine Neck Rd. in Southold. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I am recused from this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Planamento is recusing himself from this application. Please just state your names for us. ALEXANDER LINDH : Good morning Board, my name is Alexander Lindh and this is my wife. COURTNEY BANCROFT : Courtney Bancroft. ALEXANDER LINDH : While we're here representing ourselves we do have an Irish continuation here, one fourth Irish. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : It's not St. Patrick's Day what's happening here. Anyway, Anthony Portillo drew up the drawings for you I believe. We all did an interior inspection as you know you were there and this is an "as built" accessory apartment in the garage. Who do you plan to have living there? May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting ALEXANDER LINDH : My in-laws, Courtney's parents. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will they be living there full time year round? ALEXANDER LINDH : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think didn't I read someplace that they have they live in New Jersey? COURTNEY BANCROFT : We just recently.sold their house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh, okay thank you. The apartment as is, is 795 square feet which is not conforming to the code,the code allows 220 to 750 square feet. ALEXANDER LINDH : I believe on Anthony's survey it's 726.5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department is required to calculate the livable floor area, there's a form and they fill it out yes it's conforming, they looked at it or not it's not it's this much over or this much under or whatever. We will have to address that it isn't to say that we can't I just want to put in the record that what did his drawings say? ALEXANDER LINDH : It's on the bottom left I believe on his drawings, livable square footage was 726.5. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to figure out what I'm going to have to talk to the Building Department but we can certainly grant a variance if the Board decides to for the excessive size. There was one room we never went into which I think is down what is it Margaret, mechanical? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It is down as a mechanical room on Anthony's drawing and as a utility room in the survey. Could I ask a question? What is in that room that is as you enter the unit it's on the right hand side and it has a door both to the interior and the exterior? Can you describe its contents? ALEXANDER LINDH : Sure, I think we have maybe a picture as well in the file. When you enter that room on the left there is the water furnace as well as the boiler for the heat and then on the right side is a washer and dryer. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It looked like a washer/dryer from the drawing but I didn't personally inspect so thank you for that. COURTNEY BANCROFT : There is a photo it has two shelves above the washer/dryer you can barely see the washer/dryer. :14 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I read the thank you for including the lease I read that and there was just some things that caught my eye. One, I think the lease has language about, should the property change hands the tenant will be notified; I want to make sure you understand that if you are granted a Special Exception for this unit that does not travel with the property, a new owner would have to get a ALEXANDER LINDH : I understand that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : You understand that, and I think the lease says that no off-street parking will be provided however this is a requirement that you provide off-street parking. I think you submitted a parking plan with five spaces, I think the minimum required is three. I just wanted to note there was a discrepancy between the lease and the plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do have adequate parking. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea there's adequate parking as per the plan it just doesn't it's not consistent with the language of the lease. I just the application included I believe phots taken at the time you purchased the property, my question is, were you aware at the time of the transaction that a Certificate of Occupancy would be required? ALEXANDER LINDH : That is a sore subject. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Oh I'm sorry for raising that. COURTNEY BANCROFT : We were left to believe that it would be a very easy process that people had lived there and it was you know and then when we looked into it a little bit further we realized what we need to do and so we've been trying to make sure that we do the process accordingly in this case but yes it ALEXANDER LINDH : There was certain language that led us to believe certain things that we don't want to bring up in this particular case. COURTNEY BANCROFT : We are aware that it needs a C.O. and MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well you had the foresight to take photos which made me curious as to whether you were aware of the ALEXANDER LINDH : It was also for our own look back for nostalgic purposes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have all the documentation in the file that we need relative to parental relationship, let me see what else I have here. You bought the house in 2025. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : 2020 1 think, it was December. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2020 okay, BOARD ASSISTANT : I was just noticing that the gross floor area was 867 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's GFA, we're looking at livable floor area here that's not GFA so he's marked it incorrectly. BOARD ASSISTANT : I'm just wondering if he's subtracting that certain areas (inaudible). ALEXANDER LINDH : He's marked (inaudible) and I believe what has done is subtracted out the mechanical room cause it's not livable space. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :The math works for the discrepancy to be the mechanical room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's so many floor areas now, there's floor area square footage, floor area gross floor area, floor area livable floor area. ALEXANDER LINDH : The other piece that I believe is subtracted is the exterior wall space, obviously you can't live in the walls so I think that comes off that calculation as well. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It looks like Anthony used the interior dimensions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from anybody else? Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the application? PAT MOORE : The comment just a clarification cause I have applications, when it's family do you require a lease? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes PAT MOORE : Even with family? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely because it has to be an annual lease. MEMBER LEHNERT : It can be for a dollar a year but it needs to be a lease. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nobody is determining the rent and nobody is saying how many days they have to be in occupancy. 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 STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. ALEXANDER LINDH :Just one question, should we change the lease language for your COURTNEY BANCROFT : Parking spots? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I don't think it matters to the Board it's just might be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It won't matter for the Building Department either. ALEXANDER LINDH : Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#8011—THOMAS SMITH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Smith #8011. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 24, 2025 amended March 4, 2025, amended March 13, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" demolition (as per.Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single-family dwelling complying with FEMA regulations and to construct a second-story addition to an existing accessory garage and to construct an accessory pergola, an accessory outdoor-shower and an accessory hot tub at 1) single-family dwelling located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) second-story :1,7 May 1,2025 Regular Meeting addition to the accessory garage is located in other than the"code permitted rear yard, 4) accessory pergola located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 5) accessory outdoor shower is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 6) the accessory hot tub located in other than the code permitted rear yard the property is at 3121 Oaklawn Ave. (adj. to Jockey Creek) in Southold. Please state your name for the record please. TOM SMITH : My name is Tom Smith, I'm the owner I'm here with my wife Jennifer as well. If it's okay I'd like to just kind of walk you through the project at a high level maybe five minutes and then if you have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure but I just want to enter into the record what the actual relief you're requesting is. The rear yard setback is at 11.8 feet where the code requires 35 feet minimum. The lot coverage is proposed at 24.6%where the code permits a maximum of 20%. The second-story addition to the accessory garage and hot tub and pergola are all not in the rear yard. It looks like your existing lot coverage is 21.9% and you're proposing 24.6%. TOM SMITH : I know there's a lot there. Just to start, I put together as part of your packet the it's titled a concise summary of my application CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it. TOM SMITH : just to help you a little bit. I know there's a lot there so it's a three-page document that walks through the project, the scope and I tried to address maybe any questions that you may have in advance of this meeting but I just wanted to highlight that. If you need more copies, I have them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nope we got them right here thank you. TOM SMITH : Perfect, as far as the main house is concerned, my view is that from a ZBA standpoint it's very straightforward it's a demo and rebuild. Originally, we were hoping to do a major renovation below fifty percent and once we got into the project, we saw that it wasn't feasible so it's now technically a demo and rebuild. I think it's important to highlight, the house is not changing with respect to size, square footage, footprint, height, number of stories, setbacks, number of bathrooms, number of bedrooms or even lot coverage relating just to the main house. So, it's really a technical a demo/rebuild of largely what was there before obviously with major improvements it's essentially a new house. The setback is an issue, as you mentioned it always has been, that's currently 11.8 that's the rear setback no change there. Relative to the main house that's really the plan and I wanted to make sure that was at least clear to the Board. As far as other changes that we're looking to make there's four and all of these to your point are now in the side yard. I know you visited the property, there is essentially no rear yard so even the existing garage is technically in the southern side 1. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting yard but the four improvements we're looking to make the first is a second-story addition to the garage that will be unfinished. So, it will be unframed, plywood floor, no heat, no AC. If you look at our house currently it's only 1,200 square feet. There's no attic, we're lifting the house as well so there's no basement, no crawl space or anything moving forward and we have two closets. So, we're in desperate need of storage and that's the plan. We were contemplating, do we build up further on the main house, do we add a second-floor, do we go up to thirty feet or so but we never felt that was consistent with the character of the neighborhood so our approach was, let's keep the main house as consistent as it's always been as far as the size and things that I outlined and we can utilize additional space above the garage for storage so that's the plan there. We're looking at a pergola that sits between the house and the garage, it's a hundred square feet, it's going to be open air, eighty percent it's your typical pergola. It's really for aesthetic purposes,just trying to link the main house to the garage but technically that is also in the side yard. Outdoor shower, that adds I think 24-feet, 24 square feet to the lot coverage. Technically that would not contribute to the lot coverage if it was at grade level, technically it sits on a berm so according to Amanda in the Building Department it does add to lot coverage so I added that. Again, that is also in the side yard and the last thing is the jacuzzi a small size, 52 square feet also in that side yard elevated on the berm. Again, why the side yard? As I mentioned before there really is no rear yard here. I know you visited the property. From a privacy standpoint both for us and our neighbors we think that's the better place to add these additions. Then environmentally I think it's always obviously advantageous to be as far away as we can from Jockey Creek so we're at the southernmost portion of our lot. One other thing to note too, we're lifting the house and we have to per FEMA, we're in an AE zone FEMA AE zone 6; our house currently sits a little bit above 6 but we have to be at 8 per Southold Town Code so we also have the plan to do that. We're going to build up the foundation, we're going to fill the existing crawl space and the house finished floor will be at 8-feet when we're done. One other thing that I wanted to touch on was lot coverage cause I know that's a number that really comes off when you look at the application, it's currently at 21.9%. It's amazing when you look at, we only have a 1,200 square foot cottage essentially and a (inaudible) square foot garage and we're at 21.9% and the reason for that is pretty simple. Our lot is less than 7,000 square feet I was not able to find any lot on Jockey Creek any smaller so it's a very small lot and if you look at the neighboring properties, I looked at the neighboring four to my left and to my right they're all about forty percent larger from a square footage standpoint. If I had my same house and cottage on a lot of their size my lot coverage would only be 13.4% so I think it just shows that what's there now is a very consistent with the neighborhood. Even when I look at these modest improvements that we're looking to make the four that I listed, that would take yes maybe up to 24.6 but on a lot that's very the average size lot I would still be only at 15.1%. Again, we feel we're very consistent with the neighborhood as far as the existing structures and what 29 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting we're looking to add. The other thing I want to add and I'll wrap it up and see if you have any questions, so we're looking for some modest relief that I've outlined but at the same time we're making major improvements to the property and we feel to the environment, those are listed in that document as well. The first one is, we're adding a new state of the art IA system. It's not easy because the lot is so small and we're only 12-feet or so from Jockey Creek but I have plans that I'm going to submit for the benefit of the Board. That was submitted to the Health Department two weeks ago, so an IA system will be installed in the front yard, state of the art. Before we had potentially a concrete block system, it's been there for probably fifty years and obviously it's not what any of us want from an environment standpoint. So, that's the one improvement the other is, we're adding a water runoff drainage system that was not there previously. I mentioned before we're lifting the house, that's a major project and that's part of the plans that I submitted. We have an extensive non-turf buffer that's planned essentially to be close to no one whatsoever on the property. The last is, with the help of one of my neighbors there's electric overhead electric that runs from Oaklawn and all the way down really for the benefit of my house only and there's a telephone pole that actually sits on their property. They've been wanting me to take care of that for the last twenty years so we're going to work together to put that electric underground from Oaklawn. So, those are the five improvements we're making some of which we feel has a significant benefit not just to the neighborhood but also the environment. That's it, that's the project I just thought it was good to just summarize it in a way that I know you've got a lot of cases and appeals you're looking at but trying to make your life a bit easy. So, with that I'll pause and see if you have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The survey that we have here does not show the location of the IA system. TOM SMITH : Yes this was just done in the last CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to submit TOM SMITH : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please submit them now. TOM SMITH : (inaudible)this is basically four copies, I'd be happy to add more. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it a survey or a site plan? TOM SMITH : That's the site plan for the MEMBER LEHNERT : Health Department submittal? May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting TOM SMITH : By Clearwater Environment. That was submitted about two weeks ago just as I'm seeking a variance here, we need a variance with the Health Department just because of the unique aspect of the parcel. We know we'll get it done it's just a matter of how long it takes us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to need to get a variance from them? TOM SMITH : I'm told by the consultant (inaudible) I'm using them yes I'm going to need yes we'll need a variance from them and it's something they take care of the entire process so we submitted it two weeks ago and they're hoping the entire process takes maybe four to five weeks but we'll see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At least we can see where it is. TOM SMITH : I know it's tough to read so I'm happy to make larger copies as well if you need it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will need a variance. TOM SMITH : Yeah, when they looked at my CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why can't they put that more landward? TOM SMITH : Well they look also at the utilities that all run through the garage, you have the water and the electric and gas so I defer to them this is all they do so I know they spent several weeks agonizing over the project. It may well very be that the Health Department wants (inaudible) their own suggestions on how to (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's to the left of the gravel when you come (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see what questions the Board has, Margaret do you want to start? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Sure hi, the application noted that a storm drain I presume like a dry well is going to be added and I didn't find that on the site plan either, where would that be? TOM SMITH : If you look on I don't know if you have your large plans there, that's going to change now, I'll send in a new picture because originally it was going to be in that front yard area there was going to be two drains, one there and one in essentially the middle of the driveway but now with the IA system going in those are both going to be moved to the rear side one more toward the water and one toward the southeast corner of the property. I think that's shown on the plan I just showed you. Z1 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The new plan? TOM SMITH : Yeah and that's (inaudible) necessity that's really the only change they had to make to the original plans I submitted the drainage of pool (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think you noted that the home is being lifted for flood concerns, 16 inches, the Short Environmental Assessment Form inputs noted that the height of the home was not changing; I presume it's going up 16 inches,just to confirm that. TOM SMITH : Oh absolutely, a hundred percent. Right now, it sits at somewhere at 6 %feet so according to FEMA I'm fine but according to Southold wanted to be 2 feet higher so I'm guessing it's somewhere around 14 to 18 inches that we have to lift the existing house. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yeah so the roofline will go up an equal amount. TOM SMITH : Yes the entire property and the house will go up. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right, right it's just a little different, it's described differently in the application. I wanted to ask about I think you're calling it a berm, when I was there, I noted what appeared to be two retaining walls one maybe about 3 feet high very convenient for sitting on and making notes. Then the other was south of that towards your neighbor, tall, so you're proposing to put the jacuzzi and shower on top of that lower berm? TOM SMITH : That's our thought, so if you look at the plans one of the things we also show is the existing lower wall that you mentioned that you were sitting on, we're moving that ever so slightly toward Jockey Creek and we're going to straighten that out maybe elevate it ever so slightly. That's what 2 % feet maybe above grade level, so the thought was we have such a limited amount of space right to that back patio that's adjacent to that sitting area that you mentioned we want to leave that you know entertainment purposes and you know furniture and things like that. That is the plan, to have an outdoor shower and the jacuzzi sit on that berm area elevated and also from a flood standpoint God forbid there ever is something I like the idea of both of those being elevated ever so slightly. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So it seemed to me that that berm continues on TOM SMITH : Goes around the garage. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : goes around the corner continues behind the garage between the garage and your nearest property to the south, how would the stairs to the garage sit if that berm behind the garage continues? May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting TOM SMITH : If you as you're coming down the driveway and you're facing the garage there is maybe a 2 foot 2%foot initial retaining wall there to the right of the garage. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes, yes. TOM SMITH : So there we would just have a step or two coming down, you'd go up there and you'd automatically be on top of that berm and the stairs would be then there (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Oh, okay it did not seem to be depicted that way in the garage elevations that I saw so thank you. TOM SMITH : That's the plan. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It just looked like on single set of stairs. TOM SMITH : We were thinking about putting the stairs inside MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea I wondered about that. TOM SMITH : You only have 12 % feet at some point you're consuming 4 feet for the stairs we're just losing so much so the thought is make the stair exterior but we're going to put a nice fence and some plantings to keep it private as well. I'm sensitive to the neighbors and you know not impeding you know their enjoyment. