Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/02/2025 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 October 2, 202S 10:33 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 (Absent) ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Donald H. Laskey, III #8040SE. 4-7 Scott and Gerarda Boger#8058 8- 11 1460 The Strand LLC, Demetrios and Vasillia Zioza, Members#8042 12 - 28 Randolf J. Polyn/Andrea and Angelo Provvisiero#8044 28- 35 William Todd Jeffcoat and Stephanie Desiree Visceglia #8046 35 -44 Andrew Brooks#8045 45-47 Strong's West Mill, LLC#8027 47 &56 705 CR 48 LLC, Ulster Farms, LLC#8009SE 47 &56 Gregory White#8047 48-55 i October 2,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals for October 2, 2025. If I can ask you to stand for a moment for the Pledge of Allegiance. Let's begin with the State Environmental Quality Reviews. You may notice that our chairperson is not here today she has a personal situation at home that precludes her from being here so she and her family are in our thoughts. I will be conducting the meeting today. First I'm going to make a 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 617.5 © including the following : Donald H. Laskey, III #8040SE, Special Exception, Scott and Gerarda Boger #8058, 1460 The Strand LLC, Demetrios and Vasillia Zioza, Members #8042, Randolf J. Polyn/Andrea and Angelo-Provvisiero #8044, William Todd Jeffcoat and Stephanie Desiree Visceglia #8046, Andrew Brooks #8045 and Gregory White #8047. Before I ask Liz to discuss the protocol as far as participating via Zoom or remotely, I just want to remind anyone in the audience that application #8027 Strongs West Mill LLC #8027 adjourned from August 7, 2025 is again adjourned without a date and application #8009 Special Exception 705 CR 48 LLC/Ulster Farms is adjourned to November 6, 2025. So if anyone that is listening or participating today those two hearings are adjourned please look for them on a future schedule, those two hearings are adjourned. I'd like to go back to making a motion to accept the Resolution as previously read, do I have a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. I'm going to individually poll members today just so that we're all in agreement on our actions or we have clear understanding. The second was by Rob, Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Steinbugler, how do you vote? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Planamento votes in favor, the motion passes. I was about to ask Liz, if you don't mind discussing the protocol for participating remotely. October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Nick. Good morning, everyone, for those who are on with us on Zoom, if you wish to make a comment on a particular application, I ask that you raise your hand. I will see that your hand is raised and. I will give you further,instructions on how to speak. If you are on with a phone, press *9 to raise your hand. and then I will let you know next what you need to do.Thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you Liz. I would like to footnote that application #8032 we do not have a deliberation yet; we expect to have a response to the applicant at our next public hearing excuse me the October Special Meeting that is on the 16th. So, if anyone is here today to (inaudible) a decision we hope that will happen on the 16th. Wo we will table to the October 16th meeting. I make a motion to table it; do we have a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. Member Acampora? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Lehnert? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I vote also in favor, the motion passes. HEARING#8040SE—DONALD H. LASKEY, III MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We'll commence with today's public hearings. The first application is Donald H. Laskey III #8040SE. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B (13). The applicant is owner of the subject property requesting authorization,to legalize/establish an accessory apartment'in an existing accessory structure at 855 Horton 4 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting Ave. in Mattituck, NY SCTM#1000-141-1-24.1. Who is. here to speak on behalf of the application? DONALD LASKEY : I'm .Donald Laskey, 855 Horton Ave Mattituck, New York, owner of the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Thank you. This is an application for an "as built" accessory apartment in the accessory structure. I think one of the questions that the Board has is, how did you find yourself here today, what prompted this as it's'already an existing structure? DONALD LASKEY : The apartment was already there, I was turned into the town because of it so I'm here to make it legal. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, according to our notes or my notes, I see that we have a Stop Work Order was issued, is that what you were saying•relative to the "as built" structure or the accessory structure that was under construction? DONALD LASKEY : It was both, I got turned in for both. I'm in the process actually going to the Annex to turn in the paperwork for the other structure but currently right•now I'm trying to get the apartment legal. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there anything else you'd like to share specific to the tenant?The C of O's on the structure DONALD LASKEY : That is in there, it's actually (inaudible) the person is there for eight years now it's a cousin. During COVID she needed a place (inaudible) where she was living went up for sale so she had to move and that's why (inaudible) so she could actually still live out here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just to remind the audience, all members of the Zoning Board of Appeals did an interior inspection of the premises, this is an apartment over an accessory garage. Pat, do you want to start with any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Do you have the square footage on this? DONALD LASKEY : (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There was certification from Mike Verity that it's (inaudible) which conforms, a dwelling unit shall not exceed 750 sq. ft. I would also like to remind the audience and the applicant that the accessory is accessory to the owner-occupied residential use of the actual primary residence. It's the applicant's'choice as far as which unit if and when an accessory is granted that they would like to live in. So, you,could either live in the accessory or you could live in the primary residence, you're not allowed however to rent the alternative October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting whichever one it is that you're not living in outside of the requirements of the town code specific to family members or somebody that qualifies to be on the affordable housing registry. We have various documents relative to your ownership of the premises. We have a copy of your NYS driving license which I'm just reminded I want to mention to you the'license you provided expired at least on our copy. DONALD LASKEY : Your copy, it was done in'May (inaudible) it got turned in and in between it expired. I work in the Highway Department so they would have notified me. In May 27th is my birthday (inaudible) when I went and got it redone. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good, we also have a copy of utility bills, a statement from your tenant and it's my understanding that the tenant is a cousin which is a familial relationship. I don't think it's immediately recognized we're discussing that but you would also most likely qualify as an affordable housing recipient. The unit structure is a one-bedroom unit with one bathroom. Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to (inaudible) relative to one dwelling needing to be the owner's primary dwelling and the other can be rented. In the application (inaudible) a lease between you and your renter and it indicates that your primary residence might be offered as a rental on Air B&B is typical when we grant a special exception, I think this is typical when we grant a special exception for an accessory apartment that we proposed the condition that the main house, the owner's primary residence may not also be rented. I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of that and that it's possible that if we were to grant the special exception, we would impose a condition that the primary residence could not also be rented. DONALD LASKEY : So, when that was going on, I actually went and lived at my (inaudible) house on Woodcliff in Brewers Woods. (inaudible) we were thinking about Air B&B and that was how (inaudible) again but we didn't do any Air B&B on this, I live in the house. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : (inaudible) DONALD LASKEY : It was something that (inaudible) my grandmother's house for a little bit (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I guess to that point we'll ask you for an updated lease that will clearly exclude that possibility. October 2,2025 Regular.Meeting DONALD LASKEY : You want me to email that to you? BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak about this application? Liz, Donna, is there anyone on-line? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Requirements for an accessory apartment is that there be three on- site parking spaces. I think the site plan that was just up on the screen indicates kind of turn around on the right-hand side of the garage that would offer parking. I think that space now has a steel structure going up. I just wanted you to confirm that there are three on-site as,to say off-street parking spaces available. DONALD LASKEY : Yea, you guys can see on obviously the garage is on the left, (inaudible) property line you could fit six on the left side, six cars there would be if you wanted to. Obviously in the front of the garage there's room and then up next to the house itself there's room for another two. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Thank you, I'm done. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If there's no further commentary, I'd like to make a motion that we close this hearing subject to the receipt of an updated lease. I would also ask for a copy of your drivers license and if you don't mind perhaps just on that survey just penciling- in the three spaces and (inaudible) just part of the record just to show where'the parking would be and submit those three items to Kim' and.while we'll have a determination for you at our October 16th meeting. So, I make a motion do we have a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you Pat, Member Steinbugler. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm a yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Lehnert MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, and I vote also in favor. Thank you so much Mr. Laskey and have a great afternoon. October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8058—SCOTT and GERARDA BOGER MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The next application before the Board is for Scott and Gerarda Boger #8058. This is a request for a variance from Article XXI(I Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 10, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 130 Sunset Lane, Greenport, NY SCTM#1000-33-4-69. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Good morning acting Chairman and Members of the Board, Nigel Robert Williamson on behalf of Scott and Gerarda Boger. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have., MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you want to tell us a bit about the project? This looks like new construction NIGEL WILLIAMSON : It's new construction and the house and garage have been C.O'd and this was I guess an after thought about adding the pool as opposed to coming originally when the house and garage were being constructed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'll remind the audience that the application is for a proposed 22% lot coverage where 20% is allowed and this is for the installation of a swimming pool, a fiberglass sort of like shell pool with a depth of 4 feet measuring 10 x 20 feet. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct, which equates to 157.5 sq. ft. is the 2%. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the existing house as it is now, the house and the garage max out the 20%. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct, sorry correction 19.4%. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nigel, do you want to talk a little bit about the character of the community, swimming pools that sort of thing, excessive lot coverage. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : All the lots as you will see on the tax map, they're all small. Some of them have merged, the property across the road is a larger lot it's a two-story dwelling. A lot of the residences are mixed single story and two-story dwellings. The dwellings surrounding Mr. and Mrs. Boger's property are all single-story dwellings at the moment that were originally summer cottages. The house directly across the road is a two-story dwelling, the property to the north of Mr. Boger is blocked by the garage as you will see to the neighbor and it also has shrubs and trees. The property to the northeast has a vinyl fence. The property to the southwest which is on Sutton Place has nothing there right now but Mr. Boger is October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting putting up an obvious code compliant fence and then shrubs and trees or trees to create a visual barrier there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you want to point out where .the dry well and the pool equipment will be? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : There is an existing dry well which is the dry well is on the gravel driveway. It's a dashed line MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right in front.of the garage. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct that will be used as a dry well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's sufficient for the pool de-watering along with NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct, the common thoughts on dry wells for pools is that existing or in this case existing dry wells are allowed to be used because they're not going to be filled with rainwater or anything else. If it does rain and the pool overflows then everything else on the property is inundated with water because of the occurrence of rainfall. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The pool equipment? NIGELVILLIMASON : In what sense? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The location. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The location is on the southeast side which would be MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's in the corner where Donna is pointing out? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Yea, yea it's on the corner of the lot so the east side of the property. MEMBER LEHNERT : Nigel, usually we ask people to get that farther away from the lot or put it in a sound deadening enclosure. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Okay MEMBER LEHNERT : Is there anywhere else you can maybe by the garage or something? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I mean it could be moved by the garage. SCOTT BOGER : Scott Boger I'm the owner good morning. The garage is 4%feet off the line so I'm not sure I would think that it might be too close to put the October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Well we usually ask people to put either 20 feet from a property line or just put some sort of sound deadening around it. SCOTT BOGER : Sound deadening, I can put whatever you request to do, a wood surround, shrubbery whatever MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's typically some sort of like a solid enclosure. SCOTT BOGER : With a roof on top of it no? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well you have ventilation however it's designed, I'm not familiar stylistically but Nigel I think you've seen these before. SCOTT BOGER : I can build a wood barrier around all four sides or use an insulated structure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly SCOTT BOGER : Whatever you require. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good. MEMBER LEHNERT : We usually put that as a condition. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nigel, do you have examples of prior relief given for the Eastern Shores neighborhood or for the general area for excessive lot coverage? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No, I do not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Would you be able to obtain something? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I can try to obtain something, yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Members, does anyone have any other questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Is there going to be any changing in the sprinkler system cause I got there when it was going on? Do you have to change the sprinkler system, what do you have to do with that? Is there going to be more excavation on the property? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The sprinkler line surges eight inches below grade anyway so I mean that's not excavation. I mean you can just pull those up by hand.if you wanted to. Does that answer your question or it's not like you're going to have a back hoe? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Only because when I was there and the sprinkler was on there was pooling of water. I had to be careful-1 was being attached at the garage. t October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Right that's a question of adjusting the sprinklers themselves. That can be taken care of. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret do you have any questions? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm set thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Liz, Donna is there anyone in the audience that wishes or on-line rather that wishes to speak about this application? Is there anyone in the auditorium who wishes to speak in favor of or against this application? Rob any additional questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Great, so I'm going to make a motion that we close this hearing and reserve decision for the October Special MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It should be subject to receipt. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly that's true so we'll close it subject to receipt of area priors if you can just get two or three for the neighborhood we'd appreciate it. I made a motion; do we have a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you Pat, Margaret? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you and I vote in favor too. Thank you we'll have a decision cn for you at our October Special Meeting on the 16 1�. October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8042—1460 THE STRAND, LLC/DEMETRIOS and VASILLIA ZIOZA, MEMBERS MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The next application before the Board is for 1460 The Strand, LLC/Demetrios and Vasillia Zioza, Members #8042. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A (1) and the Building Inspector's June 18, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a swimming pool attached to an existing single-family dwelling and to legalize three (3) "as built" accessory decks at 1) swimming pool located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) three (3) accessory decks seaward of the top of the bluff located at 1460 The Strand (adj. to Long Island Sound) East Marion, NY SUM No. 1000-30-2-66. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant the LLC and Mr. and Mrs. Zoiza. Let me deal with the staircase first MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe just for the record if I can just mention that this is relative to a 100 foot bluff setback that you're proposing a'swimming pool at 65.9 feet along with the legalization of three (3) "as built" accessory structures seaward of the bluff on the staircase, two structures each approximately 60 sq. ft. in area and a third approximately 209 sq. ft. measuring 23.5 by 8.9 feet. PAT MOORE : Let me deal with the staircase cause my client just as a back up information, my client purchased this house in 2020. The staircase was there, it was constructed with Trustees permit in 1995. The house is existing, my clients in 2021, obtained a building permit -to renovate windows, siding and some interior updates bathrooms, kitchens typical stuff. You can see from your inspection of the property the back'to the deck and the balcony have not been touched yet because of this application. That's the condition the house was in prior to when my clients purchased it so it needed updating. The staircase as I said was constructed in 1995, 1 pulled up the Trustees permit and from the records and in 1995 the Trustees did not require a Certificate of Compliance or an inspection post construction or if they did it's really not recorded as a C of C so ultimately the staircase that was installed in the nineties does not match the proposed drawing that was submitted by Tom Samuels as part of the application. My clients when they their first contact with the town regarding a pre submission for the pool and the staircase because it needed it also did not match as I said. The Trustees went out, inspected and their only comment with the staircase was that the one deck should be reduced in size. I will give you right now both the Trustees permit and what I did with the Trustees permit because I was trying to make sense of how the staircase was built compared to what the permit requirement was cause the permit had it zig zagging all over the place but the ultimate construction of the staircase is more straight linear. It did include the decking I want to say the top deck, the middle decks they were in some cases they were decks that October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting were connecting points between the staircase where it was -angled away based on the topography. The ,first document I'm going to give you is my visual of in yellow I show what part of the-staircase proposed never got built and.in red how it,was built. So, it's not to-scale but it's using the Trustees application as a model so I'll give that to you. So, you can see I tried to based on the eyeball of my current survey comparing it to the proposed and you can see from the Themis Carusso's being in the corner and it says proposed staircase, this is what was submitted to the Trustees in 1995 by Tom .Samuels. As I said, it was not what was ultimately drawn and how I know what was there we were able to gather from the historic .records, starting in 2001 and if you recall I mentioned they purchased the property in 2020 but the permit was issued in '95 so the closest in time is 2001. ,1 think I may have given you the one I marked for myself. As you can see, I did it backwards what is currently there and the only thing my client did from MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat I'm sorry just to interrupt, maybe I'm making a mistake but the document that you just handed us, is this supposed to be the subject property here where the arrow is? PAT MOORE : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the pictures are wrong, this is that it's the neighbor house. This is the subject here with the gray roof. PAT MOORE : Oh you're right. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The subject house has this balcony that you can see. PAT MOORE.: You're absolutely right, I visualized the wrong one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the way the pictures is presented or cut off PAT MOORE : To the north, yeah I'm sorry I can replace'it cause I had to reprint to be able to put that one in there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a pity they're cut off but I mean we can go back historically. PAT MOORE : You can see for the most part, I will get that for you. Boy that was this morning such hard work I did. I mean it does show you what was there and because MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The neighbors. PAT MOORE : I will get'you the revised. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : With the right view it will be effective. :L3 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : The top deck is showing there and the straight lines, it's still doesn't match what the Trustees had approved in '95. Ultimately, I want to say the only thing my client ended up doing on this was just putting flow through material over the existing, no structural change. It looks a little newer. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The flow through is only at the very lowest the waterside landing for lack of a better word, I don't want to call it a deck but the largest one which is 23. PAT MOORE : At the top. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No at the beach PAT MOORE : Oh at the bottom. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : everything else is PAT MOORE : Original MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if it's original but it's some kind of wood. PAT MOORE : Original to when they purchased. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would argue, when you look at the first picture that you say in 2023 you could see what we see today, this very large landing at the crest of the bluff but it's imbedded in the bluff where they actually carved out the crest of the bluff but if you go back to the 2013 image you could see it doesn't exist it's a completely different configuration. PAT MOORE : I'm not sure if the winter picture whether it was because you see that in 2010 it's there so that's prior to the 2013. So, 2010 that same upper deck is there I want to say it looks like it was modified slightly the,sta,ircase and ramp was changed a bit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In the 2010 even it's not what is there today in my opinion looking at this visually. PAT MOORE : It was all done prior to my client's purchase so look at 2020 it's in the same location. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, even in 2016 you can see it's not there. PAT MOORE : No, it's there. I think the vegetation is changing around it but not the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I don't know if other members see what I'm speaking of and I'm sorry if we're digressing but when you look here Rob you're kind of visual even in 2020 which is what was here historically was a landing that led to stairs and then a bluff (inaudible) deck 141 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting cantilevered where in 2023 if you look the actual deck is imbedded into the embankment of the crest of the bluff. I think it's all substantially different. PAT MOORE : I'm looking at it a little bit differently, I'm looking at the fact that in 2020 it looks like it started with a ramp and stairs to the deck. It looks like the ramp was removed; the stairs were reduced to like a couple of MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's a possibility, they took away whatever a catwalk from the landward PAT MOORE : Exactly, because structurally it's still the same structure that's been there or at least my clients saw when it was purchased. That would take a lot of effort and a lot of reconstruction that had never occurred. I will get you more current documents but if you look at 2010 it looks again that it's just the ramp and stairs to the deck were modified. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe more of a catwalk than a ramp but who knows PAT MOORE : Well I mean width wise it looks to be about maybe four feet in width. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that first landing or deck still at that point seems to be carved into the face of the bluff. -PAT MOORE : That first landing was gone. It would have been like a little like stairway steps into more natural than wood structure. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm sorry, as we're looking at this I just wanted to ask the question if others see it the same way I do, but in the 2020 photograph it appears that from that first top deck downward is a continuous set of steps without any landings and in the 2023 photo it's very clear that there are two landings I'll say downstairs of the deck at the top of the bluff. PAT MOORE : It looks like the steps were replaced with a landing cause you got a MEMBER STEIN BUGLER : Right, and if your clients purchased in 2020 that means your clients would have PAT MOORE : They would have removed that ramp and the steps. MEMBER STEIN BUGLER : The steps okay and they put in those landings. PAT MOORE : Well,the small one that is the one-on the as part of the staircase. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're speaking of those two, these two that the applicant installed. October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes PAT MOORE : Hold on let me make sure I'm talking about the same one. In 2020 there was this ramp with steps that then got to the portion of the deck this being looks like this was the landing at the bottom of the steps whereas in '.23 steps are gone. It looks like maybe a landing with one step down and then this being (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes but there was a separate.point I was trying to make which is, here we are in 2023 it seems like there are two landings here and then maybe another landing or something called a deck. If we look at that same place, in 2020 it looks like the steps are continuous. c MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you see what Margaret is saying? Instead of straight run of stairs they added two landings. Those weren't called out and I think from a safety standpoint instead of having a straight run those landings,are very instrumental. PAT MOORE : Again, this staircase needs to be properly permitted to match what is the existing condition there. Clearly over the years it's been somewhat I want to say modified steps get replaced. It looks like. maybe a landing for steps but within the area of a four-foot staircase. So, we will work on that's our next step and when we go to the Trustees and I think Chris Colb was originally involved in the Trustees application that was part of the application that they were working on but then it got sent to Zoning Board because of the pool. I just wanted to let you know that there is a plan to update it with the Trustees. LWRP made an issue of the landings MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly, we just received the LWRP comments. PAT MOORE : I do have a copy of the comments, I'm going to give you the section of Chapter Ill which says, unregulated activity I go through this all the time; LWRP sends their comments where elevated walkways, stairways for pedestrian use and built by an individual property owner for the limited purpose of providing non-commercial access to the beach is an unregulated activity under the coastal erosion law. Also, timber works, piles, staircases in general are not LWRP or coastal erosion law permits. I'm going to give you that section of the law. Dealing with the staircase we will deal with it..With respect to the size again, coastal erosion law allows structures within the staircase and decks under the coastal erosion law that are less than 200 sq. ft., one of these are it measures square footage wise is 208.26. When it was modified and again, I don't know if the deck because in the past when I was dealing with other Boards of the Trustees, we would not consider the staircase and the landings when it was part of a deck of some kind. You'd separate the square footage of the staircase from the landing portion so you'd measure that portion being the deck and if the October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting deck was under 200 sq. ft. you could have the'200 sq. ft. with a staircase that either ends on it or turns there or it becomes part of the staircase. It's up to the Trustees ultimately how they interpret it but, in any case, we would have to comply with coastal erosion law which means that a deck of any kind cannot be more than 200 sq. ft., that's fine not a problem. So, enough discussion of the staircase, with regard to the pool which is really what the application was primarily about, the start of this as I said they showed it to the Trustees the original application to the Trustees had a pool that was 20 by 40 so it was a 1,200 sq. ft. pool proposed much closer to the bluff and the inspection the Trustees said make the,poolsmaller and tuck it in closer to the house which is precisely what they'came back and they did. So; the decks the existing decks are the balcony upstairs is going to be cut back so that I think if you look at the cross section it's easier to follow than the overall but do you have that if you need it, I may have extras. You can see that the existing balcony is being cut back by three feet and the new deck has by code with the Building Department it has to enclose the pool in order for it to be connected .and it's been pushed back as close as feasible to the existing deck that's behind the house. The deck is going to be stepped down slightly about there's a step down with a proposed new deck but it can't be on grade because otherwise then the pool isn't considered to be connected. So, it has to be slightly raised it looks to be a foot raised in order to then incorporate the pool and then the pool is pushed.back as it's proposed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just to be clear,you're saying the.pool is attached to the residence? PAT MOORE : Correct, the pool is considered attached to the deck is attached to the house, then the pool is attached to the deck and that's the way that we're able to push the pool back as far back without having it as a detached structure. So, that's how it's been designed. You can see the Building Department I'm sure you're aware, the Building Department, when you have what would be considered attached it has to surround the, pool and so the new deck is surrounding the pool and then anything beyond the setback proposed is patio not decking. He has a kind of a combination because of the fact that it has to be connected cause then the deck connects to the pool it's a funky design; the deck connects to the pool but then once you hit the pool then it steps down to the patio on grade. So, you have a combination of things, the cross section is a better illustration. Again, attempt to new pool beyond the patio yeah. So, in total we have the deck and the pool all 22 feet 8 % inches and then a slight extension to go around it of five feet as I see this cross section. The bottom line is, we have the requested setback, it was real manipulation of the structure to try to push it as far back to the house as was feasible and that's what's been designed. We think that that was consistent with what the,Trustees recommended and is consistent with what the Board has approved in the past with respect to placing pools.where existing houses have already been established. When we have new houses obviously, we push them back closer to the street in order to give room for the pool. 171 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The house immediately next door to the west is closer to the street, I think their pool at the closest point is right about where the deck.the proposed deck is. PAT MOORE : Right because it was a new house it was able to be built with the pool at the time. You can see that this is one of the earlier homes, it was constructed I want to say in '95 at the same time as the staircase. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have examples of any relief in Pebble Beach Farm relative to PAT MOORE : Oh gosh yes, I gave that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : pools at 65.9 feet PAT MOORE : Well, I have as part of the application every single tax lot 53, 56, 81, 61, 64, 65, 74, 77, 81 and-then tax lot 21-5-7..Pebble Beach and The Strand have been the recipient of multiple bluff setbacks over the years. Pebble Beach when it was developed was prior to setbacks to the top of the bluff but not too many years after pretty much every house almost every house has required a setback to the house and any accessory structure that it proposed had to get a setback from the_top of the bluff. You saw when you were there, this property has retaining walls at the bottom, it's a very heavily vegetated bluff.. The topography of the property has the bluff top elevated above so there's no'water runoff possible.because it does angle towards the house you have a higher point of the bluff than you do marginally but for drainage purposes. We don't have the concerns here as well as obviously having dry wells and gutters for the house, the house had to have gutters because of the new construction and the pool will have a dry well as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Where is the dry well located? PAT MOORE : Let me see if we have it designed. I don't believe that it was designed. It would be really up, to the Trustees how close generally I always.recommend we don't put any dry wells on the seaward side of the pool and the Trustees are consistent with that. Whether it'll be connected to an existing gutter excuse me existing dry well or to a new dry well will depend on stormwater issues. I mean you can certainly a condition of this and your typical condition is to have drainage go into a dry well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And what about pool equipment? PAT MOORE I don't have an answer for that. Again, they had to back off on the design of the pool until this because this is an unusual design so I don't know that we know where the pool equipment, I can get that information. My memory'is that the pool equipment may be integrated into the decking so if there's room,under the existing deck, if not it'll be placed in October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting wherever it's recommended so I think you mentioned you generally want to keep it 10 feet from a property line or enclosed with a sound proof that's not a problem. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat do you have any questions at this time? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think we need this further informatiori, mechanicals,' where the dry well is going to be. PAT MOORE : That's fine, I have no problem.with that, dry well and pool equipment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I want a little clarification myself, Margaret I don't know if you have questions about these decking's, so maybe it's better if I give you the floor. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well, you can go ahead I have several questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The lowest deck the largest one which is 209 sq. ft. I believe let me go back to my notes, 2.5 by 8.9 feet the one that has sort of the it's not fiberglass decking the one that's synthetic flow through sorry I couldn't think of that phrase, explain tome a little bit more how that got built in that location and PAT MOORE : Oh you're talking about the beach stairs'. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well, it's a deck within the beach stairs the one closest to bulkhead. PAT MOORE : How it got built? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea, I mean that's the most egregious I mean they're all quite substantial but talk about that a little bit more. PAT MOOORE : We're talking'about I mean my client didn't build it so we're suspecting it was done with similar to the other homes there. The Trustees usually did not get in the middle of decking particularly if it was considered on grade. So, I think that it would have gone in when the timber wall just.where its placement is. The timber wall went in and I don't have a date for that and it's hard to tell from the aerials because it's not as detailed the aerials are very difficult to read. That timber wall extends beyond the property line so at some point whether the timber walls were put in in '95 when Tom Samuels put the staircase in, I believe that's when it was there. I thought it was on the cross section. I can't tell you, timber walls generally they were not bulkheads, bulkheads do need regulatory review because bulkheads are where the water hits. Timber walls for many years were not regulated by certainly the DEC or the Trustees, I'm talking about the nineties now everything is regulated by the Trustees. Again, I can't tell you we have.no idea when the timber wall was put in. October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Between that timber wall and the crest to the bluff there's a series of like horizontal PAT MOORE : Yes they were all built as.part of this staircase I believe. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They're at the earth level I mean contrary to what you stated and we don't have a report from Suffolk County Soil and Water so we're relying on our visual inspection, there's a lot of bowing I mean the bluff does not look to be all that stable so this is of concern. The Trustee's file is still open, we don't know if comments from the Trustees just yet and I know that you suggested that they gave some feedback based upon a site inspection, it's just there's substantial decking and a lot going on with these stairs. Let's do this, let's see is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak? PAT MOORE : My client couldn't really provide much information cause again, they bought the way it is. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'd like to ask a question, I'm sorry to drag us back to that lower deck but the survey which was last revised June of 2025 PAT MOORE : Yea that was for the purposes of giving me dimensions because it was a very busy survey.They have the same surveyor when they purchased but it had no dimensions. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, it shows the deck but it shows the last set of stairs that reach the beach exiting to the west PAT MOORE : Correct MEMBER STEINBUGLER : and the actual stairs exit to the east. PAT MOORE : They do? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes they do so PAT MOORE : I don't know how the surveyor I mean this is supposed to be I mean it is an on- site survey so whether they go themselves backwards MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It just looked to me that the wood structural members of that deck and the stairs heading down to the beach and the last set of stairs looked quite new. I was wondering if work was performed on these stairs and decks aside from the flow through decking. PAT MOORE : I don't know the answer to that. The access steps down to the beach oftentimes get damaged or destroyed by storms'and they might have been replaced, I don't October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting know the answer. It was my belief based on my, conversations that the only change they made was the flow through. I,went down but I guess I just didn't remember the flow through being only on the bottom piece not on other pieces. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's only on the largest the one at the timber wall. PAT MOORE : Yea so you said you caught that, when I was there I don't think I caught that difference. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The strange thing though I mean and you'know I'm not an engineer but all the framing material everything looks recent relatively,new. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes it does. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All the structural' members the vertical support they're like four by fours which look actually quite slight in comparison to the size of the deck like to support the structures. 'Let's just see if there's anyone'that has any comments on line. Donna, Liz is there anyone there that wishes to speak on behalf of this application? Margaret, do.you have any other questions or statements? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I do thank you. Two that.are somewhat housekeeping related, the Short Environmental Assessment Form indicates that wastewater will- connect to a new sanitary system, this is a pool application so I just wondered if a new sanitary system is contemplated or is.�being proposed or does it exist already on the property? PAT MOORE : I believe that information may have been it was updated when they purchased but I'd have to verify that. It may have been my brain thinking that it had already been done but I can check. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To that point, do we have I only have one copy of the survey and it does not show the sanitary system., MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Correct, that's what I was going to say on my site inspection I did not come across any of the caps that are associated with newer systems. PAT MOORE : It wouldn't"have been an IA system. I can check when sanitary was replaced. Remember even in '95 you'd have to get Health Department approval so if they from looking at the plans I don't recall bedrooms being increased it was just renovation of the existing so it would not have been required but whether or not it was updated by the prior owner at some point` MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where do you think the system is? 1 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I'd have to go back to-the building permit from the original house in '95, 1 don't know, I don't know where it is I'd have to check I don't-have that memorized. You ask-me questions on things that I did not look at. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : A second somewhat housekeeping PAT MOORE : I mean again it's not it has nothing to do with this application just but my EAF MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It was mentioned in the Short EAF so that's why I raised it. PAT MOORE : Oh alright so yes it's in the back yard in the area of the pool, we're going to have to deal with it that you can't yea. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The LWRP Assessment, I really think this is just a mistake but it talks about a project to add a second floor and move three bedrooms and so on. PAT MOORE : Yea MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just want to make clear on the record that that's not part of this project. PAT MOORE : No, in fact I pulled up the renovation/alterations has a C of 0 so that got closed out. MEMBER STEINBUGLER ; The description actually looks like another application that was before the Board and it looks like perhaps a copy, paste error of some kind but I just wanted to make clear that that is not contemplated here. PAT MOORE : Yes it's not, no. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I know we had a lot of discussion about that lower deck and the Trustees. PAT MOORE : I think the Trustees want it reduced. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It looks like they want it reduced, the application materials indicate that reducing it would, cause more environmental damage than leaving it as is but the application also seems to say that it will be reduced in compliance with.the Trustee request so I just want some clarification there. PAT MOORE : Well, since I don't have the Trustees it was just a field inspection I don't know what they would approve or what they would not approve. Depending on how it was constructed I find sometimes if it has posts or structures into the ground then it seems to me October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting much more disruptive to remove than it is to cut it back some other way if possible. We have not studied how to do that nor know what the Trustees are going to want. Again, it would be compliant with the coastal erosion law which is you know what I have to worry about initially. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, I think I should be able to find this on the survey but I could not, do you know the current house setback from the top of the bluff? I will say, I went back to the records of the Building Department when it wa,s applied for and it was exactly 100 feet at the I think it was the northeast corner. I'm just curious that if the last thirty years there was any bluff erosion that would cause the current house setback to be reduced. PAT MOORE : I would have to do the math because the surveyor provided to the patio and then the dimensions of the patio and the dimensions of the pool so I'd have to do that math. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I did 65.9 plus 17,feet for the pool plus 2 feet of coping, without the patio added in it's 84.9. PAT MOORE : Keep in mind that the way surveyors measure the top of the bluff even the subdivision map do not match current updated surveys so it does not appear that there's been based on you know the aerials .it's been vegetation more than you know changes but not or top of the bluff vegetation rather than and again, any application any approval you make or the Trustees will require a vegetated non-turf buffer. I believe that that was originally proposed in the Trustees application, it may have been ten feet was the proposal originally to the Trustees but again that application was not completed. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thank you, just maybe the last question, you did provide nine prior variances for bluff setbacks for swimming pools in the Pebble Beach Farms neighborhood ' e PAT MOORE : On The Strand specifically. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : On The Strand exactly, exactly, the ZBA file 7158 which was lot number 77 in 2018, you indicated that that setback-was 64 feet but I'm going to remind the Board those who were members then and myself when I went back and read that decision, the applicant originally asked for a I think a 72 or 74 foot setback from the bluff for the pool, this Board asked for something,less noncompliant. The applicant came back with an 84-foot setback and this Board denied that setback. The appl-icaht challenged that decision in court and was successful so I. believe that setback is 84 feet not 64. 