Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/07/2025 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 August 7, 2025 10:15 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—Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Osvaldo Landik, LLC#8023 4-8 Deborah Pittorino, LLC#8025 8- 11 Nicholas and Aspasia Rontiris#8026 11- 16 Stephanie Perl and Richard Perl #8028 16- 20 Vito Plaia#8030 21 - 25 705 CR 48 LLC, Ulster Farms, LLC#8009SE 25 -43 Oysterponds Historical Society#8031SE 44-61 Strong's West Mill, LLC#8027 61 -76 August 7,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for August 7, 2025. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter before the Board is a review of the Resolution regarding SEQRA, 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 : Osvaldo Landvik, Deborah Pittorino, Nicholas and.Aspasia Rontiris, Stephanie Perl and Richard Perl, Vito Plaia and Oysterponds Historical Society, Strongs West Mill let me read that. The subject action is to construct a marine storage building adjacent to Mattituck Creek and request an Interpretation for building height. Declared action and determination of significance to be determined by the Planning Board as Lead Agency and SEQRA Statement for Ulster Farms, 705 Main Rd. LLC. The subject action for a Special Exception to construct two contractor buildings. The Planning Board of the Town of Southold is Lead Agency declared the Action as unlisted and made the determination of non-significance and further grants a Negative Declaration 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 a possible Gary and Mary Napolitano, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting we still want to receive information from the applicant's agent. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I just want to remind the Board that I am recused from this one. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye 3 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye and Member Planamento is recused. HEARING#8023—OSVALDO LANDVIK, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our first public hearing is for Osvaldo Landvik, LLC #8023. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's May 5, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize a sunroom addition to an existing patio attached to an existing accessory wood frame building (amendment to BP#49185) at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 25 feet located at 16109 NYS Rt. 25 (adj.to the Long Island Sound) in East Marion. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Good morning, Nick Mazzaferro agent. This variance is being requested basically cause a restoration, the existing structure had a building permit that has been read into the record that was there to renovate the existing barn and do some repairs on it that had been started and the permit was going and while they were doing the work, they cleared out a little bit of area behind the barn and they found an existing concrete slab at the back of the barn like the southside of it. In addition, the owner was gong through their records that came with the property and they found the picture I think everybody has got it in their package CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do, yea. NICK MAZZAFERRO : the original structure from back in the 1930's it showed the sunroom and the pergola and a deck on the second floor. The owner asked the contractor, can I put this back cause obviously the original slab was still there. They didn't think that it was anything that was an open sun porch and pergola was going to create any issues so basically, they put it up. When he called for the inspections Southold Town Building Inspector came and saw and said look, you gotta add that to the permit. So, we redid the drawings, we submitted them and it turns out that the setback on the extreme southside is only two-feet so that's why we're here. The project includes the only the pergola and the open porch sunroom and there's no plumbing, there's no occupiable space, it's just an open room and an open deck and the owner just kind of wanted to kind of restore it to the way it looked when it was originally built. The building permit issues that are the balance of the building are still ongoing 4 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting and it's just going to be rolled into one big I guess permit right now. Looking at that drawing, everything to the right like where the double dormers are and that porch to the right-hand side of that drawing, everything there is in the original permit. It's simply the open porch and the second story on the left-hand side of the roofline that is added for the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) side yard setback based upon where the slab is and the structure built above it. . NICK MAZZAFERRO : Correct and we found the original slab too which we thought, when we saw the slab in the picture we said oh, obviously this is what it looked like. I don't know where the tennis court went. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm sorry, can you say again they're all going to be rolled into one permit. NICK MAZZAFERRO : We put in a modification to the existing permit and that's how it got to be the Notice of the Denial. I'm not saying it's going to be rolled into, I imagine the Building Department would just modify the permit and I'm speculating that. CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : So you amended it to include both and then that's when they discovered the setback. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I guess I do, the application states in a couple of places that there's no change to setbacks but if the presence of that slab was unknown it seems like building a structure upon it now creates a setback issue where perhaps not existed before and at the time the photo was taken I think the property had a different boundary. It looks from the records like the half an acre was NICK MAZZAFERRO : You are correct, the subdivision occurred in 1991 from what I have and that created that other two front lots. When I said in the application, there's no change in setbacks I'm just basically referencing the fact that the slab was already there okay. So, the setback that's shown is 2.65 was there in 1991 when they created the lots. When they approved the subdivision they also obviously approved that the dimension would have been if this structure was still there it would have been 2.65 feet at that time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's just the historic background. August 7,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a question in regards when I did my site inspection it appeared that there was a new shed built directly across from the driveway turnaround. NICK MAZZAFERRO : 142 square feet MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Do you know the dimensions off the top of your head? NICK MAZZAFERRO : Because I questioned the same thing when I went up there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It looked to me like it (inaudible) larger. NICK MAZZAFERRO : The first thing I wanted to know I actually measured it myself to be sure cause I don't contractors are contractors. It turns out to be under 144 and it also is matching all the proper setbacks to the property lines. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea it didn't look like it had any.encroachment it just looked large, okay thank you. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Well it does look larger because it's a new dimension it used to be 100 square feet in Southold Town now it 144. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I guess my question is, how to put this, given that that structure is the building permit is going to be requested to be expanded to allow or legalize that sunroom and the pergola above, what is the I'll say the incremental advantage or enjoyment to the owner of having that relative to not having it? NICK MAZZAFERRO : I think the owner when he saw that photograph really liked the concept of it going back to the you know the original look of the property plus the structure does look when you balance it and you mirror it against the other side which he has the permit for does overall have a better look to it. I mean it's gotta be five hundred feet from the road and it's surrounded completely by growth and bushes. If you don't drive up to it you can't see it so it's only for the owner's personal satisfaction. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thanks CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not really but just one sort of question if you can and maybe it's outside this Board's purview, what is the intended use for the structure itself? In the old photograph you can see that it was like a viewing station over the tennis court. The tennis doesn't exist, the pool is on the other side, I get the pergola and all of that and I do understand the benefits of a screened in porch but if you can just talk about the overall use of the structure. 6 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting NICK MAZZAFERRO : If you're up on the deck or actually in the sunroom, the southside and the westside are completely vegetated so you can't see out so I think the owner just wanted to create the look and I don't really he's got a porch on the other side also that faces the pool so that'll probably be the higher used one but he kind of wanted to balance it out and create the original look of the whole structure so I'm not sure how much he's going to use it. The main structure is storage, it's a garage and then he's got the viewing area over the pool so maybe if people are making a lot of noise in the pool you can go sit on the other side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The second floor of the garage is storage? NICK MAZZAFERRO : The whole garage building is storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes ,to address the application? JOYCE ORRIGO : My name is Joyce Orrigo and I'm in the adjacent property that's affected by this and I have a few comments. First of all, it was erected without a permit or permission, was never notified or did the owner never discuss it with me. After I saw it two years ago, went to the Building Department and saw that it wasn't on the plans and I believe that's when the modified permit might have been issued. I'm not sure why a garage needs a sunroom or a second story deck that now I find out is two feet from the property line. I just want to address some of the reasons for appeal here, number one, it will be a detriment to my property. We don't really know if it was original, all we know is that sometime around 1940 let's say circa 1940'there was a viewing deck built to overlook the tennis courts that are now on my property. I know twenty years ago when I purchased the property it was not there and also when the current applicant purchased the property it was not there. The second point is that, he wants to restore it back to.the original structure, it's not like we can really pick and chose at what point in history to restore a structure to.The tennis courts and my lot was completely wooded about fifty years ago so it's been gone for a very long time and it's not a designated historic site. Number three, the amount of relief and regarding the substantial vegetation barrier I can clearly see it from my kitchen window and I can certainly see it from my yard. The time of year the season and the deer are determining how substantial that barrier is. Its sole purpose seems to be to look into my back yard. Number four, it will have an adverse effect on my property and any subsequent owner because that seems to be its only reason for being is to look into my back yard. Number five, has it been self-created? It was entirely self-created because it was put up without permission. My concern especially is that some August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting time in the future if this accessory structure is approved for housing the legal existence of a second story deck two feet from the property line would most definitely affect my property value. That's it, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else? Is there anybody on Zoom? Is there anybody else on the Board who has any other comments or questions? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8025—DEBORAH PITTORINO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Deborah Pittorino, LLC #8025. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's May 12, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered of moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use located at 68530 Main Rd. in Greenport. JAKE LACHAPELLE : Good morning to the Board, I'm Jake LaChapelle the Architect. This structure was built in the 1800's. In 1982 a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the single- family residence at which time such use was allowed in this light industrial district. Subsequent changes to the zoning text rendered that a nonconforming use. I counted twenty- nine lots in this district and eight of them are single-family, that's 28% and thus August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting nonconforming. The building was obviously built without indoor plumbing and at 825 gross square feet they're hard pressed to fit this new technology in there and they'd like to install a very small bathroom and a closet sized enclosure in the corner. Building a modern sized bathroom would reduce the bedroom size, living space and kitchen areas reducing usability and marketability of this already compact dwelling. The reasonable solution is to add this 35 square foot bathroom. This has the added benefit of getting us up to the 850 square foot minimum livable floor area for residential districts so we're requesting relief from Section 280-123 as you stated. Single family homes mixed with light industrial that's what this district is a mix in fact as stated with.those numbers. Up Pipes Neck Rd. is a single-family residential neighborhood and this kind of bleeds right into that so we don't see an undesirable change. The amount of relief is not substantial for the bathroom; it's 4.2% increase in the square footage. Obviously, the deck which is also in this application is 186 square feet which is more substantial but it's certainly not out of character with the many decks, sheds, garages, out buildings found in the district on the residential and light industrial lots there; half the residences have decks and porches like this. Then we're putting in a ten-foot buffer on the eastern side towards the wetlands mitigating physical and environmental effects. Lastly, I reviewed the proposed zoning update for the town and the district becomes rural business two if it goes into effect which allows single-family homes. So, the property remains in limbo and we're asking for relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to need Trustees on this? JAKE LACHAPELLE : We have Trustees,that's how we got to that buffer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yes, okay. Nick any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From my site inspection I noticed by the bilco basement access there's like a black corrugated I don't want to say a hose but it's like a two-inch flexible pipe, what is that for? It runs actually just below the grass line, it kind of comes in and out of the terrain leading towards the wetlands. It looked like it's maybe part of an ejector pump or something. JAKE LACHAPELLE : Is it an inch and a half or four inches? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, two inches, like a JAKE LACHAPELLE : All I can speculate is that it's an ejector pump but I can look into it. Part of the application is to provide storm water management for the property as required by code. If that's not to code I'll find out. .I MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there some sort of a sump or an ejector in the basement? August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting JAKE LACHAPELLE : I don't know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might very well be given the proximity to wetlands. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there a basement, that's a better question? JAKE LACHAPELLE : There's a four foot ceiling height. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a crawl space. JAKE LACHAPELLE : It's a crawl space and it's not the size of the house, you know it's very small it's got a hot water heater in it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's possible thing that maybe that was also some older homes have like a washing machine with an ejector that just drained into the lawn. JAKE LACHAPELLE : Not at least the last time I was there yea not to my knowledge. I don't think he could fit one in there anyway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Given the height I think it would be a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret any questions? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No thank you, no questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT: No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? 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 :10 August 7,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#8026—NICHOLAS and ASPASIA RONTIRIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Nicholas and Aspasia Rontiris #8026. This is a request for variances from Article XXXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207, Article XXXVI Section 280-208A and the Building Inspector's April 10, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as pre Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 3) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 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, 6) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 240 Knoll Circle (adj.to Spring Pond) in East Marion. PAT MOORE : Good morning, I have with me next to me I have Nick Rontiris he's the owner and the architect is on Zoom and he's listening for now until if we need his input. This is one of many homes in the Cedar Beach or Gardiners Bay Estates subdivision and this subdivision was created in 1920's according to the survey that we have.The house is pre-existing and was renovated over the years but for the most part is still functionally in its original condition. The important aspect for my client was to raise the second floor for the bedrooms in order to relocate the bedrooms. There's already two bedrooms up there, two bedrooms and we end up having all the bedrooms upstairs. In order to do that there was a need to dormer the ceiling heights because the staircase and the existing height of the second floor is very low. There was a very careful design at the time to maintain the setbacks the second-floor dormer was stepped back in order to meet current setbacks. For all intense and purposes, we the architect and my client all believe that we did not have to get a variance. It went to the Trustees for approval for the alterations and addition to the second-floor, it received approval for that. Then, it was reviewed by Amanda and her concern was not so much the second-floor addition that did not trigger the demo definition of demo, her concern was the alterations to the first floor might result in demolition definition. So, this is by definition we have to come and get variances for all the existing structures in maintaining the existing structures. For the August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting purposes of this application, it's demolition, reconstruction but in practice it is the same plan, the same house that was proposed since the beginning. The variances that are required again are the existing conditions setbacks. The sky plane is based on the existing roofline that is on the first floor that's what go ahead, he knows the design very well. NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : It's actually the existing peak on the second-floor. It's the peak on the second floor in the Nick Rontiris thank you sorry, Nick Rontiris property owner. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sorry, before you speak just cause I couldn't find the sky plane diagram, where would it be NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : Right here, it's in the record but the sky plane is an existing non- conformity and we were careful with all of the dormers on the second-floor not to make it any worse we set everything back on the west side of the property. PAT MOORE : The foundation remains has been inspected, it will remain no matter what it's in good condition. If it needs any supports that will be dealt without removal of the foundation. The first floor for the most part staying in place it's the partitioning inside of the rooms that is requiring changes. The exterior there's a door on the side of the house that will excuse me it's on the front of the house on the side of the house and is being relocated. NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : The current front doors are really on the side of the house so we're going to move it to the front so you can pull up into the driveway and to the front door. PAT MOORE : This property did receive a variance for the deck that is presently there. The deck will remain, it is going to be resurfaced. It had a variance, as I said from this Board. Amanda when I think when she was reviewing the "as built" construction of the deck done many years I think in the nineties it doesn't quite match I don't know if it was the plans or the ZBA drawings so in any case we're going to make it conform to what is we're going to have the drawings and construction conform. NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : This drawing is what's there, I believe the prior owner went a little bit as best as I can tell, closer further south by a foot or so versus what was approved by the ZBA but it's a little frankly it's a little bit hard to figure out depending what you measure from. Either it looks right or it looks wrong and PAT MOORE : (inaudible) replacement of the bulkhead so when the bulkhead was replaced that dimension may have changed at that time (inaudible) compare the existing to the ninety- three construction. In any case, this is a cleanup of everything that's there. I did notice that I somehow forgot to give you the other variances in the area and I can certainly provide that for you. There are lots of variances in this subdivision as you know. There are specifically August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting within five hundred feet of this property, demo reconstruction variances that have been granted over the years just because of the lots being nonconforming. The houses being nonconforming and many cases the houses that have been constructed were replacing houses that were quite old and just needed to be replaced rather than altered. If you'd like that I can provide that for you, I just ask for a couple of days to get that to you if you need it because you are all very well aware of the variances that have been granted in this neighborhood but I can pull them for you. Would you like that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We might as well, as you know it's very helpful to look at precedent prior. PAT MOORE : Sure I can provide that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there's any questions here, Margaret start with you. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm sorry I didn't quite follow the sky plane discussion and I did spend some time examining the drawings and what I did my site inspection trying to picture. I get that the existing first floor eaves exceed the sky plane just a little bit, 1.8 feet or something, does the addition or alteration increase any nonconformance? PAT MOORE : We don't think so but we're going to have the architect speak on that behalf. GEORGE VARTHALAMIS : Hi, my name is George Varthalamis I'm the architect for the house. The answer to the question, is no the sky plane the addition does not increase the sky plane at all does not increase go-over the boundary of the sky plane just that one foot eight which is the existing eave that's already over but we were very careful that the new addition does not go over at all. It's set in purposely to avoid that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay thanks, I had one other question maybe two others for clarification. The application document noted that the sanitary system was installed in 2014 and doesn't mention anything about putting in a new system but the Short Environmental Assessment form and the LWRP form say that a new sanitary system IA system will be installed so I just wanted to clarify that. NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : Yea honestly I was waiting to get approval for the demo and reconstruction before engaging the engineer to spec out the system but we're going to go with the (inaudible)from Fuji as the IA system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you are going to plan on that. I presume in the front yard? NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : It has to be. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Then Leslie I struggled understanding the calculation of lot coverage because I don't think there was a breakout of the footprint of the house the area of the deck and any other elements that might contribute to lot coverage and maybe because the bulkhead moved Pat as you mentioned but the survey provided has one area for the lot and the architect's site plan has a different area. I'd just like to know all the factors that go into the calculation, so I was looking for a breakout of all the structures that count toward lot coverage and which parcel area was used to make that calculation. PAT MOORE : We should be using the 9,778.87 because from the surveyor that's the area. We do have from the bulkhead to the street here. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the site plan indicates 9,940 and whichever one you use I just want to understand the calculation so that's the denominator and I wanted the numerator which would be all the structures that contribute to lot coverage. I think the house footprint is indicated but the deck area is not indicated at least not that I could find. PAT MOORE : From the surveyor it says 9,778.87 1 don't know why we have a discrepancy there maybe just a typo. NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : George do you know the answer to that? GEORGE VARTHALAMIS : I do not, it might just be a mistake on my part. I don't know the answer I did it off of my I took this before we got the survey, I did my own area based on my own calculation through CAD so it might have been that I just went over MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would just say the mathematics don't work out quite perfectly that the area given of 124 square feet divided by the lot size is a little more that 24% so I just want to clarify what are we looking at. I looked at the past decision that the prior owner got for the deck and that mentions something like a lot coverage of 28 or 29% but then there was a modified there was a they granted alternative relief so it was just not clear what the lot coverage turned out to be. NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : We can definitely fix that. PAT MOORE : If you can give it to me in writing we'll make sure that it's attached to the submission for the Board so they have the accurate numbers. Do you want it separate the house because the footprint is staying the same, the lot coverage of the house separately from the lot coverage of the deck? :14 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm just looking for you know an itemized table that says here's the house which we have so that's good, here's the deck and then any other I don't know if you have any stoops or any other structures that count. I think it's mostly the deck. PAT MOORE : Are you going to call out for the storage and the outdoor shower on the side, I. mean it's an enclosure a fence enclosure? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think only if it's above grade, right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's roofed over. NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : No, it's not roofed over. PAT MOORE : It's open. Is that storage or is it a bin? NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : It's a bin, it's a wooden attached like (inaudible). PAT MOORE : We'll add the stoop because this one is leaving we're putting a front one. NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : I'm sorry, we'll make sure the stoop is included in that calculation, we'll break it out accordingly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Make sure your siting the right numbers. NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : It's pro forma right, in other words-for what we're not you're not interested in the current, you're interested in what we're proposing? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea the proposed lot coverage. PAT MOORE : Do you want the current also cause they should pretty much match. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : They should but yea if I would be interested in the and if whether it's changing, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, Nick, Rob? Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application?Anybody on Zoom besides the architect? I make a motion to close this hearing PAT MOORE : My notes say subject to the lot coverage for the existing and the proposed and the priors, other variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of prior variance relief granted in the neighborhood and the information on the existing and proposed lot coverage to make sure that it's clear what it is. PAT MOORE : You're Special is when? V August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : August 21" PAT MOORE : George you think you can provide that before the 215t7 NICHOLAS RONTIRIS : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're closed but I've closed it subject to receipt. The clock will start as soon as we get the information. There's no need for an additional hearing on this. I don't think we'll have questions if we have a stamped licensed professional telling us what that is and the priors are the priors. I don't see any reasons to delay it, correct Board? We didn't vote on it. Who is seconding it? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#8028—STEPHANIE PERL and RICHARD PERL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Stephanie Perl and Richard Perl #8028. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 9, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations (non-substantial improvements) to an existing single- family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 2880 Minnehaha Blvd. (adj. to Corey Creek) in Southold. Good morning, Anthony. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board, Anthony Portillo AMP Architecture, thanks for having me. I just want to start by reflecting back to this project maybe about nine or ten August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting months ago, we did receive approval for the front yard setback, we did receive approval for the same amount of lot coverage. What happened throughout that time was we had to go to Trustees. The original design we were proposing a pool in the rear yard which Trustees weren't really opposed to but there were some things they wanted us to do that the owners were like we really don't want to do those things so they decided to take the pool out. Since we were already approved the lot coverage the additional lot ,coverage, we increased the square footage of the house. So, we basically took the same lot coverage that we have from the pool that was approved by the Board and we put into the house. The front yard setback has not.changed since your original approval. Essentially what's different here is, the pool has been removed, there is an addition in the rear that is not outside of any it's just creating more lot coverage but it's not outside of any bulk restrictions so we're within our setbacks. Then there was some additional lot coverage added to the front of the building, there's like a covered patio and a covered like foyer that was added. Again, same amount of lot coverage that was requested prior that was approved that hasn't changed. So, we just sort of manipulated the primary building to basically utilize that same approval from the last time. One other thing that I think was brought, we did request a de minimus for this, that might be de minimus but I think what came up from that and I just want to mention it is we are proposing like an attic above that addition on the right. I think there's two reasons for it, one is storage, there is no basement in this house, it's in a flood zone area so that's the only storage they would have. The garage is tiny that we're requesting so that's the reason we did that. I think also it was more for the front aesthetic, it sort of balances the fagade out you have like two different gables. So, that was really the reasonings behind added in that storage. My clients plan on growing old in the house so they want a permanent staircase up to this attic space and obviously that's what will be indicating to the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony in the prior ZBA variance 6365 April 8, 2010 it was for bulkhead setback,the condition was to move a shed to a conforming location. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right, if you recall we submitted a letter to the Board saying that that would be done on show it on our plans proposed and be done during construction the one that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're proposing to remove it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right and I think you guys approved us that that would be acceptable that it's on our plans and done during construction as long as it was done you know by C.O. basically of the work. The generator during this time that we have been going back and forth to the Boards was legalized by the so that does have a C.O. now. Yes, we're going to proposed moving the shed into conformance and so on based on the last hearing. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the prior decisions in our application packet. Let me just to enter into the record the front yard setback is for 16 feet 4 inches, the lot coverage is proposed at 21.4%. The existing lot coverage is apparently 18.8%. Anything from the Board, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : More of a commentary, I think it's a beautifully designed home however I mean clearly (inaudible) lot coverage from a swimming pool to a dimensional structure does have impact on the neighborhood. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, I might agree with you it's not really impacting the street side of this, it's a rear addition and then really just a minor addition on like adding basically a covered porch which is open so it's not really solid structure. If you look at what we presented before and what we're presenting now, I actually think it's less invasive what we're proposing here compared to what was approved cause obviously with that pool we would have had to dig up a whole rear yard and you know did a whole MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From an environmental standpoint sure. So, I do think with the sort of proposed attic storage area there's a bit of a balcony on the waterside so ANTHONY PORTILLO : No I'm not proposing a balcony. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought there was a balcony, what is that a window? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea just a window, a large window. Again, some of the design decisions were for aesthetic purposes not so much and I actually have the owners here they can put testimony that they're not planning to finish it or anything it's basically they don't have a basement and they thought this was a good spot they could use for storage. If you'd like they can say that to you guys. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Did you include the Trustees permit? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, but it was approved by Trustees this design. T. A. MCGIVNEY : This design no (inaudible)? ANTHONY PORTILLO : This design that's correct. So, I think we went three or four times to Trustees and basically we got to the point where we said alright we're not going to do the pool and then we came up with this design and then they approved that. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can you get a copy of that for us? ANTHONY PORTILLO : A hundred percent. Do you want testimony in regards to the storage space? August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm fine with it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The Trustees documents that are in the files match the site plan? ANTHONY PORTILLO : These are exactly what we've presented as what's presented to the Trustees. I mean to-your comment I think the most important thing here would be that that front yard setback and that garage we didn't change that so to me it's not really a big architectural change in the front of the house. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a question. The prior decision Leslie mentioned 6365 from 2010 it mentioned that at the time the house I think was being expanded on the first level because the foundation could not support a second level. Has something changed to now allow a second level? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's not a second living level so it's just a storage, so attics per code or I believe ten and fifteen so it's ten dead, fifteen live it's not like a sleeping floor where it's like twenty and thirty,twenty dead,thirty live. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the live load they can support. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The dead and live loads are different on an attic storage compared to a living floor. Again, no living is intended on this floor. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, no living space; I guess that was my other question. I was trying to picture the interior given the gable on the left-hand side and it seems like it might add a cathedral ceiling to bedroom number three and maybe a higher ceiling over the kitchen. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Just a layover. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Just a layover. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yep, we don't want to again it's mainly just to balance it aesthetically. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, so it's hollow up there? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Exactly and there won't really be access to it so it's not meant for anything but aesthetics the part that is over the kitchen and the existing bedroom. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony just as a point of education, that sort of fagade is called the layover? ANTHONY PORTILLO : If you go to the elevations, that portion there the left portion we're just going to lay it over the existing roof and those windows would just basically be looking into a dead space essentially. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that's called a layover.. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea it's layover the existing roof instead of like a true valley where you actually open it up and you have full access to it. The right-hand side is going to be a straight void and that's where the attic space is going to be everything else is just layover. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Anybody on Zoom? You're going to submit the Trustees approval; I mean I don't want to close it subject to receipt unless we have to. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Close subject to receipt, you got it, you'll email it to us today or tomorrow. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a Trustees approval for wetland permit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8030—VITO PLAIA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Vito Plaia #8030. Request for a variance from Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's April 16, 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 lot containing up to 40,000 square feet in area located at 1020 Laurel Court in Laurel. RICHARD MATO : Hi, Richard Mato architect for the owner good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks as though the proposed gross floor area is 6,450 square feet where the code allows on that lot size a maximum of 5,100. You have an existing two- story single-family dwelling with an attached two car garage to be expanded to a three bay, three car garage.The expansion will be sort of towards the street. RICHARD MATO : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Homeowners appear to have approved the addition. RICHARD MATO : They have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, are you aware about gross floor area averaging? RICHARD MATO : I provided a I put the five adjacent homes only on one side of the road since one of the neighboring properties is the golf course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ah so we do have it. Yea on a cul de sac its pretty difficult to figure that out. What we have here are individual gross floor areas. What we need to do is add them all up and then divide by five and then we'll have RICHARD MATO : I know that number. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is that number? RICHARD MATO : It's 5,104 which is below the existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 5,104 1 know there's some very large houses there I would have thought GFA would have been to your advantage. RICHARD MATO : Yes, we have one of the larger for the adjacent five we're the largest lot and the two immediate to the adjacent to us are larger and exceed the GFA more than we do. We originally filed for the building permit and we didn't meet the setback on the side so we August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting revised the plans to match that. We matched he setbacks, we meet the side yard and the front yard setback, we meet lot coverage because our lot is a little bigger. It's just the average, some of the homes the averages aren't two story one of them is a ranch it's a little bit detrimental to our case. It goes with the community, most of the houses have three car garages in fact one of our neighbors have a four-car garage and we meet all the other requirements. It's only 270 square foot addition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're saying that based on your calculations the average of those five dwellings is 5,104 square feet? RICHARD MATO : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to know which alright you've given us photographs of the homes that you calculated. RICHARD MATO : Correct, those are the five adjacent properties. Also, we looked into the possibility of a detached garage but he Homeowners Association wouldn't approve that so that won't work and that would not count towards GFA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think some of the problem is because you're on a cul de sac it's hard to determine exactly which dwellings to include and I think you probably have the right to include at least ten I mean even if it's up Knoll Ct. a little bit on the same street. It doesn't have to be directly I think you have a roundabout basically directly across from you. So, I suspect it would be appropriate since this is a continuing street to include maybe a few more up that way to bring up that average if possible. The Board is barred from granting more than what the average is, we are literally prohibited by the code from doing that. We want to try and give property owners the best option for providing RICHARD MATO : I know there are some larger homes on adjacent roads, would that be acceptable or does it have to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it's supposed to be see this doesn't suit every single configuration of every neighborhood obviously depending on the size of the lots and how they're laid out exactly. We did our best in attempting in determine what the immediate neighborhood looks like and we determine that it would be the street wall. Most streets go like this but when you're on a cul de sac at the very least you can continue that way you know around the circle and that way. Given the scenario you submitted you're looking at only 4 square feet, the average is 5,104 and you're allowed 5,100 it's de minimus, it's insignificant. Given the size of the other homes in that general area it seems that it would be a benefit to include some more of those homes. Does that make sense to the Board? August 7,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER-LEHNERT : It does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because you're very limited because of the cul de sac, you're just looking at that and I think it's fair to allow you to look at both sides of Knoll the street not just Knoll Ct.just the little area. Laurel I'm sorry. Does that make sense to the Board? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if anybody wants to address the application. MEMBER LEHNERT : Do we give him where he's going to go? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pardon MEMBER LEHNERT : He can use the rest of Laurel Ct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I mean I think the street you can extend the street. When you're on a circle it's very hard to figure out what's adjacent, what's across, what you know so we're really trying to RICHARD MATO : A radius maybe? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're really trying to look at character of the neighborhood. We've seen it but we need the numbers to support it and visualizing the fact that there are many two story, very large homes there is not sufficient evidence for us to write a determination so we're going to need some data to support the visual conclusion. Are you guys okay with that? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To the intersection. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can go around the circle and down to the go and show it to him,that makes sense. RICHARD MATO : Okay, we can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that the homeowner is a mechanic or certainly has cars he can work on. RICHARD MATO : He would like to have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm from Detroit I had to notice. It's pretty cool in there. Anything from the Board? August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just commentary, I find it amazing that the covenants and restrictions disallow the accessory structure of a garage. RICHARD MATO : Right and we submitted that paperwork as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand that I just find it amazing cause that would be such an easy solution. RICHARD MATO : We looked into that and we made the garage smaller to conform with the setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can see that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's not a big garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, not at all and it is characteristic in the neighborhood so you know all of that is going for you but this particular code is something we're trying to work with to balance reasonable property rights with what the code allows us to do. I would propose that you look into additional homes and recalculate the GFA on the assumption that we're thinking this will benefit the applicant. Fair enough Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes MEMBER ACAMPORA : Leslie, I just wanted to point out that the applicant did not have a sign up in front of the house which you know it helps us when the sign is out. UNNAMED SPEAKER : The sign was up. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It wasn't there when I came to see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wasn't there when I was there either. RICHARD MATO : I have photos of it along with the affidavit. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's just helpful when we go. RICHARD MATO : I have an affidavit, should I post it again? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well we've been out there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to close the hearing subject to receipt of gross floor area so no further testimony is going to be available. I'm sure that it was up at one point or another it's happened but it is a requirement to notice a public hearing on all applications and to put it in a visibly clear place so people are aware that a hearing is going take place. I make a Z41 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended gross floor area calculation. 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, as soon as we get that information we'll see how soon we can get a decision made. If we get it soon, we' may have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. If not, it will be a month from now at our next hearing. HEARING#8009SE—705 CR 48 LLC, ULSTER FARMS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 705 CR 48 LLC, Ulster Farms, LLC#8009SE. This is a request for Special Exception pursuant to Article IX Code Section 280-41B(2) of the Southold Town Code and the Building Inspector's February 14, 2025 Notice of Disapproval to allow and construct two buildings to be used for contractor businesses located at 705 CR48 in Mattituck. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Hi, Paul Pawlowski the owner of 705. Dear Members of the Board we appreciate the opportunity to come before you today regarding our proposal for multi-tenant space intended for mix use of contractors under the current limited business zoning designation. The majority of the proposed uses for this project are permitted by code. However due to the ambiguity in the current zoning language we are requesting a special exception to allow for contractor uses. We would like to point out, in the current zoning code amendment currently under review if adopted this request would not even be necessary. I'd like to just talk to you about the limited business district. The intent of the limited business district is to provide an opportunity to accommodate limited business activity along highway corridors but in areas outside the central business area business area. Current permitted uses Z August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting that we're seeking are custom workshops, machine shops, private warehousing, repair shops for household business types including carpenters, electric, plumbing, pool, landscape services etc., and those are allowed by code. What we're here just because it is somewhat vague asking for a special exception are contractors' business cause you know for instance my pool guy wants to rent a space, that's permitted by code. My trim guy and I'm just giving examples a contractor's business a trim person they would need a special exception so I met with Heather and the Planning staff very early on-and I said, listen we could fill this space with allowable uses but I don't want to get into a situation where it's confusing. So that's why I'm here before you. I don't have a clue when they might change the zone cause if you look at CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Neither do we, we're working on it. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No one does but the only reason I bring up the potential zone changes because we wouldn't need to be here today and in due time such for service businesses, sales, contractor shop, contractor storage yard, warehouse private, vehicle repair, garden center you know and I'm not saying those are specifically what I'm seeking I'm just pointing out that it's interesting about the timing. I would definitely like to point out that we still feel we can fill it with permitted uses if needed. Importantly we are not requesting any variances. Our proposal fully complies with all applicable code requirements including setback, building size, parking and other site plan criteria. This application is consistent with the town's planning principles and intended use of the zone. Also, the location is great as the surrounding areas have mechanics shops to the west, multi-tenant strip mall nearby, greenhouse operations to the north, a retail winery nearby, contractor spaces within five hundred feet, minimal residential homes and we have a very large landscape buffer between the properties. Additionally, there's precedent for this type of use in the same zoning district. Fortunately, the ZBA granted me a special exception for my contractor's yard behind Wendy's Deli so thank you for that and unfortunately, it's twenty-five years already. We believe strongly that the tenant mix will predominantly consist of permitted uses however we are here proactively to seek approval for contractor's use. Our goal is to ensure clarity, compliance and continued cooperation with the town as this project moves forward. Finally, we respectfully submit that this project fulfills a real and growing need in our community. Southold town lacks sufficient legal spaces where local tradespeople and contractors can lease space and run and grow their businesses. This project will help address that gap providing properly zoned code compliant facilities for these vital small businesses. Thank you for your time today, we look forward in working with the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, the Architectural Review Board and I'm here to answer any questions and that's really the goal. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, Paul it happens to be you do have substantial buffers, I'm presuming you're going to leave some vegetative buffer somewhere along here that'll be done with the Planning Board. It is along two things that we have to look at, one is that it's a scenic byway and the other is, it's very near a sole source aquifer. In order to make sure that the kinds of activities that would happen on that site are not going to be potentially a source of contamination or pollution. You said you're proposing to include contractors that are doing appliance repairs. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No I was just reiterating what's in the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ah, what kind of contractors are you whoever says I need PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Plumber, electrician, trim carpenter and I'm just giving you examples of people that have reached out for space. We will as long as that question and the Planning Board brought that up as well, we will prohibit hazardous materials on the site. This is what's interesting about.our site. It's really for if you really look at it for indoor warehouse space and indoor office and indoor needs. We're not looking to have a landscape yard so to say. This is not for outdoor mulch storage or large trailer storage. You can just see it's all the parking spots are for your average sized vehicle. It's really for small contractor type businesses that'll utilize the indoor of this building. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems like Mariners Way in Southampton, I don't know if you're dealing with that. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes, it's better than Mariners Way because of how we design this to accept you know if deliveries are being made it's circular in formation. My architect and engineer did a turning radius but to your point on hazardous materials we will work for any signage needed that's not to prohibit that and again because it's multi-tenant our goal as a landlord is always to keep the space clean. If you see other properties, we own we have to keep each tenant happy so we're not going to allow tenants to build up and create a mess on this property because you know there's going to be multi-tenant space. It will be connected to town water, domestic water and fire. We will have all necessary code compliant stormwater runoff will be contained on site. Natural buffers, we exceed the code to the north where the first ,residential home is and we will do whatever that will all stay natural large trees but we're still going to put in a large you know green giants surrounding the whole property. Back to scenic byway, the peak of this building is only eighteen feet so side walls are roughly fifteen up to the peak is eighteen. We'll work with ARB if they don't like all white, we can mute it.with a tan color whatever the ARB and Planning is asking for. This will be much, much smaller in size compared to some of the barns that are on 48, the storage barns they're much smaller they're probably double the height. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The ridge height is eighteen feet? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes, so for instance we're talking eight foot taller than nine foot taller than MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When you drive on the Main Rd. in Southold here you got Platinum Electric just PAUL PAWLOWSKI : That's way taller. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I'm thinking. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : That's I know this, that's 32-feet. MEMBER LEHNERT : The ones on Depot Lane are taller. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Much taller. We can my business partner in this owns Pete and Son Nurseries, we can put up 14-foot evergreens along the front day one; green giants or whatever. We'll be respectful of the scenic byway cause again, this is not this is contractor's space it doesn't need to be like this big sign you know, we're open for business it's really for them to have storage space and go conduct business within town. We met with DPW yesterday and then the Town Engineer. DPW is ready to sign off on the application as well. While it is on 48 it's in an area that is and we all live out here, by default you do start to slow down. There's a double light there, there's the first light then the second light and this is a very the shoulder there is very wide so we're able to do a nice entrance for any vehicle to go in one way and come out the other way. I think there was you know we're in the middle of working with DEPW you know traffic studies and accident reports and because of the double light there and the turning lanes and the shoulders it's a good area for this sort of use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How do you anticipate the various tenants in the building coming and going? I mean will they be leaving early in the morning, coming back in the afternoon? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I believe so, I think you know contractor hours but one thing I also think just based on some of the ones in Mariner Drive MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Such a variety of tenants. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Variety in Westhampton but you know they're not going and coming late by any means. They're not really that's not the goal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know all of us who live here know what traffic looks like on 25 and 48 and making turns is very difficult especially a left turn out of anywhere let alone with a August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting large truck. So, traffic impacts with ten different businesses coming and going is pretty intense. I mean it's one thing if you're talking about a couple of businesses but ten is a lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well in theory also though a tenant might take two spaces. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yea and this is just for conversation so I'm not trying to argue against you but, these are small spaces, two thousand square foot. By the time their office is in there, the bathroom these are for small businesses. It's a large piece of property, this is three acres, compared to other proposed uses I think that the traffic is as small as it could get. Much less than my multi-tenant space near the Capital One on the Main Rd. with the bank, the medical we're talking two, three cars each business. Even though we meet parking by code there's way more parking here than I think we'll ever need for these size businesses. Again, pulling into this site right now it's just wooded and a large shoulder and people sit tractor trailers sit out front, go to the deli you know. I think that's just because there's no building there, they're not blocking anyone's driveway. I think this will greatly improve having a curb cut, being able to see. Right now, you could pull over to the side of the road and it's very clear let alone when we have a proper entrance and having the double light and being able to go to the light and people make a left and head east is a very, very good thing. This is not for landscapers by any means. It's more for you know sprinter sized van type companies, we have no design or even want to design for trucks with trailers. T. A. MCGIVNEY : You wouldn't prohibit them. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : By default landscapers they won't want this space because where could they put CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's too small for them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Wasn't your question relative to like the eighteen wheelers sort of delivery trucks? T. A. MCGIVNEY : No PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Even on that, if you look at there's fifty feet between the buildings and so a tractor trailer can pull in this building. All the deliveries I ever get whether it's at my house or commercial sites they want to get as close to the door as they can. On this site, now tractor trailers just pull over on the side of the road but there's nothing there. They're going to actually pull in here, make a right and go between the buildings and deliver and can easily do that navigation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's no loading dock anyway. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : We can put one in but it's really, really designed well for deliveries because they can come into the site versus sit on 48 there's plenty of room. There's basically three rows you know to the east, the middle one and to the west. Again, there's such a large shoulder there's not there's zero blind spots coming out of this property. To prohibit (inaudible)they're not going to want this space cause they can't have any outdoor CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, Paul you're not anticipating large trucks particularly going into those bays? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No it's not big CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There wouldn't be room for them to pull in. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's no loading dock. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, for a tractor trailer to be able to make deliveries so if such a vehicle is coming from the west and needs to make that turn to get into the eastbound lane, what's the anticipated traffic pattern for that kind of delivery? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Eastbound lane MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm sorry coming from the west and they need to get into the westbound lane. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : So if they're headed west MEMBER STEINBUGLER : They're headed east, they want to make a delivery to this building. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : They'll have to utilize there's several ways they can get to that to be able to head west. There's the first turning lane probably five hundred yards from our property, then there's another one and then there's the light. I mean similar to how everyone delivers to Wendy's Deli, I mean there's several ways to get to you know this site from the four lane highway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) there's a large rotary. I find myself going west to actually go east. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I hope that answers, I'm sorry if it was confusing but there's one, two, three, four ways they can head east and turn around to head west. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So like four U-turn opportunities. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Got it, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, did you get copies of the comments from the Planning Board to us? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely yea and we're working with them to mitigate and they were your three main questions I believe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They have issued a negative declaration for SEQR purposes but they've asked us to adjourn so that they're review process can be complete. They're anticipating that it'll be this month, are you on the same page with that? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I fully understand, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, let's see if there's anybody else who wants to address the application but that's the strategy we'll just adjourn this and see where we're going when we get more comments from Planning. We could probably I'm wondering if we should just adjourn it to a specific date because we'll need those comments to have probably additional questions and so on. We'll get to that in a second, is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Come to the mic and state your name please. THOMAS TALBOT : My name is Thomas Talbot, I live behind this proposed project. I also have a shop just east of Wendy's Deli. I've been there for about twenty-five years now and I see everything that goes on here. I have cameras out on the road and I see the trucks and the traffic. They're actually before the two lights it was only actually there was no lights there at the intersection of Cox Neck and just a stop sign coming out on Old Sound Ave. What you have here is a well first of all I would not be here if this was a contractor building a building or two contractors getting together and building a you know a business for himself. This is not, this is an industrial use in a limited business zone. Multiple contractors in a compass like setting and I think you already said it, it has no off-street loading and unloading zone which is required in that type of setting in industrial. To say that all those businesses are going to be working inside those rented spaces with no yard spaces is not true, that's a fantasy. Contractors need yard space, contractors have larger vehicles they don't drive compact cars they drive larger pickups, they got vans, they got you know mid-sized trucks, small trucks like (inaudible) and stuff. They're all going to want to pull in there next to their bay and do whatever they gotta do. They're going to want to have a pallet delivered to them of stone or plumbing supply or electrical supplies. The companies that deliver this stuff like Sid Harveys they don't drive vans they drive trucks. Amagansett Building, they get a lot of deliveries, building contractors they have all big trucks. Any of these contractors in there are going to get deliveries and they're going to get them all the time day in day out. I think there's about forty- August 7,2025 Regular Meeting four spaces of parking just normal cars, there's no room to get in there and park a truck or a trailer and the guy that has a two thousand square foot space there he's going to want to bring a truck maybe a skid loader maybe some mowers into the place and do whatever he's doing I'm not really sure but he's going to be a constant hub of activity. I think next to the park right there where there's a choke point on Route 48 where it narrows down from two lanes to a single lane is a major concern. You say he talked about accidents there, they're there constantly. Many of those accidents are because someone is on their cell phone, they're ignoring the traffic lights and they run into the car in front of them it happens all the time, I see it. There is a shop that opened up down the road about east of that about a half mile or so just recently. It has two bays in it, less than a thousand square foot and there's thirty cars in that parking lot, I counted them on the way here thirty cars in less than a thousand square foot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you better describe that location? THOMAS TALBOT : It's the old Dinizio gas station, it's on MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's on the corner of Wickham. THOMAS TALBOT : 48 and Wickham, thirty cars there today and that's not the ones that are inside the shop, That's quite a bit, that's just one now you have ten times that amount in this type of setup. It's kind of let's maximize the building square footage and worry about all the problems later. Talked about tractor trailers that park out on the road, they do and when I pull out of my driveway fortunately the light benefits me. I can pull out when the light turns red and I can get out without any problem but if there's a tractor trailer sitting there, I have to keep edging out, edging out, edging out and a lot of times the cars come they're making a right into Wendy's or they're making a right on Cox Neck Lane and they cut in as close as they can. Even when I go out there to clean up, I'm always looking behind me to see if I'm going to get run over. Anyway, that's the real story of how it's,going to be when this place if it ever does get approved. He would be better off building one building and having the yard space and a loading zones to accommodate it but maximum square footage with very little yard space is Just not going to work and it'll force all of that stuff to the buffers, it'll force it to the roadway, it'll force it anywhere it will go because these people it's all about doing business. The other thing the concern I have is with these massive buildings you're going to have a lot of electricity that has to come in. What I'm afraid of is they're going to take the electricity that comes from the pole across 48 on my property and run a string of poles down and wires to his property which is you know I care about the way it looks. I'm a single owner, I have a business there and I live in the back and to me that would be unsightly. You talked about the aquafer; you have ten bathrooms in there which is ten times the amount of bathrooms that I have. I Z August 7,2025 Regular Meeting would think with these new sanitary systems that would be a burden. Also, you know I did put curbs in front of my building to stop the trucks from encroaching on my property and the one thing it did, it sent the water down my driveway, luckily, I had enough drainage to handle that water. If he puts curbs in front of his property it's going to create ponding on 48 1 think that's going to be a major concern also. The property is actually a dip now, when they came in with an illegal curb cut by a prior owner, they brought in about ten tractor trailers of material just to build up that curb cut the entry and exit onto 48. On the sides of that is a very low area which is where the water naturally goes now. Then you have the Strawberry Festival which you might of well close down for a week because that is nothing but congestion at that time. I believe that's it except for I know that it'll be a mess when it does get built. If this was just a building, a contractor or a couple of contractors getting together to do something it would be a whole different story but it's something that really should go up to Calverton to Enterprise Park or something like that. This is the trade parade that's going to be renting here. They're going to be coming in in the morning, they're going to be going out during the eight o'clock rush hour or seven o'clock and they'll be coming back during rush hour also. So that all. it is, it's an increased trade parade in the wrong area.