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So that second taller retaining wall, is that on the neighbor's property? TOM SMITH : No that's on my property. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :That's yours? TOM SMITH : Yes, my property if you look at that higher retaining wall it probably goes back another 3 feet maybe beyond that so there's trees that are planted up there that are mostly dying those are mine I planted those last year. My property goes about 3 feet beyond that higher retaining wall. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thanks for clarifying that. I apologize if this has been addressed, we were talking about the half bath on the second floor of the garage, why put a bathroom on the second floor? If you needed to use the bathroom and you'd already be on the level of the house and TOM SMITH : That's a great question, so when we started the work with the IA company that I submitted the plans for they said do you have any plans moving forward to do anything 23 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting further with the house? We thought automatically are we ever going to go any higher and really that's not our plan, we want to keep this as a single story home consistent with the neighborhood etc. At some point maybe we want to do something, I know there is the accessory structure so I said the only thing I can imagine is maybe at some point wanting to do that cause I think I read the guidelines there and I think we can check all the boxes but I think you need to have a structure that's in existence for three years. So, that's a possibility so according to them they said just do everything you need to do let's do this system once and do it right cause it's so involved from a variance standpoint. So, at their guidance and then knowing that we may at some point want to do something further with that space we thought that would be the most prude way to move forward. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Doesn't an ADU require a full bath? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes TOM SMITH : At some point I would do that but I didn't want to push my luck a little bit there and this is storage, unlivable I want a full bath I didn't want to do that in such a way. I don't know if I'm able to I don't know what the law is relative to having a half bath on the first floor of the garage but that just doesn't make any sense cause it's just you could eventually have water you know if you have a very rare flood event and we really need the space down there for a car and storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code wasn't written for properties that are burdened by severe environmental impacts. There's properties all over town that are landward that don't have issues with wetlands or creeks and so on so that's why it was written. I didn't absolutely say what floor but typically people are able to have a garage big enough to have a half bath. TOM SMITH : Okay cause that's what I thought. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know you're going to need Trustees approval. TOM SMITH : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can pretty much assure you that the Trustees are going to require that since this house is going to be completely demolished and rebuilt that they are going to require you to move this house behind the pier line. Do you know what a pier line is? TOM SMITH : No, I mean it's a pre-existing structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know, once it's demolished that's all gone. The Certificate you're not using the foundation. 24 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting TOM SMITH : We are using the foundation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're putting it on piers. TOM SMITH : No, we're taking it, it's concrete block now that was (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we saw that. TOM SMITH : They're called stem walls, they're going to add to that another couple feet. So, they're going to take the existing stem wall cement block foundation with the house go underneath and put the house back down. So, it's the same existing footprint, same existing foundation, there will no longer be a crawl space underneath the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're not putting it on pilings, you're putting it on concrete blocks. TOM SMITH : I talked extensively with Amanda from the Building Department and she talked to FEMA and this is the approach they recommended. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's still a demolition just by the fact that (inaudible). TOM SMITH : (inaudible)fifty percent so technically, correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Trustees typically look at demolitions as though you are starting from scratch even if you're retaining part of the structure. The pier line is essentially they're calculation of the properties that are adjacent on either side and where they're located relative to a naturally regulated feature in this case the creek. I'm just saying we're going to need their comments cause they will have to do an approval. What I don't want to do is wind up having them make a decision and we'll make a decision and they'll make a decision that somehow changes our decision it's not good for you and it's not good for our Board. So, I think we need TOM SMITH : Just for the benefit of the group too, originally our project was a major renovation just under the fifty percent threshold that was the plan. I got D.E.C. approval, I got Trustee approval and I got a building permit. So, the Trustees have already approved my project. When we went in and I gave you a lot of pictures of the condition of the house you know the plan originally was replace only a third of the roof but you simply couldn't do it. (inaudible) 2x2's, 2x4's it was you know decayed it simply structurally didn't make any sense. My point is the Trustees have already approved my plan on.a 49.9% basis and now we're over that. I'd be surprised if they require me now to move the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe they won't but as May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting TOM SMITH : I'd be surprised to be honest. My lot is so small I mean there's only what are you gaining by moving it 5, 10 and then you have to factor in the IA system, where does that go? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I get it. I just wanted to enter it into the record so you could address that. TOM SMITH : I appreciate that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Question actually to the whole point of the change, you said that this was going to be a major renovation but not a demolition, did you then alter the plans when you found out the amount of work that was needed because of the framing structure perhaps whatever decay I don't know and then you went back to the Building Department and said, hey look I need a building permit or going beyond the scope of whatever was proposed?So, you're the one that brought this to the Department or they TOM SMITH : They came out and inspected I got a Stop Work Order because they saw we went beyond that fifty and have been waiting now since February to meet with you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : February of 2024. TOM SMITH : February of this year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it in the file. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So,there was actually a Stop Work Order that was created. TOM SMITH : A Stop Work Order, we went over that fifty percent threshold. I was in Florida I was out of state and here we are but yeah. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While I'm asking a couple of questions, just relative you had said earlier that you are contemplating adding a second story or doing something, there's within the zoning code a pyramid law that indicates that as you sort of go up you have to step the house back you need to be within the sky plane; because of the severe limitations of this lot I don't know if you could ever have a second floor. It seems awfully tight. TOM SMITH : Yeah but if you look at because of the natural grade of the southern portion of the lot, that is eight feet higher than where the house is. There's some pyramid drawings in the plans that show even the garage addition you know meets that, certainly the house meets it. Again, I'm not an expert I'm just the owner but it was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's where I was going to go towards the garage, just visually it seems awfully tall for an accessory structure which normally and this is where it's a little May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting strange I think because accessory structures are not included in the pyramid law, this is a perfect example where I would think they should be and if it meets well then that's good but it still strikes me as just being you know a little difficult given the site lines; I perceive the density of you know your development along with your neighboring properties. It's a very tall narrow garage. TOM SMITH : If you look at the house the main house it's fourteen, fifteen feet it's going to be raised a foot and a half and then a chimney is going to be added, that's going to be about twenty feet as well when it's all said and done so it should be pretty comparable. I know a sky plane calculation was done on the garage, it should be in the formal plans that were submitted and it did meet that and that's part of the reason we based it on you know the town says you can have something up to twenty feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm confused because the sky plane analysis shows the present garage not the future unless I'm looking at the wrong document. It doesn't apply anyway so think (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think I have the document in front of me and I don't see a pyramid analysis on the proposed garage. MEMBER LEHNERT: It doesn't apply. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It only applies to a dwelling, it doesn't apply to accessory structures,that's covered by height and setback. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the issue because (inaudible) side yard setback or if the accessory is in the side yard but they're not siting it for the height and in this case I think it should be sited for the height it doesn't meet the setbacks. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :There is a pyramid analysis for the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's up on the screen. How far are you with Trustees at this point? You have to reapply to them. TOM SMITH : I did submit it just this past week just to get ahead but they really need the process is again, I had approval before going through the process again, I'm adding the step of the ZBA. So, here we are and I'm hoping to get in front of them in I'm hoping July fingers crossed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you submit to them the whole same information we have? 27 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting TOM SMITH : I did, yes and I just did it maybe three or four days ago, I really wanted to wait very close to when I was meeting with you. The other thing I just want to highlight, with the garage and I think a great point is you have to realize all of the all my neighbors their properties are eight feet higher than mine so my starting garage is at 11 feet. Most people when you look at a neighbor's garage, you're looking at an 11-foot structure, they're looking at a 3-foot structure because I'm at grade and they're 8 feet higher. So, the fact that I'm going up to 20 is not like I'm a typical 20-foot structure relative to them and their lot and their views. For them it may be something more like a typical height of a garage because again, they're starting point is so much higher than mine. I just wanted to at least mention that. MEMBER,PLANAMENTO : It's on an embankment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you would like to speak which you're perfectly welcomed to you need to come to the mic because we record this and transcribe it. We want to hear what you want to say but it's gotta be at a microphone. TOM SMITH : I hope that addressed your question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think we've covered it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm set. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? Is there anybody in the audience who wants to.address the application? Please come forward and address the Board. Please just state your name for the record. LUCIE HARRIS : Lucie Harris, 305 Private Rd: 3 a neighbor. I have a lot of stuff to hand out, can I bring it up? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure LUCIE HARRIS : There's a package of pictures in there. I know you've been the site but I'm going to refer to parts of the site so. I'm Lucie Harris, 305 Private Rd. 3 and many of my neighbors are here also and would like to speak, Doug Hardy and Carol Simmons, Marjorie Moffatt Stevens, Lynn Hyatt and Michael Stafford are here all in the neighborhood. I received the notice of oh one more thing, I have a letter in the packet which is different from what we're going to say it that okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting LUCIE HARRIS : I received the notice of this hearing about phase two, 3121 Oaklawn Ave. last week. I informed my neighbors and went to the Zoning Board for further information. My letter to you addresses to you in detail the phase two request for a variance and their appeals upon denial of the requests. The requests were to add a story to the garage, adding jacuzzi and an outdoor shower and to add either a pergola or a pergola pool. It says in the agenda to this meeting that it's a pergola pool and all of the documents that I have seen that Tom has submitted says it's a pergola. I think they're different. All of these requests were denied three times already by the Zoning Board. I don't know why we're here since all their requests have been denied already and I wonder how many times we're going to be back. I'm going to briefly going to address each of Tom's requests and our neighborhood objections. First, as a reminder there is a Stop Order on his renovation of the house on the property. If you look at your pictures, you'll see what that looks like now, it's all boarded up. In his appeals Tom says that the house will remain the same size once it is rebuilt to FEMA standards by raising the house by 8 feet. I know he just said a different number but it says 8 feet several times in the appeal, that will double the size of the house. The house will not remain the same size. He doesn't have approval for raising the house according to the Trustees when I spoke to them a few days ago. Meanwhile the house remains boarded up while he moves on to phase two. Phase two, the lot is very small and is directly on Jockey Creek. The house and garage have historically flooded in big rains. Picture one shows the water surrounding the house last August and the there's a big tree in the front cause I took a video of the storm and the flooding on his property, it goes all the way to the garage a4the flooding is why Tom has to raise the house. The garage floods too but adding a second story compromises the stability of the garage, won't the weight of the second story sink the building or make it necessary to raise it by eight feet also? The second story, I did not receive a copy of the blueprints in my mailing. When I looked at the blueprints when I went to the Zoning Board it says that the second floor is for storage because the house is so small that it has no storage. These plans for storage are unusual, a bathroom is added, a sliding glass door leading to a balcony and an outdoor staircase, sliding glass door to a balcony is added in the plans and an outdoor staircase is added. I don't understand what this has to do with storage. If the house is raised there will be plenty of storage under the house. The addition of a bathroom and outdoor staircase further overbuilds and over uses the tiny plot of land. Mr. Smith repeatedly says he is not changing anything but these changes to the garage are big changes and everyone will be able to see them. If you look at picture three, there are two pictures numbered three, it shows what he calls the berm. There's very little space on that berm. He wants to add an outdoor shower and a jacuzzi on that so called berm. Both will be situated on the berm and Michael (inaudible) mother's house above will be the visuals will be they will be able to see everything. Putting the outdoor shower on the berm, the berm holds up the hillside and if you put something that has water all the time running down the hillside is going to be eroded. 9 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting Where will the water go to when it goes down the drain and where will the plumbing enter the house or the outdoor shower? The jacuzzi, could something filled with chemicals on a berm a few yards from Jockey Creek (inaudible). What if it floods, what if it leaks? There's very little space there, if you look at the picture you can see that the berm is small so there'll be a jacuzzi and an outdoor shower and a garage that's enormously tall and narrow. The jacuzzi according to the plans will be right at the very edge of the property, right on top of my property. If you look at the picture you can see that it's going to take some trees out there and take some dirt out there and put the jacuzzi raised right on my walkway to the creek, shrubbery and earth will be removed. That's a recipe for disaster. This side is right on the hillside if you look at picture number three there are two of them, the hill is prone to erosion now when the rain water rushes down it. Mr. Smith's plan does not take into account the stability of the hillside, on the hillside he's putting a jacuzzi and an outdoor shower. Mr. Smith complains that he can't add the jacuzzi and shower to his property because of the property size and shape. He knew the size and shape of his property when he bought it. He complains that his house is too small, about 1,200 square feet, my house, is 1,000 square feet it's smaller. The houses surrounding him are all small, property lines are all small. He wants to increase his coverage to 24.6% from 21.9% and he says that's minor, it's not minor it already exceeds the legal coverage. We have what we have, when we buy our houses, we know what we're buying, we see the land and we understand the limitations. Mr. Smith says; no change is planned for the yard or environment surrounding his house, he says that in one of his appeals. The changes will be, adding an outdoor staircase, a second story to the garage, a jacuzzi and an outdoor shower on that small berm that holds up the hillside. If you look at picture five you can see the berm and the garage next to it and the house above it both of picture three shows that. Adding the jacuzzi and outdoor shower on a berm that holds up the hillside removal of plants, fence and dirt is significant changes and if his house goes up eight feet as he says repeatedly in his appeals that's even more significant of a change. They're visible changes and dangerous changes to a fragile Creekside wetlands environment. The pergola, is it a pergola or is it a pergola pool? A pergola is very big you'll see there's a picture of pergola of this size that he indicates at the end of the letter there. What is a pergola pool? I looked it up on Google and a pergola pool is a pergola and a pool, so what is he asking for a pergola or a pool? The septic, Clearwater an IA septic company suggests adding a bathroom to the second floor of the garage because the septic system will be "tricky" and to do the work now means never having to upgrade it that's what it says, never having to upgrade it if you do the work now. That's avoiding future code violations, that seems wrong. The water is. not going to stop rising and future standards should be met for the health of the creek. What guarantee do we have that he will actually have an IA system? Where will the tank go? I think he spoke to that earlier. In conclusion, the proposed changes in phase two are not minor or modest as Mr. Smith says, the affect the health of the creek and the stability of the hillside 301 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting and the look of the neighborhood. All of our houses are small cottages. The numerous misrepresentations, (inaudible) in phase two make it evident that approval should not be granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony, is there anyone else who wants to address the application? DOUG HARDY : Good morning, my name is Doug Hardy I'm a neighbor. The issuing of a permit for this property is probably not prudent. Let me give you one anecdote, during one winter storm the tide blows in through and down Jockey Creek particularly if it's from the north and it built up the level of water so on that property it was about two feet high flooding that property so much so that my neighbor Pat Berkley and I pulled out our canoe and started paddling over the property. There's a problem with flooding, it floods about once a year possibly more but it depends on the wind,the duration of the wind and the problem is, is that the entrance to Jockey Creek is getting shallower and so when you have a storm blowing over that sandbar that's gradually building Jockey Creek the water stays there if you have a storm that lasts for a day or two days. The water piles in but it's slow to run back out and so it's stalled so the level of the water in Jockey Creek rises. At times particularly during the winter access to their property would be limited by automobile to go down that driveway it can get up to two feet high. There's also a problem of where does this wastewater go? Already that section of Jockey Creek is closed to shell fishing because of possible pollution. While they do say that there is going to be some kind of treatment facility there whether it's sufficient or not it's so close to the water and the water level is close to the surface of the land that there's no place for a cesspool to go. There's a serious problem with the small dimension of the property, its location and it's very vulnerable to storm events particularly from the north as I have mentioned and the duration of the event.The water gets trapped in Jockey Creek. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? MARJORIE STEVENS : I'm Marjorie Stevens, I live at 335 Private Rd. 3 and my family bought the house I'm in in 1942.They pretty much said the way I feel in the documents that you were given and what people have said. I really feel that putting a hot tub that is maintained by the addition of dangerous chemicals that could destroy the health of Jockey Creek which is already got a problem. I think that that's foolhardy, I think that the land is what it is. I have a postcard that shows the house being the only house Mr. Smith's house the only house on Jockey Creek postmarked in 1914. That house and the lot have been there for a hundred years that we know of and it's been twenty years since he bought it, it's never changed. He didn't have a storm and lose part of his property. I had no objection for him fixing his house, 1 3:1 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting understand you know it's been there he's entitled to do that. I knew nothing about phase two and I knew nothing about this meeting until last weekend. I really feel I have full view of his side lot to the east and the back of his property to the south and I should have been notified in writing that this meeting was going to go on and that I had the right to speak.