1 think it would be very, I'm not a lawyer nor do I follow Article PAT MOORE : Tax lot 64 you're talking about? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : 77 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Oh, 77 okay. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's the setback you indicated was 64 feet. PAT MOORE : Yea that's all I had as far as the town records. I think I believe that was an Article 78 we handled. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes PAT MOORE : What we did is in the settlement we embedded the pool into like as close to the house maybe into the decking or something. We created a compromise setback. I didn't have that number so MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Oh, okay, I just wanted for the record say what the ZBA at that time denied was an 84 foot setback and not a 64 foot setback. PAT MOORE : Oh it might have been my typo. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It could have been a typo, exactly. PAT MOORE I know that ultimately it did get approved but I just don't recall what that was and I couldn't find it in our computer records. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I did go back and look at all those priors and noted the value of the setback in each and I'm saying this because I want to give you an opportunity to comment, but since the year 2000 there has been a steadily upward trend in the values of bluff setbacks approved for pools, even those denied and this requested setback here of 65.9 feet one would have to go back twenty one years to find a setback that was you'd have to go back twenty five years to find a setback that large. Again, I say that in the spirit of giving you the opportunity to comment. PAT MOORE : So, where possible it's push back, we did that here and we've done that in other applications cause I know I've done many of the applications on The Strand and for pool variances. We did I pushed the client very hard to make .the most narrow pool with the potential of pushing back or eliminating existing decking so again, every property is very unique in the sense that you have to look at that particular property. Some of the properties have retaining walls, some do not, some have slopes that are protective of the top of the bluff. Again, we have to deal with the facts that are presented which are this is where the house is. In other cases, we've tried to put the pool into the side yard, I think that may have been in the Article 78, we were able to push the pool slightly into the side yard so as to again push the pool away from the top of the bluff. We didn't have that ability here the house is where it is. 241 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : In reviewing those nine priors on The Strand for a bluff setbacks for swimming pools, of the nine five were swimming pools 16 feet wide or less. Three were larger and one was unspecified because it goes back to,1987 but I would just ask, what drives the decision for a 17-foot-wide pool when five of the last nine setbacks had pools that were less wide. PAT MOORE : When the client begins with a_30 foot pool cutting it to 17 was aesthetically and more practical for the family. If the Board comes back and says you know make it 16 the client has to make that decision. I think that that's generally what you've done on pools, it's if you don't feel it's been cut back enough you come back with. whatever the more acceptable number is. Again, this was pushing.the client.very hard to make the smallest narrowest pool, cutting back an existing-deck to the most because obviously a summer home you use. your decking a lot and the architectural design of the house you've got a balcony as well as a deck that runs the entire length. I looked at the photograph this morning and. I was like hmmm could the decking be changed but the windows and the doorways are all sliders and access. It looks like the balcony and the decks are they're integrated into the deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the house has an unfortunate heritage to have such a beautiful design to begin with in the 1990's. PAT MOORE : It was a very nicely it is a nice house and they're doing a very nice job on I mean the siding is;all updated MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In fairness to the applicants we got a very late start because of the arraignment, Margaret did you have another question or anything? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think I'm done,thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just wanted to make one more comment and then I'm going to suggest that perhaps we 'adjourn the hearing, there's a couple of.-things that] just wanted to mention. You're fine with adjournment then? PAT MOORE : Yea I think we should because that way I can give you their we'll look at the aerials that are accurate rather than the one house over. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I just wanted to comment because we've got a list of things with the spirit of adjournment it'll give you an opportunity to speak to your client, perhaps you can address the dry well, the septic location, the actual distance of the crest of the bluff to the house, update the site plan or survey if you can. PAT MOORE : I'm not sure, crest of the bluff to the house. October 2, 2025 Regular.Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret had asked a question about the distance. The house was originally built at 100 feet now it seems to be at 84 feet. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm not sure that it is.. PAT MOORE : No, no. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think if Pat gets the updated aerials indicating the subject house we will be able to see the over the years. PAT MOORE : It'll show that nothing has moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't things have moved, the bluff well so there's some homework there. I wanted to clarify something and maybe I'm misreading it but, on the survey, it clearly states that the second story deck is to be reduced. PAT MOORE : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It looks like it's reduced to 6.9 feet. PAT MOORE : Yes I think that's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But when you look at the actual plan it shows the second story sort of cantilevered deck at 9 feet width. Maybe the documents can all match up so that we're looking at the same thing. Here on this document with the proposed pool it shows reduced deck and I'm reading it 9 feet. PAT MOORE : I think it was upside down. No, it does say 9. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, three feet does make a difference. Maybe you can do a brief analysis with.the designer to make sure everything is there. Kim, can you answer, when would if we adjourn today Pat do you want to adjourn without a date or do you want a date? PAT MOORE : Give me a date, this information I can hopefully gather pretty quickly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Pat, it would be January 8tn PAT MOORE : Wow MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sorry PAT MOORE : That's a long wait, nothing earlier? BOARD ASSISTANT : We have a very crowded next couple of months. October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Ok, it is what it is, my clients will just have to live with Trustee decks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Update survey to illustrate PAT,MOORE : Aerials, dry well, equipment she wanted to know equipment, sanitary. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When are you meeting with Trustees? PAT MOORE : It's not scheduled because the ZBA is coming first, do you want me to ask them? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's always best if the Trustees I think in situations like this should go first. PAT MOORE : If you send a I mean January 8tf', they've had the application since (inaudible) submitted it so it could be put back on with the communication from this office to the Trustees. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim, is that something we can do? Do you think we should still keep the January gth date? In worst case if we have to change it, we'll be in communication. PAT MOORE : Yes because they're scheduling November, December yea I mean BOARD ASSISTANT : If we have to adjourn January, we can. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly, go to Trustees. PAT MOORE : Then we'll know what they want me to do with the decks and so on. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that's I think you know really a bigger issue. I mean what's going on there is substantial especially at that timber wall where the flow through is. Board, any other comments before we adjourn? PAT MOORE : Can 1 just double check which setback you're talking about with the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That plan shows 9 feet but on the.survey it says 6.9. PAT MOORE : The cross section shows 6.9 too. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but there is says 9. PAT MOORE : Yea, I don't know why. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if they can steal 3 extra feet but that would make a difference although I don't think that they can. Z71 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I'll double check cause that's the cross section. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm going to make a motion that we adjourn hearing #8042, 1460 The Strand, LLC to January 8, 2026. Do I have a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret, thank you. Member Acampora. i MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Lehnert. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm also in favor, so adjourned. PAT MOORE : And you will communicate with the Trustees. HEARING#8044—RANDOLF J. POLYN/ANDREA and ANGELO PROWISIERO MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The next application before the Board is for Randolf J. Polyn/Andrea and Angelo Provvisiero#8044. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM No. 1000-107-2-6 which has merged with SCTM No. 1000-107-2-5 based on the Building Inspector's May 1, 2025 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming . or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R40 Residential Zoning District) located at 2900 Grand Avenue and 3000 Grand Avenue Mattituck, NY SCTM Nos. 1000-107-2- 5 and 1000-107-206. This is for a waiver of merger, Martin if you don't mind stating your name you have the floor. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning Martin Finnegan, 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant Randy Polyn. As Nick alluded to, we are here for a waiver of merger of lot 6 I'll call it which is the property located at 3000 Grand Ave. from the adjacent,improved parcel. Both of these lots were originally created back in 1948 by deed. In 1960 the improved lot was October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting conveyed to my client's parents John and Edna Polyn who held title to that parcel until 1996 when it was the conveyed by,the parents to my client and his brother Dennis. The improved parcel was sold to its current owners just last year. The vacant parcel, lot 6 which is the one we're here seeking recognition for was conveyed to the Polyns in 1963. Unbeknownst to my client or his parents these parcels became merged when the merger law was adopted in 1995. Lot 6 has never been transferred to an unrelated person or entity. Since that time these lots have always been treated and maintained separately. As the Board would recall, in 2008 the Town Board amended the merger law really with the express intent of making waiver of merger available to families under very similar circumstances to what we have here. As sited in my memo, we have Supervisor Russell's quote at the time which is in the legislative history of that amendment where he said, people who inherited properties which ' have unintentionally merged they are to be excluded, they are part of the group we. are trying to offer relief for. The Polyns have found themselves in this situation and the law had been amended to allow relief when lots remain in the family and have not been conveyed outside of the family.Just to address the criteria under 280-11, first and foremost the issue is whether lot 6 has been conveyed, this is the lot we're seeking recognition for whether it has been conveyed to an unrelated person. As I mentioned, it has not been conveyed, the most recent conveyance of the property was in '96'when it was conveyed by the parents to my client and the parents owned the lot since 1963. So, the Board can properly find that the lot still remains within the Polyn family. As to the balancing criteria, this is'a pretty generously sized lot in the area, it's .59 acres well over,a half-acre. This area and into Browers Woods and going there's all different shapes and sizes of lots but I think this lot is definitely comparable in size to numerous lots particularly lots that are across the way on Knollwood Lane. If you go up to Browers the lots are actually much smaller than Browers Woods so it is by in large a lot of substandard lots in the area and I would suggest that it is comparable to other improved lots in the area. The lot has always been vacant, it has always had a separate tax existence obviously, it's always been unimproved so I would suggest to you that the intent was always to keep it as a single and separate lot by-the Polyn family. There are no perceivable adverse impacts from permitting the waiver of merger to simply allow the lot to be buildable. Obviously under today's regulations if the lot were ever to be home was ever constructed there, they'd be required to install an IA system which would presumable address any potential environmental impact. With that, we are respectfully requesting that the Board grant a waiver of merger to allow this to be a buildable lot. I'm happy to answer any questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin could you describe the lot area? The survey that I have for the developed parcel does not have square footage on it. October2, 2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : I noticed that which is incredible, I don't know why surveyors dropped the ball. I know lot 6 is .59 acres, I believe MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To that point, lot 6 as surveyed by Nathan Taft Corwin has a lot area of 25,719 sq. ft. which is .59 acres. What is the size of the other lot? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't know Nick. I think because it's such an odd shaped lot I think it's actually very comparable in'size to lot 6 but (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only record of size that I can find is from the town, property card it illustrates that the house sits on a lot of .93 acres which would be the two lots I suppose combined. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't think so, they have separate tax parcels and but I don't know. I know, if you look to the property to the south, it's almost the identical size to the property that is just next door which is lot 7 which is .54 acres. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm struggling to find it but I think it was somewhere buried in the application materials, the deed has a different size. I'm looking for I remember it being larger, lot 5 being larger than lot 6. 1 do not know that I can find here we go, on the application to the Town of Southold, Board of Appeals waiver of lot merger which is included Martin in the packet that you provided the second paragraph from the bottom that starts with, I Randolph J. Polyn request blah, blah, blah it mentions lot 5 containing 36.590 sq. ft. Where that came from I don't know because I also looked on the survey and was unable to find the lot area but the applicant has MEMBER LEHNERT : Doing the quick math right now of the survey, it gives me 37,975 plus or minus (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I did the same so it seems in the ballpark but it is a little larger than the adjacent lot. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it's just it's obviously there's a lot of no man's land.on the land next door you know because its configuration which just sort of goes along the curve of Grand Ave. there but again, the lot to the south on the other side of it is pretty much the same size as are many of the lots in the surrounding area. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Excuse me Nick, Board, I have a hand up Angelo, I'm assuming it is Mr. Provvisiero, would you like me to move him in? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin do you mind if this gentleman speaks? 30 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, I spoke to him this morning and we've been in touch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Provvisiero, please state your name and your address. ANGELO PROVVISIERO : Hello everybody, my name is Angelo Provvisiero I have the.house at 2900 Grand. My property is .93 1 have the survey. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Your property is .93 which would be the same amount reflected on the property card. ANGELO PROVVISIERO : Okay, in the beginning you guys didn't know how big it was I just wanted to tell you how big it was. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have the survey with you right now?' ANGELO PROVVISIERO : I believe I have it in my email, yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just wondering if it's the same survey that was submitted with the application prepared by Ward Brooks is the licensed professional surveyor where it was dated December 20, 2023? ANGELO PROVVISIERO : Yea it should be the same one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, you're saying you're on .92 of an acre. ANGELO PROVVISIERO : .93 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : .93 MEMBER STEINBUGLER :That's going to be close. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, did you have anything else to add while you're on the phone with us right now? ANGELO PROVVISIERO : No that's it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rob do you have something to share before I make a comment? MEMBER LEHNERT : No comment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat would you like to share anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret 31 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I do have a question and I'll say that real estate deeds etc. are very, very, very far from my wheel house but the 1948 deed which I think is the basis for recognizing these lots described a property that was two and a,half acres in size and if I add the numbers that Mr. Provvisiero just provided of .93 acres and the area of lot 6 which is .59 1 get 1.52 acres. I just wonder, was there a third lot included in that 1948 deed that created these lots or recognized these lots? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Originally but then there was subsequent conveyances by deed that ' carved these lots into the lots they are today. The single and separate search is attached to my application and you can see the various I didn't walk through everyone I just kind of went through from my client's ownership but yea there was forty-eight and then there was that grantor then split them into their separate lots. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, so if I go through those I concentrated in that title search on the two lots in question but if I look closer I would find the conveyances of other lots that were part of that original two and a half acres to other owners? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay got it,thank you. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think originally five, six and seven started out as one and then they were broken up and lot seven still remains in the original grantors family if I'm reading oh no I'm sorry, no, no, no that's Wayne Sailor's house that's been conveyed out many times I should have flipped the page but yea there are definitely three different lots. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, you stated that the vacant lot, the subject property which is lot six has merged with the residential lot. You said that that lot however was always maintained as a single and separate lot, how do you account for the fencing, the garden area, the laundry line etc.? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean I think they were owned until recently, that's not a use of the lot. I mean if they have at one point some little dilapidated old structure on there, I don't know Nick, I honestly don't think that having a clothes line establishes it as a part of the neighboring lot. I mean it's always been, it's vacant, it's essentially unimproved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and it was maintained, I mean until recently it would appear that it was well mowed etc. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's been owned I mean the family owned these lots yea of course they maintained them, they took care of them. The lot next door was sold okay, it wasn't sold with October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting this lot, this lot has always been maintained separately as a separate parcel, there's separate title, the brothers own them separately. The intent was that they would each have a parcel and this is Randy's lot and that was what the intent was, to keep them separate. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Was-this application made after the transfer of the house'to the Provvisiero family or was the application presented prior to closing? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, this application was presented in June of this year. .MEMBER PLANAMENTO': Exactly, from the Zoning Board of Appeals I think you're familiar with this, we take sort of a two prong approach that the actual property owner is the one that needs to make the application. In this case the property transferred outside of the Polyn family, so how do you account for the actual same family ownership prior to any merger? MARTIN FINNEGAN :The lot that is proposed fo recognized is lot 6, the code says, the lot that is proposed to be recognized has not been transferred. This lot has never been transferred to an unrelated person. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it's merged with.the,residential house which is lot 5 so MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, no lot 6 is the lot that merged and we're seeking to unmerge it. We are the applicant and the owner of that parcel. The Notice of Disapproval speaks to lot 6 not lot 5 so this is a separate tax parcel and we are seeking to unmerge it. So, it has never been transferred out so therefore 1 MEMBER LEHNERT : But you're seeking to unmerge it from lot 5. MARTIN FINNEGAN : We're seeking to yes unmerge it from lot 5. MEMBER LEHNERT : So lot 5 was transferred out of the family. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right, but I'm not seeking recognition of lot 5, I'm seeking recognition of lot 6 and that lot has always stayed within the family so I don't that's the way the code reads. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, is there a distinction to be made here between the letter of the code and the Zoning Board of Appeals practice? Nick-you we're talking about a two-prong test. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes we often talk about taking a two-prong test and I'm thinking of other examples of similar waivers where unfortunately as the result of a sale. It's not as if you own both lots because right now,as a result of the merger that happened in 1983 during the Polyn ownership, that lot is attached to the house. The house' lot is now owned by the Provvisieros and in potential theory that lot is part of their home. So, I don't understand the merger. October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : This as we know is a complete legal fiction but the reality is, the lot is owned by Randy Polyn and only in the eyes of the Building Department, is there an issue here? Legal ownership is in Polyn MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but that becomes a civil issue•not a Zoning Board issue I think. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right but the code says, there is a two prong test. The first one is, that this lot' is still in the Polyn family and it is okay. So, there's nothing to preclude you from waiving this merger and allowing this lot to move forward as it always has been on its own. I don't understand how the fact that the improved lot that has beem improved for God knows how long was sold we don't need recognition for that lot, there's a C.O. for a house there. It is lot 6 that we are here arguing about and that is the lot for which we are seeking the waiver. The Notice of Disapproval it doesn't speak to lot 5 and 6 it's to lot 6. Again, I'm just`the code says, the lot proposed to be recognized has not been transferred. We need recognition of lot 6 and that's what the application is about. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Wasn't lot 6 up for sale at one time? MARTIN FINNEGAN : It may have been,-yea I believe so-what's the MEMBER ACAMPORA : About a year of two ago when the house was sold then a for sale sign came up on the lot that we're speaking about now. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right, as I said, nobody had any idea about the merger-law, they had no idea that this occurred and there was a what triggered the application for the waiver of merger was you know an application to for a building permit. So, that's the way these things happen, I mean this law was adopted in 1995, these people owned .these properties since 1963, nobody knew. There was a short period of time between '95 and '96 that mom and dad owned the lots. There is I mean I don't know, to me we've established the criteria for waiver of merger because of the fact if they had if new owner of lot 6 came in here and asked for a waiver of merger then that wouldn't happen but there's been applications before this Board the Smith application where there were crazy circumstances but the guy who had the vacant lot came in and applied to for relief of merger and it was granted based on for that lot. That lot was freed up from the merger and there was no need to recognize,any other adjacent lots. That is our position, I believe that we have established the criteria for waiver of merger. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on behalf of the application? Liz, Donna is there anybody on line? Board how do you want to address this, should we adjourn it, would you like to close it? MEMBER LEHNERT : Adjourn it to speak with the Town Attorney. 34 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin are you okay if we adjourn to the October Special Meeting on the 16"? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Sure MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That way if we have any questions or whatever it's held open. I'll make a motion then to adjourn,to the October Special Meeting on October 16th. Do I have a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor, Margaret? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : I vote yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm also yes. So, the adjournment will be to the October Special Meeting. HEARING#8046—WILLIAM TODD JEFFCOAT and STEPHANIE DESIREE VISCEGLIA MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The next application before the Board is for William Todd Jeffcoat and Stephanie Desiree Visceglia #8046. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207, Article XXXVI Section 280-208 and the - Building Inspector's April 28, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 square feet in area, 3) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at 50 Rochelle Place, Mattituck NY SCTM No. 1000-144-5-1. Martin, I believe you are here for this application too. 35 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant William Jeffcoat who we call Todd who is here with me today. As Nick alluded to, we are here for variance relief to allow the applicant to construct an 837 sq. ft. second story addition and do some renovations to this existing home which is on the corner of Rochelle Place and Bay Ave. in Mattituck. I'm sure you've all seen the house, it's a bit of an eye sore and really requires renovation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may just for the record, the side yard setback of the required side yard setback is 10 feet and you propose at .3 roughly , MARTIN FINNEGAN : That's the existing footprint, the house lies there all the renovations are to be within the existing footprint. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The GFA you're seeking is 2,605 sq. ft. which is 335.9 sq. ft. over the allowable 2,269.1 sq. ft. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then you have the sky plane penetration. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right, sky plane penetration which is essentially unavoidable due to the side yard setback. I would note that the applicant also owns the property directly to the south. The home on that property sits almost to the southern end of that property and so as far as the sky plane you know there's some mitigation there because of that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can we actually and I guess this is for me an important dialogue before we really talk about the merit of the application. You just reminded the Board that the applicant owns the house immediately to the south. That house came before us for a front yard setback in an earlier application, I don't have the number in front of me but it's part of the record of this Board. The property card would indicate that the subject house sits on one parcel with two houses as stated by the Pre-C of 0 and that was acknowledged in the original decision relative to the front porch. Can you talk a little bit about what is going on here, was there ever a legal subdivision of these two houses from the one parcel? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'm not aware that there's one parcel, we have MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The Pre-Certificate of Occupancy discusses it and it was part of the decision of the small cottage, the front porch there was a discussion about two houses sitting on 6e.parcel. So, relative to Certificate of Occupancy Z-9510 issued May 1, 1979 illustrates an address of 50 Rochelle Place and 2795 Bay Ave. stating that this was issued as two separate one family dwellings with a detached garage. So, it's not two lots it's one lot. October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : The parcels have always been separate Nick, I mean they were deeded as but there's in,the Notice of Disapproval is as to lot one, there is no indication that there was some merger of these lots. I see what you're saying in that C.O. but, MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It came up at during the prior hearing relative to the cottage to the front porch where it was even mentioned as additional information in the decision that there are two houses on one lot. Mr. Jeffcoat if you want to speak just introduce yourself. WILLIAM JEFFCOAT : My name is William Jeffcoat I'm the owner of these. There are two C of O's on the cottage lot which is the lot south right here, there are two C of O's, there's a C of 0 for the cottage and there's a C of 0 for the garage. As far as we know and as far as any information we've ever been'given there is one deed that is still listed as two separate lots. There was always two C of O's since even when we purchased the property there's two C of O's on the southern lot with the cottage and the garage and there was a separate C of 0 for the house which is 50 Rochelle. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I suspect after our decision when you added the front porch on that cottage WILLIAM JEFFCOAT :•I didn't add the front porch on the cottage by the way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought you put wasn't WILLIAM JEFFCOAT : Let me explain here real quick. The cottage we were given a permit to basically take the garage, lift it, replace the foundation and then drop it back down on the exact same footprint, the same location and that's exactly what we did. At the end of when we were going for the sign off for the cottage, then it was noted that the front yard setback is less than whatever was required. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly (inaudible). WILLIAM JEFFCOAT : (inaudible) added the front porch, the only thing I did is I added two steps off the front porch which is an.existing front porch. I never even changed the entire structure of that garage of the (inaudible) except for the foundation because the whole house was sinking. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but the relief granted was relative to the front porch for the front yard setback so I'm just trying to understand what's going on with the site whether it's one house or two houses or ultimately as you're arguing it's two lots. I think it's an unclear situation and I do think that the C of 0 the underlying C of 0 as presented in your application here and I'll read that number again, Z-9510 dated May 1, 1979 begs the question of what's October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting going on. So, while the cottage may have an updated C of 0 and the garage which I think you actually rebuilt the garage in its-entirety would have anew C of 0, this is the C of 0 the underlying Pre-Certificate of Occupancy on the house that you wish to alter. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It lists both addresses. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it lists both addresses exactly. . MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea, 50 Rochelle and 2795 Bay. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's not about the C of O's, it's about the parcel. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Nick, I mean we can look into that but there are two there's still two separate addresses, there are two separate parcels, I don't know why the Building Department in 1979 wrote the C.O. this way but you know everything about these are they're separate parcels, they've never been merged, they're separate parcels. I don't I can look into that and you know follow up with the Board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think that's important so probably just as a plan we'll listen to what you're here before the Board relative to the sky plane, the setback, the GFA but this will be a question just in Leslie's absence especially, this I was planning on leaving adjourned, I don't want to say without a date, if it's January it'll be January but whether you need an updated Notice of Disapproval or not I think going to the Building Department and asking those question will be helpful to the Board cause it can severely impact what we determine here relative to your GFA and the sky plane. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, understood. Let me look into that and I will MEMBER LEHNERT : The sky plane will go away. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely MARTIN FINNEGAN : Certainly from my client's perspective and from my perspective these have always been I mean there's separate tax lots, there's never been a merger of these lots they've always been separate. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think what we need to look at maybe the application for the original Pre C of 0 what was applied for and I'm. not suggesting that an error was made, I don't know and that's the question that -I pose because it's something glaringly in your application packet. October 2, 2025 Regular.Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN It's in the property record for this so we have to include that but if we can move on with the application here cause there's plenty to talk about with respect to everything else and I can certainly follow up with you on that issue. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good ,MARTIN FINNEGAN : The proposed construction is entirely conforming to lot coverage, it's just the second story addition. As Nick mentioned; it exceeds the allowable GFA it takes us over the average of it by 335 sq. ft. Looking around the neighborhood here Rochelle Place is the gateway to the.Salt Lake Community which,is a community of larger waterfront homes. Many of the homes on the east side. of Bay Ave. in the vicinity of this house have been significantly enlarged and renovated. Across the street there are some smaller cottage type houses leading up to where the motel is but it's almost as if Bay Ave. is like two different worlds on either side of the street down there. This home as I said is part of the gateway into Salt Lake Village. What I'm suggesting to you is that if you look at the well first of all, before We even get into this, I'm not even sure I'm.sure the Board is aware of the presentation that Leslie made to the Town Board last week with respect to averaging and that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's so unfortunate, you know our hands are tied. MARTIN FINNEGAN Well, I don't think they are, I think that look everybody has acknowledged that this law is broken. It's an absolute absurd onerous to expect people to analyze twenty-two homes and come and its thousands of dollars. Leslie acknowledged that, the Town Board is nodding their head I just talked to Albert .this morning and they're apparently sending this to Code Committee to take (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO': And it can be done quickly like other things. MARTIN FINNEGAN Yea so, I'm going to make some arguments to you because I honestly believe that even under the current state of the law that you have. every right to vary that under Town Law 267. 