Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/10/2025 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 July 10, 2025 10:13 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member (Vice-Chair) MARGARET STEINBUGLER- Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant 1 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Pino Licul and Irena Licul, Trustees, Revocable Living Trust#8008 4- 19 Davecollco, LLC David Bofill Member#8018 19- 22 Richard and Susan Meyerholz#8019 Tamar Mebonia#8022 35 - 38 Roland Grant/Grant RM Revocable Trust#8021 39 -45 Gary and Mary Napolitano#8022 45 - 51 Christopher and Sofija Shashkin #7999 52 - 54 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for July 10, 2025. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay the first matter today is the State Environmental Quality Reviews. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5 © including the following: Davecollco, LLC, Richard and Susan Meyerholz, Tamar Mebonia, Roland Grant, Gary and Mary Napolitano so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have two closures to look at. The first is Daniel Marra/9450 Main Bayview LLC, we left this open till today for the submission of written information. I am going to make a motion to close the hearing, reserved decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Then we have Gil and Tracy Ben-Ami, that was withdrawn so I'm just going to enter that into the record we don't have to vote on it. Now we are ready for the public hearings. 3 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8008— PINO LICUL and IRENA LICUL,TRUSTEES, REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is a continuation of a hearing that we had in May. This is for Pino Licul and Irena Licul, Trustees Revocable Living Trust #8008. Let's see if I need to read the Notice of Disapproval into the record again. We have an additional variance, Pat? So, I'm going to read it into the record then. Request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 207A(b) and the Building Inspector's February 4, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and an existing shed and construct a new two-story single-family dwelling at 1) building height greater than the maximum permitted of 25 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 10,000 square feet in area located at 725 North Sea Drive in Southold. The lot coverage was corrected, so we have a lot coverage of 25.26% and we have a roof height for mansard roof at 30.9 feet. PAT MOORE : I thought it was flat. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mansard is flat. A GFA at 2,850.5 square feet where the maximum allowed is 2,100 square feet. Rather than my reviewing all the rest of the history on what was removed and what was changed I'll let you do that Pat. I'm sure you're prepared with it. PAT MOORE : Thank you. So, let me start with you did get a redesign of the house, we eliminated the front yard variance by thank you the owners are here, Mr. and Mrs. Licul and the architect John Bracco. He's going to provide some testimony regarding specifically the height issue because that's the more technical complicated one. Let me start with the height variance, that was a variance that we noticed was required at the last hearing but it had not been included in the Notice of Disapproval so we had the Notice of Disapproval amended to include it. The first floor because of FEMA regulations the first floor has to be at elevation 14. It is not living space; it is going to be used could be used for vehicle parking with flood vents meeting FEMA requirements. The existing house as you know from previous hearing is at VE13 so it's in a high velocity zone. The goal here is to demolish the existing house and build a new house out of the coastal erosion line, coastal erosion area. Let me turn to John because he can explain for one, I think you know from the code that the Town of Southold does allow two story homes. The code was recently modified or changed to require reducing heights of structures but unfortunately, I think there was no thought with regard to the flood zone areas because and I'll have John, it makes it impossible to build a second story and meet the flood elevations. John I'll turn to you and you can explain the particular house and the design. I did give you each the same drawing that is on the poster board so you can see the relative size and height and volumes of this house in relation to other homes on that same block. July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting JOHN BRACCO : John Bracco, Architect. As Pat said, so basically where we're proposing the home is in a flood zone AE12. According to NYS building code you have to have a 2-foot free board which basically means, the finished floor of the house has to be at least 2-feet above whatever flood zone elevation you're in. So, we're in AE12 meaning the finished floor of the house has to be at least at elevation 14. The house has standard heights of first floor being a 9-foot ceiling height, second floor being an 8-foot ceiling height. In a perfect world, the Licul's would not want to build a house that high but because of FEMA requirements they don't really have a choice. It's not something that we just want the house to be that high and we're asking for a variance, we need the variance because we have to meet FEMA code to be able to build the house. I guess I can touch on what Pat started to bring up about the visual that we gave you here up at the board and I believe she did pass out 11 x 17 drawings to each of you. I know from the last hearing that there are legitimate concerns about oversized houses being built in this area so we wanted to give you a better visual to show you that we do not believe the proposed house will look too big or out of proportion for the property it sits on. We did the overlay drawing and submitted copies of that to the Board and the drawing that you see here is at a quarter inch to one-foot scale which we have on display for you. Just so you understand what's going on, the diagonal hatched rectangle represents the current front fagade of 1725 North Sea Drive and that's the house that was approved by the town and built a few years ago and you should be able to see that we overlaid the Licul's proposed home in front of 1725 North Sea Drive's fagade and that 1725 North Sea Drive's existing fagade looks pretty massive as compared to the Licul's proposed house. We thought it was important to give you that visual just to maybe alleviate some of the concerns of walking by and seeing a massive looking house. We think it's very proportional especially as compared to 1725. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that house if I'm not mistaken pre-dated this code. PAT MOORE : Pretty much every house on that block pre-dated the code. It was just recently adopted so you actually, the code did not apply to homes that had already been through the process so even though they are some relatively brand-new houses, I think completed in maybe '25, this year in 2025 it wouldn't have applied because it was grandfathered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think 1725 is the largest house on North Sea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that Bombara? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No PAT MOORE : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Which house is 1725? July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Oh I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is Bombara, I didn't think so. PAT MOORE : And that's not actually that big,that actually went through a lot of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Trustees had fun with that one. PAT MOORE : What I was going to say is, it seems to me that the code should be corrected to deal with floodplain areas. In other municipalities the heights are measured from floodplain so that FEMA measurement so that you don't have the issue of causing all homes that are on the waterfront that have to be the policy is to make them FEMA compliant have to go through variances. The simple solution is, interpretation where the Building Department could interpret that when you have FEMA you don't apply the base the ground the measure yes you measure from the FEMA height. They've done that internally where a foundation has to be replaced in kind in place where the house is not going out in any way, it's just getting a new foundation that's compliant with FEMA you don't have to go through Zoning Board and other you obviously get a building permit but the interpretation allows homes to be improved and brought into compliance with FEMA. If you can't get the Building Department to do it, please have the Town Board correct that. My next issue is lot coverage, we did ultimately in the redesign reduce the lot coverage. As you know the property is about an acre in title and in taxes but as far as developable only the area landward of the coastal erosion line is developable so the lot coverage for any home in this area or any home that is affected by either bluffs or coastal erosion lines are severely impacted and their lot coverage is in my opinion artificially increased because you're paying taxes on a full property you own the full property was subdivided or developed as an entire property. Currently when you're doing subdivisions today, you're doing lot sizes that are allocating upland of sufficient area but on the older subdivisions we're applying these regulatory changes to existing lots. The lot coverage requested now has been reduced to 25.26. Finally, as I said the front yard setback was resolved so we don't need that. The last issue is the GFA. This issue I know has been creating a lot of variances recently and I went back to the way the code is written and we had given you based on the Zoning Board's guidance memo how it was suggested that you calculate the GFA and between myself and John we pulled out all the property cards, we pulled out building plans to the extent that they were available and came up with the original GFA analysis. When I went back to look at it for this hearing, I realized at least an interpretation in my opinion and something that the client mentioned which kind of brought the issue to the forefront, his response to GFA is, wait a second, if I come in ten years later and everybody that has these small houses have gone through redevelopment and now can't keep what they have. Let's assume the value of these properties people are not keeping the July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting little cottages, they are coming back for renovations and also to bring them all into conformity with FEMA all of a sudden, the GFA calculations completely change. As time goes on those lots that are and the houses that are conforming and remember the code does give conformity so if you're up to ten thousand lot area you can develop the waterfront to 2,100. Across the street on the other hand, they are not they are full acre parcels and they can be developed in and I did the calculations, I'll give you that you momentarily, all the homes across the street can be developed based on the lot size of the full the full lots, there's-like two or three that are small but most of them are full almost one acre, they're .76 to .98 acres and one lot is 1.06 acres. The calculation would allow these houses to develop up to 4,350 square feet. The analysis I think should be that your GFA should be based not on the house that's there but on what the code says you're allowed that is permitted to be built. It's a lot easier calculation because you don't have to pull all the construction diagrams, all the Building Department records the property card and many cases it is a very difficult analysis. I mean we spend hours if not days going through all of the homes individually. If you look at the lot itself and you take the code and how it's written it gives you the analysis of what that lot what that house is allowed to be built as. That's a very simple analysis and you would get an idea of at least when the law was adopted what the Town Board felt was a reasonable sized house based on the lot size. So, what I did is, I took our old diagram, you'll see I had to do it by hand because it's just easier so you see my handwritten so it shows you exactly what the changes were. Along North Sea Drive I took the assumption that the coastal erosion line is pretty consistent, some lots are a little bigger the Licul's actually have a lot of upland property that allows them to move the house some of the lots on North Sea Drive and the other CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Leeton PAT MOORE : Leeton Drive have a coastal erosion line right on the street so it's tough, that's a really tough area. If you take assuming whether a person has zero buildable or ten thousand buildable, the maximum they can build is 2,100 so you already know what each size of those houses potentially would be redeveloped as. Some of them as you pointed out, some are very large so they are skewing the numbers but when you're coming up with these GFA's we're taking houses that maybe original that may not stay there very long depending on the market and the families but they can be redeveloped assuming to code 2,100. On the east side I-did the same thing and you can see we have one (inaudible) of 800 square feet and the rest;are over almost two thousand thereabouts but again I took the assumption that whether they had zero buildable or ten thousand buildable, most of them did not have more than ten thousand buildable area because of the coastal erosion line, I took the 2,100 as max that those houses so I'm taking the assumption you can't go above that. Across the street is something quite different, they have the benefit of no coastal erosion, really very few or any environmental constraints so I took the entire size property and I wrote based on and again July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting this is simple information because it's retally available. I took from our town's website the maps and trails and it gives you the aerial and you can point to the lot and it gives you exactly the size of the lot, a little bit of math required and it was a challenge for a lawyer cause I don't do math but .76 1 had to change it to square feet so the .76 results in a lot of 30,400. 1 then calculated based on the code that tells me what's permitted and based on the size of the lot it was 3,350 plus an extra whatever is over the ten percent, added that so the maximum size house across the street could be developed to 4,350. Those are similar lots, the neighborhood is developed the same way, unfortunately if you're on the Sound the town has regulated you down to almost nothing. On the street on the non-waterfront side these homes could potentially be redeveloped or improved up to 4,350. So, when you're calculating the GFA you should be looking at the lot sizes and what the code says you're allowed to develop.There are neighborhoods where houses were significantly larger, some of the like Pebble Beach and other areas where the lots are clustered but the setbacks were created by the Planning Board and so they have different building envelopes, that one might be a little tricky to figure out because your lot sizes under a cluster subdivision rather than the standard subdivision. Every piece of property is unique out here to a certain extent but when you're dealing with a waterfront property like North Sea Drive and other areas even on the bluff you have to compare apples to apples and that's what we've been having trouble doing when we're giving you the GFA's that are based on the house size because that is not a fixed number. That could change, the day that we close this hearing you could have five new applications that completely change and skew the GFA. So, I would suggest and have you consider look at how one does GFA calculations a different way and I think that there's code to support this because the code itself says, what is the permitted GFA per lot size so that's an easy calculation. The guidance memo gave some direction because you know I didn't look at it this way only because the clients said what's going on, what's going to happen when I finish my house, been forced to build something that's 2,100 and all of a sudden my neighbor because I built at 2,100 can now build bigger? It just doesn't make sense; we're punishing those that are making improvements to their house today and not looking at it again as a uniformed community. I've given that to you, I want you to consider it because I think that there's a strong code support for this analysis rather than what we've been all struggling with. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I can just chime in, Leslie I don't know if you have a comment but I think the spirit and I don't disagree with I guess the applicant or your analysis but the thought of well what happens if I build something and then tomorrow the neighbor builds something bigger that I could have benefitted from that's a thought that I've had myself but it says if you're also looking at a vacant lot. If the vacant lot is vacant, the idea is about the street scape and the scale so that these things evolve over time. If you have a complete vacant street you can all build 4,000 square foot houses and this lot across the street is July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting limited in size (inaudible) potential exist doesn't necessarily mean that you're entitled to it I think. It's about the slow evolution. PAT MOORE : Honestly you are entitled to it because the.code gives specifics based on the size of the lot. So, you are as or right so the code the square footage is in legal terms, an as of right number you don't need a variance, you come to the Building Department. Let's say you have an acre okay, 40,000; an acre says, up to 5,100 GFA whether it's a ranch or a two-story or whatever that's what the code says you're allowed to build. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I think from a guideline guidance standpoint when you're doing an average, if there's a vacant lot you can't average something cause there's nothing there. While I hear your point that you should be able to average based upon the potential that's like saying, well the code you know when this house was originally built allowed it there was no consideration for the CEHA or other things and perhaps in the future despite what you're suggesting could be built there if the code is tightened up in other ways that would again limit what that future proposition would be based upon today's calculations because we don't know what the code is. I think that while I hear your case, I think it's fair, I think that and I'm not suggesting you do a code interpretation but I think it's a very tough argument to make. PAT MOORE : I mean when you're dealing with a vacant lot it's an average so if that lot doesn't count then your number average is divided by let's say you have five lots, MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You'll be down to four. PAT MOORE : You're down to four but you still have an average based on what the code allows you to build right? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) of what's there not what's potentially there or by right cause that's a bigger question. PAT MOORE : There's a problem MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I understand that PAT MOORE : The GFA is screwing up people that are I mean you've had a lot of applications for variances on GFA and somethings not right. You shouldn't have to come to this Board and get a variance for GFA almost routinely. It's funny because your position is, oh we're .not authorized to give GFA. Well, I actually think that's a legally incorrect statement because the Board authority is for variances. The code says what that number is just like a setback, just like your front side your dimensional setback. If you can't meet that number you come to the Zoning Board and you ask for relief and I'm going to have one soon where all-the houses have 9 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting a very particular neighborhood all the houses are quite large, they're all separate and the existing house exceeds it because every house there are large houses. I obviously have to come to the Board to get a variance to exceed what is a GFA that pre-dates a'nd is over. You have that authority; your guidance memo seems to me you're taking the position that the guidance memo is code and you can't give a variance beyond that and that's I don't believe that's the case. I keep hearing we're not allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The plain language of the existing code in the zoning code prohibits the ZBA from granting a variance that exceeds what the GFA average is in a neighborhood. That in a nutshell is what led us to define the neighborhood to assist property owners so that we could grant variances that exceeded PAT MOORE : That's funny cause I read the code several times, I did not see a prohibition because in fact in the code it says, if you pre-date it you're grandfathered and if you need a variance you have the right to go to the Zoning Board either by I think it's Zoning Board or something or language. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we've basically done is defined some of the problems that every applicant and this Board is faced with, with the existing code and you've done a very rational and careful analysis. That's helpful in the zoning update because we're going to have to do better. If it's this confusing we need to do better. Now the problem is, that's not here now and right now we have to deal with what's in front,of us that's the nature of the zoning code, you know that very well. When a law comes on the books, you're obligated from that point forward unless an application was previously submitted to the Building Department PAT MOORE : I understand that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : before this code was approved then it was grandfathered PAT MOORE : but what I'm saying is this CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : in the middle and I understand your arguments I really do. PAT MOORE : But I think the code allows this interpretation that's what I'm saying. The code does not say you can't apply it this interpretation the neighborhood is what the code says the neighborhood lots could be developed as. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We're not talking about build out which I hear you loud and clear because (inaudible) argument, I think it's about the character of the existing neighborhood what you physically see CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct. 101 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and what is on file not what (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) Pat, you had an application before us not long ago that was on the water side and you argued PAT MOORE : Was on what side? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the water side and you argued that the dwellings on the other side were not relevant because they were much smaller and now you're arguing the opposite that the possibility for the landward side would be much bigger. PAT MOORE It's funny cause I had never looked at it this way. To be honest I will be the first one to admit that I was following (inaudible) okay I have to look at everybody's house ;and look at their size and see but the client I give him great credit cause he's the one who pointed out, this is not fair, this is not right and he pointed it out to me and you know it's one of those things you mull over a client telling you.something and you know you're right. I went back to the code to look specifically at why is it not right, why is it not fair taking the thought that he had which is, wait a second what's there today might not be there tomorrow. In fact, that's what you're seeing because even the smaller house on. North Sea Drive and other waterfront mostly North Sea Drive, anyone who is in the flood zone, Bayshore Rd. and other areas they cannot I had a client actually who wanted to know, can I keep what I have cause I can't afford the budget now for construction what he planned to do is financially very difficult and it's;like ahh you really the Building Department is not going to let you make improvements to the existing house which is the old 1950's because you've gotta make it conform to FEMA and it wouldn't take very much to increase it beyond the fifty percent value because 1950 what's the cost of construction thirty dollars a square foot at most, ten dollars a square foot? These waterfront communities are extremely and it's a challenge, a challenge for you it's a challenge for me as a lawyer trying to advise people, we're trying to make a code work and some of these things you're right have not been thought out and now through trial and error,are creating problems like the height in FEMA. I ask you to look at this carefully because I think it is a justified analysis and I'm again, I should have brought it up in the Pebble Beach example because the homes across the street that were built were original ranch when Pebble Beach was first developed and it's gotta be from now early nineties, eighties I forget. We have a completely different construction you know between codes and space and everything else,. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, those two examples are very declarative way of understanding some of the flaws in the existing code because as I just said, in one situation you arguedi the opposite in defining a neighborhood from what you are now arguing. PAT MOORE : I stand corrected, I didn't analyze it that way and July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand, look you make some very compelling points. The ZBA however has to really grapple with what do we do with what we have in terms of the plain language of the code as it exists. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I still think it's about the character of the neighborhood as it exists, that's the most important thing as a layman. ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY MCGIVNEY : I think that the code intends to look at the character of the neighborhood because if it were to just say this is what you can build on ten thousand square feet or more it would say or by variance of the ZBA but it says by variance not to exceed the average in the immediate area. So, their intent is to say, the average of the immediate area has to.be looked at otherwise it would have just said you can build this for this size property or you can get a variance from the ZBA but they specifically added that language for PAT MOORE : But a variance applying these principles is still a variance right? So, I mean we if you took these numbers based on the lots and the development potential of those particular lots, ignore the vacant even the improved, okay? You have what will be ultimately when all the homes are brought to code compliance which is the ultimate goal of zoning which and the building code, bring everybody into state code compliance, you can apply this principle. It is I think when the code was being considered they were looking at the big houses that were being built in neighborhoods that were you know out of again, out of character. What we're submitting to you is a modest house okay, it is in square footage it's actually a huge improvement in that the they're not going to build this house if they excuse me, they're not going to demolish an existing house that has been improved over the years so it's beautiful, it's in perfect condition. They're not going to demolish something that they can continue to live in because they're going to get something smaller out of the coastal erosion with a new sanitary. So, I've given you from the previous hearing we pointed out, it's out of coastal erosion which is a huge undertaking, it's updated sanitary, it's out away from the water. The house we've given you the volumes, it is a modest house and it's smaller than the Bombara house which is the one that was used as the like the spatial so I've given you a lot to think about I know. I think that this is a proper analysis, it is not just looking at summer cottages which you can't even keep anymore. I have a client who has a summer cottage who wants to keep the summer cottage. I'll be coming back to the ZBA because the Building Department has said, sorry you can't fix this cottage it's nonconforming. So, you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't in the Town of Southold but here you are. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would just like to make three points which might be a little redundant with what my colleagues have already said and I'll try and keep it brief. First, I July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting think you have a very creative 'analysis and I understand why it would be preferred from a calculating perspective cause the information is so much easier to access, I totally get that. I think there are three points that I'll give you the opportunity to rebut. First, the code does not say the area average of the potential build out, it says the area average. I think this idea of going to the potentially largest home that could be built on the lot is not in the spirit of how the code is written likely because the code wished to take into account the current character of the neighborhood. Point two is that, the code is not static. We have seen it getting more and more restrictive and it's very possible that over time it will continue to do so for whatever reasons, sea level rising or other factors. Looking at potential build out that's possible in the year 2025 maybe overly generous in the year 2030 or 2040. The code is not a static entity, it changes frequently as you know. The third point is that, there are factors that would keep many homeowners from building to the maximum allowable GFA of their lot, perhaps personal preference, perhaps reserving some for the future for future improvements or enlargements perhaps for financial constraints. To assume that every property owner will want to and be able to build to the maximum strikes me as a risky assumption. Those three points are what I'll leave you with, you can feel free to respond, that's the spirit of the public hearing. ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY MCGIVENY : I think that also your inspiration would be great for Code Committee changing the GFA but it is right now what it is the way it is by looking at the average in the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do know you will be centrally involved in being vocal about the zoning code update because you have a lot of expertise to offer and you have a lot of experience of how things work and don't work so that would be very, very well welcomed. I think this analysis has a lot of merit but I think Margaret's points are extremely well taken relative to what we have to deal with now and what the future might look like which is why Nick was saying we can't make this decision based on what might happen we have to look at what is there now. As a matter of fact, and I lost this argument, the whole idea of,the averaging came about as a kind of way of allowing property owners some consideration beyond the vagility of what that calculation on the subject lot was going to be and they compared it to front yard averaging. Well guess what, front yard averaging is a piece of cake you know it's three hundred feet that way and three hundred feet that way and you draw the line, it's one dimension, you don't need any property cards it's so simple but you can't even do front yard averaging if there's not a developed property, it's gotta be a developed property. These are imperfect solutions to relief from the restrictions of the zoning code. Nevertheless, this is what it is but I'm very grateful for the hard work you put into this because I think it will pan out in one way or another but in the meanwhile, we have to come to grips with all these other not just GFA, we have to look at all these other things too.,You July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting certainly as an amended application improved the whole situation. It's a benefit to get it out of the CEHA, it's a benefit to have a front yard setback that is now conforming and so I see the applicants and the representatives are willing to work with the Board on coming up with something so we'll see what we can come up with. I want to see if there's anybody in the audience unless Pat do you have any comments or questions or Rob? Okay, before we go to Zoom let's see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application before the Board please come to the mic and state your name'please. PETER ZANFOTIS : Peter Zanfotis. I live right across the street at CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right across the street, okay. PETER ZANFOTIS : I'd like to say that everything is higher than the town permits they want to build a house. I'll give you an example, twelve years ago my brother-in-law bought a house at 1625 North Sea Drive they want to build a house similar to this and it was turned down. I don't see how he can be allowed to build the house the size of this house right today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was it before the Zoning Board this house and you said it was turned down? PETER ZANFOTIS : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was the address? PETER ZANFOTIS : 1625 North Sea Drive PAT MOORE : Not one of the ones near us cause I don't have PETER ZANFOTIS : Right next to 1725. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that the vacant lot? PETER ZANFOTIS : No, two different houses, one is (inaudible) the other one is the bedrooms they want to tear down and want to build a house similar to this and it was turned down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we can check the records. PETER ZANFOTIS :Tenedios SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie it was Tenedios. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. PETER ZANFOTIS : That's all I have to say. 14 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else in the audience, anybody on Zoom?You want to make a comment, please go ahead. JOHN BRACCO : There was just one last thing that I wanted to add just again, in looking at the way right now the town is interpretating the gross floor area, I think one other thing that they need to look at is, is.the statement saying the gross floor area is calculated by the buildable area cause what's happening here with all these properties that are on Long Island Sound on North Sea Drive is because of the CEHA line the CEHA line is incredibly affecting that so basically what's happening is, if we just take a step back and look at it you know the Liculs have a property that's an acre, many of the properties directly across the street are in that acre range so basically what it's saying is, depending on where your CEHA line is and in the Licul's case they can only build a 2,100 square foot house and they have the same sized property as many of the houses across the street that are allowed to build a 4,300 square foot house. When you're looking at this nature in character of the neighborhood if we kind of looked at it hypothetically it's saying, well okay all the houses that are the Long Island Sound can only be 2,100 square feet but all the houses directly across the street that have the same size parcel could be twice the size. I think that buildable area really shouldn't be determined by that CEHA line because as Pat said, there's one where the CEHA line goes past the (inaudible) so now there's no buildable area so they have no gross floor area. I think that it shouldn't be connected to that CEHA line. The CEHA line is already reducing the size of the Licul's buildable area by like seventy six percent so they have an acre lot but because of the CEHA line the buildable area is only 9,000 square feet so now we have to do the calculation based on that 9,000 square feet and I just really think they should look at that or somehow you know like they're saying in the gross floor area calc you know it says they'll give you plus this-,412.5% maybe they should really consider that with the CEHA because the CEHA line okay it already affects the building footprint that they're allowed to build on tremendously but now it hurts them again on the gross floor area it's almost like they're getting punished twice for that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There is relief, they could go to the Town Board if you wish to expand or built beyond the CEHA there is that relief but it (inaudible) different complexity. JOHN BRACCO : Yea and that's a slippery slope because I know they're not crazy about you doing that so we were trying not to do that. ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY MCGIVNEY : You also have to take into consideration the reason why you shouldn't be building in the CEHA. JOHN BRACCO : Of course and that's why our house is proposed not to go over the CEHA because we wanted to conform to that. July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that's also the hardship of living on the water. You have the benefit of these beautiful sunsets and a private beach and all kinds of wonderful amenities. They do have an existing house; I commend them for their choices I mean I don't know and I'm a neighbor not immediate but the choice of living close to the sea perhaps at risk versus enjoying a wonderful view of that same water access. I mean in a sense they should be commended for what they're doing but it is an unfortunate reality that your lot is severely reduced but if you're at a wetland area on a tidal marsh land or something you wouldn't think about building there whether the CEHA existed or not. (inaudible) here sort of implied safety until that storm comes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other strange thing is that if you look historically at where the whole idea of buildable area came from, it came from the fact that there was a property that was developed with a home that was enormous and somebody said to me, how did they how did you let them do that? I said, I never saw it, it never came before the Zoning Board, I pulled the records from the Building Department and it turns out that they had a very large lot three quarters of which was land under water which was on their deed so they clearly couldn't build on that but they calculated in terms of lot coverage. What the visual results that everybody drives by and lives with is just way over scaled visually for what is dry land. So, the whole idea of what is buildable is what the result was. However, when you're dealing with land under water that's one thing, when you're-dealing with property that has a CEHA but is still land you know its sand going out there you can see it you can walk on it there is I think a fair distinction to be made. Again, I'm not talking about building in a CEHA but nevertheless there are different visual impacts. It's very beneficial to have these discussions because what it does is help us understand the unintended consequences of how the code works. So, we're going to have to just take a look at all of these things but I do think I want to just let you conclude because we really have to move on, we spend a lot of time on this. It's complicated, it's an important undertaking and there's been a lot of analysis put into this and we want to be respectful of that but we do have to move on to another hearing or they're all going to be very mad out there. Anything else from anybody? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I did want to ask the applicant one question, Pat, just as an alternative because you are seeking excessive lot coverage, is there any possible consideration to reduce or remove one of the decks? I understand the house is elevated, understand the benefit because you want to participate and have entertaining space but when you look at Bombara how narrow it is despite the visual PAT MOORE : And they have a huge deck and they have a pool on the deck. So MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But built within the footprint x6 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I understand that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the structure is 15 feet wide it's much it's ridiculously narrow but that was the benefit of working within that building envelope so it's just a question just for the record. PAT MOORE : Well keep in mind, go ahead the house that they have now has a lot of outdoor living space it's mostly deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that's where and I'm not saying PINO LICUL : Pino Licul, we have three decks, which one are you referring to? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The upper deck there's one above exactly you have a covered deck below it's your design choice it's not the Board's choice but it's a question that I think is,fairly asked and you've done I think we all agree an exceptional job as far as designing, reducing I think we're almost there but I think it's just a conversation. Probably the logical one would be from the owner's suite reduced square footage (inaudible) PINO LICUL : 8 X 17 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know it's just a question. PINO LICUL : 150 square foot of a reduction. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if that if you have numbers if it would make an impact in reducing that from the 25.26? JOHN BRACCO : Just rough-numbers in my head with the buildable area being 9,000 it's probably come down to 1 % % maybe. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're talking about something around 23 % % as opposed to 25.26%. JOHN BRACCO : So, yes 23.75 something like that yea, yea. But I just wanted to just note again that the existing house right now is 30.7. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't disagree but that's'also the choice, I mean you can maintain as that Pat even said, they have a beautiful entertaining deck, they're happily ensconced but at the same time they're making choices so this is a question that I'm asking. PINO LICUL : Okay so if you're asking if we would consider, we would consider eliminating the master bedroom deck. 171 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Maybe something just something you can open up (inaudible)? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Even I think in prior applications you're allowed a landing with stairs, that doesn't count against (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) patio not included in lot coverage. So, alternative relief for lot coverage of 23.75% is your calculus? JOHN BRACCO : Yea, I mean I can get you exactly. PAT MOORE : I don't want quick numbers and like oh we're off. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe as part of the analysis if you can see a way of shaving something off you know I'm not suggesting that you redesign the whole house but it kind of just nick it back just a bit. JOHN BRACCO : Which we've done once already. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I know and I hate asking these questions but I think they're important to address. PAT MOORE : I mean keep in mind that by eliminating the front yard setback we actually shaved a huge amount. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you tried to stay out of the CEHA. PAT MOORE : Yea right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's why I'll repeat, I think the Board is happy about that I mean wherever it's possible we see all kinds of requests that could easily be resolved and it just takes time and as the Chairperson said,these discussions are very important so thank you. JOHN BRACCO : One quick mention, Pino and I have been working on another design. In order to try and conform the home will have to go wider because we're going to have to narrow the depth to get to 24 feet to be able to put a pitched roof on it with a 4/12 pitch, we're going to end up with Bombara's home which we didn't want but that's ultimately what will happen if we try to conform because we're going to have to shrink the depth and make it wider to gain the square footage which is what no one wants but I just wanted to mention that. If you look at his gross floor area it's close so now, you're going to from the appearance of the street it's going to appear much larger. That's why we did that easel today, is to show you that what we're proposing is not as big as Bombara it's actually quite less. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will be better scaled on the lot. July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It just gives you more open space, more sky so thank you. Mr. Bracco you'll get back to the Board, what time frame do you think? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you do that today? JOHN BRACCO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to close it subject to receipt. Alright, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of confirmation of a reduced lot coverage by reduction in deck size, is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#8018—DAVECOLLCO LLC, DAVID BOFILL, MEMBER CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : The next application before the Board is for Davecollco LLC, David Bofill, Member #8018. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 11, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 7185 Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel. PAT MOORE : This is white bread, very simple. There is an existing covered porch in the back, it had gotten a variance to be covered by the prior owner Pagano was the owner. It's from 2017 but because of the side yard setback to the right of way and the right of way is only for the three lots that are behind this property we had to maintain it requires a 10-foot setback July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting and it is 3.1 existing. Mr. Bofill is here, his daughter owns the house to the north, he and his wife own the house this house they are in the process of renovating and the inside you saw the floor plan; they're keeping the two bedrooms everything is staying the same but the squaring off of the house will enable the bedroom to be relocated so that a normal size kitchen can be built out and some it was just the kitchen and that was it,just the kitchen. This is really taking existing footprint with an existing roofline but enclosing the walls. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat question, when we did site inspection, it appears that construction was started there's some new framing members in place. PAT MOORE : Yea I think they were in the process of the foundation work. DAVID BOFILL : David Bofill, what was your question I'm sorry. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : I know the fact the sill plates were down and there were some rafters up,there were a couple of posts. DAVID BOFILL : Actually we were involved in my daughter's house behind us. This is kind of a compound and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's that through driveway that goes all the way to the back lot. DAVID BOFILL : If the Board looked back the house that's now presently our daughters had been abandoned for years and there was a structure that stopped the access to her home so we bought both actually and my daughter bought the one and then ours is the other and the whole idea is just to make it a compound. The work what was done on the house that we own, we were modifying it. It was I wouldn't say in poor taste it was just in poor quality and that's when that's what exactly what you see now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that was the result of a Stop Work Order? PAT MOORE : Yea DAVID BOFILL : Stop Work Order it was like what are we doing and it was just and we stopped on both, it was that house and also our daughter's house behind. On both houses we have not exceeded anything in the footprint and our house the one that's in contest now is we just really want a bigger kitchen. We're going to down size; we live in Cutchogue right now. A little bit of background, our daughter was hired several years ago by the Southold Town Police Department and part of their requirement is she has to live locally and therefore we found that house and bought it and as things transpired, we had medical issues going on in our family right now and with her my daughter getting married and wanting children we just wanted to be a little bit closer for whatever we've got left. July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the side yard is already well screened with an existing solid wood fence, it looks new. The right of-way we're very familiar with, we've had a bunch of properties down that right of way that we had to deal with cause none of them have proper setbacks. PAT MOORE : (inaudible) 1977 subdivision, Laurel Woods in Laurel I pulled it up. DAVID BOFILL : Again, we're keeping it a two bedroom home, it had a galley kitchen and we just want a bigger kitchen. We have a bunch of kids and grandkids as it is but at least we're not looking to expand anything MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The roof already exists. DAVID BOFILL : It's just roof, everything is there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I do have a question, I was a little confused because the application materials indicate the project includes adding a 27 x 8 foot deck, the plans do not reflect the deck. DAVID BOFILL : That was an error on the architect's side and if anything you will see that that was corrected and the Town of Southold Building Department was offered new plans that did not have the deck. PAT MOORE : Unfortunately I didn't get that memo so I included it but DAVID BOFILL : (inaudible) everything is in kind, we're not,asking for anything, I don't want anything we just want everything is there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep, any further questions from the Board, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Hearing no further comments or questions, motion to close-the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. HEARING#8019— RICHARD and SUSAN MEYERHOLZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard and Susan Meyerholz #8019. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's April 8, 2025 amended April 28, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 5) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 10,000 square feet in area located at 4245 Bay Shore Rd. (adj.to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll start by sort of explaining the project but I think the yard variances are pretty straightforward because they've already been granted in a relief by the Board in 2012 and we're not encroaching anymore than what's already been relieved at the time when the Meyerholz's came for a reconstruction permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So these are all of the setback variances? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The front yard, the side yard and combined side yards were granted in ZBA file 6556 and we aren't changing those setbacks we're not increasing those setbacks. I'm not what was the reasoning why it was required it was something about cause the change of the tie line from then and now decreased our property size a minor bit and that's why they made us get these three variances again. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think there's also an alteration I mean I don't know 22 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : But the alteration isn't triggering these variances, that's how I understood it from the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we got a lot coverage of 27.4%. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The lot coverage and GFA I want to get into with you guys. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The setbacks relative to what he just said or pretty clear cut, can I just ask one question relative to that? The Notice of Disapproval indicates a combined side yard setback of 16.2 feet and I'm not exactly understanding what it is because you have an existing side yard of 6.5 feet and an existing side yard of 8.3 ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO :That's 14.8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't get that either. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're using 9.7 for the combined but I don't, I agree with you. We don't show combined on MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right the 9.7 is the one but there's still ANTHONY PORTILLO : (inaudible) increase in the side yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right that's the new construction but it's already the side yard of (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's why the side yard and the front yard shouldn't even really be with the Board today but it was requested by the Building Department. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Since the front yard setback reducing with the alteration it's bringing the alteration it's bringing the filling in the porch and bringing it forward closer to the road. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The current front yard is 32.4 and with our proposal it's 32.8 so we're not increasing the front yard. That's what my point is, I didn't really understand it but the Building Department stated because the lot size is changing due to the tie line change now from 2012. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh see they didn't let us know that., ANTHONY PORTILLO : The lot has changed because the tie line has changed and we had to decrease out lot area. July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well based on (inaudible) the setbacks are in part triggered by the second floor addition also because it's increasing the so called degree on non-conformance but they're there. Okay so let's just look at GFA ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just wanted to state that cause I thought that was (inaudible) side yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony just to recap, where the existing front porch is, is what you're proposing ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's what I want to get into next. So yes, the existing front porch is where we're proposing the second-floor addition. The reason for the second-floor addition is basically to put an elevator in their foyer. We provided a letter from the homeowners due to some surgeries and some knee problems the wife really needs this elevator. We also provided you with sort of a map of like other options for the elevator to kind of show you that it didn't really make any sense anywhere in the home except putting it in the foyer. The current house is very close, the foyer is very tight against the staircase so we're basically using that porch to gain the square footage to put in this elevator and upstairs to basically attaching the catwalk to access the bedrooms on the second floor. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So while we're talking about those alternative locations, I wonder if you're prepared to just talk us through why they don't work. ANTHONY PORTILLO : They're just not ideal locations because of how they (inaudible). So, in my opinion having the elevator at the foyer makes the most sense that's my personal reasoning behind it but I'll also give you looking at MEMBER STEINBUGLER : (inaudible) looking for sort of the physical rational (inaudible) ANTHONLY PORTILLO : Sure, if you look at one and two they obviously land in bedrooms and obviously aren't open to the public.. If you look at, I think three alone that doesn't have enough room for the turn circle at the foyer. Four is pretty tight as well and I think it also it's really encroaching on like the staircase and how you enter the home. Number five same thing, you don't have the circle turnaround and it's like basically in their kitchen really just not good locations. That's the reasoning we thought you know again everything else kind of lands in a bedroom and obviously you don't want to be going into a bedroom you like to go into a public space with the elevator. We think the ask is very minimal, the lot coverage increase is going from 26.5 to 27.4 and the increase in lot coverage is really the front covered landing let's call it that we're because we're taking away the front porch by adding in the second floor and we're just adding in I think a modest landing with a cover so that they can enter the home. In regards to the GFA, so we did do an average GFA analysis we are above average. 1 24 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting will state that the existing house is already above the allowable GFA because it was built prior than the code GFA came into play. Our increase on GFA is 160 square feet again just that front porch. In my analysis of the average GFA I did find that three of the homes are over what we are requesting in GFA so I know it doesn't meet average but there are a couple of homes within that five hundred foot I don't want to call it a radius but basically the linear dimensions that are actually over what I am requesting. So, I'm inclined to say that we're not so far out of what's maybe local or to that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony can I just point out something out please cause I know we're going to have to cope with this GFA stuff for a while until we figure out alternatives. In your calculation what you actually did and I know it's tedious and thank you for doing all of the research you indicate separate properties but that's not an average. ANTHONY PORTILLO : (inaudible) average though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no the average in the neighborhood is the cumulative result of all the individual homes. So, what I wound up doing was taking okay five adjacent properties to the south of the subject same side of the street, I added all those up and then divided by five. Five properties across the street same thing, the individual directly across the street and then the ones that are north of the across the street in other words, there's five kinds of categories in this and then you add them all up and then divide it and I don't know Margaret if you've done it too. I came up with an average GFA of all of those together of 2,021.6 square feet. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think I came up with something that was a shade under 2,000 square feet but very close. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I came up with that as well and I show it on our, you received CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I got the whole printout. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Up top we provide the average GFA. We're at 1,945 square feet. I'll take our average though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it's in that tiny little font, use a bigger font next time. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Since we're looking at this that's what I was getting at, there's four properties here that are over what we're requesting for GFA on our analysis. Again, I know it's not the average but I probably stated this before to the Board and I'll state it again, I don't think the average I think the approach on average sometimes doesn't make sense and I think we need to look at it based on the property location and what's going on around it cause it's July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting very hard to determine average when some houses don't even meet the GFA that they're allowed. Like if went to these properties and I calculated allowable GFA some of these are just cottages that never really developed right which is fine but they could have more GFA right so it's a very strange calculation. That's why I'm bringing it to your guy's attention that there's four houses that are over GFA so I don't think and being that this house is one of those that are already over GFA because it was built prior to code the request is minor and I think I really don't think if you look at our proposed front elevation our existing front elevation, it's basically the same house at the end of the day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what you're saying basically is that you are adding 160 square feet to what's there. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,fair enough. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So my only challenge to that statement goes back to your proposed locations of the elevators, you said that some don't work blah, blah, blah the only alternative is to redesign the front facade to accommodate it. I agree with you that an elevator should be in a logical location. I played with the floor plan myself and came up with other ideas that I see as potentially viable one of which I expect you would have considered was location three which is immediately in the front foyer. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right but the problem there is do you see our circle? You can't turn around in a wheelchair, it doesn't have the five-foot radius. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They want to put in an ADA compliant MEMBER ACAMPORA :To be in a wheelchair you have to be able to turn. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We want to be able to have wheelchair access. It looks like down the road that they're going to need it but that's kind of what we're saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the problem. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The owner is here if you want to hear from the owner in regards to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know this is always a conundrum for me because I work for many, many years with people with disabilities. I was very involved with all ADA in fact in writing with some of that language in Washington and the whole universal design movement was what I was teaching in my university. For me to ignore the basics is difficult personally so I z61 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting want that in the record. The bottom line is you know very well we cannot personalize applications. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm working on something now just so that you're aware with another architect that would allow in the code a concession for what's called a permitted obstruction. Wheelchair ramps in side yards should not need a setback variance thing like that. If you're putting in an elevator for a person with a mobility problem that should be a permitted obstruction and it should be allowed as of right. Whether I can get that passed remains to be seen but that is a reasonable accommodation. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know if the Board knows this, I'm licensed in Texas as well and I've done some FEMA work there and a lot of times we'll put elevators outside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well it's (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : In that area it makes sense, here it doesn't make sense you can't do that right? I think merit to the owner that you know they're obviously going to be spending money to put an elevator in their house here, they have to do a lot more than just put an elevator in, built a shelter for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh sure the structure and everything. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The cost there that they're obviously are incurring. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would just also ask about some of the alternative locations, I understand it's not desirable for the elevator to land in a bedroom but if it's primarily for an individuals use ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean personally I think that just doesn't make a lot of sense. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We just talked about something that we shouldn't be personalizing which we (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm not personalizing, I'm saying MEMBER PLANAMENTO : that's a work around ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm just saying though you don't know if that's the persons bedroom or not it just doesn't really to spend the money to put an elevator that enters into a bedroom it just really I don't think that makes sense personally. 27 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Honestly from a design point of view it doesn't. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah when would you put CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because it's disrupting a private space that should be essentially a more neutral transitional public space. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah and I mean if we were to talk ADA I mean I could probably look into this, I'm sure there's something in regards to elevators being used in a public area. I know this isn't commercial but putting an elevator in a bedroom to me MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) alternative which I don't know if this is (inaudible) or not because of what you just said and I do agree that should be in a foyer location but trying to you know exploit all options. You have a first-floor sort of guest bathroom, if you flip flopped the bathroom location you could put the elevator where the shower is and that will take you right up to the second floor. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think then we'll be looking at probably building in a dormer, replacing a bathroom I mean because the roofline on the side that's why we have if you look at our side yard our side elevation the roofline currently is low so we had to add in like the other side elevation. So, you see how the dormers there that's kind of how our elevator MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) second window that's true. I'm not trying to be difficult. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean look, (inaudible) redesign their interior and knocking out bathrooms. I thought it made more sense this, again, I think we're not really adding a lot to the house. The porch is already there, I think the fagade in the front basically looks the same, I don't see a change in character. Like I said, there's other homes that are that size if not over the GFA so in my opinion I mean I'm sure I could come up with redesigning the house to find a place for the elevator as well but our approach is a little more simple than that; don't touch the house, try to put it in the foyer it makes sense by the stair in my opinion I think it should be in a public space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would say I doubt you would be going through all this rig amoral if you thought there was a rational reason or alternative that was going to work successfully for your client. I mean you don't come before this Board unless you have really thought of all the alternatives carefully. I have to say that although yes there are other more awkward places you could have put it, it would not be cost effective you would have a lot more structure, you'd have a lot more interior changes and I understand why you have proposed what you are proposing. What we have to basically grapple with I think lot coverage is July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting minimal, absolutely minimal increase although you know it's still substantial, it's excessive lot coverage but was the lot coverage previously approved? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that was along with side yards and ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes but we are increasing that, we would be asking for a larger lot coverage approval on this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's about what a percentage more? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's less than, I think it's .9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's what 3%. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, no it's 26.5 and 26.4 it's .9% CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to 27.4 correct? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Currently exists 26.5 ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's a 3% increase in lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh percentage. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh I'm sorry, I was thinking MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Would you repeat that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : .9% of the lot coverage, am I saying that right? You're saying 3% of the total MEMBER STEINBUGLER : We're distinguishing between percentage increase and number of percentage point. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's just to add a landing and a staircase. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie, I have that decision up would you like me to read what the grant of the alternative relief was,front yard side? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony has included it, we have it, it's in the packet. Z July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just one more question, in the spirit of trying to establish that what is being requested is the minimum, was any consideration given to swapping the first floor den with a bedroom and establishing a first floor bedroom obviating the need for an elevator? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, again I mean they're living there and it's the wife that needs it, the husband is capable so no to answer your question. The thought was an elevator to enter their existing master bedroom on the second floor not to put a bedroom on the first floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, that's a good question but frankly in working with someone with disabilities most people who live in a home want to be able to access both floors. Otherwise you're essentially barring them from equal access to their own home which is not ADA regulation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only question relative to that and the turning radius for a wheelchair and everything, are all the doorways being altered? It doesn't seem visually that will the elevator even accommodate a wheelchair. ANTHONY PORTILLO Yes, it would be an ADA compliant wheelchair. The elevator doesn't need the turning radius it's the front of the elevator that requires it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But all the doorways like the bathroom it seems like it's narrow, the owner's suite upstairs,the (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : If they wanted to (inaudible) those things it won't require a permit so that would be something that down the line. She's currently not in a wheelchair this is planning for the future. MEMBER LEHNERT : ADA doesn't apply ANTHONY PORTILLO : Agreed, when you're doing an elevator for that purpose that's the only standard we have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's crazy not to include it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah not to do it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah so I don't know as an architect I would never CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be irresponsible of you to do it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : If there was a residential ADA standard I would have used that but unfortunately there is not. July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : You don't need a variance to make a bigger bathroom door. ANTHONY PORTILLO : You don't even need a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As a matter of fact there are many wheelchairs that require a turning radius that's very different than a direct line of access. Smaller chairs can actually access they don't need to be thirty-six inches you can access it through thirty-two inches. MEMBER LEHNERT : Thirty-six is a commercial standard it's universal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right, okay we're getting down in the weeds here. MEMBER STEINBUGLER I just had one more question, is there less intensive means of accessing the second-floor such as a chairlift built into the staircase? The staircase doesn't seem to have any landings or turning points. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, with a chairlift its more difficult because you have to go from your chair to the lift and if there's no one there to assist you and then get upstairs and you know so obviously an elevator is a lot easier access when you're in a wheelchair would be my answer to that questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : People with mobility problems often use cause they have a walker you know and they can use a chairlift because they (inaudible) a walker upstairs and a walker downstairs cause you can't carry it up but with wheelchairs you have to transfer you would have to have one up there and then down you know on the other floor, it becomes a lot more cumbersome. So, it depends on what kind of mobility issue you have. That was a very good question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The last question again going back to the lot coverage issues, was here any consideration to reducing the deck, the waterside deck? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, again we were just trying for minimal construction for getting the elevator not trying to reduce other structures. I mean we would have to reframe the deck I mean it seems excessive in my opinion. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You have the front porch. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well, the front porch is being removed to build the addition we're not doing any work on the deck and if you actually we provided the two elevations where we stated no work being done. So, I mean we're not even touching the siding, it's not like they're doing a renovation on the house here right, it's just the addition. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're pulling the fagade forward. 731 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : But they're not touching any of the other facades so to go to the rear of the house and start manipulating the deck I mean no, we didn't consider it I mean the owner is here if it's something that the Board is something we should consider I mean I guess we could. To answer your question, I didn't consider it because we're not doing any work back there. Obviously when you start having to change the deck, we have to change footings and now you start digging up the back yard I mean really this would be a simple front yard addition you know, machines would stay in the front. I think also going I do have to go to Trustee for this which is very minimal but if I start messing with the deck, now I'm dealing with things that are a lot closer to the wetlands right so now I'm in a whole different scenario with them. So, no we didn't consider it, if it's something the Board is asking to consider I think I can speak with the client and MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'll just go back to GFA cause I know we've touched on it but and the GFA was I think as you noted already non-conforming with the current code but the proposed GFA is a 49 you considering that the prior was already non-conforming it's a 49 %% variance it's pretty large and I think of the examples that you gave us of other ZBA decisions you gave six, I think the largest of those I think only one of them was for GFA and it was just a 6.8% variance so this is very large. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The problem with getting variances on GFA's they're just I can't go that far back right because GFA's are very new to the code? Lot coverages are a lot easier to find multiple examples of that's why I stated more looking at the houses around that their GFA's are higher. I get we're not in average going back to my statement that average doesn't really work that well in certain situations. I think it's hard to come up with GFA examples within the vicinity I mean if you want, I can try to look for other that are outside of that further away. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think you did a great job of getting the GFA's that were there, unfortunately the don't help your case because the average is very low. ANTHONY PORTILLO : But I disagree because I don't think the average I mean again, I'm fighting the fact of the average calculation that has been assigned to the code. I don't think it works well all the time, maybe it works well for the negative but not for the positive because sometimes you're dealing with homes that are very small that could have a higher GFA but they don't have a higher GFA, they're allowable GFA is higher than what's actually there. So, then you come to this average that's going to be a lot lower if that makes sense. That's why I'm pointing out the four homes that are over the GFA and higher. I get the average but this area you know its over on Sound Ave. there's still a couple of cottages that are on the beach there that are very small that could be bigger if they wanted to be. 321 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's do this, let's just anybody on this Board have any other questions at the moment? How about the two of you get together and put all these thought about GFA into the zoning code update. Don't come here and have me have to type it in from a transcript okay. Seriously you tell us whoa, whoa, whoa wait a minute I disagree with that cause I'm the one who's reading them a lot of them and with the Planning Board. When comments come in you know there's a comment section right on the zoning update website and your comments would be very beneficial because what's happening is they don't want to hear just from us they want to hear from the public. You represent a part of the public constituency. You're not saying how to fix it although if you had an idea that would be welcome, you're saying what's wrong with it. At the very least you can make very strong arguments that the Town Board is going to look at very carefully when some of us come back to them with an alternative that could improve it. Really please take that into consideration. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think that sometimes the I think with the GFA right like instead of it being narrowed till it doesn't meet average or not the Board should have the ability to make their own opinion based on what they see going on in that area not to just go based on average. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't even do that, we just discussed this with the previous application I'm not going through that again. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't need you too but I just I guess what I'm saying is, we're here for a variance so I look to the Board to make a decision based on what we're asking based on the project and based on the area. I'm being forward that our average GFA we don't meet but there are some homes that do and I think that's something the Board could look at and I think in this what we're requesting this isn't a lavish addition, it's not something that makes you know a huge den or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I understand I just don't want to revisit the (inaudible) all over again. PAT MOORE : Helpful point because I'm following ADA you have more experience than I have but it's preemption. We have the America for Disability Act that is supposed to preempt those kinds of issues. So, you're agonizing over the meniscal changes here but the more important point is, this is for handicap accessibility and even handicap ramps we should not be requiring setbacks or anything because the preemption argument CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm working on it but unfortunately the only preemption argument that really would hold water here is if it was a commercial property or historic U July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting property. It's not going to work on a private residence cause that's not how it written. The . principle should basically apply PAT MOORE : I'm not an engineer but okay I would still argue it in court because I think I don't know the fact that if it's not commercial as a residence that you ADA is not obligatory it's not you're not mandated to do it but if you come in to a Board to the Board and say, I need handicap accessibility and the Board says well no because you're going to exceed the lot coverage of GFA by one percent. I think that you'd end up in court over that and the court might say, wait a second, we understand it's residence and not commercial but the rights of a handicapped person should be ANTHONY PORTILLO : As I stated, there is no residential ADA so we have to use some guide and that's the guide I used. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I get it, you're dealing with a sympathizer but we have to go by what the state statues represent and there is nothing in state law one, two, three, four, five or six that says anything about the subject property owner. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Am I requested to like consider lower lot coverage somewhere or is that something is it worth keeping open or are we going to close? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can adjourn it to the Special Meeting if you want and ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean I don't know what else to provide. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we can just deal with it. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 341 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8024-TAMAR MEBONIA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tamar Mebonia #8024. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 6, 2025 amended May 13, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" deck addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum secondary front yard setback of 20 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 53750 CR48 in Southold. PAT MOORE : Before the architect on the other application gave me the square footage, can I give that to you before I being with this one? You needed the 23.71 he did the calculation. I have Mr. and Mrs. Mebonia here they're right there. You're familiar with this neighborhood, there are three homes identical homes that are all along the North Rd. built around the same time frame. My client purchased this property from the bank, it had been a foreclosure. The elderly woman who was there the family, the elderly couple that were there had a reverse mortgage and ultimately the bank ended up with the property cause there was no equity left for resale. They were actually the tenants of the house before while the bank was the owner. So, the house has been slowly but surely, they've been trying to do the renovations, getting permits for it. There were no permits for this house at all. I think there was one no nothing on this prior to. I looked at the houses next door the three of them, they're all about the same vintage, nobody has any permits because they've been owned by the same families for a long time. The deck was there before again, the prior owner had it and it was not a safe deck I passed it every day. It was made of it had it was red I remember it's red color, it went up, it was just the same dimensions the staircase was like a straight staircase up no banisters, the railings around the deck were just twigs. Since it never had gotten a building permit it didn't follow code and it was there for a long time. I can't tell you when it was built, based on aerial photographs it may have been done right after they came in and asked the prior owners came in for a variance to expand the house towards the North Rd. street side which was denied at the time and at that point the family I think modified the interior and went into what had been the garage. So, again all this is based on Assessors records and some pictures because my client has been working on getting permits for everything since the day they bought it. The existing deck is close to the property line, this is a U-shaped Road. Beverly Rd. is not a thru road it's a private road for just the homes in this neighborhood. Many of the homes are close to the property line. If you go to the other side of the U of Beverly Rd. where the motel is when you pull out you notice the motel is right on the property line. So, this is a very old community. We need a variance to keep this deck here and Mr. Mebonia was sweating bullets I saw him, I saw you up there sweating trying to replace what had been there and here we are trying to get a variance for it. We recognize the proximity the closeness to the property line July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting and I did discuss with them a way of mitigating that or reducing the setback or increasing the setback actually and if the portion of the deck that cantilevers over the frame, I have a little picture of it could be it's about twenty inches if we did a physical measurement. That would actually mitigate some of the setback. It is what it is, it's a small deck that gives them views to Arshomomaque Pond and the Sound and it's part of their overall attempt to make improvements to the existing house.Just so you can see I just did a small measurement of the area that is cantilevered over existing decks so to preserve hard work and expense of the deck MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just for clarity, what you are showing us is a cantilevered section but what the plans before us reflect is the intended plan, the actual plan? PAT MOORE : Yes, yes the surveyor did a horizontal so it covers the entire deck and so the setback to the property line the surveyor I think had .7, .6, .7 east. He had the original deck may have been the .6 and I had him go back out to verify the setback because it was such a close measurement and ultimately the replacement deck is at .7 so that is where the end of the cantilevered portion of the deck ends. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, we have a lot coverage of 38.7% also. PAT MOORE : It's all existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what's there you're not increasing any lot coverage. PAT MOORE : Right, I notices so when I was there posting and before I had noticed that Beverly Rd. it's is it Beverly Rd., Old Cove Blvd. excuse me; Old Cove Blvd. runs to,a dead end it gives it's like an internal driveway that gives the two homes that are on the North Rd. like their back yards and their parking area and I had my client I mean they're all they all get along really well here, everybody knows each other and they were kind enough everyone signed a letter just to say they have no issues with the fact that people are parking along this private spur. Ten feet is on my client's property, ten feet is on the neighbor's property across on the southside and then it extends and runs the ten feet runs on either property as part of the property line. The neighbors have fences and like old picket fences and they use that driveway for parking their vehicles and at the very end you saw a boat that was parked there. It's their little private alley way. It's how they've all functioned for generations. So, I have a letter I have five sets so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you technically have a property with three front yards PAT MOORE : Yes and quite frankly North Rd. is not passable it's you don't want, I walk sometimes and some of the homes that are further the neighboring homes have little planters and edging and things like that and it's a challenge. Is the one ramp still'there?So the 361 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting surveyor when the surveyor was out there, there's a walkway out and they had the original wood ramp that the prior owner who was probably in a wheelchair at some point used that ramp, that's been taken out. I can't tell quite frankly the surveyor included it or didn't include it in the lot calculations cause he says, decks, steps and landing so I'm not a hundred percent sure what numbers he used but it's not there. MEMER STEINBUGLER : It's not present but it is drawn on the survey. PAT MOORE : It's still drawn on the survey cause it was showing I guess I don't know if he used his original and just came out to only do the measurement of the deck because that's really what I was concerned with. I don't remember seeing the. ramp there and it's not. ;I'm happy to answer any questions you have of MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The application a couple of times made the point that this deck was the only outdoor living space for this property but based on site inspection it appeared that there were two if not three additional places, one being the area beneath the deck which would have a view of the pond if the Rose of Sharon were pruned a little. Two is, behind the house under a structure that looks like it formally held an awning and it offers a beautiful view of the pond because the property diagonally across from this house has a large yard or it's an undeveloped lot but there's a very good line of sight from that point to the pond. A little bit east of that area with the- awning structure is another outdoor seating area so it doesn't seem like the deck is absolutely critical for either having an outdoor space or a view of the pond so could you basically explain why it is necessary? PAT MOORE : Well, those old patios come on up and talk into the microphone. This is from my experience going by when the old people were there, this has been if you see the other homes they all have these little decks that are their outdoor living space. This was I think originally built similar to the other homes they're just not elevated they're down again nothing has permits on the neighbor's either but you can see it. TAMAR MEBONIA : (inaudible) that space there is that cesspool and it cannot built anything. Tamar Mebonia. PAT MOORE : So where's the cesspool? TAMAR MEBONIA : Right behind here. PAT MOORE : So where it's showing a canvas awning that's the area of the cesspool so there would be no ability to put anything, any structures anything there. The prior deck she's saying had been there for about more than fifty years so that's why it was replaced where it was. July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Sorry I just need to clarify, as I look at the survey there are two places that indicated metal awning, one, closest to the easterly property line and one more central, which is the one that is over the septic system? PAT MOORE : The one that says canvas awning over concrete patio, that has the sanitary system.The one that says just metal awning is that still there? TAMAR MEBONIA : Yea, it's very small. PAT MOORE : It's the entrance to the house cause again the front door is really not a usable doorway cause of the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is the Board just ready to close the hearing? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. I need to do literally a five minute recess sorry people but we've been up here for a long time. Motion to recess, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERESON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. i MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8021— ROLAND GRANT/GRANT RM REVOCABLE TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Roland Grant/Grant RM Revocable Trust #8021. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's May 9, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new foundation and covered front porch to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) a non-conforming building containing a non-conforming use (second dwelling on a single lot) shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use, located at 800 Hortons Lane in Southold. Thank you for your patience. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Good morning everybody, Nicholas Mazzaferro professional engineer representing the trust. A general comment about the proceedings before we get into this, this is fast, graduated in 1974 with a Batchelor in Science Degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering. I received my professional engineers license in 1979 and it's been active to this day. In my career I have done a tremendous amount of technical writing, I have written code July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting for building railroads, for building highways, for building structures for doing environmental impact statements for building major real estate developments in Manhattan. I just want to make one statement cause some guy said earlier, the code is not flawed, it's not. It's a document that was written, thought out and at the time it was the best it could be produced most likely and it was passed and it was executed. The strength behind that even proves that it's not flawed in any way shape or form is in fact that this Board exists because the Board has the ability to interpret and acknowledge and grant variances to the code that was written. The strength of it is a document that can be basically altered as time progresses and the fact that it's now being rewritten, anything that's been identified as circumstances that come up that requires an extraordinary amount of effort or attention can be corrected. People come up here and say, well the code is wrong, it's not. I've been writing these things for fifty years and the code is fine, it gets addressed accordingly and sometimes that becomes cumbersome and that's why they go through the effort to redo. I just wanted to make that statement on the record. I think you guys do a great job considering everything. Okay, going to the variance, as an engineer I was a little confused by the write up of this for the need for a variance because I understand why it's needed because the code has been changed. The zoning for this piece of property has been changed, this house has been here for probably a hundred and twenty-five to a hundred and fifty years and the zoning basically underwrote what was allowable on the lot and the building that was already on the lot for a hundred years all of a sudden became not allowable on the lot because of the zoning change it's not because there's something that happened to the building. The plans we put in were not for a new foundation first of all, they were not to enlarge the foundation, they were not to structurally alter the foundation, they were not to move the foundation. Basically, all we want to do is rebuild it, it has a structural (inaudible), it was built out of masonry that was over a hundred years old and some of it fell apart. I don't know if that would be defined into the word reconstructed cause we're basically putting it back only because it fell down. There was nothing in the code, it didn't say anything about repair or replacement in kind which as an engineer that's really all we're doing here. We applied this started with the application for a pre-existing C of 0 for the structure cause it never had one. We know the structure was there from the eighteen hundreds cause it Was affiliated with the original academy