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your testimony, anybody else? SHARON JACOBS : Hi, my name is Sharon Jacobs my husband is Jim Jacobs he is not here, he was not able to leave work. My property is adjacent directly behind Mr. Pawlowski's project. I am residential and two eleven thousand square foot buildings each holding five two thousand square foot units is a lot of business. We own a business and what comes in and out of our property on a daily. When he says, it's going to be small, maybe so, he said maybe just sprinter vans or things like that. We have deliveries to our shop where they may just deliver a radiator hose this big but you have a huge truck coming in because we're not the only stop there's other stops along the way. It's not just about small trucks, small vans. My concern as living right there is that it's going to be constant traffic, constant noise. He did say Mr. Pawlowski did say that he is willing to do all the buffers and we greatly appreciate it that's great but it's not going to stop what is going to take place there. As an example, just now he said, pool service or automotive, well you're talking different chemicals, you're talking different things. He did say, it would be limited, or is it not going to be limited. I have well water in my yard, my well is practically in the back by the property back there. My biggest concern is just all the noise, all the traffic. I know behind the mason place that's behind Wendy's and that's not even by my house but I believe it's every Tuesday morning at 2:30, 3 o'clock they get deliveries and you can hear them cause they must like dump gravel or something on big loads and you can hear the back gates.banging and everything. So, even though that is what it is, they have a business they're entitled to that, if all of this is going to be taking place on right behind me, right next to me I just feel like it's so big it's just ten August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting businesses, it's ten dumpsters, garbage trucks it's just way too much for that area. Like Tom said, if it was maybe two businesses or something fine that would be great but you're talking it's too dense just way too much. I think about lighting, they're going to have to light this up. Is my yard going to be light up like Disney World? I'm just concerned for overall my property; my value property value is going to depreciate. One week out of the year I have the Strawberry Festival right behind me that's one week out of the year. Now, we're talking a permanent situation that is going to be constant. I didn't do my homework, I don't know anything about the septic, I know that septic systems have been upgraded and all but as I said, this is right behind my property. You're talking about runoff, you're talking about just things like that, we're right there. That's all I have to say, thank you for your time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I could ask a question, is your business based at your home or at one of the adjacent sites or it's elsewhere in town? SHARON JACOBS : Nope it's in town. Go back to that, I mean I see what comes in and out I'm right next door to us we have a health food store, we have a carpet store. The deliveries are all day long even though it's a small business they get deliveries throughout the day. I don't see how you can say that you're going to have ten businesses and it's not going to be disruptive. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think there was somebody on Zoom and then Paul we'll have you come back. ELLEN TALBOT : Hi my name is Ellen Talbot on I'm Zoom from my car. I have a letter that I submitted this morning to Kim's attention at the ZBA. I will read that but before I do that, I wanted to add two comments that are not included in the letter. One is, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we lost her. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the spirit is we're going to hold the hearing open anyway so we can certainly read the letter ourselves. THOMAS TALBOT : My wife owns the vacant lot just adjacent to this parcel to the west and I have a vacant lot in between that and then I have a lot that I have a repair shop a machine shop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While we're waiting to see is there Paul do you want to say anything at this point? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Just to hit on some of the comments. The bathrooms, ten bathrooms it is going to be within the new Al systems so I'm no septic engineer but supposedly that definitely August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting reduces the nitrogen and is better than your conventional septic systems. Again, ten bathrooms it's on ADA compliant bathroom for each space. The biggest thing about these spaces that I kind of want to hit on is, they're small. That comes into play for septic use, how many employees the business that Mr. Talbot was referring to is a larger business than any of these spaces would accommodate. That has outdoor space, no one, no business is.going to rent fifteen hundred to two thousand square foot and have thirty vehicles they would rent the whole building. This is just speaking; my whole life is owning commercial property. I own single tenant spaces and multi-tenant. If this 2.9 acres was one tenant or one contractor like Kolb Mechanical, their traffic and the intense of use would be ten times what I'm proposing. On Mariner Drive it's some of the largest construction companies on the east end and if you go down Mariner Drive and look at all those spaces, there's no outdoor junk sitting around and intensive uses. This project is built for indoors. If you look its buildings, the parking lot and landscaped -buffers, there won't be'bins for dirt or landscape trailers or any I'm not denying the fact that there will be deliveries. This will be a very good site for deliveries, no one is sitting out on the road because they're going to come in and'be able to come out, turn around every building. It's fifty feet between each building. The tractor trailers delivering, the UPS, the FedEx are going to come in and find their tenant and go between each building and deliver to the garage bay straight from the back of their trucks. I will say this, if one contractor or even myself was to utilize this site I'd -put up one building five-thousand square foot, the mass amount of yard the one behind Wendy's Deli which I sold is a good example. There won't be stone deliveries at 2 a.m. things of that nature. This is a much cleaner and low impact operation and a large-scale business that can utilize this space or even a proposed strip mall. This is this pales in comparison to the traffic coming in and out of Wendy's Deli or even forget just the Strawberry Festival that field every week has several hundred cars during the school year several hundred cars. This is we're talking thirty, forty cars coming in and out of here during the day and deliveries. We are uniquely set up to be able to handle those deliveries on site. The reason why people are parking in front of Mr. Talbot's or just east of it now they're not blocking anyone's driveway. I think we're actually gonna help that situation where he's not being blocked or having to worry and look left. Electrical, we will work with PSE&G to keep it as clean as possible. Ninety-nine percent of that is up to them, what we do from the pole into our property will be underground service and not wires. There will be zero runoff to any property, legally we can't have it. We have filed with the DEC a stormwater prevention plan, there's something like twenty-five 10 X 20-foot drywells on this property. There will be no pitch to other any adjacent property. Route.48 is higher than our property, there will not be a puddle in the front. That water will come into our property and go into our drywells. Two dumpsters are proposed not ten and there will be weekly service on those. Dark sky compliant lighting, we'll do the minimum required I don't even like lighting myself but if the Planning Board requires it dark sky compliant. I will say that because how we're August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting proposing this, this space will be light years quieter than the contractor space than the excavation company that is behind Wendy's Deli that they were referring to earlier or my old landscape company that utilized it in 1997 or around 2000. It's really important to look at what we're building, the fact that it is multi-tenant we as landlords have to keep it orderly and clean versus some large contractor doing whatever they want with the property. The person I bought it off was going to do a masonry yard here, a retail masonry yard. He just started to do without even approvals and luckily, he got shut down. The nature of the business is, a clean parking lot, yes sprinter vans, box trucks whatever but certainly not heavy machinery. There's no place for them and that is not o ur by default and the design of this property and building that is not who is going to rent this property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Paul, is that woman back on do you think? ELLEN TALBOT : No I'm not in Southold, I'm in New Jersey. I have a letter I'm going to read and I also want to make two additional comments that are not on the letter. One is that the previous owner brought in fill illegally and raised the grade, it could be upwards of three-feet. By the way I am at 405 Rt. 48, 1 am the property immediately to the west of the proposed 705 development and I share that border, my western border is my eastern border is the western border of the proposed development. The other comment I wanted to make is, I'm not sure why they need a cutout onto the protected area to the east of them that borders between their property and the Strawberry Festival. The ZBA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're losing you again. ELLEN TALBOT : it's not in any way enabling you know more traffic or access that could can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, now we can and now she's gone. ELLEN TALBOT : Hello, I'm going to try my best. I am the owner of the (inaudible) at 405 Rt. 48 1 already described my position to 705. 1 wanted to state that I'm opposed to the number of units proposed for this property and further questioning the allowance of a contractor campus in this existing zoning. I also want to state that I agree and echo all the points made by Mr. Tom Talbot regarding the issues of congestion that will exist at the proposed site and layout of the buildings and the proposed number ten of individual contractor businesses that are going to be invited to rent on this premises. I wanted to state that each contractor will not only have his or her own fleet of trucks and equipment, employee vehicles, customer vehicles but they will require deliveries and services provided to their sites. The traffic flow of trucks and tractor trailers to service these businesses is a problem as well as the potential for August 7,2025 Regular Meeting unloading of trucks that could be on Rt. 48. 1 also want to point out that any business that's invited to rent here, any business starting out renting one of these proposed units is surely going to have the goal of success which is only going to lead to larger fleets of service trucks and more congestion that's just the trend and the way things go in business. I want to propose two units be allowed, a total of two units at Ulster Farms, 705 CR 48 not ten, two. I also wanted to further state that I do not want the installation of any utility poles or infrastructure that would hinder access to the entire road frontage of my property to the west.That ends my comments,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. We've heard a lot and I think what we're going to ask to do and Paul's aware of it is to just adjourn this until we get more thorough review from Planning and updated comments. Should we adjourn this maybe to September? Assuming we get those MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Will the Planning Board get back to us by then? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they don't then we can propose to adjourn again. I mean but I'd rather move this forward rather than delaying any longer than we need to and I'm sure the applicant would prefer that. What do you think, should we just do that and see when we get comments? We were told they'd come in August so we should be ok. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just.have two questions if you could come back up. How much square footage is each individual space? PAUL PAWLOWSKY :Two thousand. T. A. MCGIVNEY : So if you put a sprinter vans in there and just sprinter vans, how many would fit in that space I'm not very good with PAUL PAWLOWSKY : Inside? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yes PAUL PAWLOWSKY : They have two opportunities, either in a parking spot and we exceed me meet parking code so for the square footage of the building we meet parking code but if they want to put their vehicles inside I would say comfortably three to four would fit inside. T. A. MCGIVNEY :Just to give me an idea. PAUL PAWLOWSKY : That's the biggest thing here is, businesses will expand without a doubt but they'll most likely look for another you know as a landlord not only do we have to meet parking requirements but we also have to keep our tenants happy just like any other building. .371 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting So, if I have one tenant that needs twenty spots they can't be here just like my other buildings. We have to not only by code but in reality, we cannot have one tenant outdo all the rest of the tenants or we won't have a rentable space right. Our goal is just like my site at Capital One, the bank has certain amount of spaces by code but also by reality and the salon and NYU Medical. If NYU Medical came in and needed forty spots well, they can't have the space. That's just by default and reality and we really need to as a landlord keep the tenant happy and then to pay us rent, we have to keep police that more than say town code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Paul just to follow up to some of the comments from the general public. Have you contemplated the possibility of just doing one building instead of two? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No just cause of the goal we feel the need is smaller spaces for contractors throughout our town. Then that would lead into a totally different conversation. Our market study is looking for smaller spaces, smaller businesses to rent. We could scrap that, we can do a 22,000 square foot medical space that would require 150 spots, think of that traffic. So, our goal is obviously we are a developer, our goal is to find a property, find a need for the town and rent it out. This is what we feel the market is asking for more than other potential uses there. If we did just one building and rented it out, you'd have a much bigger company with more cars than what we're proposing much bigger and it's proven. Just look at the one behind Wendy's Deli is a perfect example. So, I know John very well, he does all my work he's an excavation company and his building is rather small but his yard space is almost an acre and he's coming and going way different than if we just it would be similar to that. If we did one building it would be two tenants with a ton of yard space and that's not what we're looking to do, we're looking to do smaller cleaner spaces. One comment that I want to clear up too, there is no access to the east property line. So, it goes Strawberry Fields, then the town owns the little strip of land. There is a gate there from the previous guy, we already took it down but we will have regardless of what goes on on this property all four sides will be screened. I said at the last Planning Board meeting three sides could be fenced too right at the property line so no one can walk to the residential or even to Strawberry Fields. So, there will be zero access onto town property and Strawberry Fields. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Paul if I may, a question that sort of came up and I don't know if this is a landlord issue as you mentioned other properties that you own if it might be restrictions or limitations by one of the discretionary boards here at town hall but you stated that there's going to be no outdoor equipment storage so to speak, no gravel pits etc., are those things that are somehow written into PAUL PAWLOWSKI : We can make that happen, we can do a covenant for that. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you would be willing to restrict any extra use other than the employee vehicle like car parking and limited sized vehicles. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes, absolutely that is what this site is. As a landlord and yes so, we will covenant that so no outdoor storage at all whether it's mulch or you know piles of wood. We can limit it to you know parking spot sized vehicles and back to this whole loading conversation, between the buildings there's fifty feet so as far as loading and unloading it doesn't get better than that. A loading bay is the size you know from that door to the screen at my other projects, this is literally 200 by 50 feet for them to deliver and get in and out. Yes, there's going to be deliveries without a doubt.whether it is one contractor or two or ten there's going to be deliveries during the day and there is a very good unloading and offloading situation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other question, you mention that perhaps the zone would permit a retail landscaper etc., do you have any proposed retail tenants or would it be limited to strictly sort of a professional wholesale use? PAUL.PAWLOWSKI : Professional yea I mean that's why the code is so vague, you could have a plumber having his plumbing shop there and selling plumbing parts so the code is very vague to be honest. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would seem more wholesale than like a retail consumer. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yea but this could all be retail without any special exception. This could be a 60 foot by 200-foot strip mall. It could mirror Wendy's Deli except for you turn it parallel with the property and this is double the size of Wendy's property. Wendy's Deli. I'm only bringing that up because there is always that concern about traffic impact. For what we're proposing compared to what could go here it's very limited impact traffic wise. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn to the, wait one more comment. THOMAS TALBOT : My building is 3,750 square feet and each rental space he's proposing is 2,000; 2,000 square feet of building is not a small building, it is not small rental space. When you talk about how many sprinters you can get in there, probably a dozen. The parcel that I talked about down the road, that's probably 700 square feet and it has a repair shop in there with thirty cars outside in the parking area. Three months ago, when the placed closed up the place was empty so all of those vehicles came in there specifically for that service for that business. The problem is, the multiple the ten contractor businesses I just want to say that again and in industrial zone LIO you have the purpose in there clearly stated, contractor business in a campus like setting needs a loading and unloading zone on the premises. It's August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting described in there as a 40 foot by 10- or 15-foot-wide separate parcel you know a separate parking or zone. It's described in that in industrial either a campus like setting with contractors why wouldn't you have it in LB an loading and unloading zone which is less restrictive than or more restrictive than LIO? I don't understand that all, to say that it's accomadive for deliveries, it's not true. You have a 50-foot right of way in there with overhead doors on both sides of those buildings, that's going to be a hub of activity. You're going to have a truck pulling in there, they're going to be moving out of this guy's way or moving out of that guy's way, there is no zone for loading and unloading. With two buildings you should have two, there shouldn't just one. I don't know of any contractors at all that don't have equipment, that don't have trailers so what are you going to do just rent the spot and then go in there with your car or something and do work inside, no it's going to be a hub of activity. That's what it's going to be and if it allowed to happen, you'll see all the problems that's all I gotta say, you will see the congestion on that road; traffic backs up a half mile at 5 o'clock. When the ferry gets out, there's a hundred cars added to that. If the ferry gets out at 3 o'clock, 3:30 there's a hundred cars going by. I've been there long enough to know. Alright, that's all for now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : On our next site plan there will be two loading zones in this property just to help that discussion even though the entire the whole point of the two bays is, the people the owner of the business or their employees they park in the parking spaces, come to their front door where their office is and then they could utilize the center 50 x 200 foot road to off load and unload their specific needs or their deliveries. We have the room to accommodate a loading zone or two, I'll have the engineer do it to help with that conversation. This is not for service businesses like a mechanic shop. Why there's thirty,fifty cars at Dinizio's old that's not we can put in there, no mechanic shop or anything like that. That is not a conversation on a business that's trying to provide a service contractor services. That is the reason there's thirty cars they're repairing that's not a good analogy comparing what I'm proposing. To help mitigate one concern of the loading, by design the site is set up for off loading and you know loading but we can accommodate two loading zones. To put it in perspective of what we're renting, it's a little this room is about 1,200 square feet so by the time you have a 200 square foot office, a bathroom you could kind of figure out how much storage space they're going to have or warehouse space that they'll have to accommodate whatever they need. I just want to say, we will help that concern of the loading and offloading with we'll put those loading zones in and show that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Paul can you get that to Planning so that they have 0 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yea,they'll have it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to chime in, I don't mean to contradict you but I mean as a Member of this Board I just have my own opinion, I don't know if I'd like to see those docks cause that just encourages a more intensive use of the site versus not having them. While I hear Mr. Talbot's opinion I'm thinking of totally different uses not specific to Mariner's or other places I've been personally but it's not necessarily a plumber or a trim guy but you mention the retail component and I'm thinking about twenty different aspects of uses for those spaces for small businesses or people whether they're a retailer, a decorator who knows how they want to use the storage bin but they don't want the space that you go to like Stonewall Storage where they're getting a 10 x 10, they need space. I can think of residential people so I don't quite know but it's your project, it's your decision and certainly the Chairperson is correct in suggesting that if that is your choice to have, I just don't know if I would encourage that. I think it speaks more to an intensive use than what-I perceive these to be at this juncture. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely, but we'll keep mitigating as we can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those issues you can bring up with the Planning Board and you know they're going to provide us with further comments. A lot of this has to do with site circulation and the type of business obviously is going to make a difference in how you need to accommodate them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think probably more important from what I've hear and what we talked about is your willingness to put restrictions on the site, maybe that's an important thing to also be submitted. Whether you sit down with your attorney or however you review what it is that you would restrict it to. I don't like the idea of a gravel yard there, as I perceive it, it doesn't look like it's that space but that was a concern of mine. I'm not familiar with Ms. Jacobs or even Mr. Talbot's opinions about whoever is delivering stone at two thirty in the morning, I suppose for that for contractors that go to work at eight or at seven they' need those deliveries very early. I don't know it's not my world as far as who makes those deliveries in the middle of the night but I can imagine how disruptive that would be. So, if you're in a position that you could really restrict and hone down to who your prospective tenants are and how the site is used, I think that's really beneficial to mitigate issues. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely and I think the biggest thing is, looking at the site plan by default shows that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Some but I'll tell you I have concern because'my first thought was, contractors and I don't want to say if it's a pool guy cause it's not a fair example but a stone August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting mason has bricks delivered where do they go? You don't want to put them inside your unit if you're taking them to a different site for installation. It's just I think part of a healthy dialogue here, if that can be flushed out, I think that's beneficial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually, there is clearly a need for these sorts of facilities in town (inaudible) the Zoning Update Committee knows it and that's probably certainly not going to put him in a hamlet center and that is with buffers and appropriate you know planning that's a reasonable location. The question becomes, if you can define and limit the nature of the businesses that would be going in there it would be helpful to evaluate the kind of circulation that's needed the kind of materials that will brought on site and all of that. Now, that's entirely up to your business model I mean PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yea that's tough but what I know what I can do as a covenant is no outdoor storage things like that which will greatly help, no outdoor storage there goes a landscaper or mason yard. I'm not going to say MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I mean it seems (inaudible) PAUL PAWLOWSKI : To say a landscape yard you know a contractor like there's two different landscapers. There's my lawn guy who needs trailers everything, then I have Kristen Schultz from Roots, she's a florist basically that does annual she doesn't have one trailer right so she'd be a perfect candidate for tenant space. So, what that does is it still provides for a landscaper but a specific one that doesn't need outdoor storage. I'm not saying that she's going to rent a space but it's a way to not corner myself in and be caught lying, oh no landscaper but a florist could want this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO (inaudible) special events people and everyone needs storage (inaudible) PAUL PAWLOWSKI : The Lions Club the whole reason I bought this property, they asked me to buy it so they can rent a bay, literally. There's a ton small scale businesses MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right where you're too big for a regular (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : You can't break that out up front PAWL PAWLOWSKI : But I can certainly help with outdoor storage and hazardous materials and things of that nature. I can definitely put in there, no mechanics shops that's big-time cause then you are inviting more than your employee staff or owner. I can work on that language with my attorney and 4 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will also help with Planning, site plan review it makes a big difference and calculating all those figures. Okay, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting in September I'm sorry the Regular Meeting in September 4tn MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to adjourn for lunch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8031SE—OYSTERPONDS HISTORICAL SOCIETY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Oysterponds Historical Society #8031SE. This is a request for a Special Exception per Town Code Article III Section 280-13B (15) and the Building Inspector's April 25, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct upgrades and renovations to include alterations, a new storage addition and a new ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) ramp to an existing historical society building located at 1555 Village Lane in Orient. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon Martin Finnegan, 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants and I am joined today by Allison Ventura who is the Executive Director of OHS. I did Kim I did have a Memo of Law CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a Memo of Law. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Oh good, as Leslie referenced we are here for special exception approval for the Historic Society use that has existed on this premises for decades. This application was triggered by the applicant's application for a permit to construct a storage addition to the Vail House which is one of six historic structures that exists on this property. It's a 1.42-acre parcel as you know located at the intersection of Village Lane and Fletcher St. in Orient Village. The necessity for the construction is that, OHS is the custodian of over sixty thousand artifacts that have been acquired over the last many, many decades including correspondence, diaries, works of art, photographs, archival papers these span centuries and are an integral part of the history of Orient and East Marion hamlets. As of now, these artifacts are housed in different structures on the property, they do not have the proper climate control, the proper fire suppression systems to ensure their safe storage. The Board of the Historic Society determined that it would be best to add this addition to the Vail House which is probably the best location on the site for it, it's in the back corner of the property. The proposed construction is entirely conforming to the bulk schedule. It is a one-story addition for this conditioned fire safe space that will allow these artifacts to be properly stored. Why are we here? OHS came before this Board on two prior occasions as I'm sure you're aware back in 1972 and then again in 2002 for different relief. In those determinations at least by memory I felt like there was an acknowledgment of the Historic Society use. OHS has been the applicant, the use of the property as a historic society was acknowledged however the Building Department has felt that with this addition we should come back here and I guess get your blessing for the use. There has been an acknowledgement that it is obviously an ongoing pre-existing nonconforming use there for decades but here we are. The Historic Preservation Commission granted a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed construction back in April. We will have to go through a site plan process, as a matter of fact the site plan August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting. application is pending before the,Planning Board and a public hearing is scheduled before them on September 8th. The Planning Board did comment as I know you are aware and support of this application acknowledging that OHS has operated on the premises as a museum and cultural institution for years representing a well-established pre-existing nonconforming use. The Planning Board also recognized OHS's operation or that their operation furthers the goals of the community character chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Clearly, the proposed Historic Society use is permitted under the town code under Section 280-13B (15) subject to your approval. I have covered the criteria in the code for issuance of a special exception in my memorandum of law. Just to briefly summarize kind of like in respect to the general standards, as I said this is an addition that is going to be completely conforming to the bulk schedule. We're really here about the use, this is one of an addition to one of six buildings, this property has been recognized as the Oysterponds Historical Society for decades. The intent of this project is to just enhance the operations of OHS allowing them to really meet their primary mission which is to be good custodians of these priceless artifacts so this project will enable them to do that. We submit that there are in light of the fact that it is completely conforming it is a contained building that is in the back corner of the property that there are no perceivable impacts or detriments to nearby the community or to neighbors and we have as I think you've seen in the record numerous letters in support for the project. We are going to be going through a site plan process to the extent that there are any perceivable impacts, I guarantee that the Planning Board will have us mitigate them through that process. On balance, we are just simply here to say that by application of we believe we've satisfied the standards for issuance of a special exception and I'm happy to answer any questions that the Board may have now or upon further comment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to enter into the record that I was a little confused about why in fact already having received a special exception permit previously it was necessary for this addition which is completely conforming to all setbacks, height, lot coverage and so on. So, I did a little digging and discovered that it's a museum building in a residential zone district which makes it a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use which therefore triggers that section of the code that says, it cannot be enlarged or altered without becoming a conforming use. There's no way this building can be anything other than what it is or should be. That is what brought this here. It is certainly supported by Planning for all the right reasons. We are attempting to preserve the character of our community both in the hamlet of Orient and every other hamlet. Certainly, it is one of the most significant historical archives on Long Island having the Town -of Southold founded in the sixteen hundreds. The preservation of those documents are extremely important for our community and other scholars also. Not having proper archival space,is a real problem. It could be lost in a fire in no time. I think you have outlined in great detail all of the reasons for the special August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting exception statutes that we have to look at. Let me see if the Board has any other questions at this point, Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No further, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, I'd rather hear from the public. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions at this time. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : As Martin said, we have numerous letters of support in our public record. I'd like to ask now if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? MITCH STEIN : My name is Mitch Stein, I am local lawyer. A little bit of background, I'm general counsel to Sea Tow a position I've had since the mid eighties so I've been migrating easterly from Manhattan to Port Washington to Northport where I was for twenty years to here. I know about this case only because I ran into the Franke's less than a week ago. I'm here because there are problems and I'm here to address those problems and hopefully to assist to what I think the property solution should be. I'm new to the code here but whoever wrote it did a good job. I'm a patent lawyer so I focus on language, language is critical (inaudible) are made and destroyed based on language. I'm going to speak a little bit about the statutory problems and the notice problems and the goal and then I'm going to put the Franke's on.Just so we're clear on it, I don't can we go back I don't know whose CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On they on Zoom? MITCH STEIN : I don't I'm new to that I know Zoom but next time if there is a next time. Let's go to the front page of their application there. Now, if you see the to the lower right-hand corner where the new building is supposed to be that's sort of pinkish, they own the property immediately adjacent to it on the right of it. They own and control both of those lots. Their back yard is the back yard to this building, so if this building they're putting in if they put it in is going to be within 15 feet of the setback and even though it's a rear building there, I guess they get away with it and I think this is what we return to a basic premise here now. I appreciate madam Chairperson you already kicked off the argument and I want to follow it 46, August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting up. There's no question that this is residential zoning, it's an R40 and there's a question that the various departments have already said you can't do that and they have looked to the special exception statutes which frankly doesn't apply. I want to explain a little bit about that, what they need is a variance and I'm going to explain a little bit about that too at least that's what I believe and I'm going to show ladies and gentlemen of the Board why that's appropriate under the code here and as a matter of law. I want to say, I appreciate and I'm going to say this first, I appreciate the desire I share in the desire I don't think anybody in this room doesn't share in the desire to protect antiquities to make sure that they don't get destroyed to make sure that they're protected and available. There are curated commercial facilities that will do that, protect them and there's already a facility there that allows people to come and look at them, that's the red barn. If you're looking at these buildings the red barn is the one to the left of the new facility, see that darker area, that's the new entrance way sort of the gateway to the complex to what's going to be the commercial complex if it's pursued the way it appears to be. The red barn is the one right in the middle that's already a facility designed for the purposes of showing and presenting the antiquities. How do we know that?There is a sign, I have a photo of it I'll introduce later, there's a sign that says that. This is not per say a new use, this is a commercial use, this a building of a huge building in a location that is residential in the back yard of my clients and this is not what a special exception is supposed to be. Let me back up for a second and say that, if you look at this statute the standards are different for whether you do a variance or you do a special exception significantly different. As a matter of law let me just tell you what a Zoning Board is required to engage in in a variance application. I quote, balancing test, weighing the benefits to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or the community if the variance is granted. That's under town law 267B as cited in a case against the Town of Southold from 2012 matter Danieri vs. Zoning Board. Before I forget this is a housekeeping matter, nobody has notice of the Memo of Law that the applicant has provided so we never saw it, never received it and I'd just like if this proceeds past the declination or decline I want an opportunity to review it and respond to it just as a matter or procedure and due process. Now, I want to read a little bit more that also sites the matter of Vecaro vs. Board of Appeals in the Town of Hempstead. It continues and I'm quoting, in making its determination the Zoning Board must consider, one, whether an undesirable change will produce in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. Two, will the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Three, whether the requested area variance is substantial. Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district and five, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created which consideration will be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals which will not 471 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. That is a town law 267B 3B and as quoted in the decision that I gave you before, the Appellate Division Second Department matter of Danieri vs. the Zoning Board of Southold. Why is this important, because if you first of all, we cannot do the balancing test as a variance cause it's not a variance application. I tell you I met other neighbors of the Franke's who have no idea what's going on here because the notice doesn't say what they're really trying to do which is get a variance of the R40 Residential District notification so they can create a commercial compound. I want to add to that, I don't think there's any secret here that the Oyster Ponds Historical Society runs all sorts of fund raising and I have an exhibit here printed out (inaudible) and I think it's important on the variance standard that they have the financial ability, this is an amenity that apparently earns seven hundred thousand dollars' a year and is worth six point something million, it's not like they can't get a curated facility to protect the artifacts. They don't need this unless and my clients believe it to be so, this is a ruse, all this is is an attempt to get more pig roasts, to get more fundraising events to create greater opportunity, greater attraction for the public which we all know it's commercial use. The truth is, it's a residence, it's been a residence for hundreds of years and it is a residence that my clients have appreciated since the fifties and I have a feeling and I just started.talking to the neighbors they're not alone. We'll look at the people who own the properties who have legal standing as a matter of US Constitutional Law the properties that surround the compound that's in the lower left-hand corner, I met the Kansers yesterday and they're all interested in having a meeting they didn't know what was happening here because the notice is for special exception it looks like to build a little building. A, it's not a little building and B, to vary and here's where we get into it, the real goal and we know it's the real goal cause if you look at the notice one second the Notice of Disapproval and I have a copy but it's in the file this is why we're here.The Notice of Disapproval says and I quote, the proposed construction in the zoning district R40 is not permitted. Now, it does go on due to special exception and all the Boards have referred it to here cause they think it's a special exception standard and it's not they're all mistaken. Here we have an opportunity to correct it. Why is this not a special exception, because if you look at the special exception statute and by the way whoever wrote this great job well, I mean it requires some clarification (inaudible) historical society today but I don't think so. The purpose of the special exception is not it explicitly says, it's not for an otherwise lawful development. It's crystal clear that a special exception is not a variance, it's not meant to what they need to do is change this from residential to commercial that's not it's purpose. It's a special use, it's a new use and I think that's important too because there is a and by the way I was reading from 280-139 purpose the language, otherwise lawful development because it is not otherwise lawful and every Board has said that it is not because it's R40 because it is not commercially zoned it is unlawful you need a variance. You need that standard and I submit if you follow the standard that I've articulated they can't win because they have under August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting the balancing test a better alternative. There's lots of buildings in town you know this. You can change anyone to a curated location where you have weather control, a tin building shoehorned behind somebody's back yard it's a (inaudible) spot and you can put it there and you can then move your architectural remnants to the red barn when you want people to look at it and you don't have to get a variance or anything you just do it and they have the availability. Let me continue a little bit more about why the special exception statute doesn't apply here. Look at if you look at it is 280-13, 1 think it's B yeah B, it says, the following uses, uses, uses operative word are permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals. It explicitly says, not more than one use shall be allowed for each forty thousand square feet of lot area. Then you skip down to 13 it says Historical Society. This is a new use, if someone came along and applied to become a historical society in a residential area, they might try this although I still think they'll fail because even though it's a new use they get one per 40,000 square feet it's not an otherwise lawful use because it's still a residential and this no question is a commercial use. Anyway, they readily admit the applicant that there's pre-existing historical society it's not like one and you only get one it's already here so the statute just doesn't apply you get one per 40,000 square feet they're not putting it in. what are they putting in, a curated maybe and by the way, I don't think the building design is curated weather control all those things that we're all thinking of how do you protect these important elements of our past. I think it's a tin roof, it's just a nice cool building and I think when the next go to opening up that corridor stop please go back, thank you for the thought but no want to stay on that picture it really says it all, there stop, when they cement in the opening that dark area that's going to be the driveway to get into this compound and bring people around so you can come in and out of that building and especially in and out if you look at it, it's the largest footprint on the entire property of what they want to build. It's not a little thing it's a big thing. The beginning of commercial use and not the way to do it not at all. Let me not repeat myself, let me come back to the fundamental here and then I'm going to open it up so you.can hear from my clients directly because even assuming this is proper to proceed which is not, you still should turn it down under the statute. You still should turn it down because the number one of the general standards is that, the use that 280-142A that and as I said I'll put in a Memo of Law if you want it, I'd be happy to. The use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or properties in adjacent use districts. Okay, why is this important, well the standard for standing the US Supreme Court Sierra Club (inaudible) 1982 if my memory is right that's the law school so it might not be right but the legal standard for standing is that you're in the affected area. There is no one more affected than the people who is in the back yard this would be and they're sitting here. So, there's no question under 280-142A that the use will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties.They have a swimming pool in their back yard there are trees there. The last thing you want to do is box them in with a building that's 15-feetr away as if because it's a site plan 491 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting even that doesn't matter. Everybody is looking here because is it commercial, should we be looking at this as a commercial building? When Planning looks at it the Building Department looks at it, what is it? It's residential so I think you folks have the duty I have a duty to be here to be here to tell you, you have the duty to turn it down and send them back. They want to do it do it right go for a variance, give notice, allow everyone to appeal, let people know what you're doing and let's see if it goes through. If it doesn't well, it's a beautiful area I mean I've driven by here for years it's serendipity that I'm involved in this at all. I appreciate it by the way and I thank you all for listening to me. Let me then turn to the Franke's and I know they have things to present. T. A. MCGIVENY : Excuse me sir, I'm just going to interrupt