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome, anyone else? I just want to make sure we've got everyone then you can address whatever you'd like to. JENNIFER SMITH : I'm the emotional one behind this one and I don't even care what happens here but I am so disappointed that these neighbors (crying). When I tell you that we are here because we're trying to do the right thing and it made it sound like Mr. Smith did this and Mr. Smith did that, we did nothing. We have a two-bedroom house, we're hoping to have grandkids that can come and enjoy this and it sounded so defensive. We're not trying to anything behind anybody's back that's why everything that could ever possibly be is (inaudible) because we want to do things right and we respect our neighbors and we respect (inaudible) pardon me cause I'm the emotional one but I just felt like some of these people I've never even met before, we're not looking to do anything that's not in the best interest of people. I love people, I want to be a good person, I want to be a (inaudible) person so Mr. Smith we have done nothing to undermine you or any of you. We're trying to be transparent so that what is, is what should be so I just want you to understand, we're not hiding anything that's why everything that could possibly is on that survey cause we want to be transparent. I'm just a little disappointed because we're -not who it sounded like. I can promise you; my husband and I would never do a gottcha, we're not looking for a gottcha we're looking for you to help us. So, I'm going to go cause I'm emotional. I'm Jen Smith and we'll be living on our boat cause this is nothing so. TOM SMITH : I just want to add a couple of comments and I do appreciate the fact that our neighbors are here. Again, we followed the guidelines as far as who had to receive notice. I would have told everyone but I followed the guidelines and I'm happy to see that other neighbors are here as well. A couple of things, when I hear someone say we're misrepresenting, we're not misrepresenting anything that's somewhat hurtful. We're being very transparent in what we're doing that's why I put together all the documentation everything I've share with you so I hope you can appreciate that. Lucie mentioned the house going up eight feet, it's going up sixteen inches so I don't know where that number came from. Everything I've shown you is consistent with our plan; the house is going up about sixteen inches to meet FEMA requirements. I appreciate that the lot floods sometimes, again that's why we're lifting the house to FEMA and Southold guidelines. I think that's pretty straightforward. Pergola pool, I'm not quite sure what that is what that means, we will be looking to add a 10 x 10 pergola. There was a trellis there before, we just wanted to make it 32 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting look a little prettier. So, it's a simple pergola, no pool. Someone mentioned about the IA system will get approved, it's just a matter of what it will ultimately look like. I talked to Clearwater Environmental about that and they said, there's going to be a process it always is with things like this so they're going through the variance process. There is no questions so any approval should be subject to getting that and that's fine but that will happen. Right now, we have a you know a cesspool that's concrete block and that is horrific for the environment so this is a tremendous improvement. Someone mentioned about the berm, nothing more is being cleared and nothing is on anybody's else's property and they mentioned their walkway. This is our berm, it's very small, it's very stable. I've been there for twenty years, there has been no movement, I have no reason to believe we're going to change that one wall we mentioned that you were sitting on, that will be reinforced in such a way that it's conducive and supportive of the (inaudible) things we want to do the shower and the jacuzzi. I have no issues I have no concerns whatsoever with the stability, you're talking about a berm that sits two and half feet high, that's all and there will be a new retaining wall built there as per the plans. The house by going to FEMA 8, FEMA 6 is a one and a hundred-year event okay we're going to be two feet above that should protect the house from what's considered to be like a one- and five-hundred-year events. I'm really not worried, will the property flood on occasion, sure it's inevitable but the few times that I've been there the water doesn't go over the bulkhead. I mean it happened this winter it's amazing it was gone in hours so not overly worried about the house the way it's going to be built, the structural integrity, the new foundation, the fact that it's being lifted I feel very good about the entire project. I just wanted to again rebut some of the comments that we've heard. I think Ron my other neighbor sent an email in-support of the project. I know he wanted to be here today as well but; again, one of the things we're trying to do I mentioned this, we're trying to stay consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The main house is not changing, it's going to be I sent you pictures, it's going to be beautiful, it's going to be simple, it's going to be a simple modest 1,200 square foot beautiful cottage. The garage, we're going to add a second story, we desperately need it, we have two closets. I think there was some mention about maybe a basement, there will no longer be a basement to the house. The house is being lifted, that crawl space is being filled, we're going to be on a new slab with no basement and no attic and that's why the storage is needed on the garage. That's it, you've heard a lot, any further questions you have that you'd like me to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One if I may, somebody mentioned and I believe the house is an old home and I didn't realize it was as old as they presented, is the house listed anywhere within the Historic Preservation? TOM SMITH : We went through the building process before we got a building permit, we went to the Trustees, no not like on a national register or anything like that. I'll be honest, the May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting house if anyone has been inside it got to the point that it just wasn't livable. I mean it was horrific so we're excited about the project and again, building something that's really you know-conducive to the neighborhood that's our goal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you one question, are you aware of what the actual weight of a jacuzzi filled with water is? TOM SMITH : I don't know, I don't have that with me but I know my architect did ask for the specs for that and I did share that with him so he put it you know there as planned. I'm happy to and I actually had one in mind when I sent that to him, if you want, I can send that to MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Do you know how many gallons it is, it contains? TOM SMITH : It's only fifty-six square feet and what's it four feet deep so I'm not a math major but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it's just that water weighs a lot more than what most people assume it does and when you put it on an elevated artificial platform which is what a retaining wall is there can be structural consequences to the stability of that retaining wall. TOM SMITH : I'm happy to consult again, we have someone who is going to come in and you know design the new foundation or the expansion of the existing foundation, I'm happy to consult him on that. I don't think it's overly involved to be honest. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would seem to me also if you're replacing the retaining wall the Trustees are going to be involved in that it would be within their purview I would think. TOM SMITH : I would think%so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Based upon all of that we've heard a lot of testimony that we're going to need to digest it a bit and we certainly have you just applied to the Trustees. They will do a site inspection on the same information that we have and they will have notes from that inspection. I'm going to adjourn this until we get those notes. That way we will have some idea where they are going and we can be on the same page so we won't have to be having you or us go back and forth so we'll find out what they have to say about it and we'll take it from there. TOM SMITH : I know they wanted me to go through the process where I get your approval before they even 3 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand.They have jurisdiction over one area, we have kind of jurisdiction over many areas. That is often the case but in order to collaborate appropriately we're going to need to get their report. TOM SMITH : You'll coordinate with them and do you want me to do the same? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You coordinate with them, you go in there and just tell them that they'll have if they want it they can have a copy, our transcript will be available I'd say certainly in a couple of weeks and they certainly have the benefit of being able to read the transcript of this hearing so they could here where we were going and we'll come up to a resolution after that. Anything from a Board Member? Okay, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this subject to receipt of a field inspection report from the Board of Trustees. Is there a second to that? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye, okay thanks very much for your time. HEARING#8006—KIMBERLY CRUMM CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kimberly Crumm #8006. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280- 105A and the Building Inspector's January 17, 2025 amended February 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool with spa and an accessory cabana/pool house and to construct a six (6) foot high fence in the front yard at 1) accessory structures located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) proposed fence is more than the code required maximum four (4) feet s r May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting in height when located in the front yard located at 2965 Marratooka Rd. in Mattituck. State your name for the record please. DEAN KOUTSOUMBIS : Good . afternoon Members of the Board, my name is Dean Koutsoumbis my address is (inaudible) in Hicksville, New York. Before we begin, I'd like to submit for all the Board Members a revised site plan for the (inaudible) property. We're requesting a variance for construction of a pool, cabana and fence all located within the front yard. This is a unique situation as it is a corner property which has two front yards and the way the house is situated there really is no rear yard that the family can use. The whole area that we're proposing this will be proposed surrounded by trees and the trees will provide screening and privacy and also provide an outdoor yard space for the family to use. The pool and the cabana is nestled within the existing large tree so no large trees will be removed they're all marked on the survey that I submitted. This is a Bio Design pool and the way the Bio Design pool is shaped they have a shallow angle which protects the root structure for the large trees, it won't even damage the roots of the trees. Also, consideration was made to provide (inaudible) triangle and the line of sight for cars as they turn on to Marratooka and Park Ave. as they make that turn there is at least thirty there's like thirty feet of space. The fence or the trees will not block any line of sight in this area. Before we got here today, we understand there was some concerns from the neighbor which is most affected the property directly to the east and this plan that I just submitted actually addressed some of the concerns. Our initial fence plan showed the fence going all the way down if you take a look, it showed the pool area coming all the way down and pretty much enclosing the entire yard. We were able to reduce it so the fence only where it abuts the neighbor it would only be along this area here where I'm pointing to so just in the pool area not the rest of the yard. To my understanding the neighbor's concerns have to do with these trees that they may you know as they grow, they may encroach onto the property, touch the property line and push onto the fence. There was discussion between the clients and the neighbors and I believe there was an agreement and I do have an email from the neighbor addressing that there was an agreement that as long as the trees are trimmed then the fence is completely on my client's property that there wouldn't be any objections. We had a surveyor come out and stake out the property to verify that everything is going to be within the limits of my client's property. That concludes my presentation, I'm here with Mr. Drucker he is the pool supplier, installer he can definitely he can answer any questions and also in the audience we have landscape designer and the homeowners are here as well if there are any questions. ROBERT DRUCKER : My name is Robert Drucker and I'm the distributor of the material that the pool is going to be made out of. It's a custom design material that comes from Italy, it's really beautiful. It's the rage all around the United States right now. It's very natural looking which is something that we're really comply with everything in your area. It's not a typical 36 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting concrete pond you know a pool that you see. I can actually pass a picture around for the Board to pass along, it's a very, very pretty look. This one right here would be the example of the one, the one that it would actually look like. So, it actually looks like real sand and it is real sand but it's put together with a resin so it doesn't move or anything but it gives a very, very l natural look. So, the fact that they're leaving all the trees existing there and the fact that the pool is very natural and the fact that the two neighbors on either side have agreed to here they have'basically four neighbors but two of them are so far away that you can't see and they have the same type of fencing actually closer to the street with higher bushes than this is going to have. We're actually no encroaching as much as the two of our neighbors and then on either side the two close neighbors have both agreed and have no objections whatsoever at this point cause my client has talked to both of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing not only a pool but a cabana, is that a pool house or a pergola? DEAN KOUTSOUMBIS : It is a 12 x 20 cabana, there's going to be just two rooms just changing rooms and in the winter can be used to store some of the patio furniture and pool equipment. In front of the cabana is going to be a roof over like a trellis area and that's it. So, the trellis the pergola that's open air, that's in front of the roof over. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There is a roof a proper roof but the pergola is DEAN KOUTSOUMBIS : The pergola is beyond the roof. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah okay so it's outside of the actual building attached to one of the sides, correct? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's actually over the pool. DEAN KOUTSOUMBIS : It's over the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's shading the pool somewhat. DEAN KOUTSOUMBIS :.It's over the shallow are of the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no plumbing, there's no half bath or anything in this, there's two changing rooms? DEAN KOUTSOUMBIS : Two changing rooms, there's no plumbing, no heat so the cabana is really just a changing room/storage. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : While we're on the cabana, are you aware that the town code requires that cabanas be only one room possibly with the addition of a half bath. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting ROBERT DRUCKER : It can be one room it's not a it was just a thought that you keep the storage areas your pool toys everything on one side and the changing on the other side but it could be one. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Another question that occurred to me cause I see the pool has a heater, is the property served by natural gas? ROBERT DRUCKER : It's either going to be a heat pump which is electric and they're very efficient also. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Or will it be propane? I didn't see a heater either gas fired or heat pump noted on the survey sorry the site plan. KIMBERLY CRUMM Hi, I'm Kimberly Crumm, we're going to go with an electric heater and our house is also just been approved for solar so the goal is to heat all of this with solar but electric is the source for the heat for the pool. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I also noted that, I think the site plan notes that no drywell is required for the filter style of this pool but what about de-watering the pool for purposes of maintenance or winterization? ROBERT DRUCKER : For winterization you only drop the water by one foot so it's minimal so it can just be dispersed on the grass on the you're talking about maybe probably a thousand gallons of water total, it can be drained out easily. The filter is something that Pentair makes, Pentair is probably the top equipment in the world, they call this Stay Right Media System. It's a giant cartridge that just gets cleaned once,a year so there is no backwash of water on a weekly basis like a normal'pool. The water gets recirculated and used it never gets emptied. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well until it needs maintenance. I'm sure the pool is sturdy but even a gunite pool requires maintenance from time to time. ROBERT DRUCKER : This is quartz so quartz is actually the only thing harder than quartz is diamond so this is all quartz material so you can actually take sledge hammers to do it and it really doesn't need anything maybe once every three years it does get emptied and it would be sprayed with the same material that holds it.together and then it gets refilled. A dry well can be put in if the town requires it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just think if you have to empty the pool as frequently as every three years it might be advisable. May 1,2025 Regular Meeting ROBERT DRUCKER : Oh, it would be emptied very slowly where it would just over multiple days where it would permeate into the soil. If the Board requires a dry well that's not an issue,that can be installed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where are you proposing to locate the pool equipment? ROBERT DRUCKER : I think behind the little shed/cabana. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,just behind the cabana where's this little drawing okay. ROBERT DRUCKER : It's indicated. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's on the new site plan, it kind of looks like a heat pump. Could you address what motivates I guess a six-foot fence around the pool? DEAN KOUTSOUMBIS : I'd like to have my client answer. KIMBERLY CRUMM : I'm a mom of four, three are in college and the one that's left at home is a thirteen year old daughter. I just want to have as much privacy as I can for her and her friends when they come over and run around in their swimsuits and have some fun. So, that really is for me my number one priority is just give them a safe space to be kids and have a good time and not worry about anybody you know peeking in on them or some kind of something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you're proposing extensive evergreen screening which can you know if they're Leyland Cypress or the equivalent will create a very dense visual barrier.A swimming pool only requires a code compliant four-foot-high fence around it with a code compliant gate. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Self-closing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Self-closing yeah. KIMBERLY CRUMM : What is self-closing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a type of gate that just means that when you open it, it closes you don't have to smash it closed. KIMBERLY CRUMM : I mean it's really for me it's for privacy.but if you tell me I have to have a four foot then I'll agree to that I just love a six for my eternal peace of mind. ROBERT DRUCKER : All the neighbors actually have like twelve foot high evergreens around their four-foot fence that are adjoining this property so everything is much higher. May 1,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was something that I was going to ask about also because a composite fence is kind of solid sometimes (inaudible) something like I think it's called well it's synthetic material, it's reflective so there's all kinds of different issues. By my memory and other Board Members might chime in, I don't remember ever granting a tall fence in a front yard unless it specifically met the front yard setback of the home. Right there already I mean if you're compliant with a four-foot fence around the pool and you've got landscaping it should give you the privacy that you're seeking. KIMBERLY CRUMM : Yeah and that's like I'm fine with that too and really the (inaudible) is to have a place to enjoy with my family this summer so two-feet is not going to prohibit us from doing that so a four-foot fence is great. ROBERT DRUCKER : The evergreen screening that she intends to put there'that's on the plan will block everything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would seem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to have to take some trees down? KIMBERLY CRUMM : No, I'm a (inaudible) so no trees will be harmed. ROBERT DRUCKER : It was actually specially designed to fit within the existing trees and not damage any. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good cause we do inspect every property before a public hearing so we know what the neighborhood looks like, how close you are to your neighbors all that kind of thing. ROBERT DRUCKER : The trees are actually listed on the plan and it shows that the cabana and the pool are nowhere near them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may because of course looking at a plan is different from actually physically being at the site and you know investigating what's going on, I don't understand exactly what the hardship is because behind the house is a small patio that you're now proposing to expand and place an outdoor kitchen area in, I don't understand why the pool couldn't fit in a conforming location and still allow you the privacy that you seek. KIMBERLY CRUMM : In the back yard? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes in a compliant location. ROBERT DRUCKER : There's not enough room in the back yard, there's room for a small patio but the patio is almost it would be touching the property line and I'm sure there's no way to May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting have the setbacks. What's the total distance Dean behind from the house to the property line? We have a survey here we can check it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you have an accessory shed in a compliant location and it would seem to me that a compliant pool can also fit. I believe a pool setback is as close as five feet. DEAN KOUTSOUMBIS : It would be very small in that location, we have a rear yard setback it appears ROBERT DRUCKER : The property line is angled and there's minimal on the one corner there's almost it's like a total of 15 feet behind the entire house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well certainly not a pool like that, a plunge pool maybe or a lap pool. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The pool we saw earlier today 8 x 16 there's plenty of options that a pool could fit in a conforming location. ROBERT DRUCKER : I'd say that ninety percent of all the pools that I design are a minimum of 18 x 36 is the smallest on Long Island I haven't really seen anything on Long Island that's smaller than that at any home unless you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 16 X 32 we've seen a lot of those. ROBERT DRUCKER : We only have 15 feet so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you about that framed shed that's back there on the property, it is in a conforming location but it's not on the survey it's now on the one you just gave-us. What's going on in there, I saw a sofa and a microwave when I looked inside. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : And a sink. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a sink. DEAN KOUTSOUMBIS : Ms. Crumm could come back up and answer about the shed but she was in contact with the Building Department when she put that shed in, an inspector was there she can come up and answer any questions regarding the shed. KIMBERLY CRUMM : The shed is from my understanding fits inside of the area for the size that I am allowed to have a shed without having to pull a permit to put in a shed. They said it has to be at least five feet off the fence, we went like I want to say seven, seven feet and a bit. The water that's collected if were on the property, in the back we collect rainwater. There's 41 May 1,2025 Regular Meeting an outdoor water source on the back of the house and so that sink is mainly for it's a gardening area and little she shed, it's a place for me to go and escape. I have garden beds there and then I have water from an attachment outside of the house and also water that collects from rain and just a place for me to go and sit. So, I put a microwave out there and soon to be tea kettle it'll just be my spot. As far as I'm aware and I did ask going into it and an inspector did come out even though we didn't have to pull a permit to build it and looked at everything and closed the case. I don't know what that's called but MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Is it conditioned space? It looked like there was an interior duct that would exhaust through a window. KIMBERLY CRUMM : I bought at Home Depot one of those AC unit things so it goes into you know it fits into the window to let air go out in the summers. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I think also to my point earlier that you have compliant locations to put a swimming pool the shed does not need a permit because it's in a compliant location and it's smaller than well 12 x 12 so I mean right there and you just mentioned that you're seven feet off the property line, I was thinking it was five, without a doubt you know I'm still not understanding what the hardship is, why you can't place a pool in a compliant location? KIMBERLY CRUMM : I think it really is about living and the size of the pool that we can put. You're not wrong I mean we can probably squeeze something maybe even just a big jacuzzi but we talk about lifestyle and raising a daughter who goes to high school here and us putting down roots as a family. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand that but also it's not common to have a pool in the front yard and I think if you look around the neighborhood I'm not aware of anyone unless they're waterfront actually your immediate neighbor across the street which is on the bay does have a swimming pool in the front yard but that's by right cause they're a waterfront property and of course the setback is huge they're on over two-acres. You're in a tight corner location that ROBERT DRUCKER : They're going to using very, very large screening around the whole perimeter it won't affect anyone. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well that mitigates the use if granted but the question still sits, which I have a hard time understanding, why you can't put it in a compliant location? KIMBERLY CRUMM : It's more about, what would fit in a compliant location and the size of that and sort of living in life and you know you may be able to have one or two people in an earth raven a really small pool versus like you know by daughter having all of her girlfriends 42- May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting over and slumber parties, a life that we're trying to build by living here. So, it's really lifestyle is the request but I do know in my town and others, there are lots of side yards that are technically front yards which I just learned about the thing I didn't even know that have pool in them. So, I know that exceptions have been granted in situations similar to mine and I'm hoping that you guys (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have any examples that you can provide? KIMBERLY CRUMM : No but when we met with the town and they declined us the first time they mentioned so I'm sure there are some on file here that we can probably ask to get to present that to you if you think you need us to. DAN STEIGERWALD : Hi, Dan Steigerwald, Design Scapes, I'm the landscape designer, construction manager. In relation to the question for the pool choice, at the time also was it was sought it to be a natural form style which is very shallow (inaudible) walls that come in and kind of slope in. It requires space to achieve that otherwise you know if you have that small area and I need this much for slope I'm going to be standing in the middle with two people like this,, this is the pool. For spatial use context that's one of the needs is a larger platform. It's not that she wants this tremendous you know public pool it's just for this style of pool being natural form, being a very well filtered pool because if it's natural bio tendencies the way it filters through the gravels over a liner it's a very clean pool, low energy use pool, low it's going to be a salt generated pool so we're trying to be as organic and you know natural as the design intends from design intention. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's see if the Board has anything, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I think Nick asked all my questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, anymore? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, I think that's everything. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm set. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? 431 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We should have a decision at our next meeting in two weeks. I'm going to make a motion to recess for five minutes or so. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER-PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 44 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8007—DEMETRA MAKRIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Demetra Makris #8007. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 207A(b) and the Building Inspector's January 27, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish ((as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) more than the code permitted maximum two stories, 4) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 square feet in area, located at 910 The Strand (adj. to Long Island Sound) in East Marion. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Excuse me one moment, I wanted to ask this question earlier, Pebble Beach has a certain a different schedule of setback and lot coverage. How does the sky plane come into effect on that? I hate to cause trouble I just MEMBER STEINBUGLER : (inaudible) I believe I think after you and I spoke I made a point to go back and check. MEMBER LEHNERT : Sky plane came way after those regulations. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea so I'm wondering so is it included in their regulations or is it excluded. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it's town regulated. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's town wide. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let Pat answer that, let me just enter into the record what the variance relief is. You're proposing a lot coverage at 22.9% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. This is considered by the Building Department a three-story house where the code permits a maximum of two-stories. The gross floor area is at 4,063 square feet where the code allows a maximum of 2,706 square feet on a lot of this size. The fourth, is the bluff setback is at 97.25 feet, the code requires 100 feet. PAT MOORE : I'll start in the order here regarding the lot coverage. You pointed out I' think right before the meeting started; we are in Pebble Beach Farms. It is a clustered subdivision and therefore when the subdivision was created the lots were based on the yield and two- acre zoning I think at the time was in place. The lots were made smaller as a cluster concept. I would say there were a lot of variances on The Strand particularly because we now have superimposed the current regulations on what had been the Planning Board intentional 451 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting design to create smaller lots with setbacks, the map setbacks, side yards and front and rear yard setbacks were also based on the clustered concept. The impact of the most recent regulations thrown on top of a clustered map creates a great deal of the old word was particle difficulty now it creates difficulty with the development of any home. In this case we have an existing pool, we have the existing house that the plan was or the design was to put in an addition on the existing house. The owner and based on conversations that I had with him I said, listen let's try to stay away from the top of the bluff so the architect designed the addition that was on the landward side of the house. To limit the amount of disturbance as well as just retain the existing foundation because there is a full basement, the garage is under the house so the garage remains, the structure is remaining. Part of the house was being removed in order to build the addition. When the plans went to the Building Department, they were concerned about the fifty percent rule and rather than get to a point where something surprising occurs during construction we treat this as a demolition reconstruction but in fact the foundation remains and parts of the house remain. If you look at AS-1 drawing AS-1 you can see the dark line that bisects the footprint of the existing house. The footprint is the shadow, the hatched area, that's the existing house, the new portion the addition and alterations to the existing house is the darker line that's occurring around and towards the front of the property. With all that, the lot coverage is affected and again because we are now superimposing the buildable area restrictions on the property and the top of the bluff becomes or what is .now deemed the top of the bluff rather than under the filed map setbacks because you can see on again on AS-1 and on our survey the filed map had the top of the bluff significantly seaward of the current slope. All of these things we're applying current interpretations and rules on a parcel that was intentionally developed with undersized square footage. I gave this information to you already in writing but the house without the pool currently would be 17.54% lot coverage. The existing pool which is not changing, not being modified here is 5.36 lot coverage so in total it's 22.9. Again, it was a very, very strong effort by the architect and the owner to conform to the lot coverage but unfortunately there was no way of maintaining the foundation and the garage with the plan to build a house that accommodates the family without impact on the lot coverage. The second issue I'll address is the third story, that we were surprised of the Building Department's interpretation because the code specifically says that we apply story and the definition of, the story is, that part of any building exclusive of cellars and inclusive of basements comprise between the level of one finished floor and the level of the next higher finished floor. We only have the first floor and we have the second floor and the reason that they called it third floor is because in order to maintain the ceiling heights of the great room that are already there, they didn't want to change that, the bedrooms of the second floor there is a step, one step to the height of the bedrooms. That differential that one step is why they call this a third floor. It didn't make sense how it was designed. 46 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the plan it's like six steps going up. PAT MOORE : I'm sorry, six, six steps. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It looks like it's like four feet or something like that. PAT MOORE : The architect should be on, he can describe the distance or the height. Again, the definition of a story is, what is below it and below it is the first floor or the first story. By definition it should not be considered the third floor, it doesn't make sense. I know that there was a variance that I found in this neighborhood-regarding a third-floor interpretation and again the Board granted it because it was a matter of interpretation, I don't believe it was actually living space being on creating a full like a story or an attic that's been converted it's the same floor just an added different (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what determination that was and can you please submit a copy of it? PAT MOORE : I think I gave it to you here, no that was lot coverage let me look. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we you did submit something but it's just so you know, henceforward if any priors are cited in anyway we need full copies not just a number. PAT MOORE : That's fine I can provide it, I thought I gave it to you. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Appeal No. 6414? PAT MOORE : I'm sorry was what? T. A. MCGIVNEY : 6414 PAT MOORE : The computer the town website has been down for the last two days and couldn't get it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Laserfiche isn't working. PAT MOORE : That's why but I will get that to you unless you already have it in your file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't.. PAT MOORE : I will get that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying you're using the same foundation? PAT MOORE : Yes it's the same house foundation. 471 May 1,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just moving it forward. PAT MOORE : Yea so the new construction is going on the it was supposed to be an addition to the (inaudible) the house so that's what they planned but again, because of walls and windows changing we're at the demo definition. Is the architect, can you just find out if I have an architect on Zoom? Nick maybe I think he's the owner but he might be able to answer. NICK MAKRIS : Good afternoon, drawing A2.4 shows the two bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our drawings-are all cut off. The set of plans that we've got the very bottom is all cut off which is where the sheet number is. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If you can tell us the caption of one or more of the drawings of the page. NICK MAKRIS : Upper level floor plan. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Could you give your last name for the record? NICK MAKRIS : Hi, I'm Nick Makris, I'm Demetra Makris's husband. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, we're looking at upper level floor plan dimensions, is that what you're PAT MOORE : Yes that's the label on it. MEMBER LEHNERT : The section explains it much better than the plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What does he want us to know about this drawing? PAT MOORE : I think there was a question of elevation and height or steps is that what Nick you were asking? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes PAT MOORE : Nick can you describe what's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like two bedrooms and two bathrooms that are elevated above the level where bedroom four and the primary bedroom are. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you look at the building section AA it's a better description. Building sections are AA and BB they are much better descriptions you can see it easier. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I agree. I think it might even give a rough idea it doesn't give the direct dimension or maybe it does,four-feet. 48 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting NICK MAKRIS : So, bedroom two and three are the ones that Pat was talking about the definition of why they were saying that that's a third story but those two bedrooms actually sit above the living room or great room only. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just for clarification, it looks like from the finished floor of bedrooms four and five to the finished floor of bedrooms two and three is approximately five feet? Is that correct? NICK MAKRIS : Yes that is correct right Pat, because I think on the great room the maximum height is like (inaudible). PAT MOORE : In order to limit the GFA of the great room it had to be below a certain height so that ceiling height is compliant with the maximum height without doubling the volume. That's where at that point that's where the second-floor bedrooms can begin. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm sorry, I think I heard earlier, I must have misheard but the great room doesn't currently exist it's part of the new addition or the new design? PAT MOORE : Well it's part of the original house so Nick do you have a great room in the area where the right now? NICK MAKRIS : We currently have a great room, yes. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : And it's the same height as the proposed? NICK MAKRIS : Correct, it might even be a little higher right now the existing one. PAT MOORE : Yea it is higher. Do you have any other questions regarding the third floor and then move on to the next topic? The next topic I have is discussing the gross floor area. provided you with we did a lot of we took several months to compile this to try to give you the five and ten. In reality as you know from being on Pebble Beach Farms and on The Strand, the homes on the water are quite different that the homes that are on the landward side of The Strand and a lot of Pebble Beach. The homes that are on the water are certainly a lot larger, they are generally two story, they enjoy the views of the Long Island Sound. When we did a comparison of the neighborhood, the comparables are the homes that are waterfront homes so when we take the average of the east and west of the waterfront homes. The proposed construction is less than that average. The average came to 4,256.9 and the proposed is 4,063. The design and the house is in keeping with the waterfront homes. If we took all of the homes then we are comparing ranch homes that are not on the water as part of the GFA and in that instance we do exceed the average of the entire neighborhood by 339.06 square feet. It's not a significant increase to the average but it is slightly over. 49 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting Remembering that we do have an existing house, the purpose of this is to give the family more room for family bedrooms and when you look at the homes along the waterfront many of the homes are relatively new homes probably built in the last ten years.and this house, I believe was built in the nineties so it's been now quite a number of years so it's time to renovate and the appropriate time to do the project. The Board has granted GFA variances in the past certainly not in this neighborhood, this is a new law that has not been applied in Pebble Beach but when I look at your, the computer again the LaserFiche, on all the GFA's that have been granted this 339 is not a big deviation from the average and the Board has taken into effect the neighborhood and what homes really are comparable homes and the neighborhood. You did a significant GFA on a very beautiful house it's near I think Brecknock Hall. Anyone with any common sense would be comparing that beautiful old house colonial and really the neighborhood on CR48 was the immediate neighborhood not across the street on the southside of CR48 and some of the other homes. You use some common sense when you apply it and I'm hoping you would apply it at Pebble Beach as well given how the neighborhood has developed. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Before we move off of GFA I do have one question, I walked when I did my site inspection I wanted to get a visual impression of the homes eastward, westward and across the street and I noted as I walked west that No. 1380 The Strand which sits between 1310 and 1460 which are included in the analysis for some reason No. 1380 was not included and I wondered if there was a rational for that? PAT MOORE : I took it by tax map number, it could have been an oversight on my part. It went from 1310 to 1460 is what I saw. I used I'm trying to remember tax map it went from 70 1 have 70 and then 69 tax lot 69 so I don't know maybe it's mislabeled as a number but it's tax map number. Which one are you thinking? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I looked at the street number of the home between those two and I got a street number of 1380 and I saw the house so it just didn't make sense to me that it would a PAT MOORE : Unless 1460, 1380 1 used I like to go by tax map numbers so I can make sure I have everyone cause numbering doesn't always jive they can change numbers so I honestly can't tell you if we missed one or not. I did it based on tax map numbers so I took 69, 70 my client I think is 73 and what's my client's number? All I can tell you is that, I was using the tax map number. If there's one that's missing, we can certainly double check or I can double check the numbers and see if what number were you saying, 1380? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : 1380 maybe it's I don't know how you get from the tax map number to the street number. So, May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It's hard, we actually have to pull every card and that's how we do it, it's a very time consuming process to do this. I did this many months ago. My client is 81. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to address the bluff setback? PAT MOORE : The last issue is the bluff setback, the setback is based on the existing foundation. That was what the house back as and remember if you the top of the bluff is one where the Pebble Beach Farms map and the topography can differentiate as far as what the Building Department or the surveyor interpretated to be the top of the bluff at the time so that house was built I think presumably at 100 feet from the top of the bluff at the time. If the foundation is not changing, it's staying exactly where it is so I think it's 97 is the final number when the surveyor was yeah 97.25 is the existing basement to the top of the bluff as the surveyor determined it based on the topography or sloping grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The pool is as built it's staying there? PAT MOORE : Yes, the pool has C.O.'s yes it got a variance it has C.O.'s and what's being done here is the alterations the renovations of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had one more, I think the application indicates that an Innovative Alternative Septic System will be included, I did not see where it was notionally located on the site, do you know where it will go? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to have to go in the front yard. PAT MOORE : Generally the Health Department wants it to go on the front, I believe that's where the system is now. Nick, can you answer that cause I don't know if I know that off the top of my head. MEMBER LEHNERT :There's really not that much space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it's really crowded. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :That's my concern,there's not a lot of room there. NICK MAKRIS : We're going to put it like in the same spot the other two new houses that were built recently which is in the front of the house. PAT MOORE : Is it going to have to go under your driveway? May 1,2025 Regular Meeting NICK MAKRIS : It can go, whatever they approve it, under the driveway or in the front but pretty much it'll be the same way where the neighbor put theirs in which was in the front. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wondered if it was kind of the east side or the west side like Pat said. East side would be under the driveway. NICK MAKRIS : Probably under the driveway would be better but I mean wherever they decide. PAT MOORE : We haven't started you haven't started the Health Department have you? NICK MAKRIS : No, I think you're going to handle that no Pat? PAT MOORE : Oh, I guess I will be. Well, an engineer and I will be doing that but we don't we obviously need this variance to know where we're going and make sure it's approved before we start going CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need Trustees or are you outside of their PAT MOORE : It's an existing so they might ask for it I don't know. We haven't gotten that far CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay but you will have to go to them. PAT MOORE : Well, if there's going to be any ground disturbance within 100 feet then we generally go there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I guess I wanted to ask one last thing relative to the GFA, what options were considered for bringing the design more in compliance with the allowable GFA? PAT MOORE : I know they worked on the design a lot. The reality is that you need a certain square footage for the number of bedrooms that they need and that's a family driven process. I don't get involved with the design element other than pointing out what we need to try to comply with. Again, this design process was a very long time in the making and a lot of it was done before GFA was even an issue. So, they were pretty far in the process we were able to reduce the house from its original conception so believe it or not this was a reduction. They need a certain number of bedrooms for the family. Bringing it down to the average GFA is a significant cut, that 339 square feet or thereabouts. It's a bedroom or more so that's part of the problem here plus we do have an existing house so it's very frustrating for people with existing homes that are trying to design renovations and additions and then be tied into the GFA. Again, if you look at the homes on the water in Pebble Beach there are homes that are almost a thousand square feet more than what we're proposing so the character of Pebble Beach has always been the waterfront homes were the very expensive homes, the valuable May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting homes and nobody is going to build something that is under you know reducing the value or impacting the value of their property. Nick, can you add anything to that, I mean it is, it's been shrunk I know at least once or twice. NICK MAKRIS : With three daughters and a large family but I think-the point you made is that there are other homes that are a thousand square feet bigger I guess that was a previous law they were able to do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea PAT MOORE : Yea it didn't apply. Keep in mind GFA does impact I mean the lot size and its buildable area. So, we are penalized with GFA applicable today to a cluster subdivision. If the lots you know so we're the code does not make provisions for that because how many clustered subdivisions are there in this town. That's why there's a relief valve, a more customized process with this Board because you take in, you're going to treat a subdivision like Pebble Beach maybe different than you are going to treat a Founders Landing variance because it's a very different neighborhood. Pebble Beach and maybe Orient By the Sea may be a clustered subdivision. You have very specific subdivisions in this town that were when the cluster subdivision code was adopted that was and it's still applicable when you have a lot that's more than seven acres the Planning Board will apply clustered setbacks. That's not an intention to devalue a neighborhood, it's a purposeful plan to take that acreage and throw it into open space not into the individual lots. We're kind of going we're always a little schizophrenic I always say with our code because we deal with the generic and that's why we come to you for the specifics so here we are. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think I'm good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? 531 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting STELLA LAGUDIS : Hi everybody, I live at 760 The Strand, I am the immediately adjacent neighbor to the east. I also happen to sit on the Pebble Beach Board for which I recused myself for any of the discussions that the Board had. I am generally in favor of this application. The only question I have is, I want to make sure that you have the letter that I sent yesterday that just discussed the positioning of the air conditioning units. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do. PAT MOORE : Oh I didn't get it so was there a preference of where the air conditioner should go? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anywhere other than on the shared property line. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think they suggested in the front where she has hers if possible. PAT MOORE : Nick you can hear that, I'm sure he'll accommodate. NICK MAKRIS : That is correct yeah we're going to move those HVAC units to the front so that they're on the same plane with Stella's garage and her units as well. STELLA LAGUDIS : My question which is great and Nick and Demetra, thank you very much for we had a discussion we believe that we should have discussions before we come before the ZBA so we have had discussions. I just want to be clear that I would prefer it to be in the front of the house along the street line not along the east side of the property where the current air conditioning unit and pool equipment is. So, where I have my equipment for example is in the front of the house not the front side, that's the request. Plus, I don't know if putting them further on the east side would require any variance because right now, they're tucked away in a little alcove. NICK MAKRIS : I'm looking at our drawing number one with like the picture of what the house is going to look like, so maybe over there behind the tree where there's bushes in that photo, maybe we can put them there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can consult your architect about that. It's noted that noise intrusion is difficult and it needs to be moved farther away from that side. STELLA LAGUDIS : The house looks great, the family does need it. We live right next door so as I said we're very supportive and that was the only caveat. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other question that we didn't about and I'm still confused whether this is in fact a third floor? As I interpret it and I've seen other properties developed without Board relief where it's called a mezzanine. I think because there's bedrooms without 541 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting a doubt there's stuff going on that maybe I'm misinterpreting but typically on the third floor there'd be a fire suppression system and we normally wouldn't allow habitable like sleeping space. Now this I think if they were to raise the ceiling like much the great room at the first floor where it's under the fifteen-foot ceiling height they could have in theory a second-floor of equal height that everything would fit in for what they're calling the third floor. It would seem that if they had a higher ceiling to match the third-floor ceiling it would still be within the second floor. So, what is this? Is this a second-floor, is it a mezzanine, is it a third floor then that requires a sprinkler system? PAT MOORE : It's not a mezzanine, usually a mezzanine is a one third the space of the first floor right? It's not a floor it's just a MEMBER LEHNERT : If they moved that up they would break the sky plane. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You could have a bedroom that has like a not a dormer but like where the bedroom is in the roofline. MEMER LEHNERT.: It wouldn't work the way they have it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm still puzzled, my only reason I'm bringing that forward is really about fire suppression system to be code compliant with the state with sprinklers and everything else. PAT MOORE : Honestly I think the Board should consider this to be you know override the interpretation it's not a third floor. You have a story, the story below it the first floor this is the second story, a step does not constitute CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's six steps. PAT MOORE : Pardon me it's six steps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Five feet in elevational change. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just for the benefit of the other Board Members, I'm thinking of an application we had last year in Mattituck I think on Westphalia where it was a 1960's ranch house, you have a basement level, you have the garage level, the living level, the bedroom level and then they had what was basically a fifth floor which we actually granted relief on that. MEMBER LEHNERT:There's a definition of story which gives a height. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that's where I'm lost because it seems like it's really a second floor. May 1,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm not sure this meets that definition, I'm not sure what the number is but I believe it's gotta be habitable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think what we need to do is get a little more clarification from the Building Department. The Building Department would make a determination as to whether or not a fire suppression system was required. Should the Board grant it as designed we can always condition the approval subject to a code compliant fire suppression system installed if required by code. I mean I don't think we should make that determination but you know MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed but at least I thought it's important that at least we have a little bit of a (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you put it into the record certainly yea PAT MOORE : That's fine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Whether it's a second or a third floor it's an unusable PAT MOORE : I didn't think it was a third story or third floor. Again, under the old definition maybe but not under story definition which is what we're supposed to be applying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've always determined that the third story is it can be a story but it's not habitable. PAT MOORE : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN And habitability means basically sleeping there or (inaudible). We've allowed a balcony things you know, viewing rooms. MEMBER LEHNERT: Those were more traditional third, this falls somewhere in the middle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is like a split level so it's not a full third story it's a split level. We'll just have to find the correct language so we don't set onto precedent here in describing this and that's why I want to get a little more clarification from the Building Department. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you look at the definition of a story you'll find that. PAT MOORE : Okay, I'll leave it to your good judgement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else? I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second r May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Pat, when we get to it and I can't do this until we do but I don't need you sitting here unless you want to. We are going to adjourn Richmond Creek because we are completely confused by the survey that was submitted and now it appears the tennis court is on two lots. All of us reread the transcript from-the February hearing I think it was so we need a narrative and we need from you as to what in the world is what structure is located where. We had a lot of conversation as you recall about PAT MOORE : We were quite surprised by that cause it all came from the county that incorrectly mapped this parcel since the beginning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't understand what that is though, you said that but we don't get it. How this pertains to all the rest of the application. We know there was a problem with wells and with water and we went through that whole thing all over again, public water. PAT MOORE : Yes it cleaned up one issue because now it's on its own parcel so we don't have the Health Department issue, we're waiting for the Board of Review but we expect we're going to get Health Department so it'll allow the house and other things to stay as they are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The barn you're talking about the conversion? PAT MOORE : The house too, it needed a building permit CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I understand. Okay, well I don't want to discuss that, we haven't even opened it so what I'm going to do is adjourn it just so you don't have to stay until it's scheduled on the agenda because we're just going to adjourn it, as soon as I open it, I have to adjourn it. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8008—PINO LICUL and IRENA LICUL,TRUSTEES, REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next hearing is for Pino Licul and Irena Licul, Trustees Revocable Living Trust #8008. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280- 124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207A(b) and the Building Inspector's February 4, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and an existing shed and construct a new two-story single-family dwelling at 1) construction located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 10,000 square feet in area located at 725 North Sea Drive (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. PAT MOORE : Mr. and Mrs. Licul are here so is the architect so we can go over they'll introduce themselves on the record. I'll just start essentially explaining the reason why it makes sense for this application as it's been submitted on this property. We're on North Sea Drive as you obviously see, you know North Sea Drive very well, there have been lots of applications on North Sea Drive. This house is probably one of the original houses that sits closest to the Long Island Sound. When you're down North Sea Drive you go looking up and down, this is in line with many of the original homes on North Sea Drive that are very close to the Sound and are smack in the middle well into the coastal erosion area. The new house and we're fortunate in this case because many of homes on North Sea Drive have zero area outside of the coastal erosion. This property has a comfortable area outside of the coastal erosion are and the architect and the family has done a pretty good job trying to fit within the area outside of the coastal erosion line. Clearly, in order to do that we do need variances. The new project will need a new sanitary system, it will extinguish the existing sanitary system that you see there with two on the survey you see the two rings; one is a brick system the original and the other is precast system that was replaced expanded by prior owners long ago. Nevertheless, it is the house has been used as and it continues to use it or nothing has done here than that's one aspect of the environmental regulations that is not going to be an improvement. We think that everything that is being done here will result in an environmental improvement and policies of the town. You also see a very long asphalt driveway that would be removed. You also see a lot of cinderblock walls that are part of the garage entrance to the garage, the garage is under the house so that too would be removed. The boiler and the mechanicals of this house are all below grade so clearly the existing house is non-conforming, pre-existing non-conforming. All of the issues that we typically try to address in building along the water would be factored here. The lot coverage which if we were to will reduce between driveway and pervious existing structures, we are proposing 28.3%. We recognize it's above the 20%, again because we are applying the buildable area definition. We have almost or an acre of property here and the house is closer to the Sound s May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting so we have a large front yard setback. In impervious we have 32.5% of lot coverage, that's the house and the wood decks. I don't believe the asphalt, the driveway was included in that number, that's just on the house and decks. The owner and the architect can attest to this, the owner worked almost a year on the design long before the code was being changed. The plans were finished.July 27, 2024 and low and behold the code was changed August of 2024 so unfortunately because there had not been applications filed to the Trustees or anyone, we didn't get grandfathered so here we are with the house that unfortunately it was addressing the codes at the time and trying to address as many of the code issues that then got added. With respect to the GFA, the existing house is one-story, it is not FEMA compliant, it's currently 1,700 square feet. If you were to do a typical second-floor addition on a regular house you can double it to 3,376, in this case because we're in the coastal erosion area the as you know the difficulty on putting raising the house and putting a second-story in an existing house-becomes very difficult, burdensome and litigious because pretty much everybody on this block that's tried to do something within the coastal erosion area has ended up in court. We did do a calculation of the gross floor area, again, this neighborhood North Sea Drive is just a huge combination of large new homes that comply with FEMA and the little cottages that are either owned by the families the original families or at some point hoping to be able to put something reasonable on their property. The homes, the cottages are worth more as land than they are as cottages so that is the reality on North Sea Drive. I'll let the architect speak briefly and then I have another issue but we'll turn it to the architect. JOHN BRACCO : John Bracco, Architect 111 Railroad Ave. Sayville, New York. Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Board John Bracco, Architect on behalf of the applicants Pino an Irena Licul. I just wanted to add some timeline information for context in regards to the new GFA guidelines and not exceeding the average GFA of the dwellings in the immediate area. The Liculs hired me and we began working together on the design of their new home in October of 2023. Both myself and Mr. Licul did some research in regards to zoning, setback, lot coverage, etc. We knew from day one that we would need a variance for lot coverage but we felt pretty good about making the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for two reasons. One was, we knew that there were at least four other homes on North Sea Drive that were larger than what we were going to be proposing and secondly, that the new lot coverage we were proposing was actually less than what is existing right now with the existing home and decks. Those points coupled with getting the proposed home completely landward of the CEHA line with the exception of the rear covered porch. We felt like we had an application that we could present to the Board while I myself presented many ZBA cases to towns and villages across Long Island, I had not presented a case to the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. In around May of 2024 both the Liculs and myself thought it would be a good idea to bring Pat Moore aboard to help with the application and she came highly s9 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting recommended and we knew she was an expert with the Town of Southold and we're very glad to bring her aboard. Her first suggestion was to get the rear covered porch landward of the CEHA line so that now the entire proposed structure would be out of the coastal erosion hazard zone. So, we did that which is the reason for the front yard variance setback requests the 4.8 feet. If you look at the site plan, you'll see that based on the design, the house juts in and out on the front and it's really only one bedroom, one room I'm sorry not bedroom; one room that is 35.2 feet from the front property line. The second-floor wall is actually set back two-feet so the second-floor walls actually 37.2 from the front property line and in fact even the longest length wall on the first floor of the house is actually 38.2 from the front property line. Fast forwarding to September of 2024 where Patricia alerted us to the new GFA guidelines as she was preparing the application to file with the Building Department for the denial obviously this was bad timing for us and needless to say this was an unforeseen thing that now required our attention and added to the GFA variance and we hope that the Board would take that into consideration. Lastly, I would hope that the Board would also take into consideration that due to the location of the CEHA line on the Licul's property they have a 40,000 square foot piece of property that they are only allowed to use 8,900 square feet of that towards calculating the lot coverage and the GFA. If we were able to use the entire property to calculate the lot coverage and the GFA we would no longer require variances for the lot coverage or the GFA. Lastly, just another little thing to note is that based on the way the Town of Southold requires to do the GFA calculations, the house design does have a lot of double height space and while our gross floor area calculation comes out to about 3,300 square feet, if we actually only do it by the square footage of the house there's probably about 500 square feet of that double height space so the second floor you know while we had to count 1,300 square feet is actually only about 800 square feet the second floor. I just wanted to note that to the Board that the actual square footage is actually if we just counted living space first and second floors is actually about 500 square feet that we're seeking the GFA variance for. I'll hand it back to Pat. PAT MOORE : I may have misspoken, I just want to make sure, the existing house and lot coverage is 2,700 square feet and our lot coverage is below what is currently existing. I'm not sure if I said that correctly so I just want to make sure I correct myself. As we were preparing yesterday, we had a little surprise revelation which nobody has caught yet but we want to catch it now before it's too late. The house the new house has to be FEMA compliant; based on the FEMA code the house has to be the starting point is elevation JOHN BRACCO : We're in AE12 at a bare minimum the finished floor of the house has to be at 14. 