The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-06/05/2025 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 June 5, 2025 10:18 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN—Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Absent) ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member (Vice Chair) MARGARET STEIN BUGLER— Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Christopher and Sofija Shashkin #7999 4-9 Gil and Tracy Ben-Ami #8012 9- 14 Joseph S. Pietrangelo#8013 14- 25 Hamilton Residences, LLC#8014 26-33 Flowers and Flores Farm, LLC/Tina Koslosky#8016 33 - 38 Beverly Papapietro#8017 38-42 Daniel Marra/9450 Main Bayview, LLC#7992 42 -66 June 5,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning and welcome all to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for June 5, 2025. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter on the agenda is, 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: Gil and Tracy Ben-Ami #8012, Joseph Pietrangelo #8013, Hamilton Residences, LLC #8014, Flowers and Flores Farm, LLC/Tina Koslosky #8016, Beverly Papapietro#8017 and Daniel Marra 9450 Main Bayview, LLC#7992, so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Lazio, we did not yet receive GFA averaging that's what we were waiting for. Kim, can you make sure that the Board gets that cause I didn't see anything? Did Nigel send something? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : He did send a letter when he did the GFA comparisons, he did submit a letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I make a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on June 18tn MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#7999—CHRISTOPHER and SOFIJA SHASHKIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for Christopher and Sofija Shashkin #7999 adjourned from April V and I don't need to read the legal notice. Please state your name. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Zackery Nicholson I'm the architect for my clients. Liz can you please go to the last page of that packet, second to last page? If you recall the last time, we met this was our proposed design which was designed prior to all the zoning changes almost a decade ago, we were requesting quite excessive variances at the time. What we have done is, due to budgetary restraints and your comments scraped the second-floor except for over the garage. So, this is our new proposed design, everything with the green hatching is new construction. So, you'll see we are proposing a 350 square foot sunroom towards the back left and we were able to fit a lot of our bedroom program in the basement below there so it wouldn't count towards the GFA and we are extending the gable end on the rear of the house where the master bedroom and the other bedroom•are. Again, trying to keep the construction very simple and we bumped the house all the way to the rear yard setback. We are working within the restrictions of the site; we were able to keep everything below the maximum GFA. However, we were not able to keep everything below the maximum lot coverage. You'll see on my calculation chart on the site plan page that we are requesting a lot coverage variance of 320 square feet; 150 of those square feet are for a storage shed and a sauna that were existing so very minimal lot coverage variance. We did remove the large bump out of living space on the front of the house so the variance that we are requesting on the front yard is for a bay window. There is an existing bay window, I changed the design of it to fit more of the craftsman style look that we're going for and we have a proposed covered front porch for guest entrance. The proposed covered entryway is set further back from the street than the parcel of land two houses down which as has a front porch that is closer the numbers on that are visible on the third page. You can see that lot 186 has a setback of 19.8 feet and we are requesting a setback of 20.9 to the front to the covered entryway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The (inaudible) says 20.5 to the I have it down as amended. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think there was a discrepancy between the drawing and Zack's letter. I think one said 20.9 and the other said 20.5. The drawing is 20.5, 1 think Zack your letter said 20.9 maybe it's a typo. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : That is a mistake a typo on my letter, I apologize, it's 20.5. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, it's the same as previous. 4 . June 5,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No change from prior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I had some questions which is the lot coverage is 22.67% is that correct? ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's because you added in the shed and the sauna? ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Well the shed and the sauna were existing, we're trying to find this balance between you know not having a second story and utilizing as much GFA as the setbacks will allow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just simply saying that the original Notice of Disapproval had a lot coverage of 21.5%. Now that's not correct, you're calculating the lot coverage at 22.67%? ZACKERY NICHOLSON : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to understand the difference, now I think it's cause you added those "as built into the calculation. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : The perimeter the footprint of the house changed. The rear of the house cause we're trying to again maximize the first floor footprint. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The rear wall moved back towards the rear property line, is that right? ZACKERY NICHOLSON : It was not like that in the previous design. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,the GFA is now proposed at 2,290 as amended? ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was this the removal of the first floor of the garage attached now by a breezeway by the Building Department? ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Yes, they said with an 8 x 10 breezeway that-the garage would not count. However, we do intend to put a second story on the garage and that the second story would count towards the GFA at a later date and that is included in that number, second floor garage, 290 square feet. I left a little bit of safety net there to allow us to get you know a staircase up there that would CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and you don't have a sky plane issue anymore? June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting ZACKERY NICHOLSON : We do not have a sky plane issue' anymore, no. We are however requesting a variance to build an accessory structure at 19.5 feet where at 5-foot setback that garage would only be allowed to be 18-feet. Again, this is for future living space up there to have comfortable headroom to the collar ties I have an 8-foot ceiling drawn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what is the height of the garage then? ZACKERY NICHOLSON : 19.5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we want to make sure is that we get all of these numbers correct into our public record so that when we make a determination all of them are accurate cause there's been a lot of moving parts going on here. Height variance, yes, no? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think we need to really go back to the it's my opinion, it would appear that you need the height variance but I think the Building Department needs to review this. CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : I don't think the Building Department has seen your amended plan. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : They have not. I have been in discussions with them you know saying if we do this what are the rules but doing this a little while I know that the majority of what I'm requesting here is doable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure about that height variance now because we don't want to neglect it and have to reopen a hearing and all that other kind of stuff. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Sure, the chart in the code says that at 5-feet the maximum accessory height can be 18-feet, if you go up to 10-feet it can be more, we're talking very small amounts here but at the front of the garage our setback is 5.9 and at the rear it's 5.5 so we do have a slightly larger setback than the 5-foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not the setback so much as the height actually at this point. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Right but the setback changes the allowable height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly, so do we want to get an updated Notice of Disapproval to put all of these things in here? It makes sense because you've done a very good job of mitigating some of the severity of the variances you were looking at eliminating some of them and it would be much better and cleaner all the way around cause I don't want to have a problem when you go to the Building Department and want a permit and all of sudden they're looking at a Notice of Disapproval that doesn't look like what we approved. June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To that point, I'm just wondering also I don't know if we need to discuss it without an updated Notice if Disapproval it's kind of pointless. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why I'm saying, why don't we the updated Notice, if you can get it to us by the Special Meeting then we can decide whether we need to discuss it further or whether we can just close it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would actually say we should probably adjourn to the July meeting that way there's actually a public hearing, during the Special we can't take testimony or have any discussion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We may not need the additional variance so MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Can I ask a question, it may be the same question even with an updated Notice of Disapproval. I just wanted to clarify, I think there was some confusion or misunderstanding last time about whether the breezeway was conditioned or unconditioned; pretty clearly it's unconditioned here but I just wanted to confirm that. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : It's very breezy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's called a roof. MEMBER STEINBUGLER The other thing that I think that lot coverage may have been influenced last time by the presence of a pergola, can you confirm that that's been removed from the application? ZACKERY NICHOLSON :That's been removed. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So that goes to the lot coverage. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Other than our additions we're really only considering structures that have been there,the shed and the sauna and the garage. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Got it, thank you I was just looking to clarify that and get it in the record. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can you just restate that gross floor area how you came to that with the Building Department and it being an accessory and a breezeway, repeat what they said? ZACKERY NICHOLSON : I was told that, if we have a breezeway that is 8 x 10,.ours is 9 x 8 so smaller than the allowable square feet that the accessory building does not count towards GFA. Now, if you have finished living space above a garage in an accessory building that counts and that is our intention to have finished living space on the second floor. June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : That is based on what you told them? ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, two points, Leslie if I can, one I think Kim mentioned that the Notice of Disapproval is needed to update the Legal Notice so realistically depending on what our choices are it would seem that the most logical path would be to adjourn it to July 15t or depending on what time the Building Department needs CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, yea it gives you a little more time and it'll be a very short hearing. I don't think there's much more to be said about this but ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Should we have done this prior to this meeting? I was not we weren't directed to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, what we have from you is an improvement but it isn't completely clear in the Notice of Disapproval so we couldn't know that until we had your amended plans. So, it was better for you to come and discuss it so we're on the same page with each other and then we can MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then the other question I had sort of CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : What we're going to have to do because the variances have changed we're going to have to put in the paper again as a legal notice that is different from the original which is why we're going to adjourn this to next month so all that stuff can be accomplished. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other question I had which this I should know but I'm a little confused, if the garage is in fact an accessory which I think we're all in agreement that it is why are they cited for a reduced side yard and combined side yard, it would seem that it's almost conforming if this is in fact an accessory? It's just in the side yard but it's an accessory it's not an expansion of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's partly what's unclear, if it's attached by a breezeway you get this benefit it's not an accessory. I mean this makes no sense so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm wondering if (inaudible) cause if it's an accessory this is the house and it conforms. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : (inaudible) accessory setbacks but then what about the height? I see the confusion, what is it really being considered? June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, Building Department needs to make its mind up so we can move forward. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe talk to Mike or the Plans Examiner about that cause if in fact it's an accessory it would almost seem to me that your side yard and combined side yard setbacks conform. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : Yes and potentially we could no okay. I'll submit these amended plans to the Building Department and request for an updated Notice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Notice of Disapproval and just discuss it with them and clarify what the height of the accessory garage is, what the setback of the side yard is, GFA is pretty clear and lot coverage is clear. It's the side yard setback and the height. ZACKERY NICHOLSON : (inaudible) how important this is but there was already an existing variance in place for the garage when it was built to be an accessory building in the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's in our record. It's the second story that triggered the whole thing and the attachment. Anything else from the Board? Anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay, motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on oh to the Public Hearing,July 10tn MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8012—GIL and TRACY BEN-AMI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Gil and Tracy Ben-Ami # 8012. This is a request for a variance from Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting Inspector's January 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new two-story single-family dwelling at 1) gross floor area exceeding maximum square footage for lot containing up to 30,000 square feet in area located at 1800 Hyatt Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. LISA POYER : Lisa Poyer on behalf of the applicants. This application was originally here in 2023 but the back history of it was, there's a C of 0 for the house that was issued in 1961, updated in 2015. Somewhere in 2016, 2017 there was a fire on the property and the house burned down to the foundation. In 2022 there was an application submitted by this current owner with a 2023 decision issued by the Zoning Board. The prior owners had also received a ZBA decision which was decision 7184 in 2018 and that application included a bluff crest setback, swimming pool and a residence on the property. The 2018 decision was (inaudible) swimming pool on the property, reconstruction of a new house and they're asking for bluff crest setbacks. That was at the same time right around the new zoning code for the GFA so the application was submitted prior to that so under that kind of a grandfathered time period there. They could have moved forward with that house based upon your ZBA decision the house was for a larger it was about four thousand plus square feet.The owner redesigned the house since then just based upon their goals in the house so we're back before you and based upon the new zoning code the application is seeking relief of 218 square feet for GFA which is a 6.2% increase above the allowable. It's a minor variance I believe, just it's less than the twenty five percent typically and there is no bluff crest setback anymore the house has been like I said redesigned. It's a little bit more compact, it's moved further back from the bluff. Do you want me to go through the GFA actual numbers for you? So, the allowable GFA is 3,534 square feet, the proposed is 3,752 which as I said was 218 square feet increase. There's no bluff crest setback anymore so we've reduced that. The owner is keeping the three trees, I don't know if you went to the property to look at it. Along the street frontage which are very nice trees, it was kind of redesigned to keep those trees based upon the prior decision where one additional tree was going to come down. One tree will come down as part of this project and we've agreed with the Trustees that we will replace that one tree that's kind of in the center of the lot as part of that application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you been before the Trustees? LISA POYER : We were before them with the prior decision and we're going to them actually next week but we had the site inspection on Tuesday. Obviously typically they request tree replacement lately with all their applications. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Are they going to be looking at am I reading this correctly Lisa that there's an IA system proposed in the rear yard, the waterside with a 90-foot bluff setback? June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting LISA POYER : It's there because there's a well on the property and with Health Department CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand with separation between the two but .will the Trustees have to look at that as a setback from the bluff and will we? LISA POYER : I don't know. It was submitted to the I mean it's structure but it's not above ground. I don't know what the Building Department will CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wasn't.noted. LISA POYER : It wasn't noted but it was on the plans, they've reviewed them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically on a bluff of course you want it in a front yard. Is that because the well is in the front yard? LISA POYER : The well is in the front yard and all the neighboring wells are all in the,front yards. This is the only location to put it, you have sufficient soils there. It's more landward of the current cesspool which actually sits seaward of the coastal erosion line. There will be dry wells for the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Okay, have you considered doing GFA averaging of the homes on the,there are homes on both sides. LISA POYER : There are homes on both sides. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a vacant lot directly across from the property but there's quite a few that LISA POYER : We looked at it, the records are very incomplete for floor plans for the adjacent houses within the five on either side and the surveys are so old that there's no updated top of bluff or anything to begin to be able to calculate the new buildable area. We did consider it to try to look at it further if you request it but it's not much help at the moment. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :The GFA does not require knowledge of the buildable area does it? LISA POYER : It's based upon the buildable CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the existing dwellings but it doesn't necessarily tie it in to the size of the lot or the buildable area. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm just trying to make the point that the records may be incomplete but I don't think knowledge of the bluff setback is required to do GFA averaging. LISA POYER : It's based upon the total lot area? I IL June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's based upon the residential structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the size of the dwelling okay LISA POYER : Right but isn't that based upon the percentage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We're looking at from a GFA averaging standpoint not what is permitted for a larger lot adjacent, we're just looking at what the existing structures there. LISA POYER : The architect has looked at the other adjacent properties and it's very incomplete as far as (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's part of the dilemma because when you go to look for the way GFA is defined it's double height volume counts twice and then how do you know if the double height volume unless you have a section, you have to have a cross section. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Despite the complexities, if you look at the property card for adjacent properties you can come up with basically what you believe the area to be as far as a presentation to help guide the application process that you're seeking something excessive beyond what is permitted on this particular lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's problematic for us is although it doesn't seem like that's an awful lot over, 218 square feet it's pretty small, we can't according to the code the Board is not permitted to grant GFA in excess of what is permitted unless it conforms to the average. We can't grant more so unless we know what the average is we don't know whether 218 square feet we don't know how to evaluate that. LISA POYER : You said the property record cards should be MEMBER PLANAMENTO :`It's a good starting point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At the Assessor's Office. LISA POYER : But I don't have to tie them into the percent of the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no. LISA POYER : Okay, I thought that was the T. A. MCGIVNEY :That's how (inaudible) calculation. June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting LISA POYER : Right, so you just need the GFA of the houses themselves not compared to T. A. MCGIVNEY : The lot area for GFA is the buildable area. LISA POYER : Right and that was what I was trying to compare it to and that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that clear to you now? LISA POYER : Yes, if I can provide those to you before the Special Meeting? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That would be great. LISA POYER : We can close it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can adjourn to the Special and then if you have it we can close it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Why don't we just close it pending receipt and we can have a determination? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it either will or it won't. In other words MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's really not a need for further discussion we could just adjourn subject to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think a redesigned honestly over all the reiterations of this particular site CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we've seen this site so many times. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I mean hopefully it's going to be redeveloped, it's a pity that it's sort of languished there but I have to just personally say, I think this is a very nice addition to the neighborhood. I hope that the GFA works to your benefit that you can get that. I mean the alternative is, if the hearing is closed and you can't validate that your averaging allows this then you just have to scale something back to make it (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Something will have to be cut back by 218 square feet which is not a tragedy but if we can avoid it we'll it's all cost, cost and more cost. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So we close it subject to receipt. June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience or on Zoom wanting to address the application? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of GFA averaging. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8013—JOSEPH S. PIETRANGELO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph S. Pietrangelo #8013. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" deck addition and to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) deck is located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 795 Founders Path in Southold. PAT MOORE : Let me just start, the deck is a pretty simple issue, the house was in need of updating. I don't know if you saw the pictures of the house at the beginning when I think I had the house in the wintertime pictures and the current when you went to inspect you can see that they have done a lot of sprucing up between landscaping and the house just cosmetics. The deck they didn't realize that the deck small extension to the setback of the house resulted in the need for a variance and obviously without a building permit so now they're trying to legalize. The existing deck was I don't have it off the top of my head, it was left some setback before the corner and they filled that in to make the living space more comfortable the outdoor space more comfortable. This is the families second home so you're very familiar with Founder Path and Founders Landing area, it is a well-established neighborhood. The house is a modest sized house in this neighborhood, it is one-story and a lot of as a second June 5,2025 Regular Meeting home the outdoor space is really important to the family. The deck was improved bringing it to the property line to the setback of the existing house; the existing house is at 8.1 and that's the setback of the deck.The proposed pool is what the family would like to get. It does trigger the lot coverage variance that's necessary due to the size of the lot. I did give you the lot . coverage variances that have been granted in this neighborhood; they are a range. The ones that I gave you originally some of them are the highest I found was 28.66, then it goes down to 23.1, 23.6 and most recently I think the Board it was a very small variance that was requested for a house for the swimming pool, going by memory I think it's 21 it was a small deviation. You get these applications all the time. The pool being in the back yard is not going to be visible from the neighborhood. I did speak with Ms. Russell; MaryAnn Russell next door and she was asking that the fence be put on the property line if at all possible and to trim down some of the trees that are existing. I know that they've done a lot of landscaping in the front yard, when they get to the back yard after the activity is done with the pool my client has no problem with cleaning up and shrinking some of the overgrown vegetation. I have assured Ms. Russell she had no problem, no objection to the pool and was more concerned with just maintenance because she's her landscaper keeps a very tidy back yard and she was hoping that this yard would also be tidy. If it's anything like the front yard it will be very tidy. If the Board has any questions, this is pretty straightforward as far as the request goes and we hope you grant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just enter into the record, your existing lot coverage is 19.1%. PAT MOORE : Correct for the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing 26.2%. PAT MOORE : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible)for the pool which is a 20 x 40 foot pool. PAT MOORE : Correct, yes. If the Board feels that the pool should be made a little more conforming we will abide with the Board's rather than the negotiation back and forth tell us what the lot coverage that you feel is reasonable and they will work within those"bounds. Clearly, they can't have a pool without violating the lot coverage it just isn't possible. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They can reduce the deck or remove the deck. I mean I know that it's recently built. PAT MOORE : True it is been newly done but the house the coming out of the house was at the deck level that was the original deck so it would really impact June 5,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) put a landing and then just I mean you've got a substantial terrace around the proposed pool also which doesn't count against lot coverage PAT MOORE : Right like the patio MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a way to make a transition from the house to a pool. PAT MOORE : Or the Board could grant a variance which is why we're here. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the variance is required in almost any PAT MOORE : Anything we do here other than removing the deck and that would be an extreme for a deck that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I have a couple the deck the side yard of the deck is quite open to the adjacent dwelling PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm wondering about there is room to install some evergreen screening or a six foot high fence whatever the applicant prefers to create some actual privacy there. PAT MOORE Or alternatively a screen on the deck. There's five feet so we can screen it one way or another, sometimes evergreens on a 5-foot setback is really CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : they can overgrow and it can be MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) existing Leyland Cypress that are right there that just fall short of the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One side there's a lot of evergreen, on the other side MEMBER PLANAMENTO : on the other side there's nothing. PAT MOORE : Which she doesn't like so I think I might have to deal with that side and trim it down. I mean if you they're going to need a pool fence so not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's actually not high enough to screen anything. PAT MOORE : No, no I'm saying I understand but if they're going to need a pool fence they could put a property line fence you know six foot property line fence to create the privacy. If they prefer a pool fence that's four feet then they'll have to put some kind of screening or a X June 5,2025 Regular Meeting six-foot fence. I don't think there is again, they've been very respectful here as far as you know maintaining the property bringing it up to more modern standards. Pardon me? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a clean looking PAT MOORE : Very yes, but they've worked very hard because the house is probably!when they bought it don't know if you remember the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I don't know the transaction but I mean (inaudible) relatively new it's from the house is relatively young 1979. PAT MOORE : We had a 1979 house and it's been upgraded twice, my daughter is upgrading it again because you know the nineties is pretty old now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything from the Board? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes I had a question. I don't think the survey shows the location of the pool mechanicals where they're proposed to be located. PAT MOORE : No they don't. I know Joe Fischetti is working let me see if the plans MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I may have missed it I don't see PAT MOORE : He only showed the technical the dry well and he didn't show where it's going to go. Again, wherever it might be we can provide for 'screening or I don't know if you can put a box over it or not. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to point out the variance you sited of 28.66% lot coverage I think it goes back quite a ways. If I estimate that this Board gets approximately ninety-five or a hundred or a hundred and five applications a year, I think that would be twenty to thirty-five years ago. PAT MOORE : My job is to give you the variances so MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Got it just for the record. PAT MOORE : Yea that is some an old CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat did you submit the actual copies of those or just the numbers? PAT MOORE : I usually give you one set because not all the Board Members. No, it's a lot of copying so BOARD ASSISTANT : I think they were emailed. 17 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : If you don't have it I can scan it and send it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we have it in the office that's fine she can email that out to us. T. A. MCGIVNEY : You said that there was only one included because you were stating that the Laserfiche was down. PAT MOORE : That's right. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That's right, I did go looking for them in Laserfiche but it only goes back to 2020, it doesn't go back that far. PAT MOORE : I can only go the two that I got was as far back as I was able to get, those are the most recent ones. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Understood. PAT MOORE : I'm hoping that it'll be back up because it's really traumatic for doing the GFA calculations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For everything. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So Pat while Margaret I think is reviewing her notes two questions, one, dry wells aren't proposed or PAT MOORE :The plans that Joe Fischetti drew does include it should be attached to the cross section it includes the mechanicals let me see if MEMBER LEHNERT: There's no locations. PAT MOORE : It just shows it as part of the construction of the pump,filter and heater. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ultimately that needs to be there. Sort of the bigger question for me, and actually there's two and one I started earlier commenting about the size of the pool so it's interesting that you had suggested that perhaps there would be relief granted for something smaller, have you done lot calculations for a more modest pool? In my opinion the house according to my notes is like 21 x 1 feet and the pool is 20 x 40. PAT MOORE : No, the house is 28.3 x 41 plus 12 so that's 53. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 28 x 41 PAT MOORE : No it also has the 12.8 also so it's 53. June 5,12025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's including the garage I didn't add the garage. In either case the footprint of the house is relatively similar to the pool on a very small lot. It just seemed physically when I was standing there during the inspection it's a very ambitious sized pool for a very tight location. Certainly, if they don't have a lot coverage issue it's their right; because we're having a public hearing, I just feel the obligation to discuss that. So, have you considered alternative sizes or what that would (inaudible)? PAT MOORE : I think my clients have been away because I have not I was expecting somebody here, I don't know if anybody is somebody on? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Yes we have Mr. Pietrangelo on and I am bringing him in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Joe would you go ahead and tell us what talk to us. ALEXIS PIETRANGELO : Hi this is Alexis and I am so sorry, I am on my phone and I am not technologically savvy so it just took me a minute. Good morning, everybody. My name is Alexis Pietrangelo. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're talking about the size of the pool relative to the lot coverage and reducing the pool size. ALEXIS PIETRANGELO : Yes, I wish actually Patrick from Patrick's Pools would be at the hearing because obviously he knows all about pools and he would be helpful but from the perspective of my husband and I we are willing to do whatever is approved. So, I guess from my kid's perspective the biggest that we're allowed to have on our property is what we'll do. Again, whatever is approved is what we'll do. Also, I wanted to note and I didn't know how to kind of put a comment in while the meeting was going but I did speak with both of my neighbors on either side, Sandra to my left and MaryAnn to my right just this morning and we had lovely conversations and they're both kind of thumbs up to the pool they know the kids and I. Sandra just asked and I think a gentleman who was just speaking may have mentioned something similar a few minutes ago, Sandra just asked if we could continue the trees that are on the left side of the property like if you're looking at the house from the street and I have absolutely have no problem at all doing that. MaryAnn and I spoke this morning and are totally on the same page. She mentions either like a hedge fence or an actual fence and'I said I'm so happy that I spoke with both you and Sandra because you girls want exactly what I want and that will get my husband to say yes. Basically, everybody kind of just wants like a hedge fence going around for like consistency and privacy which is exactly what I had in mind but of course we need to work on our permits before we get into landscaping.Those were the only concerns from our immediate adjacent neighbors just to kind of piggyback on that. June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : If I could interject, this includes a proposed 8 x 8 spa, could you live without a spa? ALEXIS PIETRANGELO : Oh yes, so that we kind of already eliminated yes, absolutely that's not necessary that was just kind of an initial thought but yes. Someone mentioned it and I was, oh my gosh I didn't even think of that, that sounds great sure we can do that if possible but absolutely. We just are basically looking for something simple, something that is allowed and permitted and approved and something that the kids can enjoy. We are always willing to work with our neighbors so like I said I had great conversations with both of the ladies on either side of us and thankfully we all were on the exact same page so I'm kind of happy about that. Yes, I guess that's it or did you PAT MOORE : One more question that was raised, the poo equipment did Patrick's Pool suggest a location or ALEXIS PIETRANGELO : He did, as I recall now it's been a couple of months since we've spoken but as I recall along the left side of the house again, if you're looking at the.house from the street we have I don't know what anything is called but we have central air in the house so there are I'm just going to say boxes cause I don't know what they're called my husband would know but units for the central air along the left side of the house and I believe Patrick had said to me whatever equipment or electronics that go with the pool would go right along the line of where those two units are if that makes sense kind of right next to them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can we ask Joe to put them on the site plan? PAT MOORE : Sure, so I'm going to ask Joe to locate it and then also show how we're going to screen it or protect it cause sometimes pool equipment has some noise and we don't want to disturb the neighbor with the pumps. ALEXIS PIETRANGELO : Oh for sure. Patrick had gotten into all of that. Again, like it would be so helpful to have him on the meeting cause he would be able to answer that in like two seconds. I know that he's done quite a number of pools and if a few in our immediate area as well. He seems great, we drove around the end of Fast summer and we saw some of the work he did in different communities in the town and its top notch and he's been for the few months that we were in contact he was awesome and on top of his game and kind of up to date with all of the latest and greatest way of doing things. He would be able to answer that but of course we would do whatever was needed to be done to minimize noise and yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have another question, Pat the other question I wanted to ask, on the survey it doesn't show where your septic is so I was trying to figure out where the septic is cause it would seem logically that the septic is actually where the pool is. Having said that PAT MOORE : No, we've had (inaudible) Greenport was public water in this area so it's in the front yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that's what I was thinking that there's a plumbing vent in the front I wasn't sure if that was it or not which is why I wanted to ask the question where the septic is. ALEXIS PIETRANGELO : It's in the front. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in the front, okay. Anything else from the Board? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is-there anyone on Zoom? SANDRA WITTICH : Hi, I'm Sandra to the left of the neighbor and I just wanted to chime in a little bit about the mechanicals cause I did speak to Alexis this morning with just a few questions as you have presented with regards to screening on the left side of the house which you know obviously abuts my deck and back yard. We had talked about possibly her incorporating in you know like six-foot arborvitae like Jolly Green Giants similar with what is in the rear of the property where the pool will be in the back. With regards cause that was one of the things after I had hung up with her I didn't see the mechanicals and I think also like just from a buffering even though they'll have like a cover or something on it perhaps on that area arborvitaes can be put in as a screening you know as well just to not create one sort of an eye sore and also just from a noise perspective cause the AC is there and you know probably that's the best place to place the pool mechanicals I don't know where else they would fit unless that's not finalized at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you. Pat you're just going to talk to Joe and have the stuff PAT MOORE : I have a note here, Patrick Pools and Fischetti to locate equipment and screening. Is that okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You said you did some calculations? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim did something different but the two calculations I ran MEMBER STEINBUGLER : (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh for the updated survey. t June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, pool equipment, dry well and screening. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Reducing the pool size to 18 x 36 would yield 24.19% lot coverage and reducing the pool to 16 x 32 would be 23.6%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I had written down 32 x 16 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea 32 x 16 is probably the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The lot coverage is 23 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 23.6% MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would just offer another calculation I did prior to the hearing, I averaged the lot coverages granted in recent years there were three. They came out to about 21.9% lot coverage and that allows a pool you know if we're going to stay in keeping with recent lot coverage and that's an if, that would be a I think that was 12 x 26. PAT MOORE : 12 by what? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm sorry or 12 x 28 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think that's difficult we had a similar the functionality I mean I think that's the bigger question here cause it is an excessive ask so I don't think this is really for us to design the pool. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No, I'm with you I'm just offering another end of the spectrum. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll discuss it and the applicant has already agreed to do whatever the Board permits and we'll come to some consensus on what makes sense. PAT MOORE : Obviously it should be a functional pool with MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You don't want to go too small but that's where it's difficult. PAT MOORE : Splash pools are very nice for adults maybe but kids are MEMBER PLANAMENTO : As I said earlier in the meeting the deck which clearly its an "as built" if the deck wasn't there half this problem would go away it's because of the deck that I see is the issue. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If it were reduced, it doesn't have to completely go away even but that's a lot of space. June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, I know it's all newly built but you could have a transition from the house to the pool deck terrace rather and just have the same comforts without the iissue. It's very hard to determine what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We won't design it we'll just come up with a for the applicant to decide. Alright, anything else from anyone? ALEXIS PIETRANGELO : I'm so sorry, can I just add something? My husband just is calling me from my daughter's phone because he doesn't know how to unmute himself but he's on the call. It would be helpful if he was cause he knows a little bit more than I do but just to circle back to what we were talking about the pool mechanicals and what my neighbor Sandra had just mentioned. I was wrong, so I assumed the mechanicals would be next to the AC units on the side of the house but actually they're going to be all the way in the back of our yard so there's no noise issue actually I guess that's why the plan is to have them there. Our back left corner so there's no noise issue that's why they must have planned that so just wanted to throw that out there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well we're going to get an updated survey showing or site plan stamped, make sure that Joe stamps this Pat. PAT MOORE : Yes if I could here's my suggestion only because the surveyors are hard to get them to help us. Can I provide you the mechanicals when you give me whatever the size lot coverage you're approving so that I have one revision for stamping at the end rather than if give you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh in other words because of the pool size. PAT MOORE : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure PAT MOORE : Only because if I ask CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can put a condition cause this is going to be all tentative relief. MEMBER LEHNERT :The engineer can provide a site plan also that works. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Joe can do that. MEMBER LEHNERT :That'll be quicker than a survey. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A stamped site plan. June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE I understand what that is, I'm just saying do you want it now with the mechanicals or do you want it at the end? MEMBER LEHNERT : Everything that we're asking you to show, I know the survey is,going to take forever. PAT MOORE : The lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no Pat's point is, we haven't told them exactly what size pool and what percent lot coverage, that's going to be alternative relief. We're not going to ask for an amended we will condition MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So they only do it once. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : to submit as approved. Does that make sense? PAT MOORE : It absolutely makes sense. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If somebody can refresh my memory relative to pool mechanicals close to lot lines. We have doesn't the code have a provision for setback? PAT MOORE : No the code doesn't the Building Department generally says MEMBER LEHNERT : We have a standard condition. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In a sound deadening device. PAT MOORE : But it's not a structure. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think as a matter of (inaudible) it usually requires a setback equal to an accessory structure. PAT MOORE : Like five feet or like depending on the lot size. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim excuse me one second you had chimed in, what was the 20 feet? BOARD ASSISTANT :The 20 feet for the pools? PAT MOORE : Pool equipment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Only because you suggested being that back left corner while it's far from neighbors it's still adjacent to neighbor's property so I just want to get clarification on that. 241 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Kim is it 20 feet or it's on all the templates. PAT MOORE : Oh it's on your templates cause I was going to say it's not in the code. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Most people opt for the sound deadening enclosure I think cause who wants it in the middle of the yard and it's a very small yard. PAT MOORE : I have no problem with it just you tell me it has to be 20 I'll have Joe and Patrick put it at 20. 1 don't know let me see what's 20? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Can I read from one of your decisions Board? The language is, pool pump equipment/mechanicals must be contained in a shed type enclosure with a lot line setback that is in conformance with the bulk schedule for accessory structures. PAT MOORE : So it's less than 18 in height so therefore it would generally be with this size parcel 5 feet no more than 10. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, are we all set. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, we're suggesting to close the hearing but ultimately it will be conditioned based upon receipt of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : submission of showing alternative relief. Is that clear everybody? 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? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8014—HAMILTON RESIDENCES, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Hamilton Residences, LLC#8014.This is a request for a variance from Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's February 13, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing garage and construct a new two-story garage addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 200,000 square feet in area located at 270 Pheasant Drive on Fishers Island. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. As Leslie mentioned we are here today for a gross floor area variance. This is a rather large big old home on Fishers Island. This home was constructed over a hundred years ago. The existing gross floor area is 9,072 square feet and we're seeking because of the fact that it exceeds the allowable under the current code a variance is triggered. This is a non- conforming parcel although it's two and a half acres in the R-120 zoning district located on Pheasant Drive adjacent to the Fishers Island Golf Club. The property itself is more or less like a flagged lot, it is setback off of the main road and is surrounded by properties to its north so it is barely visible if at all from the road. It is also a heavily vegetated property. The proposed construction will relocate the footprint of the garage, there's an existing four car garage that actually sits within the side yard setbacks so what is proposed is to demolish and reconstruct that within the side yard setback. That garage is connected to the home by a breezeway that visually from when you're looking at the house appears to be part of the house and we're submitting that it for the purposes of this analysis it should be included in the calculus of existing GFA. As I mentioned, this is a classical Fishers Island home over a hundred years old. The surrounding parcels are all various shapes and sizes and this is not a row of homes, this is a very disjointed layout of homes that surround this property. The proposed construction will result in a conforming side yard setback and the resulting house and attached garage will maintain the historical character and charm of the existing homes entirely consistent with homes in the Fishers Island community. It is respectfully submitted that since the proposed garage reconstruction will not exceed the current non-conforming GFA of existing improvements that there's not going to be any detriment to nearby properties. I wanted to just make reference to some prior determinations that this Board has granted in the last year or two. They're granting GFA variances where the pre-existing non-conforming GFA exceeds allowable and or where it exceeds GFA or the excess GFA would not be discernable by passerby's, people looking at the house which is precisely what we have here. We have a situation where despite the size of this house base on the size of the parcel and the existing screening and vegetation nobody can see it. I did hand up to Kim copies of determinations just to run through a few, 7889 pre-existing non-conforming GFA exceeded allowable and the June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting proposed construction brought the property more into conformity with code which is essentially what we have here;eliminating that side yard variance. 7891 is pre-existing non- conforming GFA exceeds allowable relief and additional relief was granted for an additional 173 square feet of GFA. 7892 GFA exceeds by 336 square feet but not discernable to passerby's by was the rational for granting relief. 7906 was a 397 square foot variance, again the addition was not visible to the street. 7940 granted GFA exceeding allowable and pre- existing non-conforming where no discernable difference in the structure will be observed. 7944 and7961 again excess was not discernable and that's essentially the crux of our argument, our position here is. What we have here and I have this picture in our packets, the house connected by this breezeway area which you know when you're talking about a regulation that essentially is regulating the mass of the structure but what we're submitting here is at the end of the day this is not some extreme makeover of this house, it's really it is going to be updated. There's going to be a slight relocation of GFA, there's a portion in the front that's going•to be removed, roof lines are going to be changed and new windows are going to go in. When you really look at the elevations you can see there's no drastic change to what the outside world is going to see. We are submitting that we have right now as I said 9,072 square feet that does include the breezeway area which I understand technically may or may not be included in the gross floor area calculation but for the purposes of how you see this house I would submit that it should be considered and really, we're just asking of you to grant relief to allow what is the pre-existing non-conforming GFA to remain. Moving on with the criteria, because the GFA or the existing improvements has been non-conforming since this home was originally constructed over a century ago and in light of the recently adopted GFA regulations we require variance relief despite the fact that we're pretty much staying within the pre-existing non-conforming GFA. I would submit to you that in light of the size of the parcel and the pre-existing non-conforming GFA and the fact that this property, is so heavily screened and setback that it is essentially invisible that the relief requested which amounts to about even if the breezeway was not included it's like a seventeen percent number, I believe if I did the math correctly but we're not asking for substantial relief here. It's a Type II Action I can't imagine there's any environmental impacts essentially other than relocating the footprint of the garage into a conforming location cause essentially all the.work is going to be done within the existing footprint and I would suggest to you that getting rid of that side yard setback encroachment is a net positive for the home to the east. I note that the Trustees have already had this matter before them and granted a wetlands permit for the proposed construction back in December so you are our last stop here. If there's any questions, Brue Kinlin who is the project architect is on Zoom and available also to answer any questions that you may have. 271 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One question, probably fairly obvious, is there a way to avoid a determination of demolition? This would not be an issue if they hadn't decided that it was a demolition per Town Code of what's happening on this property. I guess there's just enough reconstruction (inaudible) MARTIN FINNEGAN : Bruce might have more to say than I can but I think because of the fact that the garage it's essentially being torn down and reconstructed in a conforming location but the guts of it are about the same but I think they're deeming it based on that but Bruce might be able to answer that more thoroughly. BRUCE KINLIN : Hi good morning everyone, thank you for having me here. I didn't hear the question exactly but I think the point is that in I think there are two net gains and I'm happy to answer any more specific questions. Obviously, the existing garage is over the setback line and so the concern well we want to bring it inside the setback line and the existing garage with housing above it is also you know because it's a breezeway it's a separate dwelling. So, there's kind of two pre-existing non-conforming conditions, being over the line and kind of the separate dwelling. Bringing it forward and connecting it and making it part of the home addresses those two non-conformities. The act of taking it down and then rebuilding it the moment that it's down you can't rebuild it cause it's not there anymore is part of why we need this approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you. Rob any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing at this time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin, for clarification you listed a variety of prior relief granted by the Board, were any of these applications on Fishers Island? MARTIN FINNEGAN : That's a good question Nick, I thought I think there was one a recent Fishers Island variance. I don't know whether I included that one because something about the no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually Martin we were discussing that because the way that the code is currently written it's practically impossible to do GFA averaging on Fishers Island. At best maybe you can do adjacent properties you know the size of the dwellings on adjacent properties per ZBA guidelines. We have constructed a description of what the immediate neighborhood ought to be defined as but given the nature of the irregular lots and you know the way they're connected to each other and how you would define neighborhood it's simply not written for that kind of June 5,2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Of course next door is not (inaudible) work for there's a lot of not just Fishers there's a lot of areas on the mainland here where like for instance you have all these lots up on the bluff on the north nobody can see them and God knows what's buried back in there and I have another one right now and I'm trying to figure it out because if you do the averaging you're never going to get there but if you're renovating a house pretty much within the existing GFA or you need but no one is ever going to see it's kind of irrational in a lot of these determinations here. The regulation the intent of the legislation is to control the mass of a house so it doesn't have a horrible impact on the surrounding community, right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :True MARTIN FINNEGAN : It doesn't need to necessarily apply to a property where nobody can ever see it. Even the people next door can barely see it so some criteria though gives you the discretion to consider that I think is important because I believe you have that authority. I think you have that discretion to vary under those types of circumstances outside of just averaging. It's hard to the one size fits all thing doesn't work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is something to be said about the restoration, renovation of a pre-existing non-conforming dwelling that does not involve creating additional GFA than what's there.That's a pretty unique situation, I don't think the Board has really seen one. MEMBER LEHNERT: We're moving non-conforming from here to there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other thing I think according to the application, it seems that the existing coverage is actually greater than what you propose. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yeah it's a little bit less but it MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) square feet MARTIN FINNEGAN It's not more is the bottom line. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just have a question, Martin you noted that of the I think the seven examples of GFA relief granted in the last one to two years, did any of those evoke GFA averaging, none were on Fishers, did any evoke GFA averaging? MARTIN FINNEGAN : There's I think one or two averaging was provided. There's one where it didn't the relief was granted exceeded the average, I think a couple and several of them it just wasn't possible or it just wasn't provided. I know one of them is my decision where I didn't provide'it but it was the same thing, it was a pre-existing non-conforming it was just simply triggered by demo and we just want to match was we already have relief which you know it is what it is right? 29 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just feel compelled to say that my perspective, I can't speak for the Board but visibility from the road or from neighboring properties wasn't the sole to avoid the appearance of being very large and bulky from neighboring properties or from the road was not the sole intent of the law. I believe the sole intent of the law included not having very large houses draw excessively on resources of energy, water or materials of construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a hundred percent correct. Visual impact matters but again, Margaret is absolutely right, that was basically to say that enormous houses use up a lot of water, usually they have an irrigation system they often have a swimming pool, they use up a lot of electricity and we were really looking at environmental impacts as well as just the visual appearance of something really big and bulky and whether you see it or not. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In a situation where there's a great big house there and all you're doing is renovating it, you're not making it any bigger I think that's the strongest argument for saying this is really not quite applicable in the same way that new construction or substantial reconstruction you know (inaudible). MARTIN FINNEGAN : Agreed T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think in the beginning there were the GFA's were being permitted over and then all of a sudden it was, wait a second it's creeping up so that's why the averaging has to be adhered to as well as some sort of guideline cause otherwise you know you're just creeping up. In the beginning I think when the law first came into effect, they may have granted some without needing averaging but it was for that reason that they noticed MARTIN FINNEGAN : There's some pretty recent decisions in here too that I mean it seems to be you're dealing with it I think as you should on a case by case basis and what's appropriate. I think the town law 267 criteria give you, you know the discretion to vary. I understand what the code says but I think that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the problem, the code is in contradiction with our authority to do that and it limits us, it barres us from granting more than what the average GFA in a neighborhood is. Over time one by one as you grant an average there's a creeping factor there and the whole thing gets conflated so this whole thing is being reexamined now, it was a good idea it was the right kind of step in that direction so that we don't overbuild and overuse resources but you know when you work with the code you eventually begin to understand what's effective and what isn't as effective or isn't as clear. So, the point is right now we're really as part of the whole zoning code update looking at ways of improving that. 30 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : We're certainly all learning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board?Anyone on Zoom? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it possible, I know we discussed the terrain, the difficulty in finding GFA but is it possible for you to do research of adjacent residences in the general neighborhood and I don't want to say the east end you know the ten or twelve houses closest perhaps? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea, but I can tell you right now Nick they're going to be smaller. This is the biggest house on the block. The argument is essentially, all we're asking is for the relief is triggered by a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Basically to keep what you have. MEMBER LEHNERT : We're.asking to make two arguments now. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I do believe that you can vary and provide relief for the pre-existing non- conforming to remain. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) distinguish the uniqueness of Fishers Island also works (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Definitely because GFA averaging is so difficult to do there based upon even the standards we use to define immediate neighborhood but having said that I mean if what you're doing is reconstructing what's already there and not enlarging it in any way and it did predate that code I think we have a strong basis for you know looking at it differently than we typically would on new construction or enlargements. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : In my mind I'm curious as to how these seven GFA variances were granted and if most of them occurred prior to I think there was a tweak to the law regarding averaging and I was as you know I'm new to the Board and I don't think any of these were during my tenure so I don't know if they came before or after the update to the code that required the averaging. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The averaging was (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was always in the code. MARTIN FINNEGAN :The guidelines came out in August and there's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) grappling with this new information the Board was trying to people were defining immediate neighborhood any way they wanted. They were 311 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting cherry picking the littler houses or the bigger houses and so we just put our own guidelines together as a helpful tool to say this is how immediate neighborhood should be defined. Not all properties are going to be able to conform to that definition of immediate neighborhood cause a lot of properties where maybe there's only two lots that are developed or there's only developed on one side. MARTIN FINNEGAN : There's also like I had one recently where there's just every other house is a different shape and size and different sized parcels. (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible)you know MARTIN FINNEGAN : it's hard to say just cause my house is here that I'm out of character with the neighborhood or you know so anyway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, clarification for me and maybe for other Members of the Board, cause they're discussing the demolition of an existing garage, there's work that's also being done to the house correct? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that why they're calling it a demolition cause the garage via the breezeway is part of the house (inaudible). MARTIN FINNEGAN : All the windows are being replaced in the main house, the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The value so they're calling it per Town Code demolition. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But there's really no demolition other than the garage is being reorientated. MARTIN FINNEGAN :There's a small front porch area that is being MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) the difference is between an application I keep thinking about the people around East Creek or whatever that had the two story entrance and they wanted to use the garage as living space. Here I think the strong difference would just be that this is a technical demolition and it's not really while the garage might be demolished, it's part of the house which is actually a structure that remains. It's a very unique situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so. Okay, anything else? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second 3Z June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8016—FLOWERS AND FLORES FARM, LLC/TINA KOSLOSKY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Flowers and Flores Farm, LLC/Tina Koslosky#8016. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14, Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's March 4, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for a lot line change at 1) proposed parcel No. 2 having less than the permitted lot area of 80,000 sq.ft., 2) proposed parcel No. 2 having less than the permitted lot depth of 250 linear feet, 3) accessory barn #1 less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, 4) accessory barn #2 located in an area other than the code required rear yard all located at 48125 and 48455 CR 48 in Southold. KEVIN PERRY : My name is Kevin Perry, I'm with Flowers and Flores and Tina Koslosky she had to leave but she was going to try to come in by Zoom. Flowers and Flores grows and sells cut flowers from this lot. We purchased it several years ago from Tina who owns the house. If you go back to the previous one, you'll see the overall site plan, there you go and that the farm actually wraps around Tina's house which is on .43 acres. Tina's family has been owned the land since the Civil War.They had built the house, the had built the garage,they've had barns, they've farmed it, they've had farm roads without with respect to lot lines necessarily. I think it was in 2014 Tina sold the development rights of the farm splitting the 10.4 and 10.3 lots; 10.4 is the larger section, it's 20 Y acres on the left-hand side, it is preserved. The section on the right-hand side that wraps around above north of Tina's house is currently 5 acres and it's what's called reserved. Development rights are intact, there are restrictions placed on that property though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So her dwelling is on the 5 acres that have KEVIN PERRY : No, the house is standalone on a .43 acre in the middle. 33 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay I got ya. KEVIN PERRY : We propose to move approximately one acre from the 5 acre lot to Tina's property. So, her house which is currently 1.43 acres would become I'm sorry it's ,43 acres so it would become 1.42 acres. Our farm lot development rights in tact would become 4 acres, 4.01. Now the declarative restrictions on the 10.3 lot that's the upper right-hand corner well let me back up for one second. I want to speak to topography cause its important consideration here. The lot has well if we can go back to that pervious, perfect, the lot has a 20-foot slope from a high point on the south boundary down to a culvert in the upper right- hand corner. The houses and the existing barns are on a plinth that continues straight out and then falls off just the other side of the access road. The topography is fairly limiting. Now to go to the restrictions on the reserved lot, the restrictions are two part. One, we're required to maintain access to the farm from the north side of Tina's property, we can't use the south side we have to come in across the reserved side that's part one. Then part two is and as part of the conservation deal, we have the ability to transfer one acre to Tina's property essentially, it's been negotiated in advance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just got a letter from the Planning Board, we haven't even had a chance to read it, it came this morning. KEVIN PERRY : I haven't even received it yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got it this morning.. KEVIN PERRY : I've been told that the Planning Board is supporting the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes (inaudible) one non-conforming lot will become more conforming. KEVIN PERRY : Right, we also we (inaudible) the neighbors across the street who are Moffats they are related to Tina have sent a letter to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That we got. KEVIN PERRY : Most recently the neighbor immediately to the north has sent a letter in support of the application so we're pretty well regarded. There is a requirement in the restrictions that we get a waiver of requirement for easement on the access road in the event of our transfer of the lot over to Tina which we applied to Planning for. I think that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No one's planning to move any of the existing accessory barns, they're just staying 341 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting KEVIN PERRY : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN It's just a matter of the lot line change, creating these non- conforming locations? KEVIN PERRY : Yes. The setbacks of the structures do not comply with current zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why now, why is this lot line change (inaudible)? KEVIN PERRY : There's a little bit of conjuncture here, I think in 2014 the town got some money and wanted to preserve the Moffat Farm which they did. I think there was some back and forth with Tina who maybe on the call I'm not sure. I think that they wanted to at that time to expand their lot. It's a slow process, you have to get County approval, you have to go through the various hoops that frankly we started two years ago. I think the town just wanted to get it done so they've used the restrictive declaration on our lot to sort of capture those desires. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you are now coming to this Board for the lot line change. KEVIN PERRY : Yes and in fact at the closing we signed the lease with Tina that gives her basically control over the property within the boundaries we're applying for. That lease terminates when we transfer to her. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, fair enough. Any questions from anybody? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have one which I'm trying to understand other than it sounds like there's something pre-negotiated when the development rights were sold KEVIN PERRY : Approved by the Town Board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Why wouldn't you make a conforming lot in the AC zone? KEVIN PERRY : Pardon MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You could have made a conforming lot in the AC zone without KEVIN PERRY : If your goal is to capture an existing house, existing family barns dating back probably back generations to deal intelligently with the topography which actually is a big driver of this you pretty much arrive at the lot lines that we have. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You couldn't exceed to make a conforming 80,000 square feet,by stretching it a little further in one direction and another. I mean I understand that June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting . KEVIN PERRY : The Town Planning Board has given us the ability to move one acre. We cut the deal with Tina based on we're going to give her back one acre. The configuration of the lot which we arrived at jointly with Tina basically respects the existing buildings and the topography around the access road. It would be very difficult to change the boundaries in any way. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If I understand correctly and Kevin correct me if I'm wrong but the stipulation in the 2014 sale of development rights specified transfer of approximately one acre. So,to make it a conforming lot in R-80 I think it would have to be 1.6 acres or something MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I find amazing why wouldn't have somebody suggested that? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : We have to go in the time machine and KEVIN PERRY : I may not understand the development process completely but if the 25 acres had been turned into twelve houses with a sixty percent set aside for open space the individual lots that would have been yielded by development of this property would be smaller than the lot we're discussing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Possibly through a conservation subdivision, I don't know KEVIN PERRY : You still have to have a sixty percent set aside if I'm not mistaken. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :A standard subdivision. KEVIN PERRY : This (inaudible) would actually be bigger than the twelve resulting lots which may have been part of the consideration. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That's an interesting angle (inaudible) rationalized it at the time perhaps. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : May I suggest something for a minute? We have a phone number on with us, I don't know if that is Tina you said Kevin? KEVIN PERRY : Yes, I know Tina before she was leaving said she didn't know how to unmute. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Tina if you're with us and you're on the phone press *9 Tina if that's you and then press *6 to unmute to talk. TINA KOSLOSKY : Hello, my name is Tina Koslosky I was formerly Tina Moffat. To answer Nick's question I didn't own the house at the time that the development rights were sold. My mother passed in 2012, my mother owned half of the farm, my brothers owned the other half 36 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting of the farm. When my mother passed, my mother in order to settle my mother's estate the development rights were sold with the caveat that I would be able to add an acre to my property. It wasn't until my mother's estate was settled that I owned the house. Instead of being in a larger (inaudible) ownership of two farm properties I chose to retain the 5-acre lot and the 20-acres of farmland as my inheritance. Does that answer your question, Nick? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did the town purchase the development right? TINA KOSLOKSY : Oh my gosh, I'm driving on the Long Island Expressway I don't have the paperwork in front of me, so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2014 TINA KOSLOSKY : So in 2014. CHAIPRERSON WEISMAN : Okay we got it. Anything else from anybody? Anything else you'd like to add Tina? TINA KOSLOSKY : Please do this. My family has I'm begging I'm on my way to Sloan Kettering so I'm begging. My family has owned this lot for a very long time. I originally met Kevin and his wife when they wanted to rent the farm and at the end of the (inaudible) property he said how much to buy it? I didn't even have an answer cause I didn't even think of that. Kevin and Al had really wanted the barn but I was already in the dog house with my sons who are selling his plan B the farm and he really wanted the barn and it allows me some privacy nobody is looking in my window and it allows me some storage so that is the reasoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you very much for your testimony drive safely. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We have another hand up. JOHN SARAGAS : Hi there, hi Kevin, hello to everyone. My name is John Saragas and I just I'm on the call just to offer my support for this particular proposal. My family owns the property 48555 which is to the north of the flower farm and I just called to express my strong support for the return of this property to Tina. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Anything else from anybody? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye $71 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. HEARING#8017—BEVERLY PAPAPIETRO : CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Beverly Papapietro #8017. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 3, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" deck addition and to construct additions and alterations to an existing single- family dwelling at 1) proposed construction less than the code required minimum side yard of 10 feet, 2) "as built" deck addition less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 420 Cedar Dr. in Southold. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good afternoon, Anthony Portillo. The original design was to add two feet to the side of the home, small portion of the home basically cantilevered to increase the size of the bathrooms. That was the design element that basically required us to come to Zoning and then it was found out that there was a deck built prior to the owner purchasing the home that was done without a permit so that created a situation where we had a rear yard setback and more lot coverage. The existing home without the deck is approximately .7 over lot coverage. The small addition that we are proposing was like .1 so it really would have been pretty negligible. It's really the deck that's creating the lot coverage. They'd like to keep the deck, it's there and we're asking if we could have the relief on the lot coverage which like I said is really the deck that's creating the higher lot coverage which is like basically 2%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not the proposed bump out. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It really isn't, (inaudible) is .1 so I mean what we're proposing for work is not really what's creating this. We still have to come to the Board but it would be for such a minor relief. Unfortunately we didn't know about the deck, it was missed by us in the beginning that it didn't have a C.O. 38 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just enter into the record here, the side yard setback is at 8.4 feet right, the code requires a minimum of 10 feet, the deck has a rear yard setback at 22.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35, the lot coverage is actually 23% the code permits a maximum of 20%. We do have all the prior ZBA ANTHONY PORTILLO : I provided two reliefs CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : variances on this property. ANTHONY PORTILLO : rear yard and lot coverage. The side yard is created by the bump out but one thing that I want to mention is, we're not adding any roof. Basically, the bump out is just going under the overhang. We did provide a letter from the owner on the hardship;and it has to do with really getting a larger bathroom due to some of his handicaps. He's got a spinal cord injury and really needs more room for that bathroom the one that is in the master location. The other bathroom is really being renovated at the same time but it's the increase of the bathroom was the reason for that bump out. It's also being cantilevered we're not going to be digging any foundation so I think it's pretty minor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's interesting because as you know the code doesn't allow us unfortunately to personalize anything even though it is a hardship for the applicant. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right now I'm looking at 'a NYC when we're doing this code upgrade, NYC code that allows for permitted obstructions because that would mean you know there are certain like steps in a side yard let's say are exempt. If you needed to put a ramp in the side yard for accessibility that would be a permitted obstruction. I think it's only appropriate I mean I worked for decades with people with disabilities and it's pretty painful for me to say no you can't put an accessible feature on your home because the code prevents it, it's too excessive a variance. So that needs really to be updated and addressed which will avoid the whole personalization thing, you don't have to prove anything you just have to say this is what I want to do. It's a very small bump out. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Just to repeat myself, from the beginning when we approached the project we knew we were going to have to be here, we obviously weren't thinking the relief was as great as the request, we thought it made sense and like I said we're not adding any roof structure we're really just kind of working with the envelope that's existing in a sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what the Board has, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT: I have no questions. 39 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I wondered if something could be done to help the lot coverage, can the shed be removed? I also wanted to add, the shed has a feature on the roof that looks like a vent like you see on restaurants or food establishments so I was a little curious about that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : From my knowledge there's nothing going on in the shed like cooking or anything like that. There's no plumbing it is an unpermitted shed so it's not a require a permit on it. I do understand the lot coverage. To answer your question, I probably couldn't tell you that off the top of my head that would be a discussion if the owner would be willing to remove something. It's an unfortunate fact that the deck was not permitted at the time and the owner not knowing that, they purchased it that way. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So when the owner purchased the property they did not get or the seller did not provide a Certificate of Occupancy for the deck? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's awkward sometimes when you look at C.O.'s in Southold all their C.O.'s on houses like it might say the house and we assume the house and the deck everything was built the same time so I wasn't a part of the sale the house or anything so I couldn't really know what maybe title or lawyer said to them but according to testimony from my client as they thought the deck was legal and they were just as shocked you know as we were once it was filed. We were filing for a denial letter that's where this came up. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : 'The deck is contributing I think you pointed out to both the (inaudible) lot coverage. I don't know if there's any consideration to reducing its size to help this out. It would ANTHONY PORTILLO : (inaudible) not to but I guess if that's what the Board is asking that's something I guess they can consider. I think the idea is not to but again that's MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm (inaudible) a little cause I did look at the four examples you gave, I think they were for lot coverage and setbacks and I'm familiar with the neighborhood I live not too far away. The comparables of I think it's 7574 on Sunset Way and 7875 on Watersedge Way are pretty far away from this house. Those are the comparables that would I think they speak to the lot coverage. The other two comparables you offered spoke to the backs. So, the lot coverage seems ANTHONY PORTILLO : The one lot coverage that I provided was pretty significant, the other one I think is in line actually a little more than what we're asking. 40 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The point I'm trying to make is that they're really not in the neighborhood they're more ANTHONY PORTILLO : Not in the vicinity of that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : They're about a mile and 'a half away. I'm just suggesting that they're not local to this application. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, again, I would say if the Board has a recommendation on reducing the deck I would tell you that I guess they would have to consider it. They're not looking to cut the deck at this time that's why we're here. We're looking to legalize what was existing there but again if that's something the Board has an issue with, I think it's more the addition is more important than the deck if that makes more sense. So, if the deck is something that we have'to consider reducing due to reducing the lot coverage I'm sure that's something they would consider but I don't have an answer cause I would have to speak to them about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application?Anybody on Zoom? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only kind of question that kind of popped up as I'm listening is, can you provide examples of excessive lot coverage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean I did, I don't think a mile and a half or a mile radius is that out of cause I'm not in Cutchogue you know I'm in the area of Southold but similar I think when we did our research. I did provide two variances that were granted both over what I'm asking or what the request is. I don't know there's really not any guidance on how far away, I just try to stay in the vicinity and you know in the same township. CHAIRPERSSON WEISMAN : It is true, there is,no definition of what where you could look for those priors, obviously the closer the better I mean that's what we're trying to look, at is street scape, maybe its behind the house but you know really quite compact and around it. It's not always possible I mean there ANTHONLY PORTILLO : I think the rear yard setback examples are closer to the property. I think the lot coverage request is minor but that's me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The benefit here is that that back yard is really beautifully developed, it's fully screened nobody can see anything from any direction what's going on back there which does help. MEMBER LEHNERT : We've conditioned that these decks remain decks. 4:1 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, if there's nothing else 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 LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#7992—DANIEL MARW9450 MAIN BAYVIEW, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Daniel Marra/9450 Main Bayview, LLC #7992. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 22, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet located at 9450 Main Bayview Rd. in Southold. You're looking at a front yard setback of 30 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet. You're proposing 75.4 feet to the wetlands, Trustees indicated in a previous determination a minimum of 80 feet. They have indicated they do not wish to entertain looking at this application prior to the ZBA. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't believe there was a determination from Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it was something you had in the record. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, I did a site visit with them, they didn't give any exact numbers, they were between 70 and 80. 1 kind of want to just set the table here. We started this process about three years ago. I designed a home that was approved by D.E.C. to be 55 feet from this freshwater wetland which in my opinion and multiple people's opinions that are professionals in this it's really not a wetland, it's a dry hole that gets wet once in a while. Regardless, there 2 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting are species that live there we all agree to that. I think that and not for the Board to take this the wrong way but I don't think that's the Board's responsibility in this case, I think it's the Trustees responsibility and D.E.C. Like I said, D.E.C. granted 55 feet and when we took that to which did not require a variance, when we took that to Trustees, Trustees has this number in their head. The number again, unfortunately there's no like there's no law around that or you can't find it in their writings what that number is right. I found multiple projects that were a lot closer than 70 or 80 feet to a freshwater wetland that Trustees approved. Unfortunately, unlike zoning they don't really allow us to put in examples of other approvals cause they say every lot is different which is fine. That's for myself and my design team which is gonna probably include an environmentalist, a lawyer and my client to go to Trustees and have that battle with them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to enter it into the record it's not our determination, ours is a front yard setback. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right and last time I was here and I'm not saying that the Board looked at it that way but I'd like the Board to really focus in on what we're requesting and looking at this neighborhood which I think I presented pretty well last time. This road which I'm sure everyone on the Board has driven down, there's homes across this road that are very close to the street, closer than now than what I'm requesting at 30 feet. I provided a pretty clear map of multiple homes that are we only took the measurement from the street cause I didn't have the exact property line but their property line is obviously going to be back off the street. So, if you look at my map, I'm showing homes that are 27, 30 feet off of the road which if you were to mostly likely their property line is 10 feet if not more off that road so they're probably 15, 20 feet. Unfortunately, I don't have variances that were granted cause these homes were built prior to that but it's pretty clear and I think anyone would agree with me, you drive down this road and the homes on this road are close to Main Bayview. I understand the 20-foot request was not granted last time so what we did is, we went back to the drawing board, we've created one of the smallest homes I can probably design. It's now down to two bedrooms; basically, you walk in, it's a living space with a kitchen, two on suite bedrooms there's a half bathroom on the first floor and it's very condensed and very compact. I'm about 75 feet on average to the wetlands. Again, I have to go there and work on that. I can't go there and I can't go further with that let's call it negotiations with that Board without getting something from the Zoning Board saying we're going to either grant this or I guess not grant it. It would be really helpful, it's a very difficult dance that we're in because there's no like intermediate person that I can go to the Board of the Zoning then I go to Trustees and have some kind of negotiation about this lot. It's a single and separate lot, it's allowed to be built on, the restraints are coming really from Trustees. Like I said, the state has no issues with me being any closer than what Trustees does. I get it, Trustees has jurisdiction so we have to fall 43 June 5,2025 Regular Meeting within that but without getting some sort of provision from Zoning saying we can build closer to the street so that I can work in my distance from the freshwater. It's a very difficult scenario. So, that's all I'm really, I really just want the Board to understand that. I don't think what I'm asking for in this application maybe the last one was a little more egregious, in this application I think I'm in line with the neighborhood. Again, if you drive down the street, if you look at what I presented to the Board these homes are closer than what I'm presenting and what I'm asking. One thing that I mentioned last time and I'll mention this time, before we were 20 feet and then there's like a 20-foot buffer from our property line to Main Bayview so in reality we're like 40 feet off the street, that was our last application. Now; we would be 50 feet from the street line. The other thing I'd like the Board to consider here is, if you look at the lot there's a lot of wetlands so we are able to deduct that wetlands as non-buildable area based on the code which is fine so it puts us in a scenario where we have to be 50 feet off our front yard which now we're asking for a 20 foot relief. If you were to deduct the wetlands if we were able to do that and looked at actual buildable lot area, we would only be required a 40-foot setback which then we would be looking at a 10-foot relief. Some of these things I think come into consideration looking at this lot as a single and separate lot that's buildable. There might be record or other people that have been on record saying, this lot is not buildable, it shouldn't even have been purchased as being buildable but it is a single and separate lot and it's allowed to be built on. It's the question of what can we build on it? I think what we're presenting today is like I said, one of the smallest houses I've ever designed and it's efficient, I think it fits the neighborhood, I think it's not interrupting the site too much. I'm trying to configure something that gets that makes let's say everyone happy in a sense. I don't (inaudible) go further cause we've had some neighbors that have been involved in this conversation and they just don't want anything built so there's no way to really have any conversation with the neighbors, hey what would you guys allow, what would you like to see here? It's really just nothing is what they would like to see. That's not really going to go very far so at this point it's just what fits on the lot based on what Zoning is going to allow, what fits on the lot based on what Trustees is going to allow. I'm not worried about D.E.C., I can fit an IA system on here so Health Department is not a problem. It's really going to be this battle between which is very difficult to have because I don't have it's hard to have communication, there's no way in the town and other towns too it's not just Southold but it's hard to communicate with the two Boards and try to get a solution. I have been bounced around basically and I think this makes sense, I think I can work with Trustees; we are going to plan a revegetation plan and we want to bring all the habitat back if not more habitat back. I mean currently the plant life that's there is invasive so we plan on getting rid of,that and replanting and making it a better habitat. We also just one last thought, as we talk about environmental is we are planning on doing helicals on piers, it's not required but it's the least invasive to the lot to build a house. That's our plan and it's kind of my debate that I'm having. 441 June 5,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any idea of the setbacks that you provided.when those dwellings were built? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't but I can definitely go back and try to figure that out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can pretty much guarantee although I would need the data but I'm just talking off the top of my head, they have been there a long time. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Agreed CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They certainly pre-date the existing code ANTHONY PORTILLO : Agreed CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : which was put in place for a reason. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Agreed but also when you think about a zoning variance it's about the neighboring it's about staying in line with what's happening in the neighborhood even if it was from a hundred years ago right? We're in this neighborhood, we're looking at that street line, we're looking at what's already pre-existing I mean right across the street there's a house that's 20 feet off the street which you can see in my example. So, I'm going to be 50 feet from the street line. If anything, I think I'm showing a situation where I'm even more in line let's say with what's happening on that street in that neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You just drive around you're going to see the setbacks are varied they're really varied. ANTHONY PORTILLO : A hundred percent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are some that are huge setbacks and other ANTHONY PORTILLO : And there's others that are right on the street. I'm in the middle CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just saying that if you're argument is character of the neighborhood you could look at that certainly as a viable argument. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That is mostly my argument. I mean I'm also at a hardship because I'm dealing with a freshwater wetland, I'm trying to get to a situation with the Trustees that makes sense and I'm not going to design a house that's not habitable. I mean at this point it's like I said it's a very small house. My client has two kids, the idea for this is it's his he works out here I'm sure everyone knows who he is, he just has nowhere to stay so he bought this for himself. This is not a we've pretty clear, this is not to sell or anything like this it's for him and his kids to come out of if he's working here, he has somewhere to stay that's the idea for this 45 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting property. So, now it's been reduced to two bedrooms obviously his kids are going to have to share the bedroom but he's not looking to do something he wants to make it work for every body and he's obviously been at it for three years and he's paid me every time to make every change, he's paid lawyers, we're paying environmentalists. I mean we're trying to; I think that after this building is built and the site is actually taken care of it's going to be a better situation for the species that are living there and more will come. We don't plan on doing anything to the yard, no decks, no patios it's just going to be a building that's sitting in nature. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to add a comment relative to reduced front yard setbacks, I think our Board has shown workability or offered people alternative relief when they've met Trustees setback requirements from flagged wetlands that we're willing to work with a reduced front yard. This is just a big ask when you compare it against other applications where you've got similar constraints. I mean if you were saying that you're getting as close to the hundred-foot mark and you're at 75 it makes it easier to sort of mitigate the differences. It's really a tough property which you've said which I'm still puzzled where you define it as a building lot yet we're here. If it was a building lot, you'd have a building on it. So, I don't know what the alternatives are for you when you say, well something can be put on it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think we have to understand you know let's say current restraints let's say the Trustees have that in the past maybe weren't there and we're more in line with let's say what D.E.C. allowed in a freshwater wetland. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true but he purchased this property with the knowledge of what the limitations on the property were. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Currently CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea,this was not he didn't buy this thirty years ago. ANTHONY PORTILLO : He bought it four years ago but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Four years ago the code was in place. ANTHONY PORTILLO : There is no code saying you have to be X feet from a freshwater wetland. If you base it on other approvals for freshwater 50 feet is always the common. D.E.C., Trustees it's just now that Trustees have been putting these really strict regulations on in my opinion on a freshwater wetland. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And why do you think that it? 461 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know, I mean we all could have our opinions on that, I- don't know. Again, I think when you look at a freshwater wetland compared to other wetlands it's different species of animals that are living there. I ,think that's why D.E.C. is okay with you being closer to it because you're not going to harm them and that's what they're looking at right? I'm not here to argue that fact, I wouldn't want to, I'm not an environmentalist, I'm here to argue the fact that I believe what I'm presenting to the Board 30 feet setback again, 52 feet from the street is very much in line with the neighborhood if anything it's more than what that street has. When you drive down that street, the houses there's a lot of houses that are right on the road. If you were to go there and measure 50 feet back and the front of this house it's not going to be right on the road it's going to be off CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony, you do know that character of the neighborhood is one of six standards that we have to address in a balancing test. I hear your argument; we know this property really well you've been before us before and so we'll just have to grapple with it. I want to hear what others the audience has to say. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would love if the Board gave me.something, if you guys told me hey, get it to 35 feet I mean you know then I have something to work with but to have a denial and to have Trustees give me CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) smaller house shrinking it down and maybe putting a tent on poles ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know I mean it has to be 850 square feet is required minimum for a house so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know how much smaller I can make it but I don't think like I said ' I think it fits the neighboring characteristics. We can look at other stipulations and understand those but I would say the hardship here is the wetlands and I'm trying to basically achieve both in a sense. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have a question relative to the setbacks, I'm reading from the reasons for appeal and it says, after allowing for the area of the wetlands there is 29.017 square feet of buildable area, that does not include the required setbacks. With the required setbacks we have zero square feet buildable area. It doesn't mention if those setbacks are Trustees or not. 47 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes that's correct. If you were to take the 100-foot from freshwater that is the jurisdiction of the Trustees and then obviously the 50 foot it basically creates a zero footprint. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right, and I guess I had a different question as well, what we had up on the screen earlier was a depiction of the site that indicated that a test hole had been dug but I did not see where the results of that test hole analysis were shown on the are they I think frequently when a test hole has been dug we see the results on (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : We show the results on our septic design plans. I can provide them I don't have them. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I was wondering where (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : Elevation there is actually pretty high, that's another reason why I don't really understand I mean if you were to look at it as a freshwater wetland interrupting a freshwater wetland that's where I just I disagree with the Trustees but unfortunately that's my disagreement. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm just wondering where water might have been encountered and my concern I'll just explain my concern is that there's I think dry wells provided to accommodate rain coming off the roof and you know gutters leading to the dry wells and I don't know with what confidence we can expect the dry wells to be dry. ANTHONY PORTILLO : They would be culverts and like I said in this location the greatest I can provide water I think it came out to 6 feet where we took the test hole at the septic location because you're up high at the road and this watering hole, freshwater wetland is (inaudible). It's pretty dry that's another thing that you know but again that's something I don't want to get into cause I don't think getting into the wetlands issue is really what's important besides the fact that the Board should look at it as I guess a hardship in my opinion to try and fit a house on the property. Coming up with the smallest house I can basically you know 30 feet from the property line, 52 feet from the street. I mean that's the way this sort of shaped out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right about setbacks from wetlands but on the other hand one of our standards that we have to look at is environmental impacts. Each one of those is weighted and no not necessarily all the same. Self-created hardship may not be as important in a particular variance than say environmental impacts or character of the neighborhood. So, it's very site specific, it's application specific and to suggest that wetlands is not before us is not accurate, it is. 4 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't mean it like that, I mean the fact then I would present my revegetation plan to the Board that I was going to provide to Trustees. I'd like to then I would tell you that I would like to bring my team in. They're not here because I assumed that was more of a Trustees thing. So, if the Board would like to hear from them, we've done a lot of research on what this freshwater is, what's habituating there, what their plan is to re-habitat it even better. What the plant life is there which is really needs to get cleaned out it would be a beneficial thing from my understanding. I wouldn't want to argue that point with anybody cause I'm not the professional in that so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's understood. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would say then adjourn it, I'd like you guys to hear from them because when I hear that to my in my knowledge is you're going to help the habitat right? It seems like everyone thinks that's there's going to be a harmful granted during construction, sure. In any wetland during construction there's some interruption to the habitat. The idea is, how do you bring the habitat back and replenish it and really make it better? That's the way I'm understanding it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) for the Trustees then for the Zoning Board? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean maybe that helps you guys understand the situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To state in the record that the ZBA has a lot of things that we have to look at. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I didn't mean it like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are not the environmental experts either.. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that's where the Trustees really need to come in. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Should there be any approval here you know you have to go to Trustees and then if they deny it this goes away. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's why I ask the Board, if they're saying a hard no I'm not getting any relief on a front yard that sound then okay then I know that. If the Board says, we're not going to give you 30 but we'll consider something else I mean or I just keep coming back with a new alright 35, alright 40 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I'm trying to say, when we ANTHONY PORTILLO : Where do I go with this? 4 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : look at applications that we've granted relief for reduced front yard setbacks on waterfront parcels or encumbered parcels like this they're not on busy main thoroughfares like you know Main Bayview, we're talking about Salt Marsh Lane or I don't want to say Blue Horizons Bluffs but these we even sort of recently did one for Glenn Court but it was added in Cutchogue sort of dead end location where there was really no impact. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would say Nick, if the Board was to grant a front yard variance we have no problem providing arborvitaes twenty feet high MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you don't have (inaudible) I mean if we push the front (inaudible)to 15 feet or something like that there's no space. ANTHONY PORTILLO : There would be room to put those. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It almost would seems toll booth on the side of the road. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No it's 30 feet MEMBER PLANAMENTO : As you propose. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I don't know if the Trustees are going to allow a 75 foot or even an 80 foot ANTHONY PORTILLO : But that's what I'm getting at. If the Board grants me a variance that's even for what I am presenting then that's my next challenge I gotta commit I have to show the Board the Trustees Board how we're going to revegetate, how we're going to tend to the land, why this is actually a good project and not a bad project. That's on the owners I think would be back on me and my client it's just how do I get there? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe and not getting ahead of ourselves but maybe it's better if you do some research that you can find maybe new construction that would be instrumental in making a decision like this because to discuss houses on Main Bayview that have sat there for two hundred plus years is inconsequential to the site in my opinion I can't speak for the Board Members. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I agree and you know from my perspective and I don't speak for the Board but you know if comparables are going to be presented they should be presented including information that provides speaks to their relevance to the current application. That would include what the zoning district is, whether they occurred before or after zoning was instituted in 1957 and if they required a variance or not. 50 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't mean to interrupt but I don't know if something historic makes sense, I think its gotta be new construction. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That's what I'm suggesting, then the Board could look at that data and say certain of them are not particularly relevant for consideration or you could restrict your comparables to those which have been done under current zoning on similarly zoned properties in the same zoning district on similar lot sizes and then depict-if any of those required a variance. As is it now, this is now very apples and oranges so it's hard to know which of these are relevant to this application. I get what you're saying about they're in .the neighborhood and to a casual observer driving by who doesn't know about when zoning came into effect there might be no impact but we have zoning and it was put in for a reason-so I'd like to see there's an apples-to-apples comparison it's just me. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay, I can provide that. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Just generally I know a few times in the past when you've come before this Board you've always said about what's buildable for a lot size but you can't it's just ANTHONY PORTILLO : You take it for what it is, I'm not saying I'm being clear it's 50 feet, I'm not saying I'm saying if you were.to look at it that way that's all. I'm not suggesting it is that I'm CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony you're doing your job okay we get it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I appreciate it but I'll probably keep coming back and saying it,. unfortunately it's just in my nature. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what others in the audience want to say. Is there anybody who wants to address the application? GAIL WICKHAM : Abigail Wickham on behalf of Camille Pasaro and Charles Salice who own the real estate to the southeast. I have to say with all due respect to Anthony that was a very speculative presentation. I understand the limitations of his facts but I do want to detail why think that is true. First of all, this was purchased through a tax deed, a tax sale deed in 2020- and six-months later Mr. Marra purchased it. When you get a tax deed it's well known you get what you get whether it's good or bad. Certainly, his title search would have shown it was a tax deed. Further, he has according to his website been in the real estate, development and land development business for several decades and he knows about land usage. So, he was fully aware that there was a challenge to this predominantly wetlands parcel. He's asking for a forty percent reduction which is very substantial. The Board I have seen over the years has been unwilling to grant variances particularly substantial ones which put the set a bad $.1 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting precedent and put the are granted solely to enable the owner to increase density or do some other buildability on a very precarious lot. You're not facilitating development that shouldn't be allowed for other reasons. I think you've been quite specific about that. By squeezing this front yard up into the street scape solely to accommodate what is at this point a speculative wetlands decision I think sets a very, very bad precedent and might enable things that shouldn't happen to happen on this and other properties. I note that the entire proposed building is within the front yard setback. The LWRP listed exempt purely because it's a technically a setback before the ZBA and not anything else so Mark's hands were tied as to any of the environmental consequences. I'd like to go through quickly the reasons for appeal and why I don't think that the applicant has substantiated them properly. Number one, an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. As you have discussed the range of homes, he's looking at neighborhood spans about a mile and half along Main Bayview up from the road by the fire substation all the way down past Jacobs Rd. He cited in his application four homes and I believe there are a couple more he has, those are all clearly as you can recognize very, very old homes clearly pre-existing. You have Peter Jack's residence which is an old colonial down southeast of Jacobs Lane, there's one of those cute little old brick buildings and a number of other buildings that are obviously I think you can take note of pre-existing.That does change the character of the neighborhood because as you drive through that mile and a half which is well outside the codes neighboring properties setback rule. As you drive down you see many, many homes that are thirty-five for the old code, fifty or sixty feet for the new code and some further back, dozens of them I lost track of the number. In terms of what he has sited in reason number one, number one as you mentioned, the