you I just want to include in the record that all the adjacent properties were noticed of this and the legal notice that was advertised, advertises this as upgrades, renovations to include alterations and new storage addition so if anyone is claiming that they didn't know about this and maybe they didn't I don't know what they did but they (inaudible). It's legally noticed in the paper as well. MITCH STEIN : That's not how due process works. They should have been given noticed that what's going on here is a variance from a residential neighborhood to a commercial neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just clarify something, the Zoning Board of Appeals has no authority to make a determination unless they have something from a Code Enforcement Official to appeal. An applicant must appeal a decision by a Code Enforcement Official. Code Enforcement Official indicated that this was a Special Exception that was required right? We do variance relief all day long, this Board is thoroughly familiar. They were not sited for a variance because they conformed to every bit of the bulk schedule requirements for setbacks, for height and for lot coverage. MITCH STEIN : Nobody has said that and that isn't accurate. What they have said, the Notice of Disapproval that's what the notice T. A. MCGIVNEY : They're not required to have a Notice of Disapproval to come for a Special Exception. MITCH STEIN : But you have one and it's part of what the special exemption notice to the public was and what we're seeking to do indirectly is that they don't have the right to do directly which is get a variance. It's a non-commercial residential neighborhood, am I not clear? T. A. MCGIVNEY : You're saying that it's a variance and you're talking about the five standards in 267 which pertains to area variances but you're saying that it's commercial residential so August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting are you speaking to it being a use variance then because the area variance does not include any dimensional there's no dimensional issues that are raised. MITCH STEIN : You're right, if this would to be done right there should be proper notice of whatever that is. Whatever the variance needs to be, I'm only saying, here this is not a special use exemption and everybody has said so, so your Board has said it's zoned R40. How do you get out of that? Do you think the special use exception gives you the right to vary that? No and that's why you should the Zoning Board should decline this and it's been referred by the way madam Chairperson I'm looking at the Notice of Disapproval I perceive that is what send it here because it says special exception from the Zoning Board. I guess that's why we're here I mean I did I dare say it's not a special exception issue, it is a variance issue and all of the Boards have thrown it before this Board and you have the opportunity to do the right thing. Look, we're all here to protect this stuff it's our responsibility to keep it residential to protect residential environments. Look, if you want to make it commercial which apparently you want to use it for commercial purposes that's what they're doing then you have to go the right way. This is not the right way, that's all I'm saying and you can't convert this from a special exception procedure to a variance because then you run really (inaudible) notice obligation for the variance procedure that require that that notice as you say goes to the public be complete and actually tell them what's happening. I'll read it to you again, I'm looking at it. What's really happening is they're looking to vary from a residential neighborhood to a commercial neighborhood that's it and put in a commercial building and that notice fails for .that. I want you to hear, let's assume for the sake of argument that everything I just said really doesn't apply, let's assume that's an argument for another day if you chose to make it so whether the actions arbitrary and capricious not supported by (inaudible) standards we all know. You need to hear from the neighbors, these are the immediate neighbors they have the legal standing this is their back yard. When you hear from all these other people who put in statements about how great Oyster Ponds is you should hear from those who think it's not so great and they don't really like all of this commercial activity and they want their residential environment. They want to use their swimming pool without having a building behind it obscuring the sun. Let me introduce you come on up and state your name for the record. JILL FRANKE :Jill Franke MITCH STEIN : And where do you live? JILL FRANKE : In Southold but I'm 75 and 875 Navy St. It's right behind my back yard is where it should be their back yard but they're calling it a side yard cause they don't have the fifty foot setback. MITCH STEIN : What do you have before you, what do you wish the Board to see? August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting JILL FRANKE : This is here is a petition and there are seventy-five signatures on it from people that are like all around Orient and in Southold town. MITCH STEIN : What is the purpose of the petition? JILL FRANKE : The purpose of the petition is because well, the building was built in the 1800's and it had a small addition added sometime after the 1800's, I don't know exactly when. The Orient Historical Society wants to demolish the small addition.and add a humungous 1,831 square foot concrete addition with standing (inaudible) roofs. It's massive, it's not compatible with the surrounding buildings and local architecture. The obnoxious building will be fifteen feet away from neighboring property. The overhang and MEP room doors when they're open makes it less than fifteen feet. It's larger and higher than the roofline of the neighbor's property as well. The addition will be covering a hundred percent of one of the neighbor's properties and approximately fifty percent plus or minus of the other neighboring property. We feel that it devalues the neighborhood and the properties. It will be built on grade level concrete slab. They claim this is the highest point on the property, it may be true however the neighbors have had water come up to their property line during the hurricanes. Insurance is hard to get and keep and it's also in a close proximity to the bay. It's a closer proximity to the bay than where the archives are now. The archives are now in the Hallock building we were told. We feel that it should be fifty feet away from the neighboring back yard as per Southold code for back yard setbacks. They're calling the side and it will require a fifteen-foot setback. They are using an old right of way as a secondary front. They already have six large buildings, three sheds, an outhouse on the property in an R residential zone on 1.42 acres. None of those buildings are properly following setback lines. There's also a copper beech tree close to the construction. I don't know if that's going to be severely trimmed or cut down. The tree is very old and was planted in memory of A Nelson Chapman, the first president of Orient Historical Society. On their environmental form they said there is endangered northern long eared bats in the vicinity and on the EAF survey there's hazardous waste on the property or adjoining property. They claim that they are not aware of any. I have filed the NYS DEC to find out the proper information however I will not have a response back from them until the end of August and there's seventy-four, seventy-five signatures on here. There were more people that wanted to sign it but I couldn't get to them. MITCH STEIN : We'd like to hand up as Franke exhibit one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine, give that to the Board Secretary. JILL FRANKE : This is the letter. MITCH STEIN : Yeah, yeah so they can look at'it while we're talking. We have copies, stand by. Z August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : The petition? Do you have the specifics of the people in your adjacent area to the actual Historical Society?Are they from (inaudible) seventy-five people? MITCH STEIN : All'the people who have signed have addresses. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I'm just wondering if people of the vicinity of the actual Historical Society they would have standing. MITCH STEIN : Look I don't know, I can't verify that they all have T. A. MCGIVNEY : Right, okay. MITCH STEIN : Is there a standing requirement under the code, is it a number of feet as it is in so many of them? So, it would require that we draw a circle and see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is for notice, individual green cards mailed to people. MITCH STEIN : Understood T. A. MCGIVNEY : Do a circle, it wouldn't encompass Southold and Greenport. MITCH STEIN : Okay, so you would be able to compare and see whether those people have legal standing. The purpose of this is not to say they all have legal standing, we don't need anyone else with legal standing we already have people with legal standing, they're before you. JILL FRANKE : The people who signed the letters in support I noticed are also either Board Members or previous members or members of the society and I don't think one single letter was from an adjacent property owner. They're people who won't be looking at this. MITCH STEIN : Right and I want to just say, we're not saying that they're all adjacent property owners these are people who signed the petition. You have an adjacent property owner before you. I met with another one two nights ago and there might be more, you don't need more not for the purpose of what we're doing today that's really all I'm saying. We presented the petition it's as equal to or greater than letters from non-adjacent owners that the applicant submitted. None of those are adjacent owners either so it's as much meaningful as that and I'm not saying it's dispositive. I think we need to listen to what other people are saying about this. You have something else to add? JILL FRANKE : Yes, this is a letter from my father, it also includes my brother they both live there in the house. Myself, my husband, my daughter and my son MITCH STEIN : Stop for a second, you have copies of this? August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting JILL FRANKE : Yes MITCH STEIN : Can you hand them up there? We like to mark this as exhibit two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just let her finish what she has to say and then she can submit it. MITCH STEIN : I thought if you can look at it while she's speaking about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will look at it afterward. JILL FRANKE : To whom it may concern, since 1957 1 have been in my current residence on Navy St. Oysterponds Historical Society purchased the property adjacent to us in 1966, Samuel Vail property in '71 and combined all three parcels in 1979. We have been respectful neighbors unlike the Orient Historical Society. We never complained about anything or tried to stop them from placing their buildings incorrectly on the property and too close to property lines. I've never stopped them from putting in ramps to property lines. We never complained when they had their pig roast and we had to leave our home due to smoke as my wife and my mother-in-law have asthma. When they would park their cars adjacent to the red barn and people would park on my lawn, we had no fence. Loud band nights and cocktail parties, eighteen century days, jazz bands, video showings, sale parades etc. we never complained about their tenant who lived in Sam Vail's house who would throw her dog waste on my shed roof and bones in my yard to make my own dog sick. We have had enough; we went from no fence to a split rail fence and then people would come and sit on the split rail fence so we went to a stockade fence. He's now at a six-foot stockade fence and if he put an eight-foot one in I know we're going to have to go get a variance and that's not going to protect him from the vision of this concrete metal compound or industrial warehouse whatever you want to call it. It would be nice to not need a fence anymore. There is no fence high enough to fix this problem. The building is larger and taller than our home. It's so close to the property line it's suffocating. It's ugly, it's cold it looks like a commercial industrial warehouse. It does not fit in with the quaint historic community. It will greatly lower the property value; it covers a hundred percent of one of my lots and fifty percent or more of the other lot. It will block us from breezes and sunsets as well. We feel that we have had many years of use and 'enjoyment of our property taken away from us due to Orient Historical Society and their disrespect of their neighbors. We are respectfully asking you to not allow the special exception. Thank you for your consideration,Joseph Andrew Jr., Jeffrey Andrew Jill Franke, Glen Franke,Joan Franke and Peter Franke. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony and we'll take your letter now. She'll distribute it to all of us. By the way, the memorandum of law counselor and all of these materials are available to anyone including you, they are scanned into Laserfiche our files our August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting town records so that anyone before, during or after this hearing will be able to access anything within the public record. That is public knowledge and you are entitled to see anything in that. MITCH STEIN : Observable we didn't have it before today, I'll get it later. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's there for you to look at whenever you're ready. Let me ask a question, Martin do you want to make any reply to any of this? Let me ask you, did not receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission on April 24, 20257 MARTIN FINNEGAN : We did Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did, and what is the function of the town's Historic Preservation Committee? MARTIN FINNEGAN : They are charged with reviewing applications for alterations and additions to historic buildings protocol to make sure that they are consistent with all the historic attributes and that they are appropriate. This was vetted in a public hearing not just there was a prior public hearing where the designs were shared. Great effort was made to design this one-story structure in a low profile and away that is as unobtrusive as possible. The space is needed, it's just simply needed to house sixty thousand artifacts appropriately. I just want to note that the entire project as•you know was vetted through the Building Department, there were numerous meetings to discuss the layout of the project. The Chief Building Inspector declared what the front yard was, what the side yard setbacks were and the applicant followed through with the design based on that. I would also just like to clarify that a historic society use is indeed a permitted use in the R40 zoning district under out town code. We are not seeking a use variance; we do not require any area variance relief whatsoever so Chapter 267 of the town law is entirely irrelevant to your review. We have addressed the criteria for the issuance of the special exception. Again, this is a use that has been in existence for decades on this property. The application is simply to consolidate the storage of these artifacts into a single structure in the rear of the property. Again, we subject to site plan review which as you know will address any impacts that need to be mitigated if any. I am happy by the way to share a copy of my Memorandum of Law with counsel so he can take that with him. If you want to know about the copper beech tree, great efforts were made to design around this beautiful tree. Unfortunately, it is not well and they have determined that it is actually dying if not dead. If it has to be trimmed or removed it may be but the structure itself is not why that is happening and is completely unrelated. That.is it, we are not seeking a use variance to create a commercial property, we are seeking a special exception for the permitted use of Historic Society on this property. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address? MITCH STEIN : May I respond? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we need a rebuttal to a rebuttal? MITCH STEIN : You usually get presentation of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we do this, let me hear from other people and then you can certainly come back but I want to make sure anyone who wishes it's a public hearing this is the time for the public to chime in. I want to make sure that anyone who is interested in this application can be heard and then I'll certainly entertain any other comments that you wish to make. MITCH STEIN : Come on up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please, I'll conduct the meeting. MITCH STEIN : Forgive me. CHARLES DEAN : I'm Charles Dean I live at 260 Orchard St. I am a property that is adjacent to the Historical Society's property and I know other people whose property is also adjacent and we all support this project. I think it's extremely important because the documents that the Historical Society owns go back into the sixteen hundred. It's an enormous amount of our history, most of it is paper but we also have diaries, (inaudible)journals, we have photographs of deep, deep into our history and all this stuff is flammable and they're stored in a wooden building which is called the Hallock House which is highly flammable it's all wood and this is going to be a securely safe building for anti-floods and anti-fire. The lawyer for the Franke's who are injecting indicated that it wasn't really going to be a proper building with a tin roof. We have a highly respected firm which is designing this to you know museum quality standards and it's extremely important to our community. Anyway, I would just like to say even though my property does touch the Historical Society the Historical Society is really quiet. I mean I've had neighbors who make more noise than the visitors who come to the Historical Society, it's not a ruckus place, it's not really that bothersome. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone,else? GLEN FRANKE : Hi, Glen Franke property owner of 875 Navy St. we are the property just to the east of the property, we are the ones that are going to be actually seeing the proposed building if it gets built. I don't think from his property will be able to see this building once it's built so just us and the owners directly south of the property, I think are unhappy with it cause it's going to be a huge fagade facing them all of a sudden blocking sun and blocking the ,56, August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting wind there. I just have a few.problems with this project. First of all, it doesn't fit in with the neighborhood, it's going to be an eighty foot stretch of windowless concrete and steel and it's going to look like the back of a strip mall from my side from my vantage point. The special exception code states that they are permitted one special exception per 40,000 square feet. They have six substantial buildings on this property. The property is 60,000 square feet, that should entitle them to two special exceptions. None of these buildings are residential, they're all museums, they're all for the purpose of the Historical Society there's no residential there. As far as the lot line being declared a side, I don't know you probably don't deal with this but I just wanted to state, the address that they use is 1555 Village Lane, they declare that it's a landmarked property and 1555 Village Lane is west of the property that would indicate that east of the property is the rear yard needing a 50-foot setback. He even referred to it as the rear of the property, it's on their documents that's the rear, the front door of this house faces west, the rear of the house is to the east everything indicates CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perhaps I can clarify that for you, Fletcher St. is also considered a front yard. Any road frontage when you have a corner lot you know if your house is on a corner or something you have considered two front yards. In this case that is what the determination was made that's why that's considered a 15-foot setback because it's a side yard because even though it doesn't even matter which way your front door is..The Building Department will always call that out in the code as a second front yard which is why that is not a rear yard but rather a side yard. GLEN FRANKE : Also, five houses on Vincent St. all neatly in a row all facing west all back yard facing towards Navy St. and they're one of them. It's right in line with the four other houses and it does face the same direction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A lot of those houses actually are through lots, they have front yards and back yards they have two front yards but one has to be declared a back yard. You're talking about Navy, Willow, Vincent, Fletcher. GLEN FRANKE : Vincent and Navy there's five houses, the Vail house being one of them that are all in a row there's old houses on Navy St. facing east and there's five houses on Vincent St. facing west all in a row. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know why, because all of it was built pre zoning. GLEN FRANKE : I'm just saying that these are all in a row. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're old, they were built without any benefit of zoning. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting GLEN FRANKE : There is zoning now and you can say fifty feet for a rear yard and it's obvious that that's the rear of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, all of those are pre-existing nonconforming because they were built prior to zoning. GLEN FRANKE : This addition is not pre-existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know. Look I'm not arguing I'm just trying to clarify what the code GLEN FRANKE : I understand, we talked to the Building Department and they said they go by Fletcher but it's obvious that Fletcher is not the front yard. I just wanted to mention that, every building on the property is imposing onto the setbacks, the red barn if that's the rear yard that's too close to the neighbor to the north. The little (inaudible) house is too close to the Kanses, the Village House too close to the main road, that's an existing house that was built three hundred whatever years centuries ago. The library was put fifteen feet from the rear line and then they went ten more feet with their ramp and the Hallock House is only five feet from the rear and the side yard. So, they're just like spewing all the neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They were there long before the neighbors were. GLEN FRANKE : No, no the Village House was. The Village House is existing, that's been there hundreds of years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like you to try and address, I understand your concerns and I respectfully would like anyone in the audience to address what is before this Zoning Board. All those buildings are not before the Zoning Board,they legally exist. JILL FRANKE : (inaudible) 1957 and those were brought in the 60's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but they were there, they're not part of this application, what is, is the concern that you have about the visual impact of the proposed addition and your property. Let me ask you something, it is not uncommon for this Board to condition an approval should an approval be granted that creates a mitigation for any of the potential adverse impacts to adjacent properties. In this case we could condition such an approval based upon the installation of very large tall Leyland Cypress that will grow to thirty,forty feet tall which will camouflage which will go way past the fence and will create a visual buffer if that is one of the things that we could offer. I'm just simply saying, we take into consideration your testimony seriously alright and we will look at all of the factors that everyone in this audience is presenting. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MITCH STEIN : I promise I'll be fast. ] really feel the need because there are standards, there are A-G standards of 280-142 which is what we're supposed to be looking at. The first one is the impact on adjacent properties, that's number one. Another one, E is whether the use would be compatible with its surroundings so I think testimony is relevant actually about what's in the surroundings and why the location of this is so problematic and I think every bit of the A-G allow you to look at every element of the. proposed structure to determine whether the special use exception applies to every bit of it. Saying some things that have occurred before and I hear that I understand that, maybe this should have been first, maybe this should have preceded what the other boards have looked at. I don't want anyone else to redo the work but they might have to. I mean this when you look at this you have to look at safety, health, harmony, compatibility; the proposed structures, the equipment, the materials this is all and obviously the number one which is the impact on the neighbors. So, if you are going to proceed with this and I urge you not to because I think it's a variance and we're entitled to all the notice obligations of what a variance is which are different from this but if you would like to proceed, we'll obviously think about what you offer in mitigation because ultimately if we can agree that's the goal. I'm certainly not here to fight for pure victory it's not that, it's they are upset and I think clearly, they have a right to be and I've indicated why. Finally, I just want to say this which is, why are we building a curated building in a residential zone when we can just go out and get one?The alternatives and.there's no question it's a rich society no question and I can provide evidence of that but I don't think that it's necessary but when you look at less intrusive alternatives and we all want to protect this stuff there's a much less expensive much more effective solution than trying to shoehorn this into somebody's back yard in a residential neighborhood. I'm done,thank you, any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Martin any final comments, or no? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Just as you know we are going through the site plan process so I am quite certain that most of these comments are ones that would be reviewed by the Planning Board and addressed by them. This is again, a permitted use in the zone this is simply consolidating the storage in a conforming building on this property. I would ask you to yes indeed review the standards under 280-142 and the matters to be considered under 280-143 and I'm confident that you will agree that it is appropriate to allow the special exception use here. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to ask the Board, what do you want to do at this point? August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MITCH STEIN : Can I, forgive me I forgot something and I've been reminded of it and I think it's pertinent tops five minutes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please go back to the mic and them very brief comments. We have another very important hearing coming up. MITCH STEIN : Thank you for indulging me. If you look at the original plan there are huge cesspools being added and the plan also speaks to be able to handle the load from all of the buildings. This is clearly a predicate for commercial use, this is not just putting up a facility to store and protect artifacts, this is to create an environment for ongoing commercial use. If you look at that it's a giveaway and I forgot to mention that but it's important to say, it's in there so take a look, it's on all CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a very large complete set of plans and we will scrutinize them very carefully. MITCH STEIN : Thank you and thank you all for listening to me I appreciate it. I hope I wasn't too long. ALISON VENTURA : Hi, my name is Alison Ventura and I'm the Executive Director of the Historical Society and I will make this very brief. I would just like to rebut what Mr. Stein just said, this is not some sort of evil plan that we would like to become some giant commercial enterprise. We are just simply as Martin has stated trying to consolidate our storage, we take our position as a neighbor very seriously and we really do try to be a good neighbor to the entire community and that's it.Thank you so much for your time today, I appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? We have all the submissions, okay one more comments then we're going to make a motion. CHARLES DEAN : Charles Dean, I just want to say one thing. The gentleman Mr. Franke said that the property owner to the south had objections to this had problems with this application, I think he must be referring to (inaudible) Angelo who has the property to the south and I've talked to Gideon about it and while he wasn't thrilled that there's going to be any construction next door, I mean I've had construction next door to my house it's always unpleasant sometimes but he is not against the project. I think that Mr. Franke implied that he was and I don't think that is true. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second August 7, 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. HEARING#8027—STRONG'S WEST MILL, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Strong's West Mill, LLC #8027. This is a request for an Interpretation under Chapter 280-Bulk Schedule for Business, Office and Industrial Districts, Article I Section 280-4, Article XIII Section 280-56 and the Building Inspector's May 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a boat storage building, 1) height of building as it relates to a boat storage building located at 3430 Mill Rd. in Mattituck (adj-. to Mattituck Creek). CHARLES CUDDY : Good afternoon it's Charles Cuddy 445 Griffin Ave. Riverhead, New York for the applicant. With me today is Jeffrey Strong who is the owner and the principle of the company and also Jeffrey Butler who is a professional engineer. A little history so that we can set the stage for what we're doing. This application has been before various Boards for several years. When this applicant went to the County Planning Commission, the County Planning Commission said two things, one, they recognize that it was water dependent meaning it had to be connected the building had to be connected and used in connection with water but more importantly for this application. They'asked us to reduce the size of what we were doing. At that time, we had 101,000 square feet of building, today before you we have 62,310 square feet so we reduced it approximately forty percent. The application went to the Building Department and when we went to the Building Department, we had to bring a site plan and the building elevations. We did that and the Building Department sent the site plan on to the Planning Board said they could not really say that this building was the right height. Now, the building height has to do with the definition and that's why we're here. We have a August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting building that's exactly the same height as the previous building that went through the J planning process. The opening in the building is 47 feet and that's because there are large boats that are going to be taken,out of the water, sixty, seventy, eighty feet boats. They can come into this site and be taken out appropriately and stored because once they're store there's nothing that goes on except that they're in a building. For some reason when we went to the Building Department this time the Building Department said to us, there was a change in the code and the section that we're talking about the definition section, it was a very modest change and we think it did not affect us whatsoever and what we're here today to do is to show you how we come to the conclusion that this is below the 35-foot threshold in other words you cannot go beyond the 35-feet. We can show that and I have three engineers, Mr. Butler is here, Mr. Doug Adams who did the site plan from Young & Young unfortunately was called away but I have statements from each of them I'm going to put in the record. I also have a consulting engineer who has nothing whatsoever to do with our application and he is from the Town of Riverhead as the consulting engineer, he has an office in Watermill and I'll get to him in a minute. I want to show you in writing exactly how we've done this and the conclusion that we reach. Before I do that, I'd like to ask-Mr. Butler to step forward and indicate to you what he has done because he was the one that made the application and he was the one together with me that was told that we must come to this Board because they were not certain that the code as revised changed anything, we don't think it did and we're here to show that to you. JEFF BUTLER : Good afternoon Members of the Board, Jeffrey T. Butler P.E. office is at 206 Lincoln St. Riverhead, New York. As Mr. Cuddy outlined this project has been around in the town's various agencies for many years. We originally went when the project was first proposed we would include two buildings. We went to the Building Department with the site plan to try to figure out how do we get these buildings into the existing topography and how high could they be to satisfy the needs of the market for Strong's Marine. At that time, we went through for those two buildings did the calculations on through your code which is the height of the building which is the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent to the building before any grade alteration or fill to the highest point of the roof, parapet or railing for flat roof or mansards and to the mean height of the (inaudible) ridge for all other roofs. So, we did that and we satisfied that section of the code to the Building Department's understanding at that time and we came up with this building but two of them. As Mr. Cuddy stated that when the project was revised based on the Planning Commission comments and one building was proposed we went back to the Building Department to clarify a number of things this being one of them and they said, well no you have to the code is now changed, you have to go to ZBA you don't comply and various conversations here we are in front of you to help us with that. When you read the two 621 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting definitions, the pre 2018 and the post 2018 definitions of height the only difference that is evident is that the 35-foot mark went from mean height of roof to ridge. Understanding that that allows for a smaller building in most cases, nonetheless we still are below that with the calculations that we have provided to the Building Department and Mr. Cuddy has actually asked two other engineers to provide also and we're all in agreement on what.the height is of this building based on your definition of height within the code. That's the background and that's why we're here and I'm here for any questions you might have regarding that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just clarify and enter into the record what you have on the elevation. According to the elevation submitted, we have boat storage building at 47 foot 9 inches high per bulk schedule for business office, it says 35 is permitted. We have top of the ridge is 47.9, mean roof height is 43 feet 6 inches, eave height is 39 foot 3 inches, building length 186 feet, door height is 35 feet. JEFF BUTLER :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you explain where you calculated from what elevation you calculated this so the Board understands how those heights were determined. JEFF BUTLER : Sure, there is another sheet dedicated to this in the drawing set.Typically, what we do to calculate height is we take the four corners of the building if it's a rectangular building, take the existing natural grade, take the average and apply that to where the ridge sits based on that average and we end up with a height. In this case because the building was so large in order to be fair, I did a calculus because the grade varies along and I took the area from the grade to the top of the ridge and divided into the perimeter to figure out the average grade. So, it's a slight differential but it was a more fair way to do it knowing that the code is asking for average existing grade, I thought the four corners wouldn't be as accurate as doing a calculus model around the whole building. In doing that my calculation is up at 24.24 feet of building height from average existing grade. I believe the Rainer calculation is within 2 feet of that but he did four corners, I'm not sure what Doug Adams is, I believe he's right in the same ballpark I didn't see his homework but that's the different methodology was why there was a slight difference and I believe mine is more accurate because I take into account the rolling topography as you know instead of taking four points on the corners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm glad I asked you that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to ask a question about that, in order to come up with that model from which you applied calculus to get the area of each of the four sides.of the building, it sounds like you took into account the fact that the natural land contour prior to any disturbance is quite irregular it goes up and down. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting JEFF BUTLER : It goes up and down,yes. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If I read the contour map correctly it goes from maybe on one side is maybe 25-feet all the way up to 48-feet. Did you create some representation like an equation to represent JEFF BUTLER : I did an area calculation of you know develop the curve and do area calculation like I said above and below and then divide by the perimeter of the building. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So you developed a curve okay. Was it just like an equation to represent the (inaudible)? JEFF BUTLER : We took we had topography which was one foot so we took where those intersected not at the proposed building again, we used grade plane as defined by the code which is six feet out from the edge of the building, we intercepted all those points and developed projected lines across where that is and related that to where this proposed ridge is going to be and ended up with the 24.24 feet as the definition of the height of the building. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, the point selected to perform the calculation were defined by each adjacent contour on the contour map? JEFF BUTLER : That's correct, yea. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, got it thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have a topo map too, well that clarifies it cause there are so many ways you can look at this that's important that we have in the record the methodology that you used to determine natural grade in order to figure out height. When you just look at the dimensions and you say gee the code says 35-feet and you have a 35-foot- high door the average individual is going to wonder what that means. JEFF BUTLER : If you think of the geometry if you were to take if you were to build partially into a hill and then you had flat land and you did the four corners it wouldn't be fair you'd be under estimating the height based on existing natural grade by just taking the four corners but if you do a curve calculation now you have it's an accurate average. CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Understood MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Again, I want to clarify, the building area shown on and I think this is page three of it's this one we're looking at and that box on the left side notes that the area of the perimeter walls is 23,416 square feet so that was calculated by summing up the area of the four sides as you described. 6,41 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting JEFF BUTLER : That's correct, yea. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Then that's divided by the perimeter to get a value below the proposed ridge rather than JEFF BUTLER : That's correct. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay JEFF BUTLER : Again, the code I believe it was written for much smaller buildings and I think in many cases the four corners is appropriate to do and we've done that many, many times. In this case the size of the building I thought warranted a little more you know detail to the calculation. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I was pondering this trying to figure out how to do it myself if I had to. When you consider the area of those four walls, the walls on the east and west elevations have a peak, do you include that area of the gable? JEFF BUTLER : Absolutely, in the first calculation that we did back before the change in 2022 which was 2018 we took the mean height. So, we took that it wasn't a triangle it was a trapezoid and now when the code changed to ridge height, we had to include that whole area. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Got it. How do you treat the north and south elevations, do you take only the area.of the vertical wall? JEFF BUTLER : To the eave. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : To the eave. JEFF BUTLER : Yes MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anybody have any questions at this point? I mean it's here for a code interpretation so typically we would be probing many other aspects of an application but with a code interpretation it's very narrow. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just another I don't know if it (inaudible) or a nit, the perimeter used in this calculation is 1,040 feet and I think if the building is 186-feet wide at the east and west sides the perimeter is at 1,042 feet. JEFF BUTLER : Say that again. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the perimeter might be a couple of feet off depending on what the width is of the east and west sides of the building. I believe the drawings say that the width is 186-feet and that would make the perimeter 1,042 rather than 1,040 feet or in the third decimal place so it probably doesn't move the calculation very much. I would just point out maybe someone could check the math on the existing grade. JEFF BUTLER : Mr. Cuddy is going to provide you with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're going to give us some more information. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, I think there's a math error is all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to continue to present? JEFF BUTLER : I'm in question answering mode. CHAIPRERSON WEISMAN : I think for now we're just waiting to hear from the architect and the rest of, go ahead. MR. CUDDY : What I wish to do is to give you the copies of the information provided by Mr. Gordiello who is the consulting engineer and I think he has outlined pretty much a format that you can look at and get the information from. If I may, just to give you complete information, Mr. Butler's statement from Mr. Strong explaining how he was working on it and I have again, basically they've all come out to say that it's much less than 35, it's either 24, 25 or 26. From Young Associates who is the Douglas Adams who is the site plan engineer has also made a statement as to what he concludes. So, I'll give you those two so you can have all of them. Just to finish our presentation, I think that what we're saying to you and what we've said before is that the building that we have is no different than the building that we had before. The determination in the code is basically the same, the language definition is basically the same as far as the calculations go and we believe and I think is correct that the 35-foot elevation level has been reduced by this particular applicant and meets the code at this point. I don't know that the Building Department found otherwise, they just said they didn't know and when they don't know they say go to the Zoning Board. We're sorry that that happens but that's what did happen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, thus the code interpretation cause the other alternative is to overturn the Notice of Disapproval. In this case they're saying they don't know then we're going to have to do a code interpretation so they do know. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have one more maybe a couple of other questions, I think Mr. Butler you said the elevations adjacent to the perimeter of the building were taken six feet 661 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting away, is that correct, six feet away from where the building wall will intersect with the existing grade? JEFF BUTLER : When we're looking your code does not define grade plane, the building code does so we refer back to building code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The state building code. JEFF BUTLER : for grade plane which is the grade six feet away from the fagade. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : As I mentioned I was looking at this carefully thinking how I would deal with it if I had to perform this calculation and I took a very close look at topographic layout and it seemed to me that the southeast corner was tangential to a contour line at an elevation of 16-feet and if one were to take a measurement 6-feet further along in either direction that would be a lower elevation. I think the calculations you preformed had that corner at about 18-feet and I'm just wondering from what source do you derive the four points from which you over which you perform the calculus to get the wall area? I couldn't see the correspondence perfectly. JEFF BUTLER : We used the Young & Young topographical survey that is I think overlayed on that building so we used the same source I believe he's his NAVD88. I don't think we ever bad a 27 datum map, I think we used that one. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, so Liz if you can go to the grading and drainage plan would do it but I just wanted to point out that this it takes an effort this corner right here, if you carefully trace the contour line I think you get to 16-feet, this corner. I don't think you can do it on this JEFF BUTLER : If I come away I'm slightly less. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I thought in your calculation this was 18, so this was almost perfectly tangential to a 16-foot contour line. These guys were they seem to be probably within about a half a foot of where I would (inaudible) the height. This was tricky cause I think this is the 12- foot contour line, there's another 12 here and I think there's something going on in between but I think it may get a little lower but this one seemed to be a little off. JEFF BUTLER : I know the source of that, my calculations were completed. Young &Young had to rotate the building and push it slightly to comply with the fire lane going down the side of the building. I could upgrade my calculations, I'm sure they're not going to alter that much from this letter that I did in February. The building had shifted slightly because one of the 671 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting other requirements from the Fire Marshal was also the Chief Building Inspector was the access around the north and west side of the building so it had to be slightly shifted. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, it's a little relocated relative to compared to this drawing? JEFF BUTLER : This is correct. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :This represents the current situation? JEFF BUTLER : Let me just see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the drawings here if it's easier for you to read than on the screen. Who wants to address this application? Come to the podium and sign your name and state your name. BOB DELUCA : Good afternoon Madam Chair- and Members of the ZBA, my name is Bob Deluca, serve as President of Group for the East End which is a conservation advocacy an education organization, our headquarters are at 54895 Main Rd. here in Southold. I was here really to just kind of observe what was happening and I just have a couple of questions. By way of background, I have a forty-year career as a land use practitioner and I've taught SEQR law for about twenty of those years. I'm trying to determine whether or not the action before you is a referral from the Building Inspector based on a prior denial which would technically make it a variance right because that's what comes to you after they deny somebody's if the interpretation comes to you it usually goes from being a ministerial action to a variance proceeding that's the way your code is. Or, are you just being asked to make the interpretation on behalf of the Building Inspector as the,gentleman just said, it was sent here because the Building Inspector didn't know whether this was the right way to calculate the area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I only can go by I mean I haven't had the conversation with the Building Department. T. A. MCGIVNEY : The Building Department issued the Notice of Disapproval and Mr. Cuddy has come forward asking for an interpretation of height. BOB DELUCA : Okay so, the way so the application if you read the application it says it's a variance and that maybe all that you have, I don't know if that's the only application that you have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't really have a form for a code interpretation so on the variance application there's a box to check off that says what you're asking for and in this case the code interpretation was checked off. August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting BOB DELUCA : I'm just trying to figure that out because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Procedurally how you yea BOB DELUCA : The reason why I asked the question was, I'm just concerned that whatever decision gets made here doesn't unnecessarily hamstring the Planning Board in it's effort to look at the broader site plan. The actual concern is just that whatever work you're doing here if it were a variance and that variance had to go through a variance proceeding and you were pulled into the SEAR process cause it ceases to be a Type II Action you would have more reason to be integrating this decision with the Planning Board's ongoing site plan review. If that's not what's happening and you're just making an interpretation as to how one calculates this I will stay away from my feeble memory of calculus and leave that to the brighter minds. The bottom line is, just make sure that the Planning Board is given the latitude it needs because it's looking at a project where they're going to have to do lots of different shifting and moving pieces around and the decision by this Board could affect that if it's basically an interpretation because the Building Inspector can't make such interpretation that's different because that's just basically calling the ball as it sees it. That's my comments, I thank you for your time and for your calculus and I wish you well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. ANN PURDYK : Hello Chairperson Weisman and Members of the Board, I'm Ann Sherwin Purdyk and I live at 1185 West Mill Rd. which is a little less than a mile from the proposed Strong's Marine Yacht Storage Warehouse under question. I just want to say before I read my brief statement that as we've just seen there is a number of questions and different ways in looking at this fairly specific detail about building height. I know that we've talked about today but I'm really here to talk about something that we've been watching over the course of this project which is a larger context for this project which is referred to in your form the area variance application does talk about the importance of remembering the character of the land, the neighborhood and also any environmental impacts on the neighborhood. So, I'm going to just address that perhaps as a reminder more than anything else. In addition to being a neighbor to the project I'm also a code chairperson of the (inaudible) for Save Mattituck Inlet which I helped found five years ago and Save Mattituck Inlet is a community group. We came together through our shared concerns over the potential impact of the planned Strong's Marine Yacht Storage project. Together we found a larger purpose to ensure that the community's voice is active in the oversight of development of and in and around the inlet by advocating for transparent and responsible development that considers the impact on the economy, the ecology and local quality of life. While the developer has recently submitted a second revised version as was mentioned today onto the project the irreversible negative August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting impact to the environment and the community remains even with these revisions. Moreover, the developer has consistently through this whole time period and I've been very aware and involved over the entire time period he's been he has consistently attempted to disembody the project from the proposed construction from the land and our community. In other words, looking at it as if it were floating in the air or in a vacuum and not having impacts that it will have to our neighborhood. I'll just mention the most recent examples can be found on the paperwork of this area variance application on page two, item number one, he states that the building will not produce and undesirable change in the character to the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties if this variance is granted. Also, on page two number four he asserts in response to the statement that the variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because quote, when erected the building in and of itself will not cause physical or environmental harm which I would even question that given the nature of the building and what's going to be stored and the various chemicals etc. that will be stored in that building. However, again this is an example of disembodying this building from where it's going to be located. I would like to remind the Zoning Board respectfully that in 2020 the Town of Southold Planning Board made a positive declaration of significance for this project and it was a subject of an extensive environmental review under the NYS SEAR laws. Our group's efforts resulted in historic level of community participation in the review by the Southold Town. Hundreds of people attended and spoke at the public hearing and more than a thousand pages of comments were submitted on the project's draft environmental impact statement which are all on the public record in the Laserfiche files. The overwhelming majority of comments were in opposition to the project and pointed out the flaws, omissions and inaccuracies of the DEIS that the developer submitted. I am submitting with this statement the cover letter from our organization that summarizes the innumerable negative impacts of this project. I have emailed that document to the Board earlier today along with my statement. This week the Southold Town Planning Board is considering how to move forward on the SEAR review of the revision of the proposed project. Heather Lanza has put out an RFP to try and sort that out so I'm just saying that that's where the Planning Board is now on that. Back to the final environmental impact statement that was completed in May 2024 it says just in sort of summary of the whole evaluation, the conclusions presented in the FEIS representing the lead agency's assessment of the significant environmental impacts that will result from the implementation of the proposed action this project more specifically the FEIS highlights the impacts that have been identified in the DEIS that they're not able to be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable and cannot be mitigated to the maximum extent practical including construction traffic and noise and the impacts it will induce. Again, no matter what size the building these impacts for example are still going to be there. With respect to the excavation required to be done before any construction including the proposed current 701 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting proposed project the FEI states that, the cutting and excavation proposed here would replace a resilient natural bluff, well rooted mature forest and reduce the existing elevation by approximately forty feet creating a bowl at approximately ten feet above mean sea level that we would be susceptible to storm surges. This has the potential to create flooding concerns and is antithetical to the intentions of coastal resiliency and flood protections. Again, the latest proposal does nothing to mitigate any of these issues. I know that today you're looking at the height of the building which is problematic on its own but I don't see how you can consider it disassociate it on the rest of the project or make a'judgement while the whole project is under SEQR environmental review. Under no circumstances should any variances be granted on this property while a SEQR process is under way and the Town Board is examining zoning throughout the town. That's my statement. As I mentioned, I have emailed these documents. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we have a request from Planning anyway to hold this open because they are completing a more comprehensive review as lead agency which is what we will you know I will soon make a motion to do. What we do have here is there's a couple of ways you can go at this. We do have a Notice if Disapproval from the Building Department, they have made a determination that it does not conform to the maximum height and by asking for a code interpretation one of two things, our task would be to say, well the Building Department is right or wrong that would be a code interpretation. A variance would be well okay, they don't conform but we'll determine whether a variance is justified for that nonconforming height so they have taken action. I can't say that in this case since there is a Notice of Disapproval that they didn't know what to do because they have done something, they've given a Notice of Disapproval which says they made a determination. The other way is to uphold or overturn that Notice of Disapproval saying they're right or they're wrong. So, the Board will have to kind of look at a range of T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think that you're addressing the variance standards cause they were in.the application however they really aren't pertinent to this particular request which is to interpret the height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very narrow thing, I mean but as I just described there's a couple of ways to go at this so although Mr. Cuddy you mentioned they weren't sure what to do I think they have decided what to do by making that Notice of Disapproval. You have the right to request a code interpretation to challenge that and they're determination or to uphold or overturn the notice. ANN PURDYK : I appreciate you listening to the broader context I just 71 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's okay, we're very familiar with the history and we have all of that available to us and transcripts and so on. Plus, thank you for those submissions they were very helpful. What we'll do is make sure, Kim can you get those scanned in when you get back to the office today? Okay, so whoever wants to look at the information that was just submitted by the engineers you know they'll be available. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think Leslie is referring to the information that was submitted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you sent that to us. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I think the engineering stuff is what will be scanned in so people can view it. ANN PURDYK : There's another letter that the (inaudible) family submitted another letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to double check, submit that and make sure that we have in the record as well. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to make one quick point, Liz can you go back to the I think it's Page A-103 of the building elevations? I would just ask if the plan is to restrict the height calculation based on the building having been adjusted a little for the fire lane access to please check the math in the box on the left-hand side. I would run those numbers through a calculator again. JEFF BUTLER : Absolutely, yes. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Again, I think there's something like 180,000 seven inch off which is probably nothing when it comes to the building industry. I came from the aero space industry and that's the difference between a pass and a fail on a part so I would just ask you to check the math. JEFF BUTLER : Not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The calculus was not based upon the standard four corners of a building cause the building was very long and the topography was very angulating very dramatically so a more accurate way of calculating it based on state building code was to measure six feet out and use the perimeter of the whole building. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's almost like you take I think this is how it's done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department probably used the shorter version typically but not you know that's why we have site specific applications because they vary. 7a August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think that the Building Department looked at the height relative to the proposed grade of ten feet not to the natural grade at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct, I think you're right. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Cause they came up with 47 feet which is the 57 which is the 47 foot height of the building plus 10 foot grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) on their elevation. Their elevations call it out at 47 foot 9 inches. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That's relative to the new grade right not relative to the existing natural grade. So the trick was getting to the elevation relative the existing natural grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right that's correct. I think we're going to have to come to figure out whether.the strict the plain language of the code is what we're looking at relative to a code interpretation and or whether or not what's needed here is to overturn the determination by the Building Department. They could sort of do the same thing in a way. A code interpretation will apply town wide moving forward and overturning would not, it would be specific to this application. If we want to make sure that the Planning Department doesn't have any future problems with things it may be overturning or upholding is the better way to proceed but we'll grapple with that and if you have any thoughts on that Mr. Cuddy, please feel free to you know comment. JEFF STRONG : Good afternoon Board, thank you for your time and calculations, Jeff Strong President of Strong's Marine. My wife and I live at 1095 Westview Drive in Mattituck. Just a couple of things, I appreciate you clarifying, we are not asking for a variance. I do want to just share with you a couple of things that have been touched on. You clearly have done your homework so you likely know this, so forgive me if some of it is repetitive. We've been at this application for about six and half years. Myself my engineers, our attorneys purposely met with the Planning Board and the Building Department prior to doing any design work at all over seven years ago. We sat down and said okay, what's the code, what can we do within this footprint? It's all zoned marine industrial, we wanted to stay within the marine industrial footprint which we have. We wanted to understand what the setbacks per town code allowed us to do, we wanted to understand what on the books what height we can have and wanted to stay withing those height requirements so that we did not need a variance. We've been out here since 1965, we live my wife and I live right down the creek from this so we're neighbors ourselves so we're empathetic to our neighbors and the whole thing. That was the whole reason why we met with the Planning Board and the Building Department in numerous meetings to try and get good intelligent feedback so that we can design it in a way we always 7' August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting knew of course you're going to have concerns and objections etc., we're not naive to that but we wanted to be within what the town code said we can do. We did all of that work; we submitted a very detailed plan for two roughly 50,000 square foot buildings. The setbacks everything by the Building Department and acknowledged by the Planning Board and the height were all deemed as accepted not approved you know because of all the process you have to go through but the height based on the wording that you have before you other than what the small change that Mr. Butler mentioned earlier was essentially exactly the same nothing has changed. The only thing that's changed from my perspective is the amount of public feedback, a lot positive, a lot against and I believe the Building Department is feeling the heat if you will and was not comfortable, I met with them personally, Mr. Butler met with them and he made it abundantly clear to us that in those in person meetings that the paragraph that you have on the code currently that they were not comfortable putting their chops on the line basically if you will of saying yes even though it was acceptable for the first hundred thousand square foot submission essentially the same wording that now we're not sure it's acceptable for your scaled back reduced sixty thousand square foot building. As an applicant it feels legally wrong, it feels unbelievably frustrating. All we're trying to do is grow our business, add another fifteen full-time paying career jobs and continue to improve properties like we have since 1965. That's why we're not asking for a variance, we're hopeful that you can interpret it, I personally believe that it would best for you to interpret for the Building Department for all applications so that other applicants don't have to get dragged through the mud like we are right now at no fault of yours it's just this is where we are. So, that would be my request and then as was slightly touched on and I apologize that we didn't pick up on the slight variation there because again, the Building Department in the first submission had approved the fire lanes that were on our first submission. When we reduced the building size, we kept the fire lanes exactly the same what had already been approved. The Fire Marshal quit, wasn't replaced I don't where that stands right now and the town asked the head of the Building Department to also wear the Fire Marshal hat. When he did that, he said to our engineers, the fire lane that was originally was acceptable is no longer acceptable. Okay, what's acceptable? A lot of back and forth, I'm giving you the short version of it and ultimately with Mr. Butler's conversations with the head of the Building Department/Fire Marshal they landed on the revised expanded fire lane which is what necessitated twisted the building a little bit to accommodate that within the footprints and we didn't pick up on that last little bit and thank you for picking up on it but it's not he will do those calculations but it's not going to be material in terms of we're somewhere between 24 and 26 feet based on the paragraph that's there way below the 35 foot height. I appreciate all of you clearly taking the time not just now but to be well educated about it and we would hope that you will come to the conclusion that the attorneys and the Planning Board and the Building Department had made on our first submission, that hasn't changed that the height 741 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting was well below the 35-foot height when you apply what's in the town code. Thank you, I'm happy to answer any questions. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I just want to clarify something for you, the Building Department did not not know that to do. The Building Department issued the Notice of Disapproval because they took the definition in the code. Mr. Cuddy came forward and wanted that term interpreted. If the Building Department didn't know what to do, they would have asked for the code interpretation. I just wanted to clarify that that JEFF STRONG : I do respect and appreciate what you have said and I understand it, I am telling you what I heard and experienced directly in front of the Building Department. I believe that has relevance. Any other questions for me?Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, is there anybody in the audience on Zoom rather want to speak? - STEVEN BOSCOLA : Hi, Steven Boscola 5106 West Mill Rd. with a house that's less than 200 feet from this project and I just want to point out Mr. Cuddy mentioned that the county said to come back with a smaller project,the county also said, quote, we don't blow out hills in the county anymore end quote which is you know what's going on here. I appreciate that Board Member was able to spot that the elevation is a lot lower as you look towards the southern and also western area which is why the (inaudible) road is there and it's a little hard to see on the initial site plan from 2018 the topography but if someone could take a closer look at the elevation there because it is significantly lower which is why they proposed to start the hole road in that area. The land makes sort of a valley in there and I think that should probably contribute to the calculation. I submitted a letter last night that I think it was circulated which I know you have so I won't go into too much detail on that. The only other thing I just want to note is, when the developer and his people say that nothing has changed as far as the height, if you look at the revised site plan for the single building versus the plans for the prior two buildings it's actually increased 2.1 feet and so when they say well, we don't know, the calculation didn't change I'm curious why the building height changed by 2.1 feet. Again, that's something that should be looked into because there's been a lot of what we feel is (inaudible) of the calculation throughout this entire process which is why I referenced Joel Klein's comments submitted on the DEIs from May 15th which are available on the Planning Board Laserfiche and that's all I have in addition to our letter.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, we did receive that this morning and it will be scanned in and made part of the public record and you'll get a copy,of course. Anything else, anybody else on Zoom? Anyone else in the audience? We're going to adjourn this anyway because we're going wait for the full SEAR determination. Okay, hearing no further questions or 7 August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing, should we adjourn this to a specific date and then we can continue to adjourn if or adjourn without a date? I think that's the best, let's do that, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the regular meeting on October 2, 2025. 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. Okay, see you again in October. We have some Resolutions to do now. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, September 4, 2025 at 9:00 AM. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on July 24, 2025. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye Ira' August 7, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one-year extension to #7387, Hard Corners Properties, LLC, 53530 Main Rd. in Southold to expire August 6, 2026 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Member Planamento is recused from that one. Motion to close the meeting. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 771 August 7,2025 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 • -� t� (/ Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :August 19, 2025