60 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Fourteen so the finished floor at 14; this Notice of Disapproval does not address a height variance and we all thought or again, this was done when the code was first being developed none of us caught nor did the Building Department catch that in order to put a second-story in a FEMA compliant property you need a height variance because it's impossible to build under FEMA regulations. I'm sure you all know that at this point but when this first went through the process it wasn't caught. We're going to need to adjourn to put in the additional variance but we want your input because we're now adding another variance to the process and costs and time and so on and if the Board is going to throw us out on our ear on what we've already asked for my client is just going to keep the house he has because it doesn't make sense. He's not going to undo what he has because of the overlapping regulations that we keep throwing on properties without relief for waterfront areas. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat clarify something and maybe the Board also, if you're making it FEMA compliant and you're raising it 12 feet, you're starting at 12 feet so why would you need a height variance?The structure has a flat roof, I think you're limited with a pitched roof to 35 feet, with a flat roof it's PAT MOORE : Twenty-five MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They threw in 25, that's why I'm going to have the architect talk about that because we did the numbers it was like it's impossible we don't know how this has been adopted where and we all thought or at least in other towns and I called twice to the Building Department I spoke to Amanda and then I spoke to Nancy not wanting to make it an issue pointing it out but as to this property because I figured I'd go back to her on the Notice of Disapproval but other towns and I thought the Town of Southold would recognize that when you're dealing with heights on a FEMA affected property you measure from the FEMA line not the grade.They're applying from grade from average grade which throws I don't think that's the intention because I know we talked about it during code hearings, I know it was an issue that was strenuously pointed out at the time by anybody that lived on the water or anybody had a knowledge of development on the water. It goes completely contrary to the state policies and the town policies to bring homes into conformity with FEMA, make them FEMA flood MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm more confused now, are we taking the first finished floor height the FEMA compliant grade plus the maximum of twenty-five feet, we're not going from the natural grade. PAT MOORE : Oh yes according to the Building Department you are. MEMBER LEHNERT:You're also going to run into pyramid issues then. �1 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting JOHN BRACCO : Actually if you look at the submitted elevations believe it or not the proposed house meets the pyramid, we're okay so we're good on pyramid. MEMBER LEHNERT : With lifting it? JOHN BRACCO : With lifting it, yes. PAT MOORE : That's why none of us realized. JOHN BRACCO : The proposed house is good with the sky plane yes. I mean I can tell you as you might have heard my office is in Sayville and you know after Sandy the area was devasted Sayville, Bayport, Bluepoint, Patchogue many, many homes I lifted and what the Town of Islip and the Town of Brookhaven did which I thought was a fantastic idea is, those houses that are in these FEMA flood zones they actually changed their code to state exactly what you said, in those areas we're not measuring the maximum building height from grade, we're measuring from the base flood elevation because what happened was when we went to lift these homes they were all going four, five, six feet above the allowed height so they said okay they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. FEMA said you had to lift and the town said you're five feet too high so the towns Brookhaven and Islip anyway adopted that with those houses they would measure it from the base flood elevation and it made all the sense in the world, it actually avoided variances for all those houses. PAT MOORE : The Building Department when I spoke to Amanda yesterday she said, well it would help I mean certainly if the Board comes to the interpretation or conclusion that no it doesn't make sense to measure from grade 25-feet because you would essentially make every house a ranch house. Again, it contradicts the other sections of the code that say, no you're try to limit the footprint, build within the more limited footprint with a second-story so that you're building within the parameters rather than spreading the construction and impacting what could be more sensitive surrounding lands. So, I don't know if we just didn't think about it or all of a sudden now the code is affecting more projects that were designed under the old code and coming before you know that's my we've been seeing that more because all our applications would have been filed like early on and developed early on and you know waiting for the hearing. Again, you can talk to the Building Department, if there's something that could be done by way of guidance. I don't know if you need a formal interpretation then leave it to the Town Attorney or common sense. Again, the code is supposed to make sense but it does not make sense to send everything for a variance. Amanda did say, oh yea we have to send applications that are in FEMA to the Zoning Board for variances.-Well, how many properties are waterfront properties and FEMA, how many variances are you going to be facing? Certainly, in our case here, we've done everything possible to try to deal with some of 6Z May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting the other policy issues that we hear loud and clear on North Sea Drive and you're still jammed up. JOHN BRACCO : I think that was our we when we got the denial and it didn't include having to go for a height variance our'first thought was, oh okay they must be measuring it from the base flood elevation and if they did we don't need a height variance. Then me and Pat both checked with the Building Department they said, no you still have to measure it from existing grade so that's why we're bringing this up to you today. PAT MOORE : Either way I have to address it, I can't good thing we found we just realized it now because we don't want to be delayed another six to eight months whether it's getting a building permit with an oops or you've got the whole all of the expense and architecture, Health Department JOHN BRACCO : Having to come back to the Board. PAT MOORE : and then another application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So what is the height, this conversation aside, of the first and second floor to the roofline, what is the actual height? JOHN BRACCO : From the (inaudible) we realized it wasn't depicted on there but from existing. grade right now it's 31 feet 9 inches. However, if it measures from the base flood elevation it would be less from that, 25 feet for a flat roof. I'm sorry 30 feet 9 inches from existing grade to the top. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What is the structure from the base flood elevation? PAT MOORE : Under twenty-five. JOHN BRACCO : It would be under 25 yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What is the height? JOHN BRACCO : Let's see, well we have to add because the existing grade is at approximately we'll call it six it's just under six but we'll round to six. If we go to 14 so that's 8 so we would be 30 feet 9 inches minus 8 feet so we would be at 22 feet 9 inches from base flood elevation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So each floor is approximately 8 feet height from floor to ceiling, 8 feet. JOHN BRACCO : Yea from existing grade to base flood elevation it sits right about 8 feet give or take an inch or two. 6,3 May 1,2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Believe me we sat together yesterday doing the numbers, alright if you have 7 , 8 foot ceiling, a foot of construction and another 7 % , 8 feet where does that get you? It's impossible, you just can't build. Even as with a peak roof I think we found that that was a problem as well. JOHN BRACCO : Even with the additional 10 feet for the ,peaked roof with a (inaudible) we were still having trouble to get the peak under the 35 feet which they allow for the sloped roof. So, either way it wasn't working. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much time do you want for the amended? PAT MOORE : I just have to go to the Building Department, have them add it. Do you need me to put in a full application, another fee and another packet or something in writing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A letter would be fine to add the variance. PAT MOORE : To add the variance, okay, less time than a reasonable time two weeks max? I mean I think the Building Department is going to correct it pretty quickly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to adjourn this to the Special Meeting? Them we'll have a look and we'll see if we need another hearing or if we can just close it and deliberate. PAT MOORE : Let me know and if you need additional paperwork or drawings. We should have another sheet with the height very clearly identified so that you know what you're looking at. JOHN BRACCO : Actually I already have it. PAT MOORE : Maybe send it to me. JOHN BRACCO : Oh absolutely, I'll give you this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so you'll need to submit a letter indicating with an amended Notice of Disapproval and one additional fee and then we'll just if you're not ready we'll just adjourn it again. I'll just adjourn it to the Special Meeting which is in two weeks and then if we have everything fine and if we don't, we'll adjourn it again. I'm sure you'll get that within a month. PAT MOORE : My client is going to want me to get it in in less than two weeks so I know my busy time was with these hearings. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can I ask a couple of questions? I don't know if other people on the Board or in the audience, looking at the plan and I can appreciate that you tried to make it 641 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting well certainly the landward of the coastal erosion hazard line, I'm wondering and I understand that the design could have a screened in porch and a second floor terrace on the waterside but it would seem to me without getting into the design of the house you could still push the house back to make it compliant with the front yard setback of 40 feet by removing that feature and also reducing the lot coverage and you could still work those rooms. I think to have all those amenities without the front yard setback. PAT MOORE : That's a lot to ask someone to do because I mean the house is consolidated. You're on the water, decks and outdoor space is what people desire and covet. You have this huge deck on this existing house, the decks that have been proposed here are much smaller, less area; we actually purposely reduced the decking so that to keep everything as small as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You always do have the option of an at grade patio which is certainly a feasible alternative which doesn't count in lot coverage or the setback. PAT MOORE : Which is true but you have your house up high. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't want to redesign but you do have a lot of open space and areas that you can incorporate the same screened in patio areas while losing or removing the front yard setback. It's new construction, I get that there's a house that exists and you can live in it and enjoy that or modestly renovate it but here you're starting with basically a blank slate and this is an opportunity to make it as good as it can be. I don't think that you'd be giving up those amenities, I mean everyone's got a different sense of design that's up to the design professional but you know just looking at the plan I see how you can achieve the same effect by making the front yard compliant. That's my statement. PAT MOORE : Well, I mean there have been variances issued, I did I said Nick is going to ask if you could make it compliant didn't I? So, we were talking about we do have a foot wiggle room easily because you have the house it's already a 36 on the west side it's been you know stepped in to 38 on the east side so not losing square footage, livable area you could go a foot very easily and that's the Board has there are variances on this block for I think I listed them but I think 36 so again think of it as, what are the benefits to moving this house out of the coastal erosion area? That when you're weighing that is a huge, huge benefit so yes, we're asking for some variances but given the concessions and the environmental benefits and the compliance with other codes that were presenting we hope that you will realize that they've done a pretty good job on a modest house. There is still building envelope on the east side that they .did not you see the shadow there's additional building envelope on the east is it east yea east that they did not fill in so we could widen the house and then you know make it May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting more conforming but then your widening the house so it's you know; I don't think it changes your lot coverage you still have lot coverage but you are MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Potentially as I look at the floor plan without getting into the design element I think it can be achieved with the same benefit if you don't want to reduce the lot coverage you can still make the front conform and do the porch on the side or something but you still have the lot coverage issues. So, I'm just one Member who is trying to you know pull the request down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look we're going to adjourn this so PAT MOORE : (inaudible) approval of the lot coverage and you say go to the 40 feet in the front we'll make it work. Giving up everything is very difficult here. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just want to touch on the GFA, if my math is correct the relief required versus the allowable GFA is.over 61% and if my math is correct the relief requested relative to the average in the neighborhood is over 56%. It just seems large. PAT MOORE : Well because the numbers the GFA numbers on North Sea Drive, you're dealing with some little cottages that are under 1,000 square feet, they are clearly pre-existing non- conforming and you have other homes that are quite large family homes. So, that's the problem with numbers you know, it depends on how many you bring in. If you looked at the neighborhood people aren't going to it's rare that you get somebody who wants to put a little cabana cottage. I think somebody maybe all they did was raise the foundation the one on the very far east, they pretty much took the cottage and just plopped it on a new FEMA foundation but pretty much kept it on a very small piece I think it was a I'm not sure tiny piece I don't think it was waterfront I think it was in between or whatever. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to raise that because it does seem significant and I MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They're limited by I think the average anyway. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Limited by the average. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code does not permit us to grant an excessive amount of GFA that is beyond the average. Now I know that neighborhood well, I live on Soundview, I walk by your house all the time between Kenney's Beach and McCabe's and we can already see how the whole idea of valuable waterfront land has changed the complexion of both Leeton and North Sea with some very large modern houses with a lot of non-conformities. Those pre- dated the GFA. PAT MOORE : We understand. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The GFA was put into place basically because people were just building too much on small lots and they wanted more than what they aren't really allowed and the whole purpose of GFA is to say, here's the size of your lot, we're going to scale the size of what you can build relative to the size of the lot just to keep it in proportion. PAT MOORE : We understand but keep in mind we have a one-acre piece of property. The fact that it has the other regulations CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know you're going to tell me all about the buildable area, I know but that's there for a reason too because PAT MOORE : Everything's got a reason. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what the reason is, I know exactly what it was cause I'm the one who proposed that code change and it's because somebody built a home on a waterfront property actually on a marsh on wetlands that was literally cheek to jowl. I mean when I tell you, you know you're in the water you are on your neighbor's property or sitting on the front of your road and somebody came to me and said, how did you let that happen and I said let what happen it never came before the Zoning Board. Why, because most of their land was on their deed was under water and it made no sense to allow, they didn't have a lot coverage issue cause they had a huge amount of property but no one could see it, it was under water. So, it made sense to say, okay 20% of what is buildable not what we can't even see because we're looking at visual impacts, that's where that came from. It had a purpose and it still does so we're just going to have to look at all of these variables. It's excellent to get something out of the coastal erosion hazard zone, it's great to have an IA system, there's a lot of benefit to these improvements. PAT MOORE : Let me put on the record legally, this Board is a Board of relief. The Town Board has not prohibited you from granting variances. If that's the case then all the variances that see under the GFA Laserfiche would have been no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No of course we can grant variances but if you look at the plain language of the code for the GFA it is the one situation where we are limited in terms by the Town Board's resolution of what we can grant and that's where the averaging comes in. We cannot grant more than what�the average is. Yes, the neighborhood is changing;and yes the immediate neighborhood was not clearly defined in that code which is why the Zoning Board on its own motion decided to put together a definition of what he immediate neighborhood was because people were cherry picking, big house here, big house there, big house there forget about all the little ones right and that is not within keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The idea is five this way, five that way, you know the drill that's where that 67 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting came from. Is it perfect, no but it is an improvement and we're still working on things that will come? You can't predict what code is going to have unintended consequences till you're dealing with them. So, we are working on it but right now we have to observe what the letter of the law requires us to. In addition,just so that you're aware, the Board can grant relief but we are required by state code to grant the smallest relief reasonably possible not the biggest which is why we say, can you make it a little better, can you reduce you know can you get rid of a little lot coverage? It's because that's what we're obligated legally to do. It is not personal, it's not like, oh nice person, bad person we're not sitting here saying, oh we're going to grant it because we know them or we don't know them we're doing what the law requires us to do. We will work on granting relief within the limits of what we are reasonably allowed to do and we always have to balance the benefit to the applicant with a potential detriment to the community. Now, from an environmental point of view what you're proposing is an improvement to the community but we also have to look at what a house that big and that tall, that close to the road is going to look like. We do have some examples and we can look at them and say, oh God maybe it's just a little too big, too close to the road cause it's very hard when you're looking on paper to really imagine what that bulk is going to look like in reality. Those are the things that the Board is very aware of and that we're attempting to grapple with. JOHN BRACCO : I was just going to say , I agree with everything you're saying and I think all those rules are good. We don't want these big monstrosities being built on these properties but again you have to weigh everything so to us it's like well, we're conforming with the sky plane, we got it landward of the CEHA, we're meeting FEMA requirements. What's happening is if we designed a house to not have to come in front of you like to just put in the most layman's term, it could be a small house on this huge piece of property? Like I would consider it what's left not to have to come in front of you, the 2,100 square foot average from the GFA? It would be a small house and so we're like okay, we want to come in front of you with a good application that you'll feel comfortable approving. What can we and probably I think I can speak for Mr. Licul in saying that, the front yard is something you know in the next two weeks we can work on, I think there's a really good shot that we can come back and based on getting the height resolved it would really just be down to the gross floor and the lot coverage and maybe by getting that back a little it might even reduce the gross floor and the lot coverage slightly. I think it is possible to conform with the front yard and we're conforming with the sky plane, we're conforming with FEMA, we're conforming with the CEHA we don't have much we're getting squeezed in every direction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I hate to tell you that you're going to need Trustees approval. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting JOHN BRACCO : I know, I know, I know and that's why we have everything landward of the CEHA line. PAT MOORE : (inaudible) in this case are going to be very happy because that's the one thing they've been pushing very hard on with (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well given what you just summarized which is a very good summary I think maybe we should adjourn it to next month because we're probably if you're going to come back with some amended applications then we're probably going to need to hear it again cause the public needs to know about it. PAT MOORE : My Notice of Disapproval is going to get done very quickly I think. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you can submit that to us. PAT MOORE : I'll submit it right away. JOHN BRACCO : I can work this you know with Pino on the weekend or whatever, I would say give me a week and I'll have plans ready to resubmit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll adjourn it to the Special Meeting and then if we have questions that we feel needs further clarification we'll adjourn it for an additional hearing but we'll try to accommodate, everybody wants to get going yesterday we know that, I would feel the same way. Let's just do it that way, does that make sense to the Board? Motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on May 15tn MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 69 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8010—KEVIN CIERACH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kevin Cierach #8010. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's November 8, 2024 amended December 23, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" single-family dwelling, an "as built" accessory stucco building for storage use and an "as built" accessory garage for storage use only at 1) dwelling located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) accessory stucco building for storage use located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet, 3) the accessory garage for storage use located in an area other than the code required rear yard located at 4500 Deep Hole Drive in Mattituck. RICHARD LARK : Before I get started I want to give the Board oh Richard Lark, Main Rd. Cutchogue, New York for the applicant Kevin Cierach. He cannot be here today due to illness but his Power of Attorney can also his mother is here, Beverly Cierach and she'll be able to answer any questions cause she's very familiar with the application and with the property over these many years. Before I get started, I wanted to give up which I scrounged from the Trustees file an updated survey; it's not updated it's the same survey that you have but the only addition is that because of a drain on the east side of the property the Trustees were interested as well as the surveyor I asked where this water was coming from? I'll hand it up to the Chairman and as an exhibit (inaudible) top of the survey that's the only change that the town (inaudible) Highway Department a number of years ago which I wasn't aware of installed a drain which drains both sides of the dip in the highway as well as all the farm fields to the north cause I couldn't understand why when I visited the property on numerous occasions that when it rained that drain is full and when it didn't rain the drain was empty, dry. What had happened in the old days it would just normally seep in and now of course they provide for a covert and everything else up there so it's a direct flow. It hasn't impacted our property but it has impacted the property to the south a little bit more which the Board is familiar with. Alright, now on the variances here, the result of these variances the reason we're here is because of the court. Kevin Cierach the applicant was cited with some numerous violations and one was the use and occupancy of the main house which originally was a storage building which he converted to a single-family dwelling which if you visited the property as what it is today and then he converted an accessory stucco building next to the drain into an apartment which he lived in while he was renovating the house in the mid to late nineties. Then there was another violation that he had converted the other storage building built in 1954 by Frank Zaleski into a three-car garage as well as an apartment, accessory apartment. What had happened is after I got familiar with the entire matter, we ended up having extensive meetings with the Town Attorney, Judge Ross as well as Michael Verity of the Building Department and it was decided since he was in violation even though 7Q May 1,2025 Regular Meeting the buildings itself were put there prior to zoning and were non-conforming is changes of the use require building permits and C.O.'s which he did not have. We ended up getting things straightened out by pleading guilty, paying the fines and then the Building Department was happy with that and said, now you can apply for building permits because I won't issue you any building permits because these buildings are not legal as they presently constituted and you'll have to go to the Board of Appeals which I'm here today to get these buildings in compliance with the existing law then I can issue building permits and we can go from there as to what we have to do to get the C.O.'s. That's why we're here for basically three variances okay which I will cover and cover the statutory factors and what you require as a Board to review. I think the application which you have before you has all of the exhibits, the data and almost the complete history of the property since Mr. Cierach bought it in 1994. The three variances as you read in the Notice, I won't cover them again I'll just deal with them individually one after the other. The first variance request is to legalize the single-family dwelling. The first criteria as you're well aware of, has this building caused any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties? Well, the building is 2.517 square feet and it was moved there by Frank Zaleski a former resident house mover and farmer in 1953 from another location. In fact, it was one of the churches in Mattituck and if you go inside, it still has some church features inside with the high ceilings and everything. When he did it, he located it 45.3.feet from the easterly boundary line but there was no zoning in effect at that time and he used it for storage for his heavy machinery that he used and as a workshop in the cellar area. After Mr. Cierach bought it in 1994 in March in 1994, he continued to use the building for storage and for repairing in his heating and air-conditioning business and fabricating sheet metal and so on and so forth. All-is a non- conforming use in this residential neighborhood. However, in 1997 is where he committed his error in that he started to convert this building into a single-family dwelling and he failed to get any building permits. However, he did apply but he ran into trouble with one of the building inspectors at that time in that neighborhood, Mr. Fish who's no longer with the department. He did receive Health Department approval for the cesspools that he installed and I have that part of the exhibits, he did get the Health Department approval. Subsequently he installed not too many years ago public water so the building itself now has legalized cesspools and public water to it. That portion he has complied with but what he did, when you look at the difference in elevation and pointed out on the survey, from the front yard entrance or the front yard area and the back yard there's a sheer 10-foot drop in the topography of the land. There was really no rear door to this building so he added on what you see there today that 10-foot-wide deck with stairwells and everything which was really a benefit to the house cause it gave a rear exit number one and then number two, it provided for a safety issue there. Unfortunately, he ran afoul of the DEC because he didn't get a permit from them to put the deck on much less the Building Department. When Mr. Hamilton came 7:1 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting out to view it, he had no problem with the construction of the deck in fact he wrote notes that it was perfectly fine except it was done without a permit. Then Mr. Cierach pleaded guilty to that, paid the fine and agreed to put a covenant on the property which exists and you have a copy that no new buildings construction because it was in the wetland area not the property itself but it was adjacent to the wetland area so he's required any permits have to be applied to the DEC before any new construction. In settlement of the law suit the Building Department went along with it with Judge Ross is why we're here today providing that Mr. Ceirach vacate the two accessory buildings to eliminate any tenants there and convert them back to storage. However, he did allow because of the Health Department approvals that he or one of his tenants could occupy that house for safety and security reasons, he authorize that but the two buildings, the accessory buildings which I'll cover in a moment had to be vacated. They have been and they have been converted back to storage. The renovation of the main building which we're talking about under the first variance even with its elevated wrap around deck in the back yard area is an enhancement to the property and is in conformance with the residential character of the neighborhood. An area variance is the only, the second criteria, can he do it without an area variance and no he has to have an area variance because when he added on the 10-foot to elevated wrap around deck it made it 35 feet, 35.2 feet from the rear yard instead of 45-feet. That's whey we're applying for the variance. The next criteria is it substantial, and yes it's a 14.8% or a 30% deviation from the existing rear yard requirement. This substantial deviation should be reviewed only as a mathematical percentage because the granting of the variance will allow the use of the property as a residence equal to the surrounding neighboring properties. Although mathematically it's substantial but in reality, due to the 10-foot variation and the elevation from the rear yard to the front yard the adding on or increasing the area variance was a benefit to the property and provided additional safety by a rear yard exit, rear exit to the building which it really didn't have before it was just in and out the front. This positive was addition even though it was substantial. Now there has been no evidence submitted since this building has been there since 1973 it has not had any adverse or impact on the physical, environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The last criteria, you have to consider, was it self-created and the answer to that is obviously yes it was self-created but it's submitted that the self-created hardship should not be a reason for denying the requested variance since the existence as a single-family dwelling with the improvements in this location over the many years has not caused any negative effect on the residential or environmental of the surrounding properties. That's why we need a variance a rear yard variance to have that legal so that he can go ahead then and apply officially for a building permit and then the building inspector will then determine what else he has to do to get a C.O. The second variance is for that stucco building which is 565 square feet. That was put there in 1954 again by Mr. Zaleski, he removed it from the farm field that he was farming and owned across Peconic Bay Blvd. 72 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting and placed it on cement piers 3.1 feet from the property line. Again, no zoning then so there was no requirement to do anything. He used it exclusively for storage and when Mr. Cierach bought it in 1994, 1 believe he used it as a storage originally and where he ran into problems is when he converted it to an accessory apartment for himself while he was renovating the.main building on the property. It's been in that exact location for over seventy years, it's never been flooded, never caused a problem and from what I'm told by the Cierachs who've been there since 1994 the water has never come above the drainage ditch onto the property. It's crested but it's never gone on there and the property has never been flooded. There's been on undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood by this building. There's no other relief other than requiring a variance because it's 3.1. and there's no (inaudible) from the rear property line and there's no place else to put it on the property. Again, there's a substantial which is the third criteria, yes obviously and if you do the math, it's a it's 3.1 feet from the 15-foot requirement is 79% a mathematical deviation so it is very substantial. This one-story accessory building has no direct relationship or impact on the neighborhood of the surrounding properties, it's not substantial in that sense it's, only substantial in the sense of mathematics. The next criteria, there's been no evidence that this building since it's been there since when it was put there and in 1954 has created any environmental problem or physical problem or much less any complaints of the neighborhood. To the east a subdivision was put in a number of years ago with fairly expensive homes and there's never been a complaint about these buildings these accessory building being on the property. Again, the last criteria for this stucco building was it self- created, the answer is yes but to allow it to remain in this present condition situation as a storage building and granting the setback variance is an obvious benefit to the property which outweighs the removal considering there's no detriment to the property or surrounding properties. The last variance request is for the accessory garage. Again, in 1954 Mr. Zaleski moved built a foundation 725 square feet, 18.6 feet from the rear property line basically carved into the side hill on the property 'which was as 1 pointed out has a difference in elevation in the front. Today under the zoning code from the front yard to the rear yard and then moved the building another farm building from his barn building he was in the house moving business so he could do that and put it on top of it. That remained as an office and additional storage underneath. When Mr. Cierach bought it zoning had gone into effect in 1979, 1980 and those 104 square feet of the building became part of the side yard. When Mr. Cierach used it again as storage but he then fixed up the basement and made it a three-car garage and then put a studio apartment converted the existing farm building to a very attractive studio apartment Which he rented and all again without permits from the town. Again, it's a technical requirement because it was there.before zoning but when zoning went in 104 square feet of it of this 725 square foot building needed a variance because it was now this 104-square feet was in the side yard and they're not allowed accessory buildings are not 731 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting allowed in the side yard area without a variance. Is it substantial, yes in a way it's a 14.4 deviation from the zoning code for side yards but it's not substantial when considering its location on the property which only has this structure has a 1.3 lot coverage? It's inconspicuous if you stand in the front yard in the street, you can only see the top of the roof if you even look close and even in the subdivision on the other side the houses and the driveways there which I visited you can't see this building especially in the summertime. In the winter if you look hard enough you can barely make it out because it's all wooded that area has substantial tree coverage and so on and so forth. The next requirement is would it have any adverse impact on the environmental or physical conditions and there's no evidence of that and it's been there and it's been converted back to what is legal under the code at the Building Department's request as a storage area. Was it self-created, yes because he should have got what he installed the garage and he installed the studio apartment he should have gotten building permits and a C.O.'s at the time or if required to obtain whatever variance? The benefit of allowing this to remain in its present location does far outweigh any detriment to and proposes no outweighs any possible detriment to the residential neighborhood and it hasn't.caused a problem. You do have before you there all of the pretty much not only the history but the exhibits verify everything that I've just said and so on and so forth. I do request you after you look at all the factors and apply the balancing test that you do grant the three variances. Now another problem which might not be a problem but it is a (inaudible) addressed the LWRP Coordinator which is required as part of this process variance to weigh in and he did weigh in. He cited all the variances properly in his notice to the Board but he was looking at but he found it inconsistent and I was very curious when I read it because he found it inconsistent under Policy I which states pretty clearly, that policy fosters a pattern of development of the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes sufficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location that minimizes the adverse effects of development. He used as his reasoning that there's a .2% annual chance of a flood hazard area some type of a zone that has .2% annual chance of a flood. Then he sites that the "as built" buildings as they're designed remember they were put there I just described how they were there are not designed to be flood tolerant, yes that's very true and future losses can occur. Well, that's interesting because even with the latest storm that I'm familiar with Sandy caused no problem, in fact Ms. Cierach is here to tell you that that land has never been flooded in heavy rains, in hurricanes which it's been through numerous of them, it does get wet but there's so much sand back there that it just drains right out and it never gets flooded. The interesting thing is that I put in which I'm required to do to address the policies and I put in that the granting of the variance will legalize the single- family dwellings and the two accessory storage buildings which will be in keeping with the residential character of the community. He just completely ignores that but there might be a practical way out of his inconsistency finding because the code does provide for exemptions 741 May 1,2025 Regular Meeting or exceptions on minor actions. One of the exceptions is, the granting of individual setback lot line or lot area variances which is what we're here before is the rear and side yard variances so there might be a way out of that but I wanted to address not to belabor it, it's getting late and you've been here a long time today but you do have which was very odd that I found it because I wondered when I read his thing I really looked at the property to the south and the Board of Appeals has extensively looked at that property and granted; when you read the application of that property of MacComber and for the record it's ZBA file 7480 a lot of the problems that they encumbered there when the Board did grant the variances that they requested are very analogous to our variances. In other words, they did it without permits, they did it without this, without that and so on and so forth. You made a finding after reviewing everything that it was exempt and so we (inaudible) into consistency because it was a minor action which they were asking for was side yard variances and stuff like that so I commend that to your reading that we can get out of this consistency, inconsistency problem by just looking at that and looking at this thing and then looking at the policy and because it is a minor action requiring a variance I won't get into the details that he didn't give sufficient reasons or anything. I think you can just find that it doesn't apply and we are consistent because it is a minor action so I think we can avoid that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a copy of that that you can submit to us, a copy of that variance? RICHARD LARK : I can give you a copy of that, sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'd like to have that. RICHARD LARK : That way you don't have to look it up, I'd be glad to. I was astonished how close from a legal point of view,just from a law point of view what was being requested from the variances and what had taken place on the property it was like revisiting this the differences but the issues were the same, the legal issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good,very applicable. RICHARD LARK : Very applicable. That's basically I gave you the history and I think you have everything there. The only reason I wanted to give you that other survey is because it showed I had to do that for the Trustees where all this water was coming from on storms, well we know where it's coming from. It's not coming from the adjacent properties it's coming from the highway the land to the north courtesy of the town. What they were thinking about, I don't know not putting in big catch basins. It's a direct flow it's just a catch basin direct pipe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They made themselves illegal. 751 May 1,2025 Regular Meeting RICHARD LARK : Yea what they did is not proper, I know that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the Building Department indicated in all these permits that you're putting in, the two accessory buildings were to be returned to storage (inaudible). RICHARD LARK : And we did do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we did do site inspections and both of them are as they were,they're unoccupied clearly, no clothes in anybody's closet. RICHARD LARK : He did put in another condition with the Judge. I don't want any construction any changing anything just make them unoccupied and leave them as is. I will make the assessment of what we need and obviously Health Department and so on and so forth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department will determine what you need to do to the interiors of those two accessory buildings to make them storage buildings, they will decide that but if that's the arrangement, that's fine. RICHARD LARK : I was trying to comply with the court order. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, yea understood. What's before us now are the three variances. RICHARD LARK : If you have any questions she actually can answer anything she's been on the property with her son since that year when they bought it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Lark, does Mr. Cierach does he live in this structure? MR. LARK : Yes he has but he moved back home for two reasons, he became ill number one and he needed care and he's single living by himself. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nobody lives on site on this property? RICHARD LARK : There is somebody living in the place. He was successfully able to get his tenant to move up and he lives CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : In the house? RICHARD LARK : In the main house only,yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there a rental permit on the main house? 