Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/04/2025 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 September 4, 2025 10: 19 A.M. Board Members : LESLIE KANES WEISMAN —Chairperson (Absent) PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member (Vice Chair) MARGARET STEINBUGLER- Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant I September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Vito Plaia #8030 4-5 Decision for Nicholas and Aspasia Rontiris#8026 5 -6 QJSG Properties, LLC#8032 6- 10 Maria Poubouridis,Trustee#8043 10 28 Maria Poubouridis,Trustee#8034 10- 28 Anthony J. and Joanne Colletta #8033 29 - 38 Cinchsure LLC, Howard M. Boville, Member#8039 39-45 Yasmine Legendre and Corey Worcester#8036 46-49 William T. and Erica J. Whitmire#8037 49- 54 705 CR48 LLC, Ulster Farms, LLC#8009SE 54- 55 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for September 4, 2025. Please all join in the Pledge of Allegiance. Let's start with Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)6 NYCRR Part 617.5c including the following: Maria Poubouridis, Trustee #8043, Maria Poubouridis, Trustee #8034, Anthony J. and Joanne Colletta #8033, Cinchsure LLC, Howard M. Boville, Member #8039, Yasmine Legendre and Corey Worcester#8036 and William T. and Erica J. Whitmire#8037 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I wanted to remind the audience and anyone that might be here today that 705 Main Rd./Ulster Farms application 8009 SE which was adjourned for today is again adjourned to October 2, next month's public meeting. So, if anyone is in the audience, please understand that this application has been adjourned. Next, I'd like to take a moment, Liz would you like to review the procedure or Donna, procedure for participation on-line? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good morning, thank you Nick. If anyone wishes to comment for those on Zoom on a particular application, we ask that you raise your hand. We will give you further instructions on how you will be able to speak, we will move you in so that you are able to speak. If you are using a phone, I see we have an I Phone on, please press *9 to raise your hand and then when we move you in it's *6 to unmute.Thank you, Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would like to briefly discuss two deliberations this morning. I'm going to start with the third actually on today's agenda, Vito Plaia, application #8030. I'm going to make a motion that we again table this to the September Special Meeting for a determination, the date is the 181h. I'll make a motion that we table this for determination on the 18th, do we have a second? September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, the motion passes. Next, we have a determination for Gary and Maria Napolitano, application #8022. Before we discuss this, I just want to remind the Board and the audience that I am recused from this decision, I did not participate in the hearings. As such it's a little unusual that I'm presiding over the determination, I would like to ask Rob if you want to just briefly speak about this and then make a motion and I'll allow I guess Julie to (inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : This applicant on Blue Marlin Drive in Southold initially came a requested relief for a second-floor addition to the property where the GFA exceeded the allowable GFA. In August, I believe it was the 15th they sent revised plans doing GFA averaging as per our guidelines where the new proposed application conforms to the averaging in the neighborhood as per our guidelines. The new GFA averaging gave him an allowable GFA of 3,595 square feet and their application was for 3,569 square feet therefore bringing into conformity with the code. Based on that, I am proposing to deny as applied for and grant the relief as amended on the site plan and architectural plans by Robert Brown Architect dated revised August 15, 2025. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there any discussion? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, we have a motion. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Role call, Member Lehnert. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Steinbugler. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Acampora. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The motion passes and I'm recused Nick Planamento was recused from this application. Thank you. Next, we have a determination on application #8026 Nicholas and Aspasia Rontiris#8026. Margaret, would you like to discuss this briefly? MEMBER STEINBUGLER Yes, this is a nonconforming lot in the R40 residential zone in Gardiners Bay Estates in East Marion. The applicant is seeking to reconstruct a second floor to increase ceiling height and move a first-floor bedroom to the second floor and to resurface the deck. The existing side yard and combined side yard setbacks are non-compliant and the proposed work does not alter them. The rear yard setback is 32 feet 2 inches where 35 is required. The lot coverage is 24.8% where a max of 20% is allowed and the GFA exceeds the 2,100 square feet allowable and the existing house exceeds the sky plane so a number of variances are requested. Most of them are not affected by the second-floor renovation, it doesn't really add any new non-compliances. The applicant provided the GFA average for the neighborhood of 3,098 square feet which is greater than what they are requesting. A prior ZBA decision #4118 permitted a bulkhead setback of no less than 36 feet and the current bulkhead setback is 32 feet 2 inches. I will make a motion to grant the side yard setback, combined side yard setback, lot coverage, sky plane and GFA variances as applied for and to deny the rear yard setback subject to the conditions that the septic system shall be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health. The deck is to be modified to comply with ZBA 4118 to have at least a 36-foot bulkhead setback. The modified deck is to remain open to the sky and measures will be taken during and immediately after construction to avoid sediment and erosion into the adjacent waterway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think there was a fifth condition. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The fifth condition was that the rear yard setback shall be made compliant with ZBA 4118. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there any discussion? September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So since there's a motion, I'll second the motion. All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you the motion passes. HEARING#8032—OJSG PROPERTIES, LLC MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We're going to begin with application by QJSG Properties #8032. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13C, Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 28, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory artist studio structure at 1) located in area other than the code required rear yard, 2) the proposed use in the accessory building is not a permitted accessory use located at 38015 Route 25 in Orient. SCTM 1000-15-2-15.7. 1 believe Mr. Cuddy you're here to speak on behalf of the applicant. CHARLES CUDDY : Good morning, Charles Cuddy 445 Griffing Ave. Riverhead, New York for the applicant Mr. Gallant who is the property owner individual who is here with me today. You actually had this matter before you two years ago and I'm going to hand up if I may a copy of your findings and deliberation. At that time, you agreed that we would have the artist studio in the front yard. The front yard is virtually all of this property because it's on the water and it's nineteen plus acres and virtually eighteen of it is a front yard. The studio that they proposed at that time is the same studio that's before you today, the only difference is we want to raise the studio up so we get double use of it. The double use involves observatory and the observatory is because there are a number of deer on the property; they keep goats on the property and sometimes they get loose and they want to be able to find them on the nineteen acres and virtually all of it is covered by a low tree canopy so it's difficult to see them from the ground. So, if we can raise it up and I will give you not only your prior decision granting the artist studio but also a copy of the design for the height of this building which will September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting go up approximately thirteen, fourteen feet and keep the same size studio that we had previously. So, if I may can, I hand this up the prior decision. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Cuddy you just said something in your introduction that puzzled me, you called it a waterfront parcel, my understanding is this is not a waterfront parcel. MR. CUDDY : When I say waterfront there are two parcels together, they own both of them. This is a parcel that goes back to the waterfront parcel so it's not technically on the water but their parcels together are on the water but the front yard of this parcel is there's a house all the way at the very end of it. So, every part of the parcel with the exception of about an acre is a front yard. I agree yes, it's not on the water. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's on (inaudible) that's improved (inaudible) house, each are developed with a single-family home. MR. CUDDY : That's right, yes. This parcel as I said is a wooded parcel, you had previously granted the artist studio we just want to have the ability to observe what's going on and we can't do that on the ground. So, we're just asking that you essentially amend your prior decision to permit us to raise this up so that he and his family can see what's going on on the property. I don't think that it has any effect on the neighbors. We found out before that it's environmentally it's not going to change anything. We don't really have an alternative; we want to see what's going on and need to be in the air as opposed to on the ground. I would hope that the Board would find that acceptable and amend its decision accordingly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just to bring to your attention if you're not aware, there was a letter of opposition from the neighbor. Did you receive a copy of that? MR. CUDDY : No, I did not but there was a letter last time about deer I think and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's the same person, the same letter it's a little puzzling cause they just forwarded basically your communication and stated their opposition. MR. CUDDY : Well again, this is so we can control the deer somewhere. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rob do you have anything to ask at this time. MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just thought I would ask, I think you were clear that the additional height is to perhaps improve the ability to monitor what's going on on the property and I just wondered if there was any analysis to say what additional view scape if I call it that would be September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting allowed by an additional five feet of height? In other words, are there areas that would be not visible to a lower studio that will now be visible with the additional five feet of height? MR. CUDDY : You mean if we lowered the building itself? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I mean if it were built in accordance with the prior decision what the height of the prior decision allowed. MR. CUDDY : The height of the prior decision was essentially on the ground I believe. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I thought it was seventeen feet high. MR. CUDDY : I don't believe that was true. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible)the decision. MR. CUDDY : The answer would be no, there wouldn't be any change. CHAD GALLANT : Hi I'm Chad, I'm the owner, Chad Gallant nice to meet everyone. One thing I would say is that, a use of it which I think Jeff Standish the caretaker of the property can also speak to this, we do have these deer that come on the property, we do want them to get off the property so it does allows us to see the front gate which is where we hope the deer, we open the gates up and then we walk Jeff walks them off. Essentially, it's a crew who does it but that's what we do.We want to keep them off and that allows us to do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A note to remind the Board or the audience also that we've made site inspections. I was actually there yesterday and Mr. Gallant took me specifically to the location, everything is kind of grown over since I was there last. It's a large parcel so I'm assuming that people did see or members did see the location of the art studio, proposed art studio tower. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Was one of the applications did you request a deer fence? CHAD GALLANT : That was in the prior one. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Where does that deer fence cover? CHAD GALLANT : That deer fence covers on this map stop right there, you see the fence going across left to right, right to left lower than that, below that fence we had asked to deer fence the whole property. I can't say that we're actually at this point going to do it, it's a tricky thing but that's what it was. So, it's sort of unrelated to this, if you see where the artist studio is you can see that on the right, exactly what I'm talking about where the deer grates are and that's where the deer come over and that's where we walk them off, there are gates there. What September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting Jeff does he actually he's like a deer whisperer, he figures out where they are, we get in.the tower and then we can see them right now we can't really see anything going on. We have cameras on the driveway, they're WIFI cameras, they don't work so well but that's the way we do it now. We in fact have a deer that's figured out how to get across and we cannot get this deer off at all even though we (inaudible) yea two months so that's what's going on. I mean I personally am not the artist but I would love to get the (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The application is sort of two-fold, one you're asking it mirrors the original application that was the relief was granted but the only difference in my opinion is about the height, could you explain, are there any proposed the art studio space is there proposed running water, a bathroom or anything in this studio structure? CHAD GALLANT : This literally was for we have four kids, one never made it past tracing, the other ones like to do art of certain types so it was meant to be a lookout, hangout place to reflect, do art and so it was a very simple thing,there's nothing really going on in there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So no utilities whatsoever, screened windows. CHAD GALLANT : We're going to put a light in probably. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, basic electricity. CHAD GALLANT : Basic electricity, if they're going to paint they're going to have to bring their own water that's all there is to it or goat water that's nearby. No, so it's a pretty simple use it's not meant to be something more than it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I might add then for the benefit of the audience, the application is for a nonconforming use, the structure is supposed to be in the rear yard of the property and in this case it's being placed in the front yard. It would seem based upon the home's location the single-family residence almost any improvements or additional structures would require some form of Board relief(inaudible). CHAD GALLANT: That's right, that's exactly right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak in favor of or against this application? Liz, Donna, do we have anyone on-line?Julie any other comments, members? With that said I'm going to make a motion that we close the hearing, do I have a second? September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, we'll have a determination in two weeks at the Special Meeting on September 181h HEARING#8043 AND#8034— MARIA POUBOURIDIS,TRUSTEE MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Next up we have an application actually two applications, I'll read them together. This is for Maria Poubouridis as Trustee application 8043, request for an Interpretation of Article III, Section 280-13A and the Building Inspector's April 10, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct an existing cottage at 1) determine the Town Code definition of demolition as it pertains to non-permitted reconstruction of a cottage located at 2720 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck, NY SCTM#1000-126-5-13. Additionally, the same applicant has before us a new application #8034 a request for a Reversal of the Building Inspector's April 10, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct an existing cottage at 1) the cottage is not a permitted use located as 2720 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck, NY SCTM#1000-126-5-13. I believe Mr. Cuddy you're on this, welcome back. MR. CUDDY : If I may because the Notice of Disapproval really says that it's disapproved on the following grounds, and that is they're disapproval on the basis that the cottage is not a permitted use. I would like to address that first because I think it makes sense historically to set houses matters before you. Before I do that, I would like to also know is with me today is the Parianos family. Their daughter Maria is the Trustee of the property but the Parianos family Anastasias, Anna and their daughter Anathoula are here because they are the people who benefit from this matter. This accessory apartment and I call it that because in 1982 this ILO I September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting matter was before the Zoning Board of this town and Mr. Goehringer in the decision called in an accessory dwelling. So, starting in 1982 it's been used as an accessory apartment by the family and by guests of the family in accordance with his decision. I'd like to hand up to you that decision so you can all have it. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Are you calling it an accessory apartment or is it-the decision references it as a second dwelling. MR. CUDDY : A second dwelling, yes. T. A. MCGIVNEY : But then you said as a MR. CUDDY : I'm interchanging the terms because I think T. A. MCGIVNEY : They aren't. MR. CUDDY : Today it would be an accessory apartment, at that time it was an accessory building but today they also call it an ADU which is an accessory dwelling unit. If you like I would say T. A. MCGIVNEY : No, I just wanted to clarify. MR. CUDDY : Again, I have copies of the 1982 proceedings before the Board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Cuddy according to the town Assessors property card the applicant purchased the property in 1979? MR. CUDDY : They purchased it I believe it's 1973 but they say'79. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well maybe I might be misreading it but yes, '73 I think you're 'right. They've held the property a long time. MR. CUDDY : Yes over fifty years at this point. If I may, I can hand this up to you. Going through the history though, this property actually was I have one more if you'd like. This property was actually built in 1943 1 guess before many of,us maybe not me but many of us were born. In 1946 according to the decision that's before you the property had a garage on it, it was converted to what is now the accessory dwelling'. Ever since that time 1946 that's been used as an accessory dwelling and that was recognized in the decision of 1982 by Mr. Goehringer. So, historically this family has used that as an accessory dwelling unit for more than forty years and during that time it has remained just the way it was. We haven't added to it in the sense we haven't enlarged it, we haven't done anything to the inside of it. It's been used by a single resident and what they propose now is exactly what the town wants. They're going to have the parents live in the main house, they're going to have the daughter who is a September 4,2025 Regular Meeting physician's assistant in the town live in the accessory unit. I'm having a hard time understanding why it wasn't recognized as an accessory dwelling unit in the beginning but it hasn't been so we're here before you to say that it should be recognized in that fashion because that's the way it's been used. It's not a nonconforming cottage at the very worst MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When you say it's not recognized, do you have a C of 0 on the structure? MR. CUDDY : No, but you don't need MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well on the property you would typically have to MR. CUDDY : You don't need a C of 0 on a permitted pre-existing use. I live in a house that is older than that and I never had'a pre-existing CO for it because you don't need it so they didn't have one. T. A. MCGIVNEY : If they didn't need it then why they got the CO for the house to be rebuilt after the fire. MR. CUDDY : The house had a fire yes. T. A. MCGIVNEY : They received a CO after this decision. MR. CUDDY : They had a CO for the house, they do not have a CO for this but it's pre-existing for eighty years and it hasn't been changed. I have an affidavit to that effect from Anna who is the mother who is here and I'll hand that up to you also. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : May I ask cause I'm puzzled, on what basis do you maintain that a Certificate of Occupancy is not required cause you recognize it as an accessory dwelling? MR. CUDDY : I think that you can have an accessory dwelling that pre-exists the code and you don't need to have a CO to live in it. I mean people have been doing that for years, I did it and no one said to me you're illegal to be in that house. V think if you want to do something different with it, right now we would get a CO. What we propose to do by the way is to have this as an accessory apartment to have the architect who is here, Mr. Portillo to add some footage to it and I'll get to that in a minute and to have the daughter live in it and to have it inspected, getting a rental permit. That's all they wanted to do when they started and yet we haven't been able to do that. In other words, we came to the town saying we would like to build an additional 150 feet, 160 feet on this house to make it the maximum of 750 feet which is what you can have for an accessory dwelling. We were told we can't do that because it was going to be demolished and I'll get to that in a minute. All we want to do is what I would think the town would have said to us is, you can have this site, you can renovate it to a modest im September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting degree, you can then get it inspected and you can then have your CO and you can get a rental permit. That's what we're asking to do but we were denied that and I don't know why. I hope that answers your question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry to back up cause I'm confused by the application, I'm even more confused by what you just said, there's two different sort of conversations I heard. One, you'd like to get a C of 0 on the structure with some modest repairs so you can get a rental permit; if it's a stand-alone house that's previously recognized with or without a C of 0 and there are plenty examples of homes in town, I think that are older, predating zoning that perhaps never changed hands therefore there's no C of 0, in order to get the rental permit, you would just need the C of 0. Again, why don't you just apply for what is there today to have a pre-C of 0 issued on the structure that was clearly built before zoning in order to get a rental permit? MR. CUDDY : We would like to do that except we also would like to add a small addition to it to finish it up so the daughter can live in it, that's all we came in for. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand the addition but a nonconforming structure I don't think can be altered or changed without relief from this Board. So, I think it would be sort of instrumental if we had some legal understanding of what the structure is with or without a rental permit and I'd even question if you need a rental permit if you're living in the house that you own. I mean that's a whole other conversation but Anthony if you just announce who you are. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture. So, I think to your point I think even going further back to when the house was constructed and what this accessory building was which was a garage the current code allows a garage to turn into an accessory dwelling so even if you were to call it what it was from when it was originally built and forget about the fact that if it's a dwelling now or not the Board should allow us to build an accessory dwelling in a garage that's existing as long as the garage was existing for three years. In reality regardless if it's saying it's a dwelling now or if it was a garage from when it was originally built the Board should allow us to build an ADU so it really'should have never come down to being a demolition. That was always my point to the Building Department. If you take out the fact let's call it an accessory today or a dwelling unit today and figure out when it was built prior even without a C 0 cause you wouldn't of had a CO for the garage then that garage should be allowed to become an accessory dwelling by code standards today, zoning code standards today. T. A. MCGIVNEY : But you're using dwelling and accessory apartment interchangeably. September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm not, I'm saying it a different way. I'm saying if you were to just call this a garage because that's what it was let's say legal when it.was originally built, a garage can turn into an accessory dwelling unit. T. A. MCGIVNEY : But you're increasing the size of it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's okay, you can increase the size of an existing garage that you want to turn into an accessory dwelling unit, that's not against any rules. If it was a garage T. A. MCGIVNEY : But there's not a Certificate of Occupancy for ANTHONY PORTILLO : But when it was built it was built as a garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Let me ask a different question, if this was a vacant lot I shouldn't say vacant, if there was only the house on the property could you build this today? The answer would be to your point, yes. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, that's correct. If that was a garage MEMBER PLANAMENTO : However, if it was vacant and you built a garage or proposed ANTHONY PORTILLO : We would have to wait three years to propose the accessory unit in the garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, the Town Board (inaudible) amendment. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm sorry, I'm going back to when I made this application a year ago. That was my point to the Building Department at the time like, my.point is, and also to call this a reconstruction I mean I'm not going to speak to what I think what the reconstruction code goes for to me that's a primary structure and to look at an accessory as a reconstruction it sounds pretty foolish only because how can you value a building and you're doing a minor addition a minor renovation.This thing would turn into a reconstruction doing anything to the building in my opinion just cause if the value of what this thing is. But I'm just saying what I'm getting it as, if the building was built as a garage, I could file for an accessory apartment in that garage I can add 150 square feet and come to the Board and request it a year ago and now it's not really even required. So, my point is, the structure is there it would probably the same standards that I've received approvals on many of times from the Board that's what I'm getting at. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only thing and we're kind of going down a rabbit hole cause I think the application is more about an interpretation than a variance. 141 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm sorry, I just wanted to put my two cents in, if the Board is looking at this as an accessory structure,just an accessory structure at the time of my application before Charles joined the team here I always said to the Building Department well if this is an accessory structure that basically that I'm going to file to the Board as requesting an accessory apartment based on what zoning was then I should be allowed to do that and they kept talking about it being a reconstruction. I think that was one MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In my understanding from looking at the plans it is a reconstruction because of the substantial alteration to the building and the building has to your point a (inaudible) value. ANTHONY PORTILLO : If it's not let's say we interpret it as a garage and it's not you're saying that because it's an accessory dwelling unit that they're making a call that it's a reconstruction. What I'm saying is, if it was a garage and to your guys point that there's no C.O. for the accessory dwelling so that's even that to me makes sense then it would then just be a garage legally it would have never been an accessory dwelling. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed but then you'd also have the combined GFA I mean I don't know if this lot I don't know. ANTHONY PORTILLO : (inaudible) is a problem, am I making sense? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It seems to me (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : (inaudible) to make sense (inaudible). MEMBER LEHNERT : You are, I think you're speaking to this as an accessory apartment which is very different than a cottage cause the accessory apartment would follow the homeowner not the property. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm also saying that this is really just an accessory building, it's not really anything but that cause as you guys just said we don't even have a C.O. for an accessory apartment. T. A. MCGIVENY : You have a C.O. for the building. ANTHONY PORTILLO : But the building was built with the primary building, it was built at the same time. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Then why wasn't the C.O. issued for the house with the accessory when it was requested to do so? It was requested to do so in the decision that the accessory had to be legalized. 1� September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MR. CUDDY : Excuse me, when you say it was requested can you tell me when it was requested? Not in your file, I'm talking about to the owner. T. A. MCGIVNEY : When it was requested to the owner? MR. CUDDY : Yea, you said it was requested, how T. A. MCGIVNEY : In 1982 with the fire. MR. CUDDY : That's correct. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yes, so at the time that he came before the Board to rebuild the building it was requested that that apartment MR. CUDDY : I don't see that any place in the document. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I thought I showed you that cause I know you and I have had multiple conversations about this. I have to find it but it was part of it (inaudible) acknowledged that it would have to be legalized with the house that was (inaudible). MR. CUDDY : Your position that for forty years this has been an illegal structure? T. A. MCGIVNEY : I don't have a position on it I'm just trying to clarify what's going on. MR. CUDDY : I ask you cause that would be the result of what you're saying that for forty years they've had an illegal structure, I doubt that. If it has been no one has ever violated them. I find it odd that all of a sudden, we're talking about it not being legal. T. A. MCGIVNEY : How long, has it been vacant or has someone been living in it all these years? MR. CUDDY : I gave you the affidavit from Mrs. Parianos, I'll hand it up to you. There's been somebody in this building since 1986. In 1986 it was recognized as he said as an accessory dwelling. So, since 1986 there has been someone here, it's not been vacant, somebody has been living there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then to this conversation's point which again is off topic, it sounds like somebody has been living there based on what you've just offered but there's no rental permit. There's been a rental code that requires a rental permit for at least three years, why hasn't there been an application obtain, a rental permit? MR. CUDDY : Nearly three years we've been trying to get permits for this, this is what Mr. Portillo has been telling you. I think we've been stopped. 16 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : That's because the original plans as far as I recall were for almost a complete second story to this structure and you and I had discussed that at some length that that is a major reconstruction. MR.. CUDDY : We're not first of all, I don't think the demolition provision applies but I haven't gotten to that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to say that, why don't we go back to what is your definition? MR. CUDDY : I don't think it applies and I'll go through why okay if you don't mind. I want to hand up this affidavit so it's part of the record to show that it's been lived in all this time. We all could be talking about the same thing; I'll hand up the definition of demolition that appears in the town code. (inaudible) definition came into the town code in 2017. It came into the town code because at that time and I participated in it, the town was concerned about what they call mcmansions that is taking a small house on a small lot and converting it say from 1,200 feet to 3,500 feet. So, they actually changed the town code which seems to me to be the change from a standard type of thing to a variable type of thing. So, the code before you today says that if the reconstruction exceeds fifty percent of the marked value then you essentially have a demolition. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons is that, if you take that and you apply it to a small building in today's situation where the construction cost has gone up three to four hundred times since COVID and you apply it to a small building virtually every building has to be destroyed because the value of a small house six hundred, seven hundred thousand cause now when you have a thousand foot using this just as an example, a thousand foot addition to a house you would be talking about having three hundred, four hundred thousand dollar cost which would obviously exceed fifty percent of the value. For a small structure it shouldn't apply but it never should have applied to an accessory apartment. The accessory apartment is 750 square feet, you can't build a big structure. This whole code was set up to prevent big structures from being built, it shouldn't be applied to a 750 accessory apartment that's one argument. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : May I ask a question about that argument? Do you have any transcript or documentation of the discussion on the part of the Town Board when that definition was adopted to indicate that it was intended to prevent mcmansions? MR. CUDDY : I was there and I remember the language. I think I could find it; I hadn't found it but I actually participated in it and it was not that long ago but I know that that's what was done and I participated in some of the larger construction that was going on. That's what it was adopted for to try and stop bigger buildings. It should not apply to a small building. 171 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'll ask a slightly different question, this Board had come before it a number of applications in my brief tenure which is only eight months where a renovation met the technical definition of a demolition and it has generally not been challenged. It would strike me that such precedence bolsters the current definition that has been evoked many times and it has been complied with. MR. CUDDY : Let me go further if I may. When you have an accessory dwelling unit you can't get an appraisal. I have an appraiser and I'm going to hand up his statement. The market value determines an appraisal but you can't have an appraisal by segmenting out, taking out one building and that's what's proposed here. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : May I ask a question about that contention? Have you been in touch with licensed appraisers to have them affirm your conclusion that they cannot do an appraisal? MR. CUDDY : Yes (inaudible) the appraisal from Mr. Paton who sent me an email saying exactly what I just said and I'll hand that up to you? MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Just the one? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To this point though I'm curious because what you're discussing and about the concept of a demolition to avoid mcmansions etc., this particular property is unique sort of in twofold in my mind's eye; one, it does not have a Certificate of Occupancy on the accessory which I don't understand how or why that doesn't exist but more importantly and I'm not quite sure what it is that you're looking for whether it's an accessory or if it was a cottage but it would strike me as the property as it was developed historically there were two houses on one lot. There are many properties in the Town of Southold where that exists and I can't believe that an appraiser or some individual can't offer testimony about the value or even if in fact it is defined as a second house on the property which in my opinion it strikes me that this is what it is, why wouldn't one just address it as a demolition and work forward to obtain to achieve the goal that you want to expand the structure'or use it fora family member? MR. CUDDY : We don't want it to be demolition number one that's why we're talking about it because we don't think it is a demolition. We think that it's just adding on to something MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But any nonconforming structure cannot be expanded without variance relief so no matter how we get here other than the fact if it was an (inaudible) structure or at Anthony's point if it was a garage that you now applied for a special exception to develop it as an ADU which is different than what it sort of seems that you have. I think you're back at the Board. is I i September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MR. CUDDY : But the problem is, we have an accessory dwelling that was labeled an accessory dwelling and everybody seems to ignore that. I mean that's what it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But where is the Certificate of Occupancy on it? MR. CUDDY : As I said to you, I don't think you need a Certificate of Occupancy if you have a pre-existing use that you're using just as it was. We didn't add anything to this structure at all at any time and if it was in violation and I say this again, it's been used for forty years way. (inaudible) to make it problem but now all of sudden it's now become a problem when we want to add to it and 1 don't understand why the town has adopted and they adopted it twenty years ago and it's now been even updated but you've had an, accessory apartment dwelling situation in the town code for years and these people are using it that way. You have a family using it exactly the way it was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's not the application you're seeking the interpretation of what the definition of demolition is and it seems based upon what you offered this document and I can't speak for the Board but you're clearly aware and in your own words, not words but submission you're agreeing that what a demolition is, is the removal of any portion of the structure exceeding fifty percent. MR. CUDDY : I'm saying I think that that definition when you use it in a small building is improper. I think that it was never intended to be used on a 750 square foot building because that was done only to stop big buildings. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you're also arguing that it's a second house on the lot. Your applicant's or your client's application is basically for two homes on the lot whereas most people only have one home we're not talking about a shed or a pool house. MR. CUDDY : (inaudible) is to recognize that there is, I mean it was recognized. What I don't understand is why we're having an argument of whether it's'two homes or one home. The two homes were recognized in 1982 and have been there all this time. What is that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Why wouldn't that be on the C.O? MR. CUDDY : Then we go back to the C.O. question, and the C.O. question I said seems to me somewhat irrelevant because you can have a house without,a C.O. and you can live in a house without a C.O. when its pre-existing I mean can't you? It's been done for years I live in one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the moment you apply for a rental permit you will be notified that you are deficient and you'd have to get a C.O. MR. CUDDY : We want to apply for rental permit. September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you apply for one? MR. CUDDY : We've asked if we could but we can't apply for rental permit because we're told we're demolishing a house which I don't think we are. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So without the demolition have you applied for the rental permit based on the unit as it stands today which apparently is the same condition it's been there for the last forty years? MR. CUDDY : I don't think we can, how can we apply for it? T. A. MCGIVNEY Let's circle back to the definition of demolition. MR. CUDDY : I didn't finish with my T. A. MCGIVNEY : Just because that's what we're really here for is discussing that and we're getting sidetracked. MR. CUDDY : As I said and I'll hand up Mr. Paton said to me that you cannot take out a single unit like that the accessory dwelling and appraise that, you have to appraise the entire site which he did but he also said you can't appraise just the accessory dwelling. I'll hand that up to the Board if I may. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To Julie's point let's then just talk about your application specific to interpretation of the word, demolition. MR. CUDDY : I said to you, I don't think you can use that formula on a small house that it works, I think that it was never intended at all to apply to a 750 square foot building. I think also the town has taken care of it on its own. A few months ago, you passed the maximum gross floor area, there's no house today that can be built to a certain degree that they were concerned about in the definition when it was adopted. Today we go down and you go and you say a house that's on a lot that's 10,000 square feet, 20,000 square feet you tell us exactly how big you can build it. So, the demolition definition really has little meaning to it today because you can only build a certain amount on any lot. I don't know why we're caught up in using a demolition definition. That really only hurts people because we now have a situation where you can't build a house a large house anyway no matter what happens. I don't see that it should be applicable, I think it's inaccurate. At this point I think it's in an acronym you talk about the demolition definition. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, Pat any questions, Margaret? 20 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm trying to digest this email from Mr. Paton and in it he seems to say an appraisal can be done separately under a hypothetical condition and he says, this could not be accomplished because it contravenes the minimum requirements under zoning. I do not understand that statement. What contravenes the minimum requirements under zoning? MR. CUDDY : I think he's talking about yards and how the house is set. It certainly would violate all of the code requirements; we'd have to get variances for it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well, the subject of the email isn't whether variances are required or not, the subject of the email if I understand correctly is to determine if an appraisal could be performed to ascertain the value of the accessory structure. MR. CUDDY : And he said it could not. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : But the reason he says it could be done under a hypothetical condition but he goes on to say that it can't be accomplished because it contravenes the minimum requirements under zoning and I don't see how that applies. Why is he thinking about the what are the minimum requirements under zoning that prevent a hypothetical appraisal? MR. CUDDY : Well I guess one of them would be you have two buildings on one lot. The other would be I think area situations where you'd have to get variances before he can find out if it was legal. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : But I don't think you're asking Mr. Paton to determine if it's legal, you're asking him if an appraisal can be done. MR. CUDDY : He said he couldn't do it because he thinks those things would prevent him from doing it that's how I understood it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I see, thank you. MR. CUDDY : All my clients are looking for is the ability to do what you're asking them to which to get a C.O., to have the building inspected, to add a small amount to it and to get a rental permit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the application is for us to interpret what the word demolition means. MR. CUDDY : Because I don't think it should apply, I don't think it should stop them from doing I thought they could have gone to the Building Department and the Building Department would have said to them you have to get a C.O., you have to have an inspection made and ?:I September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting then you have to apply and you can get a rental permit. That's what I thought would have happened but that hasn't happened at all and I don't understand why it hasn't happened. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But what' confusing and while we're talking about the definition, you've repeatedly stated that you never applied for a rental permit, why wouldn't you have just applied for a rental permit and possibly been denied alternatively perhaps a rental permit would have been issued? If there was a requirement in order to get the rental permit of having a C of 0 why wouldn't you have opened up the property so that the Building Inspector verify what was there? I don't think anyone is questioning the age of the structure. MR. CUDDY : When you say apply for a rental permit we would have to go in and then ask them if we could have a rental permit and we're adding to our building and we weren't going to be able to do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's a separate conversation and if you're adding to the structure I expect because it's a nonconforming structure you get a Notice of Disapproval which would then require you to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals where we could make a determination whether or not that application for whatever expansion was within the community characteristics. The structure as you've stated and I think the Board even agrees it has existed for many, many years we just don't understand why there isn't a C of 0 on it and at your point about a rental permit. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Just clarify because you said we expected to go to the Building Department and get a Certificate of Occupancy but we couldn't do that, why, because you were expanding the building. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Can I cause I'm the one that actually started the application originally and it's been a long time. Just to be clear here, we were never intending to go to the, the idea was to legalize this or get a C of 0 on the ADU. We didn't go and submit for a rental permit because and I've done this in the past; you do the work and then you can get a rental permit. So, the intent was to have no one living there, the intent was to do construction on the building and then finish the job, get a C 0 and get a rental permit. That was the intent of the original, I never thought when I guided my clients to the Building Department that they would say, oh well this is going this is a cottage that's.not legal and it's going to be considered a reconstruction and so on and so forth. I thought that the process would have been to come to the Board like I've done in the past requesting an approval on the accessory dwelling and that we would basically get approved or there would be some recommendations from the Board. Then what happened was, we got into this tangled weed with the Building Department that this is not a legal structure, you can't and that's where this all sort of happened. So, you're asking a question and I'm trying to explain the intent from the beginning was never to go let's September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting legalize this structure and get a C 0 and then get a rental permit. The idea was to get a permit to do construction then get a C 0 and get a rental permit. We got caught into this you know this rotation what is the meaning of this building and what is the use of this building and so on and so forth. I'm letting you know that, that was what we (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it seems that we're jumping between the two applications maybe I errored in opening both of them concurrently but relative to the definition, I think it's more specific that you're not seeking a definition cause you make it very clear what the definition is. You're requesting that we interpret that accessory structures not be included in that definition. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think that's what we're MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's one dialogue and then the other application is specific to achieve the,goal of legalizing this additional residential unit which I think everyone knows is there we just ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well I think an appraiser is not able to look at the structure and put a value on it then someone like myself or a contractor that can say a structure of this size if I was to build it today would cost this much money. So, if you were to take the existing structure and say, well if I'm going to build this structure today it's going to cost (inaudible) and then look at that value based on what the renovation cost is and if we're under the fifty percent then that should be accepted. If you can't appraise the building based on this being an accessory structure then we should look at the value of how much it cost to build that building at the current value. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that's also a statement that you could provide. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We could provide that yea but we went to an appraiser I mean it is kind of clear in the code (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) the property without a doubt regardless of setbacks, the structure exists. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's clear in the code. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It says to provide an appraisal for the value of the existing structure. I think that's one of the arguments Charles is making but what I'm saying is I should be able to provide the Board with what the cost of that structure is, what's the replacement cost for just that structure. 231 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : Have you discussed this with the Building Department as far as you had an appraisal and the letter to the appraiser, because the Building Department indicated that, nothing was submitted contrary to saying that it's a fifty percent demolition. They asked you to submit information and it wasn't submitted. To say that you don't fall under the term of definition. Not you, Charles. MR. CUDDY : I did discuss that with a member of the Building Department and they said they weren't sure and I told them that I was going to the Zoning Board but yes they said to me they weren't sure that the definition applied based on the arguments that I just made. Q T. A. MCGIVNEY : So, if they weren't sure then why did they put in their Notice of Disapproval that this was a demolition? MR. CUDDY : This was subsequent to that, it was after that was done. I asked them how they go to that conclusion, they said when I explained to them that I didn't think that it applied to this they said that may be true and go to the Zoning Board and that's why we're here. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Okay MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the Notice of Disapproval actually discusses that a cottage is not a permitted use. MR. CUDDY : Yes, I don't understand that. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Because of the size, because this is the issue with the size of it because originally your plans were for a larger structure and the Notice of Disapproval started back in October of 2024 so there's been multiple plans has there not Anthony? There's been one set of plans the whole time, or no?This has been changed a few times. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, we provided a plan where we had dormers, I mean we were trying to get some storage space in the attic, it had a pull down stair. That was what determined to say that this was a reconstruction but then we provided the revised drawings which is what's before you today of the smaller structure. Again, I don't think it's a reconstruction based on value. If we were able to use a value of what that current structure is to build that structure (inaudible) T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) to be a way of evaluating that structure other than one appraiser saying that and I (inaudible) currently so I'm not saying that the appraiser is saying that it can't be done, I'm just saying I find it hard to believe that (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : This current structure to build an accessory apartment like that you would assume four hundred to four hundred and fifty dollars a square foot. So, if you were to 241 i September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting take that value and then figure out what the renovation cost'is, we wouldn't be it wouldn't be considered a reconstruction in my opinion if you were to use that evaluation. In other words, I'm just saying that, how do you if you're going to value a building in today's world then it should be the cost of building that building today that's what I'm getting at. So, if I was to take this rectangular building and figure out the square footage arid provide a value of building that building today if I'm a contractor that should be the number that we're using to base our reconstruction evaluation on-our reconstruction calculation. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well, the definition says, market value it doesn't say replacement value. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I mean this is a dollars and cents type of equation (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's what I said earlier that the way the code reads it says market value (inaudible)to provide market value, I can't provide market value. T. A. MCGIVNEY : We can't do anything other than follow the definition, the Zoning Board (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : Again, going back to what Nick said is the original Disapproval was reconstructing a nonconforming cottage. I still go back to saying well, this isn't a cottage let's call it a garage which was what it was originally built as; I can bring the garage to the Board and go hey, this is a garage and I want to proposed an ADU in this garage and I meet all the other requirements. This was always my thought MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It doesn't have a C of 0 but that's not the application you made (inaudible) definition. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The definition of demolition. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Just so that we can wrap it up cause there are other hearings. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, specific to application 8043 where you're requesting a interpretation for the work demolition, is there anything that you'd like to further add specific to accessory structures within that you know for particular properties? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to discuss the word demolition within town code? MR. CUDDY : I don't want to take up more time, I think we made our point and we don't think it applies. MEMBER PLANAMENTO So with that said, Liz, Donna is anyone on line that would like to discuss application 8043 as it related to the word, demolition? September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : No,hands. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : With that said, would it be appropriate to close this particular hearing, members? MR. CUDDY : May I ask one thing before you close? If you think we should be doing something different to get these people in their accessory dwelling, would you tell us what to do because we'd really like to get them there and I don't see any reason why they can't be there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : These are different choices that you have as far as what you want to guide your client in as far as what application is submitted of if someone wants to withdraw something. I can't make that determination. MR. CUDDY : We haven't done very well and apparently you're unhappy with what we're saying. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Can I ask a question? Can we leave it open and then I can change the (inaudible)? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We're specifically talking about we're not talking about the application about the structure we're just talking about the word demolition at it's written in the town code. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'd like to go the Building Department and get a new Disapproval for something different and (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but I think that runs into the other application. T. A. MCGINEY : Are you going to withdraw the application then if you want to get something? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would like to revise the application not withdraw it. MR. CUDDY :Just amend it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So then I can come back in a month MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But how can you amend an application for an interpretation of the word demolition? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't want it I don't think we should do that any further, I think I want to try something else which T. A. MCGIVNEY : You have to make that decision. You're going to have to decide you know whether you want to withdraw it or not. 261 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTNONY PORTILLO : I might revise the application yes amend it and keep it open. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just so that I follow, we're speaking about application 8043 where you're seeking an interpretation of the word demolition and that's what you'd like to amend? MEMBER LEHNERT : No, I think Anthony is talking about 8034. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, that's what I would say makes sense but MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think you want to amend the application for a permit which is 8034 that is (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my thought, we're talking about 8043 which is just about the interpretation. If you want to withdraw that application that's your choice. If you want us to close it now, we can close it and then we'll reserve decision for our Special Meeting on September 18th but I don't know if there's much more discussion about how you interpret the word demolition especially in light of the evidence that you purported. You're speaking more about the specific use of an accessory structure within the demolition term. MEMBER LEHNERT : I think what he's asking is to close one and leave the other open. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, as I started to say, is there anyone on line that wants to make a comment before we close application 8043? I'm going to make a motion that we close application 8043 where it's a request for an interpretation of the word demolition as per town code. Do I have a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye, the motion passes. We reserve decision to our Special Meeting on September 18th. Next, specific to application 8034 which is where you're seeking a reversal of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval you would like us to hold that hearing open so that you can perhaps amend your application. T. A. MCGIVNEY : This application depended on how the interpretation goes. 27 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am. My thought is, I want to go get a C 0 on the existing to see if can get a C 0 on the existing structure so that I can bring that C 0 to the Board MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So why wouldn't you withdraw the application ANTHONY PORTILLO : Because that application is based on it being called a cottage. If I can remove the nonconforming cottage even if I have to go back and revise the drawings to make a non-reconstruction then I can bring that back to the Board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then why don't we just leave it open ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's what I'm requesting. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Adjourn without a date. MR. CUDDY : That would be preferable. T. A. MCGIVNEY : And you'll make a decision on your interpretation. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Thank you so much.. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn application 8034 without a date. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Which will have to be re-noticed when you come back. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do I have a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye, it's adjourned. September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING #8033—ANTHONY J. and JOANNE COLLETTA MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The next application before the Board is for Anthony J. and Joanne Colletta #8033. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207A(b) and the Building Inspector's May 28, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single- family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 40,000 square feet in area located at 1657 Meadow Beach Lane (adj. to Halls Creek) Mattituck, NY SCTM#1000 116-4-15. PAT MOORE : Good morning, Patricia Moore and I have Mr. and Mrs. Colletta here that are in the audience and they can help me clarify or correct anything I misstate. First, I have to make a correction because in my writing if you read what I wrote I said, numerically that 140 was less than 119, no I would not have passed elementary school. I apologize for that error. We went back and looked and we do have the average GFA, that number is correct. Looking at the plans there is a small 42 sq. ft. modification to the existing garage which was not it was more for aesthetics not really creating any additional space and we're just going to take that off the application and that satisfies the numerical the numbers so that if we remove the 42 sq. ft. then the proposed GFA is 5,098 sq. ft. which is below the 5,119 sq. ft. and now I passed first grade, kindergarten even. This is a very straightforward application; the existing house has a C 0 it was built in the nineties. The proposal is to make a modification to the existing house providing for a modification to the existing kitchen and to the master bedroom to create a better and more comfortable master bedroom suite. It also includes a screened in porch and deck alteration, all of that is shown on the plans so really the only variance is specific or the variance being the GFA variance. The front yard variance is essentially eliminated because I take it back, the addition on the north side is continuing the line of the front of the house so the front yard setback being 34.9 is a continuation of the existing setback so it's not increasing the setback but it is maintaining a nonconforming setback.There were really only two variances, front yard variance and GFA. Do you have any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just as a footnote I want to point out that the LWRP report is in, did you receive a copy of that? PAT MOORE : Yes I did see the LWRP MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Inconsistent PAT MOORE : Yes and that is a consistent inconsistent, anytime you are dealing with a pre- existing structure and the inconsistency claims is based on the setbacks and the GFA variance 2 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting but I would submit to the Board that it is the character of the neighborhood is well established' and I would disagree with the conclusions of LWRP. By removing the square footage of the garage addition, we now make the we're now consistent with the LWRP because now we're within that below average number. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The application, does this property need Trustees approval? PAT MOORE : Yes the existing house was granted all the approvals in the past either through non jurisdiction determinations or waivers at the time that they were reviewing it, now because of the change to the code of 100 feet and their own definitions of where their jurisdiction starts or ends we are getting we have an application pending with the Trustees and because of the code as it is today the Trustees want us to bring everything that had previously received a letter of non-jurisdiction as part of the permitting process. We've listed everything that is here in the permit application so it's a technical incorporation of the existing house, the only new structures on the seaward side are the addition and the enclosed porch. Again, not expanding or going closer to the water than the existing setbacks but given the Trustees regulations we include everything. So, the application to the Trustees was filed, they did ask for some small modifications to the drawings and we're it's being prepared. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're speaking about the sort of habitable space addition which is 12 x 17 feet sort of in the northeast corner of the house and squaring off PAT MOORE : The kitchen addition correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and squaring off the screened porch. PAT MOORE : Correct, but everything the entire house is going to be part of the Trustees permit. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I thought the kitchen. addition was on the southwest side, the northeast is the bedroom suite. PAT MOORE : Yea, thank you for that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret with that said, any questions? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I do;this you know just a clarification, you noted the discrepancy in GFA values; there was also a minor discrepancy in the application where I think in the reasons for appeal section it said the sky plane was exceeded however in the project description it says the sky plane is the project is within the allowable sky plane. I just wanted to for the record speak about that. 301 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : No, it's not in the apparently it's not in the sky plane. I think an initial review may have had it but when I went back to look at the Notice of Disapproval it wasn't listed. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right, I just wanted to explore a little, maybe you can take us through the rational for the GFA averaging including just the four properties in that area where I will say the code neither the code nor the Zoning Board's guidelines for neighborhood averaging kind of acknowledge some of the distinctions you made so everyone can hear PAT MOORE : Your guidance memo does I'm not sure if it's the guidance memo or the actual code that says, when you're looking at the neighborhood it doesn't mean neighborhoods that are like in this case where you have Harbor Farms that is a distinct subdivision versus the four homes that are a part of a private right of way developed through the Smith, Suter, Witche; I have a variance attached on how these lots got created, McGoldrick is the house on the end. These houses are very distinct and different from Harbor Farms, they are on a private right of way, the homes are all set developed separately, they have no Harbor Farms have distinct covenants and restrictions and subdivisions regulations that�they have to apply. So, we really have a very distinct neighborhood. In the code it does allow you to distinguish, you don't have to just because it's near doesn't mean it's the neighborhood. Also, in your I believe it's your guidance memo, there's a specific paragraph I'm trying to remember where I saw it but it specifically states that when you're looking at comparing the homes of the particular neighborhood if it's a separately distinct neighborhood you can treat it differently than taking you know five homes and across the street. We really don't have an across the street, we have one very large home across the street and then the other three, four houses are come on up because I'm trying to remember visually you have the end house McGoldrick ANTHONY COLLETTA : Anthony Colletta I own the house along with my wife Joanne Colletta. Just to be clear, so there's my house which is 1657, there's the Martin house which is also formerly known as Witche, there's McGoldrick house which fronts on Bay to my south and there's Skipley and Julie Amper who own the house just to,the north of bay and those four houses are all on a private extension of Meadow Beach Lane. We are not part of the homeowner's association, that's Harbor Farms. If you were to approach our house from Meadow Beach Lane you actually can't even see those four houses from Meadow Beach Lane. You can probably make out the Martin house cause it's quite large and it's yellow so it does stand out a little bit. The other three houses, the Lee house to my'north, my house and the McGoldrick house, not even visible from Meadow Beach Lane. The language that Pat was referring to about guidance on how to calculate the GFA average I have the misfortune of being a real estate lawyer myself so I did read all of the stuff; basically, it does give guidance about the five houses on either side of the subject property and then ten houses across the street but it does also recognize that you can look at the character of the neighborhood and 3 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting whether or not that's the proper comps that if you will. In fact, there's not ten houses across the street from me, there's not five houses on either side of me but if you would to look at that area just off of the paved section of Meadow Beach Lane where our four houses are it's a very distinct section of that area. That's why we chose that comp. set. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I neglected to share when we first opened the hearing, you're seeking a GFA of 5,140 sq. ft. where allowed by lot size 4,648 sq. ft. I just wanted to put that into the record. PAT MOORE : Let me, you are now seeking 5,098 sq. ft. cause we removed the 42 of the garage addition and the average is 5,119. We provided the architect's GFA. T. A. MCGIVNEY : The only other thing I'm looking at the guidelines (inaudible) myself that it does state yes the five and five but then it says that they acknowledge that they may not have as many as five to go across and both directions thus you may use the number of developed parcels that exist on both sides and across the street. Did you only use both sides and across the street regardless of the number of them I don't recall? PAT MOORE : There are five houses at the end of this excuse me four but across the street ANTHONY COLLETTA : The Witche property basically takes up the entire length of the road on that side. That side of the road is only the Witche property, it basically goes all the way from the bay to the end of Meadow Beach the paved section of Meadow Beach Lane. As you come down our private road on one side, on the right side as you head toward the bay, is the Witche property which is now owned by Jim and Denise Martin and then on the left side you first have the Skipley house which is the closest to the Harbor Farms HOA, then you have my house,then you have McGoldrick which fronts on the bay. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just to expand on Julie's clarification on the averaging guidelines, we visited the property so we did look around and understand the lay of the land and looked at the tax map that shows where the lots are but I don't know if it's Mr. Shipley or Skipley to your north his property was included but there's four additional homes further to the north that may be in a different development Harbor Farms but do exist and are I would say architecturally not inconsistent with the neighborhood whose GFA's you did include. They're not architecturally distinct so I struggle with why one wouldn't include the additional four homes north of Mr. Shipley or Skipley. ANTHONY COLLETTA : Well, the last name is Lee but he goes by Skip, it's Joseph Lee. Again, it really has to do with the character; those four homes that you're describing that are to the north of Mr. Lee those are all part of the Harbor Farms subdivision. Again, it's a very distinct area that postdates the creation of the lots that we're describing as part of our comp set if I September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting could. So, that was all farmland basically up until maybe thirty years ago. None of those houses have a view of my property nor can I see their property from my property. It's not it feels like it's very much a separate area which is part of a homeowner's association and the area that I'm describing the four houses that comprise this separate area all pre-dated the creation of the Harbor Farms subdivision. I mean to that matter that same argument would say, well then go up the other side of Meadow Beach Lane as well. Again, the question is, is Harbor Farms properly considered part of the area that should be you know the comp set for this GFA calculation and because of the reasons that Pat mentioned and I mentioned we don't feel it should be. It's very much distinct and again if you drive down Meadow Beach Lane you have the paved section which is the homeowner's association come to an end, it's a private road and the only houses on that private road are the four houses that we're saying should be the comp set. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : We all visited, we were there. PAT MOORE : I think your precedent on these GFA applications you have looked on for example on the Main Rd. there was one very large home by Brecknock and it was a very stately house and I don't think the Board even went further than to look one house over because it was so distinct in how it was developed, it was more it was a very old house that was I want to say it was near Breacknock Hall MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think I was at that hearing, I was in the audience. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think though that's where the guidelines grew out of that conversation but I think here it would strike me that the rather distinctly different neighborhoods PAT MOORE : Well you can't compare GFA on an HOA development with a non HOA private subdivision that was created from the seventies with pre-existing homes. I think that we started getting into well which one do we include where you know where does it leave off, are the GFA's accurate when you're dealing with a completely different subdivision that has been you know Harbor Farms is a very distinct subdivision. They are large lots and they're large homes but they are really not comparable to this development because this grouping of homes and the development was created in the seventies as very large oversized lots, waterfront lots. All the homes essentially pre-exist the GFA so we just felt it was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm confused cause if you drove down any sort of historic road in the Town of Southold you'd have varying housing stock, you're developed over four hundred years. Now, this is a neighborhood that I get (inaudible) carved out (inaudible) times so you're suggesting that the inclusion of the homes would be detrimental to the application? 33 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It did change our numbers. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you do the math? PAT MOORE : Yea we did the math, it changed our numbers. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you share the map? PAT MOORE : I don't know that I have ANTHONY COLLETTA : We never really finished the calculation because honestly it was hard to figure out which homes should be included if you went beyond just the four houses in our immediate area. Once you go up to Meadow Beach Lane PAT MOORE : How far do you go? ANTHONY COLLETTA : How far do you go? Do you include both sides of the street because again, technically the houses on the left side of Meadow Beach Lane as you're going up towards New Suffolk you know are not really across the street from me, you go up the road and then you get to a road and then there on one side of the street? There are some houses on Paul's Creek as my house is but again, how far up do we go? There's another road that comes off Halls Creek I forget I think it's Halls Creek Drive so we just really didn't know where what should be included in the comp set once you go beyond the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you ask staff for guidance at all on this? I mean I think this would be a continued conversation where you have like a court and or a road end. PAT MOORE : You make the guidance memos after based on the code and I read the code to be, you're not you know the average of the I'm trying to remember how the language states but it's the average of the neighborhood or the average homes or something like that. So, you guys came up with the guidance memo but you really have to look specifically at the neighborhood. We have such a different distinct neighborhood I mean we have low numbers and high numbers just within the houses that are we've provided so it's not that we're trying to exclude anybody it's just made no sense because again, you start going up Harbor Farms, are we across the street five or on the same side of the road? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) road end which is a cul de sac if it was just a straight road you'd have a very clear definition so I don't see why PAT MOORE : It's not what do you mean? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a cul de sac at the end. 341 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's a dead end at the McGoldrick property. PAT MOORE : Yes (inaudible) very distinct neighborhood. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : keep going north. PAT MOORE : Yea but you're asking us to go beyond our community and into the Harbor Farms community and again, we were looking at we don't really have across the street cause Witche the former Witche property Martin property essentially takes the entire frontage but if you take the literal how you literally say well we'll take five well alright we have one very large home with a very large property and now we have to include four more homes in the Harbor Farms because the way you've MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly, but I wonder I mean based on the rational you're suggesting, if you're on the corner of Main Rd. and I'm thinking of like Jasmine Lane opposite your office which is a subdivision yet you've got a historic house on the corner. Well, how do you do that? You take your neighbor and I think that's what the (inaudible). Why wouldn't you take those houses? PAT MOORE : I think no if I was looking at the houses on the Main Rd. I might actually just look at the Main Rd. not going into Jasmine Lane, that's a very distinct neighborhood. You're saying to me, oh well if for example if you had I don't know if this exists but let's just say Jasmine Lane had a house that was facing the start of the Jasmine Lane community the affordable there; all of a sudden even though a house was developed on the Main Rd. on the corner and a subdivision came along later with a different development would you be obligated to count the five in that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Like we said, the five developed lots. So, if there's a vacant lot you skip that one and then you continue. PAT MOORE : But I think you'd lose the you're now going into the numbers like oh, you have to technically come up with five and five and ten based on your guidance memo. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :They exist. PAT MOORE : Yea but this is a guidance memo rather than the intent of the GFA which is, looking at the character of the neighborhood. So, is Harbor Farms the neighborhood and we'd say no it's not our neighborhood it's a separate subdivision. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) guidance for this reason was, the request for pictures of the streetscape. It's not just saying you know; they're taking in the character of the neighborhood by asking for the streetscape pictures because that (inaudible). 3.51 September 4,2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Do you want pictures of all the homes? ANTHONY COLLETTA : We did actually submit pictures way back when or at least I sent them to the architect to be submitted with the application. If you look at the original guidance memo the five and five and ten it sort of fits neatly if you were to take like you know a street that had yea sort of kind of houses on each side of it and you were in the middle and you know it would be very obvious I think what they were after but it also makes it clear that you should take into account the area where the house is located. So, if we were on a dead-end street and there were you know only three houses on it which is effectively what we have besides our then it feels appropriate to say, don't take into account a separate subdivision that happens to be further up the same road. PAT MOORE : Because numerically you have to count five. I think that's what you guys are telling me. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what we've always suggested, if there's a vacant lot you skip that vacant lot and whether it's a third of an acre or three acres you then continue. You're offering unique thoughts as far as within the composition of the neighborhood. I think we've hear that, are there other questions from the Board? PAT MOORE : I don't have any other questions because the variances I thought were pretty straightforward. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Liz is there anyone on line that wants to speak on this application? Pat, do you want to have the opportunity I mean we could close the hearing subject to receipt of a calculation that would include those immediate houses or do you want to just have the hearing closed or we give you the opportunity where you might recalculate or just close the hearing? PAT MOORE : If you want to know the numbers we can do that research. I would say that they're not I don't know if they're going to be over or under. We're using the we've done a design and done the calculations based on an average GFA of this community. So, am I going to give you numbers that all of a sudden changed the GFA and reduced us by five or increases by five, I don't know? It's just I don't believe that they're applicable and I think that that giving you five houses regardless of whether they are the community or not the community, I think you'd be going down the wrong path of coming up with GFA's. Again, this is a guidance memo MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand it's a guidance, my difficulty is, if you're looking at a traditional streetscape and Laurel Ave. comes to mind around the corner you know at the east end of Southold, you've got a traditional streetscape where every house is on an acre yet you have historically a large parcel. If somebody did larger lots or bigger homes there today, 36 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting you'd skip over that parcel when you're making your average but the moment it's developed it could impact you either way, I don't know. So, I'm just offering PAT MOORE : Honestly this is a big problem with the GFA, the law itself and we have an Article 78 pending right"now and I'm hoping that would clean up the code before you know MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) people get caught up in this conversation as far as who's granted what depending on how the code but we're dealing with the code today and that's what we're (inaudible). PAT MOORE : I understand but you're now creating even more restrictions which are don't look at the development of the immediate neighborhood, now go numerically beyond that to a community a subdivision that was developed completely under different rules and under a different and particularly HOA rules. ANTHONY COLLETTA : Like I said before it's not even visible. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I understand and we all drove through and without a doubt there's a (inaudible) ANTHONY COLLETTA : Part of the whole point of the GFA and how people look at the comp set was, we're trying to maintain a certain consistency in size and character and I don't understand why you would want to pick up houses as part of that comp set that you can't even see you can't see from the McGoldrick property, you can't see from my property and you can't see from Skip Lee's property. So, if you come down a treelined street we're completely secluded from that homeowner's association, we're not in any way part of it.They don't have access to our property, we don't have access to their property, they're completely separate in character.That's why we thought this was just the right way to approach it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I think what I'm hearing partially, it's a request that you know as a Board we'll have a discussion about the guideline and how that kind of may impact the guidelines we offer the public versus your application. Members do you PAT MOORE : I do recall. reading that and it may be right in the code cause I remember reading that you look at the particular neighborhood you're not obligated to go looking at you know an adjoining neighborhood. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I get lost in that cause when you're talking about a neighborhood if you're on a waterfront parcel that is very specific, the neighborhood characteristics on a sound of a bayfront parcel is very different than on Peconic Bay Blvd. PAT MOORE : Every neighborhood is going to be different. September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Our goal is to offer guidelines to help you know (inaudible) apply the law, you're asking a different question. You sat through the interpretation conversation; this is now an interpretation of the guidelines. PAT MOORE : Because guidelines are not code, they're guidance memos. What I'm proposing is, again, your guidance memo is guidance and we're saying thank you, we took your guidance, applied it to our specific facts and we presented you with a GFA of our neighborhood. I think we're complying with the code. I think if we were to bring in let's say we were to bring in Harbor Farms and I'm not saying that it does this or not because I honestly don't remember. Let's say it changes the GFA by ten square feet and you deny it because it now exceeds GFA by ten square feet, I'm going to be.in an Article 78 again arguing that your guidance memo was misdirected because we included a neighborhood that had nothing to do with this neighborhood in its distinct characteristics. Mr. Colletta is pointing out listen, think about the purposes of the code which is the big house you know code. In this particular neighborhood you have an existing developed community and these houses are really giving you the general design of the community. That's in my opinion why we kept to this because we start expanding beyond that whatever the number is it's not reflective of how this community was developed, in timeline in houses in its own regulations. I think I've spoken MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The option but it sounds like the goal is right now you'd like the hearing to be closed. Members do you agree just to close the hearing? I'll make a motion that we close this hearing application No. 8033 reserve decision for our special meeting on September 18th. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8039—CINCHSURE LLC, HOWARD M. BOVILLE, MEMBER MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The next application before the Board is for Cinchsure LLC, Howard M. Boville, Member #8039. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section 280-104C (1) and the Building Inspector's May 13, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" accessory pergola, shed and patio at 1) both "as built" shed and pergola are less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) "as built" patio is projected less than four feet of a property line located at 1025 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. Laurel, NY SCTM 1000-129-1-5.2. 1 just want to make a note for the hearing that the side yard setback as required this is for all "as built" improvements is 15 feet and for the shed the "as built" shed is proposed at 10.1 feet, the patio has a 0-foot setback where 4 feet is required and I'm sorry I jumped over the pergola is at 8.2 feet where 15 feet is required. Please tell us what we need to know. PAT MOORE : My client the shed was there when my client purchased the property and I believe the pool was there too, I'm sorry I don't remember that specifically but the patio is you went there to see it, it's considered on grade but it has a little architectural feature; it's all kind of the recreational space of this house. The shed when it was there, I believe that what happened was when it was placed on the property it was measured to the filed subdivision map line. This is why I'm giving you this particular map. I've not experienced this many times but apparently according to the surveyors it does exist where a filed map and in this case this subdivision was filed in 1972, VanTuyl prepared the subdivision map and when the county went and filed the subdivision map the owner filed the subdivision map at the county, Real Property was not very careful. They filed the map and the metes and bounds angle that you see there the metes and bounds and the angle of the property line does not match the deeds. My first thought was, can we correct this because it would solve all our problems if the filed map was the accurate setback. Well, not so easy because the filed map from the seventies it was a McNulty property to the west and the deeds that were conveyed out, they seem to be consistent with what we have but again they don't match the filed map. Many of these setbacks and it applies on this property and one property behind which is lot four of the subdivision at least it's lot four but that one has it in the rear yard so it's less impactful because the rear yard doesn't seem to be an issue. In our case the entire side yard is the setbacks are all inaccurate because of the filed map and the deed line. The variances that are needed here are for existing structures, again, the shed doesn't need a building permit as long as it's put in the proper place. Well, they measured it, it looked like it was in the proper place and if you any of you went and looked behind you could see that there's a whole bunch of fences, they were stockade fences that have been dilapidated for years; those fences we think were the McNulty fences which were running along the filed map or maybe originally however it was developed the fence was there. These structures are essentially all off as far 391 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting as setbacks go because of the discrepancy between the map and the deed. The impact is numerically impactful because we don't meet the code on these structures but in impact on the community or the neighbors you could see that the property line is heavily wooded, it's heavily vegetated, it actually the McNulty property is below grade of this property so visually and practically you have a property line that is distinct. You have this property that's at this level and you have the McNulty property that has trees and rocks and things and it kind of dips because the McNulty property was part of a big farm and it was probably it was excavated away due to farming practices. The McNulty house is close to Peconic Bay Blvd. and again, all of this is in the back of the Boville property so it's not visible from Peconic Bay Blvd., it's not visible the structures are not visible don't appear to be visible from the McNulty property I didn't trespass to see but I couldn't see anything from this property to the McNulty property so I would assume the reverse occurs as well. I will answer whatever questions you have but I think that this map problem is kind of the start of the creation of all of these nonconforming setbacks. The patio also it's the pool patio and the fence runs along the entire pool patio so the fence is at the property line so fences are permitted right on the property line so.we don't have an encroachment on anything here which is good. Do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's almost not a question but, is it my understanding that Mr. McNulty passed away? PAT MOORE : The attorney McNulty passed away, yes. The estate actually I was dealing with the McNulty's on the Principe property on the other side dealing with that.because somehow or another the Principe and the McNulty, McNulty was an attorney and he'd like he did a lot of deed transfers and stuff like that and he and his brothers had disagreements on things so it's a real mess when you're dealing with the McNulty property. MEMBER ACAMPORA : So if that property is in the estate and gets sold could that be straightened out then through the county? PAT MOORE : We have two different owners, I can't you know unless there is a conveyance from McNulty to Boville to correct this and I didn't really think you know approaching a family and saying, hey by the way we got a problem here. The reality is that the deeds you know there's enough deeds here since the subdivision was created that match this description but don't match the filed map. Again, when looking very carefully that's why I blew it up for you, usually you look at the metes and bounds, the metes and bounds are like north 2529.00 west that's the line that the filed map has and if you take that number straight that's the property line but for whatever reason the actual deed has a different and I don't know if it was a typo on a map when it was created or different 40 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting r MEMBER LEHNERT : I've dealt with this up on Aldrich Lane in Farmview, it was a disaster. Van Tuyl was fast and loose with his numbers. PAT MOORE : Well, you're dealing with other less sophisticated instruments I mean I don't he had tremendous amount of experience. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What happens if they settle the estate, the house is sold, a surveyor comes in because maybe the new owners of the property want to do something, what happens now? PAT MOORE : It's always going to show this. I mean I asked Young and Young because or was it MEMBER LEHNERT It starts to ripple through the subdivision and everyone's property lines start to change. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Exactly PAT MOORE : I honestly don't know how to correct it other than by correction deeds but you're asking somebody to give up ten, fifteen feet of their property that I can't prove you know. At what point who made the mistake because McNulty's owned this land a very long time. I don't know I can't solve it; it took us this long to get to this Board because I was working trying to figure out is there a way in resolving this because clearly all the structures would be conforming if the filed map was the applicable line. It is what it is, at a certain point I'm here it's like you know what let me get the variances because I don't know how to correct this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the (inaudible) of my recollection there have been no complaints on these improvements, they've been there for many years. It doesn't look like anyone in the audience has an opinion, Liz or Donna is there anyone online specific to this application? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : This is kind of procedural because I am a new Member and I don't understand how all these (inaudible) go between the Building Department but if the owners and I guess is it the Young Associates survey that brought to]light these discrepancies? PAT MOORE : The only surveys I've seen were done by Howard Young's office so I don't know if other surveys existed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So here's a question I think maybe Margaret you're heading towards, how did any of this get discovered? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea how was this discovered? 41L September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Well what happens is a good surveyor is going to look at the filed map when you have I mean this is a filed map so they pull up the filed map at the county center and then they do they look at the chain of title and the deed description MEMBER LEHNERT : They don't match. PAT MOORE : and they don't match. The only way to solve it is or probably their own professional liability policy is, you show them both you just show everything. MEMBER LEHNERT : The problem is everything in the subdivision was built off the old VanTuyl surveys which is assumed correct but they're not. PAT MOORE : It's it lot four, the one right above four and then one above that has a little strip and I'm like maybe they tried to correct it with that little strip when it was discovered up in that are early on because that's how the map was filed. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Did it come to light at the time the property transferred to Boville? PAT MOORE : I don't know that anybody I didn't represent them on the purchase so it came to light when they went for building permits for these structures and the Building Department said, well they don't conform. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then I would argue which I don't understand that they catch the masonry patio which I find it almost laughable, I don't understand how or why that would be cited when the town code allows you to pave off a hundred percent of your property. PAT MOORE : I didn't know there was the four foot rule to be honest with you. MEMBER LEHNERT : I've never heard of that one. PAT MOORE : Because I hadn't heard it either and maybe it's their I mean I know that as a kind of rule of thumb if you're like for generators things that aren't considered as structures. They say just as a courtesy leave four feet, I've heard that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's why I'm saying and actually we had some applicant Rob where we were talking what the alternative is put a patio (inaudible) the whole property. I mean nobody wants that but I don't understand why this is cited and my question sort of not question but statement along that line is, why they would cite the patio, the pergola and the shed and not the masonry fireplace but go figure. PAT MOORE : This is not considered structures, that I've learned cause I've had clients. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We have one on Bayshore Rd. which September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Well I actually had one where it was very close to the property line and the masonry structure was okay but he had put like a panel behind it and I had to remove the panel because MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Was that on Bayshore Rd? It doesn't matter its off topic. Are there any other comments? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Again procedural but, if the owners had applied for building permits prior to building the structures would this have been brought to light? PAT MOORE : I don't know the answer to that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the answer is yes because it came to light when they applied for "as built". MEMBER LEHNERT : It depends on which survey they used. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Those are all my questions. PAT MOORE : I mean remember even the pergola is less than the code I mean is 12 x 12, the sheds don't need a permit for MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think pergolas need them period. I don't understand why and people sometimes have temporary ones that you could move but we had to offer a variance for someone on North Parish Drive for that. PAT MOORE : And I've had to get variances for pergolas so I know that they need a permit but I'm not sure that the construction community thinks they need a permit because it's not an architect MEMBER STEINBUGLER : They didn't years ago. PAT MOORE : I don't know the answer to years ago but I mean I've had to get MEMBER ACAMPORA : I mean go back forty, fifty years ago, people didn't even know what a pergola was. PAT MOORE : You guys can tell me the state building code has rules of when you need a building permit and it's based on the value of the structure, does it have plumbing, heating, electrical. None of those things apply on a pergola so listen MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Since we're talking about plumbing, heating, electrical, does the pergola have any plumbing, heating or electrical? 431 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I don't know if it MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't notice if there's electrical at the shed. PAT MOORE : The shed only has a light, a lightbulb that's it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So there is electricity servicing it just as part of the record. PAT MOORE : I'd have to believe that there is electricity cause there's an outdoor MEMBER STEINBUGLER :There's an outdoor shower. PAT MOORE : Yea that's right the outdoor shower, it's like a fence enclosure on the side of the shed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The reason why I say this, we had an application a couple of years ago where somebody wanted a pergola which was to be used as a shed, it had only panels it wasn't fully enclosed and before we knew it they turned it into an outdoor dining room. This does look like a pergola. I think basic electricity is to be expected to some degree. Anyone else have any questions? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : May I ask a question Nick? Pat in the shed what's UCR, under counter is that refrigerator? PAT MOORE : It has yea it has like apartment you know the little ones that you put under for cold drinks but there is no sink. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : There is electric. PAT MOORE : Yes, yes I said there was electric. I went back cause I wasn't sure if it was a pool house or a shed so I had to go back twice because like it's really a shed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't open that, did anyone open the shed? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No PAT MOORE : It looks like a shed. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I was afraid of the door that was hanging off it so. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, again this is a shed, it's not an accessory structure to be used for anything, it's not a pool house PAT MOORE : It's just storage. 441 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You have lighting and if somebody chose to plug in a little refrigerator. PAT MOORE : Change a bathing suit in there, you could do it in the shed but you know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm going to make a motion that we close this hearing, that we reserve decision for our September 18th Special Meeting. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye, the motion passes. Motion to adjourn for lunch. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Motion to reconvene the Zoning Board of Appeals September 4th Public Meeting. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye 451 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8036—YASMINE LEGENDRE and COREY WORCESTER MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Lisa I'm just going to read into the record the and by the way I'm hosting today Leslie had to take the day off so as I teased earlier she probably may be listening in or watching the Zoom cause I know how dedicated she is. I'm here today, I'm acting as Chair. Up before us next is application for Yasmine LeGendre and Corey Worcester #8036. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's May 21, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a two-story garage accessory to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 4355 Aldrich Lane Ext. (adj. to the Long Island Sound) Mattituck, NY SCTM#1000-112-1-13. LISA POYER : Lisa Poyer, Twin Fork Permits.on behalf of the applicants. You've originally seen this application back in December of '24 as per ZBA decision 7966 which was issued 12/23/2024 and at that time it was before you for some dune bluff crest setbacks for the swimming pool decking those sorts of accessory structures on the seaward side of the house as well as for a two-car detached garage at 864 sq. ft. on the landward side of the house that was in the side yard of the primary residence. I don't know if you went to the site but they're doing the construction of the swimming pool and everything else that was approved as part of that prior decision. The owners collect cars and so during the process of kind of reviewing what they want to use the site for, they decided to increase the size of this detached garage and so now it went from 864 sq. ft. two-car to a four-car garage size at 1,392 sq. ft. It's in relatively in the same location as your prior approval, it's still within the side yard. I had asked the Board in between if since you had originally approved it this would have been a deminimus review, it came back no that we needed to go back for a new variance since the size has increased so I'm before you as a new application for the larger sized detached garage. It's on the landward side, it's located on the Long Island Sound, there's bluffs system. This is out of the jurisdiction of the Trustees, they have re-reviewed it and still deemed it out of their jurisdiction. As part of the Trustee approval for all the other improvements on the site, there's a 15-foot buffer along the dune crest that will still obviously remain in effect. The lot coverage is still below the maximum requirement, it went from I think it's a total of 6.18% is the final number there. The LWRP reviewed the application and found that it's consistent. I'm here to answer any questions the Board may have. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is a question I think we would have asked in the original 2024 application, do you have a conforming location that a garage could be built? LISA POYER : Yes, we're trying to limit, there's significant amount of trees on the property. Right now, the proposed location is taking down I want to say one or two; if we were to really 461 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting start moving it we'd have to start altering and taking down significant amount more amount of trees on the property and then it would be a little bit further away from the house and not as in connection with where the front development is for the property. The Board previously approved it in this very similar location. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would say based on my site inspection, it seemed like the expansion to a four car garage was going to entail removal of at least eight or ten trees, some of them mature evergreens or arborvitae or cedars, I think they were cedars. LISA POYER : Cedars and a pine tree. I think quite a few of those were coming out already with the original cause it's in it just expanded the wings sort to speak. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It just seemed like other locations might entail less tree removal. I noted it because the approval of the prior application noted as partial justification for granting the side yard location that it entailed less tree removal. It seems it's somewhat undercut by the expansion by the size of the garage. The justification that fewer trees need to be cut down by putting the garage in the side yard, that is undermined by expanding the size of the garage in the side yard location. I just want to say that in case you want to offer refuting evidence. LISA POYER : We can take a look at that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Donna would you just scroll up ever so slightly? So Lisa, my only thought is and I think I had a similar opinion in the 2024 application and I understand what's before us and what you're asking and of course what was granted previously but from an alternative or conforming location you can attach the garage, which this attached garage is not attached despite there's a sort of a breezeway or a covered pergola one could attach like in the parking area as illustrated or if the actual garage is just shifted to the south and it seems that on this site plan there really isn't a tree other than the one existing tree that's immediately at the,end of the proposed garage that you can place the garage. I'm just a little confused sort of why we're here cause we did grant which I,think was you know at the time it was the decision of the Board a two car garage that now expanding it I would argue on a large parcel you have alternatives. I'm just trying to understand the rational that where you suggest that you're not going to have tree disturbance or you want minimal tree disturbance when clearly there is tree disturbance and (inaudible). LISA POYER : There's tree disturbance is going to be no matter where we put it. I was saying that where it is going to be proposed now there's less and if we had moved it significantly landward where there's no current site disturbance going on with you'know development 471 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting that was occurred with the house development of the property. We are putting it outside of the developed area on the lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It just seems crazy to me cause it looks to me like it's a difference of like twenty feet if you just shifted it south you don't even need a variance you would get a building permit by right. LISA POYER : Because we would be on the plane of the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would be in the front yard. LISA POYER : It's something we can go back to the architect to look at. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know, does the other Board Members have any LISA POYER : They're trying to connect it in relation to the house (inaudible) breezeway and creating a line there (inaudible) pergola and just kind of creating a straight line out from a doorway area to the side of the garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, waterfront parcels you are allowed by right provided you meet a minimum front yard setback for the principle structure to have the accessory structure in the front yard. LISA POYER : Okay MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I mean it's a tough call, it's'a large parcel it's a private location, we did grant relief in the past I'm just investigating this conversation. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just one more question, I wondered if there are other if you have information of other properties in the neighborhood that have freestanding two story four car garages? LISA POYER : I have not investigated that but I can (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Donna is anyone online? Members how do you want to proceed? MEMBERS LEHNERT : Close subject to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Lisa do you want to see if you can submit priors for garages granted in the side yard? LISA POYER : I can take a look. 4 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And for waterfront parcels please in the immediate Mattituck area. I'm going to make a motion that we close application #8036 subject to the receipt of prior relief granted for similar properties in Mattituck waterfront properties from the applicant. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye, the motion passes and please give that to us it would be great to make a determination. We have our Special Meeting on the 18th so if you can maybe do it before by Tuesday or Wednesday. HEARING#8037—WILLIAM T. and ERICA J. WHITMIRE MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The next application before the Board is for William T. and Erica J. Whitmire #8037. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 30, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling and to legalize "as built" accessory shed at 1) proposed construction is less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) "as built" shed is less than the, code required minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet located at 960 Marratooka Rd. Mattituck, NY SCTM #1000-115-9-8.1. The applicant is seeking town code requires a rear yard setback of 50 feet, the applicant proposes 25 feet. Additionally, the accessory structure the shed requires a rear yard setback of 10 feet, the applicant has an "as built" setback of 6 feet. This is for additions and alterations to a home. With that said you have the floor, please state your name. TRACI RIVERA : Traci Rivera, Traci's permits 363 Terryville Rd. Terryville, .NY. I'm here representing Mr. and Mrs. Whitmire 960 Marratooka Rd. They happened to have purchased the property in March of 2024 and upon purchasing the property they want to make it their September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting forever home. Whenever someone purchases something, they want to make it their forever home there's some tweaking that needs to be done right. So, what they're looking to do is do some interior alterations, some slight renovations. Part of that application is a bump out on the rear of the house to expand the kitchen and expand an existing bedroom that's upstairs. The house already holds I believe a 32-foot rear yard setback which doesn't even conform to the zoning as it is now at 50 feet. Our bump out is maybe six feet and we'll back up to like I think it's like an airport strip of some sort so there's no real impact on anybody. Applications were filed with Trustees and then Trustees said that we were the notarized forms we only had one signature so I had to take that back the whole application so I have full signatures, notarized to drop off once I leave here. The shed was there when they purchased the property and since we were already doing the application, we just added it to. I feel that the application is very minor considering the existing setback that's already there on the house and the fact that we're backing up to an air strip. We did have to file an application with the DEC due to the corner of the property slightly having discrepancy whether or not we actually needed a permit so we ended up receiving a letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC so there's no permits required by the DEC. I'll address any questions that you may have. It's a very minor application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Traci do you want to just briefly talk about the terrain,the TRACI RIVERA : Yes, so it's actually slopes up and then kind of flattens out a little bit. I know there was some questions on what was going to be needed because they're worried about the water, the phragmites across the way and I said whatever is going to be in the code on what needs to be to do construction the house is set back quite a bit. Whatever needs to be once again we have to go before the Trustees and the Trustees, I'm sure will put some kind of like you know conditions on what we have to do during construction. Once again, what we're looking to do is minimal it's not even requiring Board of Health there's no increase in bedrooms. I think it's about two hundred square feet is what's being added to the house otherwise it's really just kind of like updating it and making it more their forever home. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The house is sort of built into a hillside, it gives a visual impression of a three story home because you do have walk out basement but clearly the terrain limits I guess the expansion of the house. TRACI RIVERA : Yes, so yes that's why it's only in the back, we're only doing like I said a small little bump out it's very minor like six feet. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a question relative to stormwater. The Environmental Assessment Form indicated that stormwater will not flow to any adjacent properties but it so I September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting also says that stormwater discharges will not be directed to any established conveyance systems such as runoff and storm drains.The survey and the plans don't show any dry wells. TRACI RIVERA : That can always be addressed if the Board wants something like that addressed because they're worried about the runoff. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well, I got my magnifying glass out,and read the very small notes on the plans and they did indicate that new aluminum gutters tied to new dry well but I'm just confused because the plans mention a dry well but the plans don't indicate a location and the form indicated that there was going to be no conveyance of runoff into a dry well. I would just like to hear positively what the plan is for managing the stormwater. It's a very sloped property and runoff would go into the wetlands across the street or adjacent. TRACI RIVERA : Absolutely, I mean we're up to do discretion by the Board, if you want that looked at to see where a dry well will be I'm not going to take out the survey and go ohhh there right cause I guess you can say above my pay grade to determine where a dry well would go but if that is something that needs to be evaluated, when we had the plans done there was like some discrepancy back and forth between the architect and the surveyor and who was putting what on what so I'm sure it was something'that was kind of just not it was an oversight that wasn't addressed but it can be definitely addressed. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, am I the only one who is very confused by the elevations? TRACI RIVERA : No, I was very confused when I was trying to look at it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think this one called the south elevation is actually the west. TRACI RIVERA : I have actually a very large set of plans. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's not the size that matters here, it's labeled I spent a lot of.time on the property trying to figure out which way was north, south, east and west. I concluded that this drawing and Donna I'm on elevations B page A-2.02 that has three pictures, three elevations of the house. I'll just say, I think this is mislabeled, can you confirm? TRACI RIVERA : I have to tell you, I've been in this business for over thirty years and when I was reviewing the plans I was sitting there with a microscope myself. I thought it was just me that may have been slightly a little confused so I think that you know that might have to be something that's reviewed again to make sure that they have the you know the plans haven't been reviewed yet they haven't even gone into the Building Department for a full review. That will be obviously have to be addressed. September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This one and I don't have it open, this one should be the west side shouldn't it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : This is west, it's labeled south it's west. I believe this is the west elevation. TRACI RIVERA : Like I said, I thought it was just me I kept reviewing it and I'm like why am I having a difficult time trying to look at MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It might be also it made me wonder why there's no south elevation is shown because that would also like the north elevation pretty clearly show the extent of the expansion of that face of the house. It's just basically stepping out that whole side ,I think it's the whole west side towards the property line. TRACI RIVERA : I'll address that with the architect once we leave here, where the dry well will actually be we may have to call the surveyor out there to see or an engineer to see where a dry well needs to be put on the parcel to contain it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim, relative to the application packet as we have it and I don't want to call it mislabeled but it is mislabeled on the elevations is that detrimental? Do we need to have an updated BOARD ASSISTANT : Make that a condition that it be corrected. TRACI RIVERA : You're going to condition with approval for it to be corrected, absolutely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Members any additional comments or questions? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm good. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Donna is anyone online that would like to offer BOARD ASSISTANT : Do you recall what page that was on? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It is A-2.02 with drawing title, elevations B, B as in boy. TRACI RIVERA : Yes, you're actually making me feel better cause I was like something is off. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, Traci I think in the spirit that we end up closing the hearing but making it a condition that you submit updated architectural drawings that are correctly labeled that also show the dry wells, you're okay with that? September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting TRACI RIVERA : Yes, absolutely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Members, anything to add here? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One question I did want to ask I'm sorry, the shed it's kind of benign; it backs up to an air strip as you mentioned I don't know the functionality. The airport doesn't seem as I know it to be used other than I think maybe like two people. MEMBER'STEINBUGLER : A plane took off as I was doing my site visit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) hardship to have a property against an airport but is it possible that you can move the shed to a compliant location? TRACI RIVERA : If that is what holds up an approval to do work on their house I have the owner here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seemed older. ERICA WHITMIRE : It actually is (inaudible) Erica Whitmire. TRACI RIVERA : Like I said we were already filling the application for the proposed work and because the shed is already on a slab, there's already electric brought to it, it's already been existing there for how many years we just put it on the application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Construction is benign as I said you also back up to an air strip which is not exactly a common feature. TRACI RIVERA : In order to have this approved if that's what we have to do then that's what we do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I think maybe an alternative and this was something that I was thinking about which becomes a potential condition when relief is granted that with older sheds sometimes cause structurally they're kind of hard to move sometimes it would depend on the individual I'm not an engineer I just walked around it and you could see that it's old but oftentimes a condition would limit that at the end of the useful life of this shed if and when its removed any new sheds that would be placed of course would be placed in a compliant location. So, if you ever chose to work on the shed or replace what's there so we'd probably again condition the determination to include that. TRACI RIVERA : So if they end up replacing the shed they should put it in a compliance location. 53 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know the expense of moving it, it would take one of the requests away but it's relatively benign and I think given the site's location it actually I would comment that the deer fence which I believe belongs to the owner of the air field is on their property and you have more space as a result of that. So, really there's limited impact. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I don't think you can move that shed. MEMBER LEHNERT : No TRACI RIVERA : No, and once again there's electric to it and there's already (inaudible), disconnecting the electric it would be more of a project than what it really was. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm going to make a motion that the hearing be closed subject to the receipt of updated architectural drawings to properly reflect the labeling along with the illustration of dry wells on the site plan. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye, the motion passes. We'll have a decision for you at our Special Meeting on September 18tn TRACI RIVERA : Thank you so much, we're going to get working on this right away. I'm going to send an email as soon as I get back to the office. HEARING#8009SE—705 CR 48, LLC ULSTER FARMS, LLC MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I believe we mentioned earlier today and I'm sorry (inaudible) but Donna whoever is online I don't know who these three people are but for their benefit I should have mentioned this earlier that Ulster Farms application #8009SE adjourned from August 7t" is adjourned to October 2 so hopefully no one is in the audience waiting for Ulster 54 September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting Farms. Additionally, I'd like to offer two Resolutions. The first one, Resolution is for the next regular public meeting will be held on Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 9:00 AM. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting which was held August 21, 2025 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. I make a motion to adjourn application #8009SE 705 CR 48 LLC/Ulster Farms LLC to October 2, 2025. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I make a motion to close the September public hearing. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye i September 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape-recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature • '�/�� Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : September 12, 2025