that was it's now a printing shop it used to be an academy, it used to be a school and the people from that school used to live in this house it was right across the tracks, I guess the tracks were already there. Having said that, we simply want to go into this structure, the house is right now supported correctly, it is structurally fine you're able to walk inside but you can't inhabit it. We're going to go in and put some additional bracing to hold the house in place, reconstruct the foundation in kind exactly where it is using contemporary materials stabilize that thing and then basically they're going to take the balance of the house it needs the plumbing to be upgraded it needs the electrical to be redone and then we're going to the C of 0 we applied 40 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting for the pre-existing conditions will be able to be modified to allow it to be inhabited. The other part of the application is to restore the front porch. This is a very historic looking building, it's not in the historic district but it's a historic looking building in the town of Southold. It definitely had a front porch on it. As you can see here in these renderings because it changes the look of the house tremendously it's really how it was laid out to be based on where the entrances are and we haven't found evidence of the foundation for it in front of the house, there was a picture of it in the file so we'd like to put that back. Basically, redo the house in kind to get a C of 0 to make it a habitable structure. The other important thing to note is that the zoning proposal that's going on right now in the zoning review that's being done one of the areas that they have decided to up zone is this property. Right now,,it's light industrial and they are looking to change it into a zoning classification that would allow the structure to exist there. We still want to do this now to get the project moving but technically hopefully if that zoning code goes through in less than a year it would not evens be non-conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's look at the entirety of the property, there's no point of revisiting the other proposals that came before this Board but in that process we did ask about the restoration of the dwelling. We were told categorically that it was not feasible because of cost that it was just overwhelmingly too expensive and that was not going to happen. I think there was at some point a consideration of a demolition. NICK MAZZAFERRO : That was before my time, what year was that? I know it was a long time ago you're right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not that long ago. T. A. MCGIVNEY : 2024 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2024, there's two prior decisions that was for storage creation of a storage facility and those were both denied. I just wanted to say that it's interesting how the property the perspective of the property changed. There is a mobile home that I believe Mr. Grant lives in and does that have any pre CO or anything like that? NICK MAZZAFERRO : It has a C of 0 on it from I think it was 1970 something, I have it hear hold on. T. A. MCGIVNEY :July of(inaudible) and '73. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there is a CO on that. There is also a lot of discussion about the garage building. The applicant really wanted to maintain that garage building. Can you tell me 41 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting or can you tell me sir what's going on in that garage building, how it's being used and how you propose to use it? ROLAND GRANT : Hi Roland Grant. That garage building has a CO and we use it as for parking for vehicles and equipment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So storage for vehicles and equipment and stuff like that. ROLAND GRANT : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if you have a dwelling there is no problem keeping that as an accessory to a dwelling and it's not in a conforming yard but it's pre-existing so you know it's there and it's reasonable to say that that can be retained. You also have in the back an office trailer from which you're running a business and that ROLAND GRANT : It's going to be removed as is the conical container. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the office trailer to be removed right and what else will be removed? ROLAND GRANT : And there's a forty foot conical container. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Conical, is that what looks like a corrugated metal shed? ROLAND GRANT : Yes, exactly. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thank you and you call it a conical container? ROLAND GRANT : Yes MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thank you. There's sort of a hoop house behind the office trailer, a hoop storage building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't go back there again. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I don't know if they to be honest I don't know if they count towards lot coverage or how they're treated by the code. I just did observe a hoop storage structure. ROLAND GRANT : All of that will be removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a hoop house, okay. So, the only accessory structure to be retained is the garage the foundation you know the cement block foundation garage that's in the front yard and the side yard. ROLAND GRANT: That's correct. 4Z July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,fair enough. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The residential trailer is proposed to stay? ROLAND GRANT : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has a CO. T. A. MCGIVNEY : You said the only thing staying is the garage, sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No as an accessory to the principle use but if the mobile home has a you know pre-existing CO what triggered this of course is not just the setbacks and all that it was the fact that there are two dwellings on one lot being proposed, two habitable.There are two dwelling but one is not habitable so once it's habitable the reason that the code is written in a strange way because it says you know a non-conforming building containing a non- conforming use shall not be enlarged reconstructed structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use. Well, the bottom line is residential buildings are conforming uses, the problem is, two dwellings on one lot are not conforming to the code that's what triggered all of this. ROLAND GRANT : When I went for the building code I got the denial I sat down with Mike in the Building Department and he showed me the section and he didn't mention anything about two dwellings on the property. The only thing that he mentioned that with the construction that to repair the building wasn't allowed because it was a residential building on that type of zoning that wasn't allowed. So, in other words it's light industrial and a residential building wasn't allowed on a light industrial lot and that's what the denial was for. I sat down with him for about forty-five minutes and hour and that's how he explained it to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's interesting, I don't know I thought dwellings were permitted on almost all zones and you're in a HALO zone which is (inaudible). ROLAND GRANT : That's been existing there for the house has been there for 1850 it was built the original piece and then added on and the trailer was brought on and it was it got a CO at the time in '73 and I'm not sure when the garage was that was probably around 1960, 1970 that a CO was granted for that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just had a question, we have to deal with the code as we face it now the current code but you mentioned that the lot is being changed from light industrial to I think it's going to a business is that right to a business district? NICK MAZZAFER'RO : Transition 43 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Oh transition a T? But, currently knows as RO. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It allows residence. NICK MAZZAFERRO : It's going to match the kind of zoning that's across the tracks and associated with the village of Southold. I did look it up and I thought it was strange too that you could not have residential in light industrial but it's probably the only one where you can have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's only because it's near a railroad track that it was zoned light industrial to begin with so the potatoes could be shipped. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) coming back to a residence which is what it should be for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen, it's a historic building in a historic area and if it's not a district and it's restoration will be of benefit to the community as far as I'm concerned. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A question relative to the porch, it's a lovely idea to have a wrap around, is there any anticipated future enclosure of that with windows and create living space? NICK MAZZAFERRO : No, not at all. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's going to remain? NICK MAZZAFERRO : It's columns wide open. We want that look of you know sit there and watch the train and the cars go by. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No, no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No question. 44 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Leslie I'm going to get up, I'm recusing myself from the next application. HEARING#8022—GARY and MARY NAPOLITANO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Gary and Mary Napolitano #8022. This is a request for a variance from Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's May 5, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for a lot containing up to 20,000 square feet in area located at 1250 Blue Marlin Drive (adj. to the Peconic Bay) in Greenport. Hi Rob, thank you for your patience. ROBERT BROWN : I'm not going to (inaudible) all the arguments about GFA but you could probably guess where I stand on it. What I want to say about this property in regards to the GFA is that it is a unique piece of property that I feel does not really warrant the kind of investigation that other GFA variances look at due to its location being at the end of the road. The next step is water, it is.on the water. The two adjacent properties on the water are both two story, this is one story. There was a previous variance given for lot coverage bringing it to 21% approximately yea 21.4%to be exact. The reasons for asking for this variance are one,,to 4.51 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting increase the size of the house for a growing multi-generational family. Two, to take advantage of the view which all the other houses along the road on the water have and three, as I said, we could not do any increase on the first floor because it had already been varianced for being over the allowable lot coverage. In terms of impact, we limited the second floor to a partial second floor, we maintained a good portion of the roof at the level it was prior as you can see on the elevations. The only house that would be blocked by anything is the ranch house directly across the street which the existing one-story structure on this property already obstructs and as you can see from the map, I gave you that house is a little bit off to the side so it does have a very good view of the water. We do have an approved design for a new IA septic system and Mr. and Mrs. Napolitano and a neighbor of theirs are here to help me answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to address the LWRP inconsistency? Do you have a copy, Rob? ROB BROWN : I did get a copy and the only comment that I had was that, I felt that it misunderstood the intention of the work that we intend to do and seemed just an impression seemed to me more an argument against the house being there in the first place. I just didn't feel like there was anything I could say to argue against it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the lot coverage is existing and it's legally existing so ROB BROWN : We certainly weren't going to try and come here and ask for more lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's start down there, Rob questions from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No, GFA issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea unfortunately here we go again with that darn thing. The bottom line is, the way the language of the code is written and I'm sure you've read it, we are told in the code that the ZBA can grant a variance for excessive lot coverage but it can't be any greater than what the average is in the neighborhood. If we don't have that average then we have no data you know it has to come from a licensed design professional like yourself. We have no ability to know if we're over the average so that's problematic. ROB BROWN : I can tell you that in all honesty it is over the average but the average is a very small sample. There are only three houses that are reasonably comparable. One is the ranch across the street, the other two are as I said two-story houses on the waterfront. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you get a copy of the ZBA guidelines for calculating GFA? 461 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting ROB BROWN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did, you have a copy. Not every neighborhood has enough properties developed to basically say five this way, five that way, five across the street so in that instance I think it's fair to say we have to look at what's on each side of the street and if it's undeveloped you don't count it. ROB BROWN : As I said, it's the end of the road, there's nothing but water to the east, there are only two houses within reasonable distance to the west on the water and one house across the street that could be considered and a vacant lot. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Maybe I misunderstand which way is let's see which way is north, south, east and west here but when I did my site inspection it appeared to me that there were six two-story houses I'll call it to the right of this house. ROB BROWN : That is to the west, yes. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, so there was six all had two stories so it sounds like you examined two of them but ROB BROWN : Actually that was guideline the Building Department gave me. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Just to look at two? ROB BROWN : At those two, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are they thinking of front yard averaging? ROB BROWN : I don't know honestly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, well that's why we provided the guideline because the code says the immediate neighborhood. When we first started working with this understandably you represent a client, they were cherry picking like oh we'll get the two big ones and we'll leave the little ones out. Well, that wasn't really characteristic of the neighborhood so we thought to help people we will try and better define what we mean, give you an opportunity to look at both sides of the streetscape is what we're concerned with mostly. ROB BROWN : That's my argument too is that given the streetscape on the south side of the road which is the waterfront they're all two story houses except for this one. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think what we're saying is, it would be permissible and potentially advantageous to look at the five houses to the west. 471 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting ROB BROWN : I can certainly do that. MEMBER LEHNERT : How about the ones across I mean across the street there's houses too you can use that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :There's one on the corner of Albacore and Blue Marlin. GARY NAPOLITANO : Hello there, I'm Gary Napolitano this is my wife Mary. We kind of had the same thought process that you just were talking about cause we had a hard time figuring out the whole GFA theories. To be honest I have an NBA and I couldn't do it but I listened to Pat and all of her arguments and I'm not going to go down that path. What I stepped back on and I thought by the comments Robert made, yourself Leslie and I believe Margaret you might have also made it; it really is about the character of the neighborhood to have minimal impact to the character. So, what I did and what we did is I went around and I took pictures of all these houses left and right. I'll send it to you, I (inaudible) mind if I do it. MARY NAPOLITANO : We do believe in keeping the beauty of the area. We're here over ten years, it's just our family is growing and we want to be able to have our grandkids to come and visit. What we want to do is so unintrusive. The weekenders aren't even going to know it happened but we just need more space for our family. This is a very special place for us and this is it means a lot to our family so that's why we're going through all of this. GARY NAPOLITANO : To follow up with what Mary said, I kind of looked at all those to the left or to the right or the five and five, I didn't count vacant lots cause I didn't think it appropriate so I just looked at everyone and I saw that as Robert pointed out all of them are one most of them have second stories. A lot of them are a lot bigger than the house I have. We have no plans to change the foundation or improve the size or the width of the house. We're going to be here for generations is why we bought it. We're not planning to rent, we're not planning to sell it really is as Mary pointed out something we want just for the family to bring all my kids and my future grandkids, we have five so we're just out of space. What I thought about here is, it's just an additional room that would have minimal impact that's really all I kept thinking about, what does it do to the neighborhood? At the end of the day, we have the same goal you have, we do not want to change this beautiful town. We came here intentionally with that in mind and we just want a place to have our family enjoy the town and enjoy the neighborhood. That's really all our goal was which is why we're just putting on small second story on and adding to so I can have a bedroom for all these kids. I'm also arguing potentially that, I'm not a minimal impact I'm actually helping the environment right. Robert mentioned we have to put in this new IA system which we will. It's a five-bedroom IA system which is all we could fit on the lot. Why is that important? I'm not going to come back and ask for six, seven bedrooms cause you can't do it, it won't even fit on the lot so we're really just looking 48 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting for that one bedroom as we designed. Then it'll be good for the neighborhood given all ithe stuff I've read about the IA system.Today I don't need it but that's part of the whole process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob at this point it looks as though the code permitted maximum on that lot is 3,197.6 square feet which means your proposed GFA of 3,963 is over by 765.4 square feet. I agree that two story dwellings are characteristic of the neighborhood and there's an argument to be made with that. Is there any way and I didn't really look at the dimensions of the drawings or whatever but is there any way that that overage can be reduced or is it as small as you think you can make it? I mean it's only a partial second story I understand that. ROBERT BROWN : Well, it's a bedroom and some loft space over the existing bedroom section of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that loft space a two story volume? ROBERT BROWN : That's two story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See that's the way this darn thing was written and of course you can't calculate it, even design professionals are that's why we said only a design professional they have a license so we can blame them if something. Anything that is. in double height in volume is counted twice. Now, frankly I don't care what you do on the inside of your house it's the massing on the outside that effects people that defines the neighborhood right? Here's another issue, should why does it have to count twice if you have a cathedral ceiling? ROBERT BROWN : I mean there are certainly things I can do in answer to your question in terms of redesign where you know I could change the roof slope to be less the height that we're projecting to is certainly within code limits. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the height is not a problem really. ROBERT BROWN : Trying to maintain the slope of the existing front gable and rear gable,so that it didn't look like we were making major alterations to the appearance of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I don't think it does look like you're making .major alterations. What I think I have to look at the floor plans let me see. I'll bet you a million bucks although it doesn't make sense from a design point of view that whole GFA can be dramatically reduced by eliminating that double height volume and it's so silly but ROBERT BROWN : I have to admit, when I was doing just some preliminary sketches to try to work out how we were going to approach the design of this. I started with just maintaining the roof across and then going straight up where we wanted the room and God it was awful. 491 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it would be very unbalanced. ROBERT BROWN : It was terrible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree, I get it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Attempting to get the data on the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know what mostly people go and get the property record cards you know from over the Assessors Office and square footage is not that far off from GFA and you know cause you don't know what the section of a house is they don't have building plans over there but you could pretty much tell us I mean it's possible given even the way that it's now described to calculate some of those larger homes because you're not that far over and it seems to me if you could produce that data about those other large homes then we'd be in a better position to be able to say, okay they're within the average. I mean visually it's not an issue and we do have in our guidelines the streetscape photographs and you provided that. ROBERT BROWN : I can go five houses even though it's a slightly different direction on the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the road turns, give us the amount that you as many properties. We've suggested up to twenty-two that's if you take your house then the house across the street, then five this way five that way, five it's twenty-two properties. It's cumbersome but it's really worth doing in this case cause I think you have a strong potential argument that this would be fine if you can get those numbers to work we're only going to just grant it and be done with it. Lot coverage is not an issue, it was previously granted and you're not increasing it.They called it out but that's not a problem. GARY NAPOLITANO : Just for my purposes, I'm looking for the square foot of the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the gross floor area is a little different than square footage because that open loft area that you created there, that would be counted twice. The Building Department would have looked at that and they would have come up with the GFA of 3,963 okay and the code only allows 3,197 you're close. I mean you're 765 square feet over alright but rather than trying to spend time redesigning something you already like why not just simply go and see if you can come up with a calculation that says, my neighborhood looks like this and I'm within the character of that neighborhood based upon how big those houses are. GARY NAPOLITANO : And that's again on the square footage of the house? CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : It's gross floor area. so I July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting GARY NAPOLITANO : I can't get that upfront right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Assessors will only give you square footage, they don't have GFA calculations. GARY NAPOLITANO : So I take the square footage of each house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He'll know what to do. That's what you're paying him for. Okay, why don't we adjourn this to the Special Meeting and give you a chance to talk and go talk to the Building Department. Amanda is helpful there, go over to the Assessors see what you can do about coming up with how big those cause gross floor area is defined in the code specifically and it's not square footage. I'm looking at I bet you know floor area ratio (inaudible) a lot easier? It ties the house to the size of the lot. We're working on trying to make some improvements but in the meantime, it is what it is so we have to try and grant variances that we possibly can but we have to have the data to say that it's allowed that we're allowed to grant it. I think we'll adjourn to the Special Meeting that's in two weeks and if you need more time that's not a problem just let Kim know and we'll adjourn it a little longer until you can get it sorted out. Hold on you have to do that outside. We're going to adjourn this now so they can talk that's fine but you have to talk to the Board you can't be talking to each other unfortunately. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the hearing to the Special Meeting on July 24t'. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye s�. July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#7999—CHRISTOPHER and SOFIJA SHASHKIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christopher and Sofija Shashkin #7999 adjourned from June 5th amended. Request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207, Article XXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's November 15, 2024 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1105 Captain Kidd Drive in Mattituck. ZAC NICHOLSON : Good afternoon good to see you all again, Zac Nicholson architect. I'm pleased to say I'm not here to talk about GFA we're one square foot under the max allowable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then this is a piece of cake. Let me just enter into the record what we are looking at.This was on July 1, 2025 amended Notice of Disapproval, front yard setback at 20.5 feet and the front yard average is 26.7 so you can't use that, that's the same as the previous right?Side yard setback at 5.5 feet the code requiring a minimum of 10 that's for the garage which is the same as previous. Then a side yard setback at 24 feet the code requiring 25 feet which is very small and lot coverage of 22% the code allows a maximum of 20% that's been reduced from 22.67%. GFA and sky plane conform. ZAC NICHOLSON : The last time I was in front of you and I was given poor information and the design that we presented you was actually over on the GFA. When you connect a garage with a compliant breezeway the garage ground floor counts towards GFA. I was told that it wouldn't so here we are. What we did was we decided that the second floor of the garage space was not we were not going to make it a livable bedroom in the future. So, we're reducing the collar tie height to low enough so that space doesn't count towards GFA but it's sort of a swap because the ground floor still does. What we ended up doing is also deciding that the sort of like a hallway connector that breezeway didn't really serve the client very much so. We reduced the addition on the back of the house by about eighteen inches and we also reduced the rear yard porch and reconfigured the breezeway now it's a mud room connector with a covered porch. With those reconfigurations it was kind of a push and pull kind of thing. I pulled back the rear yard addition I said eighteen inches but it was sixteen inches, right to hit me under one square foot under the GFA. In doing those changes I was also able to reduce the lot coverage by 80 square feet. When you factor in the existing shed and existing sauna which are 150 square feet, we are a very small amount over the requested or the allowable lot coverage. I mean here we are this is the new proposed design. It works July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting much better for my client; it's about as you know the least the smallest ask that this lot really could afford. We didn't want to reduce the sunroom addition because that will be a full basement and that gives them the needed bedroom below not counting towards GFA but the existing foundation under what is the master bedroom and that other bedroom is a crawl space so it's just going to be a crawl space under there as well so reducing that addition was really the most logical place to cut back some of the GFA so here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Zac already answered the question I had. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is what is a rewarding you know part of the job, we want property owners to have reasonable property rights and to work with each other to make sure that they get as close to what they want as possible and some design skill does play a role in all of this. Thank you for your efforts and your amended application and since there's no one in the audience I'll ask if there's anybody on Zoom that wants to say anything? ZAC NICHOLSON : I have a question, what dictates the order in which we seen before the Board cause we were first last time and now CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What happens is this month has already been scheduled so the only kind of alternative that we have is to (inaudible) adjournments to the end. ZAC NICHOLSON : I see CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : That's the only fair way to do it.They've all been waiting like you did for months to get on the calendar so they're over here so if we have to hear you more than once we're going to move it to the end and hopefully we'd be on time but of course we rarely are particularly when we have to revisit GFA and all that. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks at the July 24th Regular Meeting that's our next meeting. We will deliberate on a draft that we'll all have a chance to look at beforehand to see if we want to make any changes or whatever. You can listen to it on Zoom if you want it's open to the public; we don't take testimony the hearing is closed that's over but you can listen to us talk about it, you will get a copy of it in the mail. You can call the office the next day and see what happened if you don't have the time to listen in. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, August 7, 2025 at 9:00 AM so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on June 18, 2025 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye 54 July 10, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one-year extension to #7497 Claudia King Ramone 130 Village Lane, Orient extension to expire June 17, 2026 so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one-year extension to #7624 Glen Norton 396 Alpine Ave. on Fishers Island extension to expire on May 19, 2026 so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to close the meeting. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I'm to remind everybody that the Special Meeting on the 24th is going to be not upstairs in the Annex but it's going to be downstairs in the bank area. 551 July 10, 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 :July 24, 2025 561