761 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting RICHARD LARK : No he lives there, gratis. It's the security, that's an isolated neighborhood there's nobody around there cause the people to the south aren't there most of the time just summer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood but obviously if somebody is in a particular building and they don't own it they need to be renting it unless they're a relative or something you know RICHARD LARK : Alright, technically he's just there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My questions was mainly about what you just brought forward relative to the two accessory structures how they're being used. I've not been in them but just from walking around I saw propane tanks, there's even noted on the survey RICHARD LARK : He was supposed to leave everything as is (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand that. RICHARD LARK : They wanted no work done. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Structures I know they can be moved they exist as you've clearly stated so I think that answers almost all the questions I would have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just really about the use, the use on the property. Only one dwelling is permitted as you know on a single lot unless you obtain Special Exception approval for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It wouldn't apply here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It only applies if in fact the owner is living in the house or one of the apartments. RICHARD LARK : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other is rented year round, full time to either someone who is a family member with a lease or someone who is on or eligible to be put on the town's affordable housing. That would be the maximum permitted on that lot but you'd have to go a lot further. 771 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting RICHARD LARK : The existing tenant which he was at that time does qualify cause he would make the list because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, that's not what's before us now but that is an option for you to pursue RICHARD LARK :Just have to legalize the buildings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : but first we have to legalize the setbacks with the condition that it would be returned to storage. However, going forward that's something for you to consider RICHARD LARK : That's another battle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : cause we need rental units out here but you could only do one. RICHARD LARK : Only one, that's correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The house,the others are accessories they're out of the question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, if he's renting the house that's all he can do, you can only rent one RICHARD LARK :That's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : but if he's living there or the property owner is living there in one of RICHARD LARK : He's aware of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, just wanted to make sure you all understand the options that's all. I guess you want to say something. ATHENA PALMINTERI : I'm the neighbor next door so I just wanted to know if he was going to stay residential because all I read Athena Palminteri. I just wanted to know if it was going to be residential or just storage you know having things RICHARD LARK : No ATHENA PALMINTERI : No cause this is new to me that's why that's all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're attempting to legalize the house and they're attempting to return the two other apartments to storage buildings, purely residential. ATHENA PALMINTERI : Okay cause you really don't see it because of all the trees which is beautiful. 7 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, the road bends up here, the house is down here and then you have a lot of woodland and so on around there, it's very, very visually obscured. We have visited the property, we do that before public hearings, we inspect the property and so on. Anybody else in the audience who wants to address this? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had-just a quick question, the survey that was provided indicates three proposed new walls. RICHARD LARK : No, no you have the original survey the only thing that I wanted to show you is that drain up on the highway. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I understand, yes I just RICHARD LARK : but everything else is exactly same on the survey. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right, I just want to make sure there's no plan to proceed with any proposed walls. RICHARD LARK : No, we're not allowed to do any construction work at all. The application for the Trustees is just it's a grade level problem. They want to put fill around it but it can't be done until we legalize the buildings and they know that but they wanted to the judge wanted to get the applications filed, that's all. He wants it off his calendar. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was there anybody on Zoom who wanted to address the application? MICHAEL SCHUCK : Hi, my name is Michael Schuck, I submitted documents as requested by Lark and Folts, pictures and a key plan of views from my adjacent lot. If you can refer to those CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have those. MICHAEL SCHUCK : I'm going to be very quick and I'm going to try to be as concise as possible. I would like to generally say that what Mr. Lark has presented is entirely untrue. I have lived on this property for twenty-five years; I have been a Northfork resident for thirty-five years primary not transitional not vacation. The property has not been used in any way as Mr. Lark has presented. Although it sounds good that's not the fact so I will go to the beginning. Number one, there were at least fourteen people living in all of the buildings at one time in every accessory and primary structure. That has just recently been terminated. There seemed to be a very big rush to some deadline because we went from multiple families on the property and by the way if you can see from my document, you'll see my view A from the key plan and that is to scale by the way on the survey so those are actually view points from my lot and my lot includes the easement. .) think that's important to note, my lot includes the 79 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting easement which is also incorporated within my tax and my area of being taxed. It has been used as a dumping ground, a severe dumping ground. I have cleaned up tires, oil tanks, everything they want to throw over. It has been used as a commercial storage area, the easement. So, there's been dumping in the easement since I have been here and I have personally gone and cleaned it up. I have had conversations two conversations; I've met the owner and without any basically didn't care and said "Hey that's what it's for". That was a quote. "I thought that easement was mine" that's a quote "and I could do anything I want with it". I said, no that easement is on my property and it's an easement but he did not care. There's been dumping, there's been multiple families in every structure, every structure for many years. There's been horses in the what you call three car garage, horses stored which I had a rodent problem at my house for many years until they were moved out. I was having a perimeter from an exterminator because of the misuse of the property. This has continued and continued and continued not only that but there's been Police reports of loud music from the very beginning of parties, of yelling and screaming. I had to actually been at that time was going to sell my house that I lived my live and worked for because of the misuse of the property. If you can see from the photos A, B, C and D it is a mess. I do not agree with most of what Mr. Lark has said including flooding. It has flooded several times even after the drain pipe was installed. I know because I own another property where that drain pipe comes in and I'm very aware and I had to go to mitigation measures in my lot to make sure the water did not encroach on my land and I built a berm with rocks and made it all good and that water has gone up into that property many times. In addition to that, construction of the third house the three-garage house was started after I moved in, new foundation, new siding, new roof, dog houses, apartment and no one said anything. There has been unregistered boats stored on the property for three years that were just recently removed. When I drove by the house yesterday there was a toilet literally a toilet on the property viewable from Deep Hole Drive. I don't understand how we can all sit here and chat and Mr. Lark can make everything okay and this affects everyone around this property. When Mr. Lark says it has no adverse effect and no one has complained, that's absolutely not true. I have many times at least twice said to the homeowner what's going on? At the last conversation I had with him he said, well I'm just storing RV's, commercial trucks for my friends and he has not lived in the house. Let's make it very clear here, Mr. Lark is I'm sure very professional and wants to do his job but I am living here looking out that window every single day. He has not lived in that house. This is a running dash to get a variance and it's not what was happening for twenty-five years that have been here. It has been a mess; an absolute mess and I have been cleaning up his mess and I've been dealing with the noise and the twelve to fifteen people living in multiple buildings. If you look at the site plan which we need to address in detail there are cesspools and water lines to all the accessory buildings. There is only one reason why they're there. We can't just get over this and think that this is not going to happen again. I do not accept and go May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting will not accept these variances, I will not. I will be fair and reasonable and I will have I don't want hardship on anybody but I also want the respect back. This is not right in any way and if anyone on the Board ZBA Board, Trustees can tell me that what has happened in the past twenty-five years and what is happening on this site plan is okay to approve then that is just not doing justice to Southold Town and to my community and to everyone around that house. This is a disaster. I'll leave it at that, I have more but I'll leave it at that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you for your testimony. Anybody else on Zoom? MICHAEL SCHUCK : I don't want this, this is not I'm not going to end here, this is not going to end here. SENIOR ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I don't have anyone else with a hand up Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, is there anybody in the audience? What do you want to do Board, ready to close? . MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Close it. BEVERLY CIERACH : I would like to say something. I am Beverly Cierach. I listened to what he said and that's not true,there was never fourteen people living there. There was one lady and one man and that's all you know at a time there were not fourteen people there. Kevin is,in the house; he has not been there for two years off and on but basically with me because;of his health. He's true it was a mess, everything is cleaned up, if you've been there, you know it's all cleaned up that he cleaned it up.The boat is gone, he's doing his best, we are doing our best. I don't know who this man is, I don't know why he would say fourteen people lived there. It's true at one time Kevin had a camper down there, that was gone but he's misrepresented the whole thing. It's just I don't know I got a lot of things that I would like Ito talk to him and see why he feels like this. I don't know I just what he said is not true there were never, never fourteen people living in those houses. RICHARD LARK : Were there ever police reports? BEVERLY CIERACH : If there were police reports I don't know about it. MICHAEL SCHUCK : Yes there are. My wife was pregnant and there was so much music and loud and I can tell you the songs,The Doors playing so loud that BEVERLY CIERACH : When was this? May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mrs. Cierach you're supposed to address the Board not the other person that's speaking. I'm sorry Mr. Schuck we know the history of the building MICHAEL SCHUCK : My name is Michael Schuck, Mr. Michael Schuck thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've got it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, but what I was going to say and while there may be a history in the past I can't speak for the other Board Members we don't know the particulars other than the complaints we've seen, we're here looking at setbacks for buildings. MICHAEL SCHUCK : Right and they're all wrong. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They will not be used in the future and I think from the (inaudible- keeps getting cut off) MICHAEL SCHUCK : And they can't be used and I'm addressing the Board. This is the problem, you have he has continually built and disregarded code and I have to deal with it and the people surrounding me have to deal with it so yes, am I going to be the bad guy and present this to the Board?Yes, I am. This is illegal this is not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to have to stop MICHAEL SCHUCK : this is not emotional this is illegal. There were twelve to fourteen CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me explain something to you Mr. Schuck MICHAEL SCHUCK : twelve to fourteen people living on that property with kiddy pools, with multiple cars CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Schuck MICHAEL SCHUCK : There's a commercial truck right outside the building right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, we have visited the property your discussion is essentially a civil matter, it's between neighbors MICHAEL SCHUCK : No it's not a civil matter, no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : how the property is being used. MICHAEL SCHUCK : no I disagree, I disagree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just a moment, please don't interrupt me. I'm not interrupting you let me speak. I can hear how upset you are and how much trouble you've had with your May 1,2025 Regular Meeting neighbor. That however is not what is before the Zoning Board, we don not and are not legally allowed to personalize matters. I will ask Ms. Cierach, what is the plan for this property going forward? If your son has not lived there and he is not well, is he going to move back in or not? BEVERLY CIERACH : If this thing ever, ever gets straightened out he will move back in I'm sure. This is just taking this is we're going into our fourth year and it is taking a toll on everybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can understand. BEVERLY CIERACH : We would like to get that all straightened out, he would like to move back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You say we, does that mean you as well? BEVERLY CIERACH : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He would. BEVERLY CIERACH : He would like to move back. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to remind you, as part of straightening all of this out this is only one step that if and when the relief is granted you still have to comply with whatever the Building Department needs to make those structures back to storage. BEVERLY CIERACH : Absolutely MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Whether drywells need to be filled or septic tanks removed. I don't know that the expense is it may or not be or what the requirements are but that's just one step. BEVERLY CIERACH : (inaudible) much I can tell you that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and then the rental permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And Code Enforcement. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And Code Enforcement and the list goes on which for the neighbor I don't think he wants to be in a position to pick up the phone to call either the Police or Code Enforcement if something is not appropriately used. BEVERLY CIERACH : Well you said I can't argue with him here, this might be a long time ago, yes. Something might have happened 3 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting MICHAEL SCHUCK : It's not a long time ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, thank you both, thank you both. We have them in the record. MICHAEL SCHUCK :This is happening today, this is happening now. You guys come on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is happening today? MICHAEL SCHUCK : I mean just you just had fourteen, fifteen people here living here with stuff all around people going in and out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, we've heard your comments and is there anyone else in the audience? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, thank you. HEARING#7970—RICHMOND CREEK PARTNERS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have an application that is on the agenda for Richmond Creek Partners, LLC # 7970. 1 don't need to read the notice into the record again because it was adjourned from December 5th. We have already informed the applicant's attorney that we're going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing subject to receipt of additional information and an updated survey with a narrative explaining changes to the survey that we have just received. Is there anything else? 84 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so moved, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday,June 5, 2025 at 9:00 am, so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held April 17, 2025 so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to reopen the Public Hearing of Philip Loria #7498 adjourned from April 17, 2025 for the sole purposed of accepting written comments for a period of five (5) business days after receipt of the amended application consisting of architectural plans and a survey or site plan stamped by a design professional available for review on the Town's Laserfiche with public notice of reopening to be posted on the subject property.The applicant shall submit the amended plan on or before May 15th. We're putting a deadline on that; we're reopening for the sole purpose of allowing the public to have it's say. We feel it's important to have all comments available and so as a courtesy to the public this is why we're reopening this. This is not for a public hearing; this is strictly to look at what is now going to be submitted to our office and the record. We had hoped that we would have an amended application by today and that we could post, we will go out and post a notice on the property as soon as we have those plans because we're going to have to know what the end date is for submitting comments. We do not want to confuse the public or anybody else for that matter. So, that's the plan okay. We put a deadline on this, we added that to the Resolution because this is going on too long. They have got to get these plans into us by a deadline so that all of us have some idea what that calendar looks like because we keep adjourning it subject to getting it but we don't seem to be getting it. We've added that to the resolution that's on the agenda, it is now on the record, we will inform the applicant and the applicant's attorney that they need to get that information to us by or before May 15th which is two weeks, our Special Meeting and then we will make sure that immediately goes on Laserfiche. As soon as we get it assuming we will get it on May 15th on the 16th we will likely go out one of us will go out to the property and post the yellow card with the deadline for written comments. We're suggesting five (5) business days. So, let's say we get this we post it on Friday the 16th so it'll be Friday of the following week so it gives you a week to submit whatever to look at everything, see what you think and let us know. Okay, sorry you had to wait so long.Anyway there is a motion on the floor is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting AUDIENCE MEMBER : If he submits revised plans on May (inaudible) 'the clock is running for five (5) days? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no after receipt of the amended application. So, we are giving them a deadline by which we are to receive it the 15th. I don't think we're going to get it before that but you do have the option if you just want to check you can always check Laserfiche to see if it's in there because the second we get it we're going to scan it in. The office is just going to put it right into Laserfiche. If you have any questions, please without bombarding to the office you can call and say did you get it yet. I really think it's going to be very clear; we're doing everything we can. If we don't get it by the 15" we are going to have to grapple with that as a Board but we are informing them that we need what we they gave us some plans but they didn't give us a survey. Since this is about setbacks and so on we wanted to make sure that we had accurate dimensions so that's what we're looking at basically. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) assume the 15th is when they will be posting not the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we just make that decision we are not going to post anything on that property before the 15th. If we get it before then, great but we're not posting it, we're not looking at it and it'll be at least a week after the 15th that you will have an opportunity. AUDIENCE MEMBER : Are we allowed to come to the office to (inaudible not at a microphone) having a hard time CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can come in and FOIL it, yes. That is a legal come in and ask for a FOIL request it's very simple it's one page, fill it out and then they will show you the actual plans. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) approve it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who is going to approve it. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Ben it comes to my office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically if you fill out a FOIL request it just has to go to the attorney for approval but it shouldn't take terribly long they're upstairs and maybe a day or two or something. Anything else? AUDIENCE MEMBER : (cannot hear him, not at a-microphone) the property is not going to get much bigger, is it going to be the same setbacks. 871 May 1, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it probably won't be the same setbacks. T. A. MCGIVNEY :This isn't a hearing so we can't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't take any comments from you or testimony. AUDIENCE MEMBER : So, we're not going to comment on the 15th. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to comment in writing not on the 15th. We're going to require the plans come to us by the 15th from Mr. Loria and his attorney. They're going to change those plans with an attempt to make them more conforming to what the code requires that was the idea. AUDIENCE MEMBER : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have every right to write anything you want but we can't take testimony it's not legal. Hearing nothing else motion to close the meeting. MEMBER LEHNERT: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The meeting is closed. May 1,2025 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape-recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : May 15,2025 89