building setback from the line of pavement is irrelevant when you do make a decision which whatever it is that should be stated. Second of all, the inaccuracy includes the fact that the predominance is clearly more than a 30-foot setback or more. I also want to mention and I'll give it to you at the end of the hearing, there are three ranch homes across the street, I got a copy of one of them; the survey shows 48 feet and they are much higher than this property so they are definitely of a visual nature further back. The house that's owned I guess by the state looks like an older home and that's closer, that's a little bit down the street but these three are immediately across the street. This one that I'm going to give you 9235 and the two on the either sides are 48 feet. So that's an immediate neighborhood impact. Number two, the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method of other feasible method, well that is true but it is way too much of a variance for it to be appropriate so I don't think that you should give that reasoning any consideration because again, it relates back to what he has to do to squeeze upfront to avoid a wetlands impact. I don't think that you should use that as a basis for a variance. Number three, the amount of relief requested is not substantial, this I think is the biggest concern here. The buildable area of this parcel is substantially smaller than the actual lot size, that is true. We June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting established the proposed front yard setback based off other homes in the neighborhood.That is a fallacy in terms of the analysis and it doesn't make it insubstantial relief, it is unacceptable. Forty percent is the reduction in the setback from 50 to 30 that he is looking for, that is huge. Again,it's only because he's got this all these additional factors that you do have to take into account environmental in terms of wetlands, water table, soil percolation all those thigs; depth to groundwater which is I think we heard six feet but we're going to confirm that. Again, he does need to recognize those things. He took a gamble when he bought the lot and he's asking you to bail him out. Has the alleged difficulty been self- created? It absolutely has been and again, they want you to rescue this property from a gamble and I don't think that you should do that. He knew what he was getting into and it's just too much to push on it. I'd like to just very briefly make a note of some of the things;that saw on the map and then two or three other things and then I'm all set. On that map that was up before that shows us I think it was a 75 average setback; if you do a protractor, I think he's well under 70 he may even be in the 65 range so we don't-even know what the Trustees will do. I think it needs to be plotted accurately just how much wetlands setback there is or there's going to be. We know that the wetlands in the area are vast. I have a map here I'm going to give you and I'll give Anthony a copy.This is the property here, the wetlands of Corey Creek is massive and it's just going to all be and it all because of the elevation change this will all funnel down into that. You also have a very close relationship of saltwater and freshwater which changes the dynamic. I have a report from a Dr. Ronald Abrams who is a very recognized expert in the field of environmental and ecological matters. This was prepared back in the in 20221 don't remember which of the prior variances it was and I don't know that it was ever submitted by the to the Board I think not because it was withdrawn or deferred for a while but I'm going to give you this also. He raises a number of significant concerns about the accuracy of the water table information. There's one thing here about a basement that won't apply anymore. The dry wells would probably not work accurately due to the sea level. He goes into the concern about sea level rise and how that's going to adversely impact what we have. Indications on the EAF that might need to. be addressed and the fill that's proposed acting as a sponge, so while it raises the grade it will only make the saturation impacts worse. I'd like to hand that out-at the conclusion of my talk which is soon. I think two of you up at the Board, Julie and Leslie-mentioned a single and separate lot is not a buildable lot and because he bought a lot full of wetlands, he wants to blame the fifty percent rule on that and I just don't think that I think it would be a horrible precedent for this neighborhood and any other neighborhood. It would be a horrible precedent in terms of anyone that not only wants to build a new lot on a new lot and there are a lot of vacant lots there and elsewhere in the town but also for expansion of existing homes that might be too close. It's just a significant forty percent variance.Thank you. 5,3 June 5,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Did that thank you mean you are done? GAIL WICKHAM : I'm going to give you this, yes it did. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Just a couple of comments. We're not asking for a bail out from anybody. We believed when the lot was bought that we would be able to design this closer to the wetlands which would not have required relief which I already said. We did receive state approval, it really was just a local thing that I still think is really not something documented.] can present to the Board many, many Trustees approvals freshwater, wetlands at 50 feet which was very, very common. The current standards have changed, I don't know if the Board knows that but over the past couple of years the Trustees Board has been getting stricter in regards to their standards. So, when the purchase of the lot happened my client and myself thought that we were able to fit something on this lot that would meet the standards of the Trustees, D.E.C. and not need a variance. So, I don't believe there's a bail out situation here, it's not what happened but due to some of the more stricter guidelines from the Trustees we are in this situation we're in. That's the truth whether Gail wants to think that way or not, that's fine but that is how this happened. We did buy this four years ago almost five years ago and you know the change of the Board did happen and some of the new Members have some stricter ways of looking at things.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Anthony, is there anybody else? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm going to ask for an adjournment cause I'd like present to the Board other reliefs that were granted that are similar to what I'm asking for. I'm sorry that wasn't in my original presentation so I'd like to present that so that you guys can see that there are front yard reliefs that are similar to my requests in that vicinity. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For new construction? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Some are reconstructions but that's considered new construction I would say if you were to look at it that way. (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : (inaudible) entertain to adjourning to the Special Meeting subject to receipt of additional submissions, we can do that but let's see what else comes out of it, I think there's more testimony. State your name please. MARY KIRSCH : Hello my name is Mary Kirsch and I am the neighbor adjacent to this Marra property. You all know that we've been here like three times, we've been to the Trustees. It has to be five or six time and this started three years ago. Basically, this proposal has been recycled. It might be one of the first ones that he ever presented and it's inaccurate and deceptive. The front yard it matters, it should be 50 feet. I mean I come down Main Bayview 541 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting now and I appreciate that it's harmonious, it's symmetrical, it's pleasing to the eye, that's what you guys have a hard job and it should be. The other thing was, that's 20 feet he's asking for forgiveness. From the Trustees it's 100-feet from the freshwater pond, that's the:code. The Trustees were very emphatic about that, five maybe six times that it's super, super sensitive. I hear, I know that the peepers show up like clock work on April 15t, I see the salamanders, I see the turtles they lay their eggs in my compost. To say that it's not important it does matter. If he's asking for forgiveness of 20 feet from the Zoning Board and then another 25 from the Trustees that's a significant amount of footage and four different agencies, the Local Waterfront Revitalization, The Nature Conservancy, Northfork Environment, the Trustees they all have reports have reported that are probably in the file saying this would be a devastating impact on the wetlands, it's freshwater wetlands and it does it deserves protection and I know I sound kind of crazy here but it does. As far as building there when I started my adventure twenty-five years ago, I thought that maybe wanted to build there and AI Krupski, Artie Foster, Jim King, Ken (inaudible) they all told me it's not really a to find something else. It's not a buildable lot unless you I don't know maybe a tree house, I'm not sure but it's kind of how it was and even supposedly at the auction the judge there informed everybody that this was a difficult piece of property to be aware that it probably is unbuildable. The thing that frustrates me even more is that, Mr. Mara and Mr. AMP they develop they have properties they're working on all over the Northfork, they have big projects and they are aware of the codes and Mr. Marra when he purchased that it was a gamble, oh I'll push it through whatever it is, I don't know. It doesn't seem right so,I just wanted to tell you that was my feeling and I live next door so thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome, thank you for your testimony. TOM PASSANANT : Hi my name is Tom Pasternack I live with Mary next door 9720 Main Bayview and I wanted to support the denial of the request of the variance made today. First, I did want to say one thing, I did introduce myself to Mr. Marra as a neighbor, I would talk to anybody I'm not afraid of that but I'm sure this is the form for it. I remember shaking his hand, no he's not an enemy or anything. I wouldn't be here if someone had said this was a lot that you can build on, that would house a building. Everything that I've heard and read this is all new to me too; I've been to the two hearings that were with the Trustees. I distinctly remember Mr. Stepnoski sitting there.and Mrs. Gallooly sitting there and very emphatically and uncategorically saying 100 feet was their well-defined boundary and I know the proposal that's submitted in the recent letter I believe it says 78 feet. The 40% percentage came to my mind even before Ms. Horton brought that up, I would echo every one of her thoughts. I wouldn't be here if it was something that is there's properties all over the Northfork I'd love to see him stay the trees but I know it's going to be built on. I know change is in the air and but this one is very different. In the letter it said, variance from and I looked from, it said June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting Article XXI in roman numerals no XXXIII Section 280 so I punched it up and it simply said, non- conforming lot, two words and a column with various homes that had various square footage and of course the one proposed with the 50 two words, two numbers and I'm this is the fourth hearing for that. I noticed the real the talk of that I'm getting dizzy hang on a second, I need lunch. The talk of the pond being a dry pond, oh I really am getting dizzy this happened to me once before. Can I sit for a minute? MARY KIRSCH : I do recall another neighbor made an email to you to the Board I'm not sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got a letter,yes. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : You may be able to sit in a chair and pull the mic towards you. TOM PASSANANT : I've been to the Trustees hearings and I remember the two speaking very clearly about the 100 foot I mean it was really clear and if that had subject that to be revised I'm not aware of that. Again, like I said I looked up Article XXIII two words, two numbers and I hope everything everyone has said in opposition I would agree with. I also disagree with Anthony that that's not a dry pond, it's an active freshwater I believe it's fed from an unseen spring of clear water,fresh water from underneath. I've seen mallards swim in it, I've seen the great white heron perch on the branches that cross it,' I've seen red tail hawks' nest in that property. Me and Mary love when we hear the great horned owl on a cold February night that hoot owl so I'm blessed to live there period there's no doubt about it. Yes, I'd like it to stay as it is. Up the street there's a (inaudible) preserve and a wolf preserve and they both have placards and every one of those creatures that are on those placards I've seen minus the blue salamander I haven't seen that one but everyone is in that property next door to us. I've been a visiting nurse for almost forty years, I'm retired and I've spent most of my life driving around our community and in recent times almost every time there's a new property or home built on a perfectly you know no request for a variance lot, they usually clear cut it and often these days they're planted with sod and kind of a monotone landscaping which is the style and the demographic and the choice. I know Mr. Marra's company is doing very well with that cliental I see their signs all over the place. This is the first I heard of a revegetation proposal. I can't even imagine how that could be not disturbed that freshwater pond dramatically, adversely. This (inaudible) tree frogs I've never seen them but I hear them every spring, there's two other frogs I've heard distinctive croaks, every kind of songbird flies in and out that's important to me. Like I said, I'm blessed to live there and I'd like it to stay there. I wouldn't want to deny anyone their home but there's so much in opposition to building on this. I hope the tree frogs are here longer than I'm here. In fact, it probably can't be improved upon I don't think, it's very similar to those properties right up the street that me and Mary love to walk through. Whoever Ms. Wolf and Ms. Reese are I'm very thankful that they donated that June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting woodland before it was developed, it's a beautiful spot. It's very similar, I had a joke but better not say it cause I don't think this is well maybe I can; they can call it the Marra preserve and put a placard there but this is a serious thing so I hope Mr. Marra and Anthony would take these things into account. I'm sure they're going to prosperous with their efforts, I see the work they do and maybe they can take a pass on this one. I wouldn't want to suggest my opinions that's why I don't you know it's for you guys. I've been to the Trustee hearings with Mary, I've been here Ms. Weisman I think was the only one last time it was actually like July of 2023. When I saw the letter, I was like, wow this guy was here the inspector November never thought it would completely go away there's no doubt and it sounds like it might not go away today either. I hope it does so that's why I'm speaking to express these things I'm just one guy. One final thought, a lot of times you see things in the news locally I see all the changes and I might have an opinion on it, pro/con but this is really the first time I've actually been able to express myself in a public form about an issue like this. I do appreciate it and I hope the just sound decisions made based on really all those critters that live there, it really is a true habitat. I don't wish anything bad on anybody but I wish good on that little pond and that it'll survive.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else? Let me just Anthony hold on is there anybody else? Is-there anybody on Zoom? Go ahead Anthony. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just some feedback or some comments back.from what was said. We're not being deceitful or we're not attempting to be inaccurate if there's inaccuracies, I'm fine in correcting those I just want to make that clear. There was never anything on the record and I'm sure the Board knows, we're not required to be 100 feet from the wetlands, if we were 100 feet from the wetlands, we would be a non-jurisdiction. The reason that is their jurisdiction they have the right to grant how far they want us from the wetlands and that's the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You would still need variance relief because you basically would be on the shoulder of the road. ANTHONY PORTILLO Sure and that there's no disagreement here I still feel that our setback that we're requesting and I heard the 40% I'm not in disagreement with that but I actually just while we were talking, I have some reliefs that were even closer than 30 feet. So, I'd like to present them to the Board, I don't have them with me they're just text messages. I think it would be good for the Board to see that they've granted reliefs less than what I'm asking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, let me ask something of the Board let me poll the Board, do you want to close subject to receipt of that additional information or do you want to keep it open until we receive it, adjourn it to another date? 571 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'd like to just keep it open cause I also due to some of the testimony from Ms. Wickham I'd like to go back and be able to present stuff to the Board based on the things that she presented. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need to present it publicly or (inaudible)? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea to submit it, it might be an attorney that can rebut some of the things that were discussed. I didn't receive anything I didn't have any testimony so if I could I'd like to leave it open and maybe (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can leave it open subject to receipt of written comment only. don't know if another public hearing is going to be necessarily beneficial but if the Board feels they want to adjourn it to another public hearing date we can do that. Otherwise, we can just simply hold it open until we receive what you want to submit that will be scanned into Laserfiche, everyone will be able to have access to it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : My request would be the alternate and allow another public hearing that I can bring other professionals. This is the second application to the Zoning Board, the first one was the one that was denied so this is my second application. I haven't been here that many times. ANTHONY PORTILLO ; It was denial, the withdrawn and the current. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea there was one that was before us and it was withdrawn. Then there's the second one where there was a denial. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea but there wasn't a public hearing to the withdrawn one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, there was not. I think it was withdrawn after a hearing. You know what, that's historic background. The bottom line is, here's today, here's where we are, we know what the history is what do we want to do about this? Anthony still has things he'd like us to take a look at, I have no objection to that I just want to make sure that we do it in an efficient way where this Board is not encumbered with more time, we are absolutely overwhelmed with the number of applications before us. MARY KIRSCH : What else can you do, can this go on forever? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll answer your question, if he submitted the same application exactly then it would be considered res judicata, meaning we've already heard this we're not going to listen to it again. He submitted a different application, it's still a front yard variance but it's a different front yard variance. Therefore, it's in his favor that we should entertain it okay so'that's kind of in an essence what happens. The same would possibly be true with the June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting Trustees. The Trustees have 100-foot jurisdiction, anything within that jurisdiction that's not you know that's encroaching they get to chime in on any naturally regulated feature whether it's a bay, whether it's a bulkhead, whether it's a bluff, whether it's wetlands they would have to then grant a variance based on what they're applying for. There's this back and forth between the two Boards because they're looking at specifically at one area of jurisdiction, we're looking at a different one. So,that's the ANTHONY PORTILLO : For the record, anything that my client has done regarding his building and so on, I don't thing that should come into play or what his business is. Like I said, this is a personal situation for him, this is not an investment property and when purchased it was analyzed, I did look at it and my professional opinion a house should fit on this lot. We did come across we did come okay again CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've heard that and frankly we don't personalize things. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No and I'm not asking you to it's just a couple of time it was said that we're developers and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) someone wants to live there and he could get it built and he can sell it the next day, this happens all the time which is why we need to pay attention to that stuff. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just mean in the respect of whatever that we're doing in the town should not be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's not relevant either. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Is irrelevant,thank you very much that's what I'm looking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Buyer beware is always (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : A hundred percent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, let's decide what we want to do here. How do you want to handle this?You say you want to have another hearing with experts? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'd appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board want to do that or do you just want to look at the written information that he also has the right to submit to us? I mean we can what we can do is just leave it open for you to submit that and then if the Board feels they have everything that we need we'll close it. If the Board feels we have questions that we want to ask of your environmental team or something then we'll adjourn it a hearing. June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would imagine our attorney would probably want to respond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's information that you could submit. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's that within two weeks or would we have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) have to be just leave it (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For me and (inaudible) of polling the Board, I don't think the plan is really change in regards to whose testimony is offered. I'm not suggesting that it might I'm not an environmentalist I should say MEMBER STEINBUGLER : You're not an environmentally professional. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm mor concerned about, can you provide evidence of new construction I don't care about the Peter (inaudible) house, I don't care about the house you know several of the ones that you sited were older homes and there's actually a couple that I would argue, visually appear closer in my mind's eye that you didn't site but they're all old (inaudible). They pre-date zoning by easily a hundred years. Can you provide as evidence at least I would say three if not five new construction in a like situation where there's reduced front yard setbacks for some form of a wetland property? I think that would be instrumental for me. I think (inaudible) supportive of it I can't make that determination. I think from the character of the neighborhood, from the environmental impact as I perceive it, that would be instrumental. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We all know the one off of Sound Ave. that's 14 feet from the road which I'll get for you guys. It's on a freshwater wetland. It's right off Sound Ave., anyway I don't know the answer to that question. I can do the research. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) entire town of Southold? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think you were asking (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait one at a time. Your argument was character of the neighborhood so give us the neighborhood because that's the only relevant standard. If there's a comparable front yard setback in the neighborhood which is not a mile away okay that is new construction that also has issues that would be before the Trustees. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, my argument to that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a relevant, comparable 60 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll do that but to answer your question I don't know the answer if I can find it or not, I would have to look but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the question (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : We should also look at a situation of a new building on a freshwater wetland in the Town of Southold that had the same kind of restraints that built a new building and was granted a front yard variance because of this situation that they had to be a certain distance from the wetlands. I don't know why it would matter if it's down the street or not down the street, I mean I should have the ability to present that to the Board too because that decision that was made by the Board to grant that variance was because of the restraint of the Trustees and the setback to the wetlands. That's all I'm saying, so I don't see why I can see what's in the neighborhood but I would like to also present you MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) responsibility to substantiate why that is ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm willing to do that and I'm fine with that I'm just that's why I'm asking for the adjournment. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Public hearing though so you can over (inaudible) for you and your attorney to submit the written comments? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's what I was asking and also maybe the ability to bring an attorney to discuss some of the things that were brought up during this hearing because I'm not an attorney and some of those land use things I don't have in front of me so I'd like to be able to rebut some of those things and provide you with this evidence. I would argue that it shouldn't be within a mile radius, I should be able to present a situation where freshwater wetland presented a situation where a zoning relief was needed to build a building on it because MARY KIRSCH : People on Main Bayview CHAIPRERSON WEISMAN : Alright, hold on. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Anthony, I'm not so sure that its I'm not how do I say this, I feel as if you now want an attorney because you don't feel like you're winning and now its ANTHONY PORTILLO :That's not the reason. T. A. MCGIVNEY : like (inaudible) it's just you know you just want an attorney to submit written comments. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm fine with providing the written comments I just my client is not here so it's not something that I could ask. I would assume I'd like to talk to him and that's why I'm 62, June 5,2025 Regular Meeting asking for it to stay open because then I can see which way he'd like to go. It really has nothing to do with me. I think you guys are associating me with Dan Marra but he's my client in this scenario. If you don't think it's necessary, I'm fine with the written but I would ask the Board to allow me to present CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Additional information that you want to submit however you want to submit it, that is your prerogative. The Board will then weigh whether the relevance of that material or not. We can't be doing that here in theory you know at a public hearing. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's fair. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm not quite sure what the hearing would be for if you're looking to submit (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't feel like I'm losing anything by the way. T. A. MCGIVNEY : No I just (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : I do believe I can find some properties and you guys will be pretty shocked that these variances were granted due to freshwater issues. The one I'm thinking of is right by the I'll provide it; I think it's like 14 feet off the (inaudible) and was granted a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what, ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll present those and anything from my attorney or from Dan's attorney. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we've heard so many arguments over time, we're going to run out of arguments by everybody. My question is, what's the most efficient way to do this? Certainly, we can give you time to submit, we also need to make sure the public has access to that information for their written comments. If we're leaving it open it has to be open to everybody. Perhaps the best thing to do is to adjourn this to the next public hearing simply for the receipt of written comments at which time it will be closed. I don't really know that another public hearing going back and forth about this that or the next thing is really going to be beneficial to anybody. Certainly, written comments can do the same thing, basically you have the chance to make your argument, to present what additional things you want. If you want to do environmental stuff that's fine. Again, that would be better presented to the Trustees, ours is front yard variance but we do have to consider that as well. ANTHONY PORTILLO : To not come back here again with another application I'd ask the Board to consider some if they're not considering the relief I'm requesting is there a way that we 6z June 5,2025 Regular Meeting can have some whether there's no relief on this front yard or is there some relief on this front yard in your decision making? Otherwise, I'm just going around in circles. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can grant alternative relief. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's what I'm asking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't want to see another amended application it's just time and work for you without any (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : A hundred percent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, the better thing to do would be, we always do that. When we're looking at a decision (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : approve, deny, approve with conditions, alternative relief with or without conditions, those are the options available to us and we'll consider all of them in fairness to all parties. Let's see what you submit, let's make sure that everyone else, Gail and the neighbors have a chance to look at that too and you can chime in, you can comment on it as well. We have to have a sufficient time frame for everybody to do that which is why I'm suggesting we can adjourn it with the submission right to the next public hearing. That gives everybody a month,that's gotta be enough. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That'll be great, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then we will not have a hearing, we will close it at that time. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Understood, sounds good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that clear? MARY KIRSCH : I'm next door, so he's going to present things to you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's going to submit them in writing and they will be scanned into Laserfiche. If you want to you can call the office from time to time and say, did you get anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sorry to interrupt, this is sort of what like what we did two months ago, I think what we need to do is set a time line for Anthony to respond maybe by the I forget the 19th or the 18th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For public comments 6• June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then leave it open for Gail or neighbors for also to address (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : To give us time to review and respond. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Your written comments will come in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By such and such a deadline, the public so you'll know at that date what he's going to submit is going to be in our files. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's the 19th, is that two weeks from now? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just putting that out there, but I think with Loria we did it for just for a five day public comment period. We gave the applicant like ten days maybe to put their stuff in order. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much time do you need? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think if you give me to the 19th that's two weeks from today. MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) Special Meeting, let him submit by the Special Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh it's the 18th7 BOARD ASSISTANT :Thursday is the meeting. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think I can make that happen. MEMBER LEHNERT :Then leave it open for comment to the next public hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that Special Meeting is Wednesday June 18th and then BOARD ASSISTANT :The Regular is July 10tn CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and then MEMBER LEHNERT : At that point we close it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, he's going to submit by the 18th and then we're going to leave time for public response. MEMBER LEHNERT : Which we leave till the next Public Hearing. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Which would be the 10th of July. 64 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Public comments up until 10th of July 101h okay and close on July 10th ANTHONY PORTILLO : Thank you Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is that clear? Did you want to say something else Gail? GAIL WICKHAM : Would you be willing to suggest that he only present items on the setbacks that is related to this neighborhood in as much as your five or six conditions clearly relate to character of the neighborhood nearby properties? If you don't want to do that, I'll just have to ask you not to evaluate those that are elsewhere but I think it is a neighborhood issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agreed, Anthony is requesting that he'd be allowed to submit variances with properties that have both wetlands or other naturally regulated feature with a front yard setback. I just said that this Board would then have to weigh the relevance of those to this application. So, respectfully I think the Board's in a position to do that and we can evaluate rather than limit him we can evaluate ourselves the relevance of what he's submitting which we would then put into our decision, it would be part of the decision. Does that make sense? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea this is more unique than a shoreline. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on Wednesday June 18th for written comment and submissions by the applicant's architect and after the 18th the public comment period will be open we can accept them before that but this is just so people know when everything is going to be in. Public comment would be open until July 10th and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Public written comment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For public written comment, only written comment right, nobody phone call me and tell me what you think cause I'm not listening. MEMBER LEHNERT : Or come to the next hearing. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Included in that is that Anthony or another representative of the applicant (inaudible)just public comment. MEMBER LEHNERT : Anybody CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well public comments begin T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) time for Anthony to respond to comment. 651 June 5, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He can comment on what the public submits. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) representative not limited just by being the architect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's just public alright you know what MEMBER LEHNERT : the applicant BOARD ASSISTANT : The applicant and his representative. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me do that again I want to get it right, between July loth and no June 18th until July loth. So, it sounds like this, application is adjourned for the receipt of submitted comments in writing until Wednesday, June 18th by the applicant and or his representative and between the 18th of June and July loth this application will be open for comments from the public and any other written comments/responses. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that sound right? At which time this hearing will be closed. I think they got that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Let's do these Resolutions. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearing to be held Thursday, July loth at 9 am, so moved. MEBMER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye 661 June 5,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on May 15, 2025 so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMA : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to extend the request for Carrroll 230 Inlet Lane, Greenport, is there a second. Wait a minute we're extending it to June 16, 2026. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to amend decision No. 7993 and amend condition No. 3 on Rainer Gross. Is there a second? - MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second. Do we need to specify the details of the modification? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think in the Resolution we do, we're just amending it and you know we've agreed to amend it and particularly amend condition No. 3. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We're changing the language. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We often we're not really reopening the hearing. This is where I'm trying to figure out sometimes we just vote it to amend the decision. If we were changing the outcome of a decision, we'd need a public hearing but we're not, we're just clarifying I got an idea. Amend condition No. 3 to clarify definitions. So, we have a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 671 June 5,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to extend condition No. 1 and 2 for RQA Properties on application No. 7800 and deny the request to reconsider condition No. 3. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to close this meeting. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 6 June 5, 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 :June 13, 2025 691