1 had that conversation with the Town Attorney and he didn't disagree With me but I understand that you've taken the position and maybe you feel that you are precluded from varying GFA because of the current language of the code. I'm going to make my pitch to you and essentially my arguments are based on character of the community and the standard 267 criteria as to the.GFA variance as to all the variances but if for some reason you, feel that you have to not deny the variance for 335 sq. ft. then I would ask that this application be adjourned until such time as this goes away. I don't think it's fair that my clients should be denied relief when next month he could get MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would just add, I feel badly over the last twelve months maybe eighteen months for people who have been denied GFA where especially if this is now October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting reversed or altered and I think ultimately with the zoning update there will be well, something further but this is a temporary fix just by altering one sentence. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right and because clearly so many people are getting caught in a trap here; the law was not I don't know what the law was I think it was a reaction to a couple of bad guys and everyday people MEMBER LEHNERT : This is the unintended consequence. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, we all know I mean I have applications coming before you in the next couple of months where we need a couple hundred square feet extra here and there something that's completely in character with the neighborhood; two doors down there's this massive house or maybe you're in a neighborhood that has a couple of little houses across the street and you're out of luck, right? That's exactly kind of what's happening here. If we had to do averaging, because of the couple of little guys across the street right but the other flaw in this law is that there is the permitted GFA okay and if you look at the permitted GFA of the houses on Bay Ave. they're all way over what we're looking for here today. All the little guys across the street can come next week and file a building permit application to get a bigger house that Mr.,Jeffcoat is looking for today as of right but we're here begging for,relief. Bringing it back just to throw some of the numbers at you and I did not have an engineer do this, this is just simple math cause we can all calculate what permitted GFA is under the code right? I'm just basically I'm looking at the square footage of the lots and the average allowable max GFA for the homes on the west side of Bay Ave. is 3,056 sq. ft. again, we're looking for about 2,600. The average allowable GFA for the homes on the east side is nearly 5,000 sq. ft. We're right like this is nothing compared to what's going on there. Let me just kind of dive into the criteria, as I mentioned we're in an area that,has you know we have one- and two- story dwellings, various sized lots there's the larger waterfront parcels around the corner, you have some narrow substandard lots. This house we can all agree is an eyesore. I have never, this is sort of unprecedented but we have twenty letters in support okay for this application which I believe you guys have for the record. I don't know how many times do you get twenty you have twenty-one? MEMER PLANAMENTO : My count was twenty-one. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay, so basically everybody is just, please God can we just do something with this house and that's why Mr. Jeffcoat is here. He's ready to do it, he personally went and spoke with every single one of these neighbors and showed them the plans and explained the project to say this is what we're doing. What is proposed we would submit to you is entirely in character with the houses that are there and you know granting relief for the side yard and sky plane is just a function of the fact that the renovations are October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting contemplated entirely within the existing footprint. We really can't do anything about that and it makes no sense to completely demolish this thing and do that cause that's not what is proposed. I would suggest to you that it is consistent with character, with no detriment at all to nearby properties, it's nothing but an improvement to the entire neighborhood. However, obviously we cannot move forward without variance relief because ,of our favorite GFA regulations and just because of the non-conforming side yard setback nothing we can do about it. As to substantiality,,I'm going to argue that yes .while it may be mathematically substantial, we're staying within the existing footprint. The GFA itself is a 14.8%relief. If you look at the homes on the east side which is really where this property is kind of part.of that community, we are well within .that is not excessive and,as I told you the numbers for permitted-GFA are nearly twice what we're-asking.for here. As to adverse impacts, I think between letters in support and the fact that this is just a renovation to really clean this,thing up. There. are no adverse impacts, there's no environmental impact from this. The current there's no new bedrooms here, it's not really triggering this project hasn't triggered the necessity of an upgrade. The sanitary system has been certified. Obviously, you know the Suffolk County Department of Health says that they need to do something more they will but that an IA system is not contemplated I'm saying that but it's a Type II Action. I think that speaks to the lack of adverse impact. With that, if there are any additional questions regarding any of those other variances, I'd be happy to answer them. As I said, if you feel that your hands are still tied with this thing then I would ask that we just adjourn this until such time as we don't have-to worry about averaging. I believe that we've provided enough ,information to vary it under 267 but we don't want to get thrown out on a technicality here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I appreciate you said that you also respect the role'that we play that we're partially our hands are tied. Believe me it's MARTIN FINNEGAN : I know you can't (inaudible)the code. MEMBER LEHNERT : We've been asking for changes since it came out. MARTIN FINNEGAN Look, people appeared before the Town, Board and asked that it be .repealed and I don't know but that's up to them and the zoning code but in the meantime it has just been an incredible burden and there's a lot of people who really got burned out of what is relatively modest MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I feel bad if they've actually gone through the construction phase. So, what you're saying and I believe it's genuine that maybe by adjourning just gives you the flexibility or ultimately the determination to achieve what your design goal is. The plan as I said earlier for this particular application, in our chairperson's absence I was planning on adjourning this one. This was something that I think is complicated cause I don't know 4:1 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting what's going on because of. that Certificate of Occupancy. So that's something I think needs research on both sides perhaps. To your point there, could be a benefit for the applicant versus us making an immediate determination that if the town code changes by-removing one sentence, that gives us the flexibility to determine what is appropriate to a community and I think that could be to your benefit. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Agreed MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Within that I do want to ask one question, and I think I know the answer but it's not my place to answer your requests. It's pretty clear cut but I feel obligated to ask, the second floor as proposed you're following the existing sort of you know .3-foot setback of the existing ranch style home, you'd like to add a second floor; why not stepping the second floor back and running it along the length of the house? I mean you can rework the floor plan and remove the penetration of the sky plane; it would just seem if I look at the floor plans. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it's just functional space, Nick. I mean I think that's just the way it works so that it's sort of pushing the second floor to the back of the lot so it is you know sort of not in your face kind of thing and there's really no way to make I mean you look what's up there it's not that big of an addition but it has to have that square footage just to have functional bedroom space. MEMBER,PLANAMENTO : All I'm just saying instead of being square more rectangular. The bump out already exists, whether the gable end would still be in the sky plane, I don't know but it just seemed if you stepped it back to the length of the house, you'd be outside of the sky plane. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was just an observation, I mean I'm not going to tell you how to design the house but MARTIN FINNEGAN : I see that but I think the effort here was to design something that is relatively modest but functional and doing that would really make this very MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) to putts around with the ridge of the existing house would be different than putting for lack of a better description a box where you're proposing it. I just wanted to ask. Board members any questions? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Also relative to sky plane I had the same question Nick articulated about would it be possible to have the addition more going further to the west and less to the 42 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting south, the south side is where the sky plane exceeds and just from -sketching it out on the drawings it looked to me like the sky plane exceedance was going to increase by a factor of four. It's not just a little bump it's a'big piece. It's a question of can more be done there? Have there been sky plane variances granted in the neighborhood? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I can look into that as well. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I understand the observation that this home is in a separate community a private community however, I drove around and just from my.observations barring the sign that says that there's a separate community there it did not seem the area was significantly different from either side of Bay Ave. so I just I would say that the arguments about this for comparison of GFA purposes being separate is it does not strike me as sound. I say that in the spirit of giving you a chance to MARTIN FINNEGAN : I,wasn't speaking to the GFA's of the Salt Lake houses, this is just along Bay Ave. So, if you go this many houses up there and this many houses there that's what"I'm talking about. I'm just saying that yes, I mean it sits right at the gateway,to that community so I do think that it's relevant the'character of that area asWell. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, and lastly also related to GFA, this question may become irrelevant if we find out that these lots are joined but I don't see how the current owner owning both lots provides mitigation for the sky plane issue for two reasons. First is that, the . additional bulk and.size of the sky plane exceedance will exist no matter who owns the home. It will be apparent to all the neighbors or anybody that goes by so a common ownership does not strike me as a good argument for allowing a sky plane exceedance. Second, ownership is a very impermanent,status and the properties could change hands in a week, a month or a,-year so I just don't see how that is an effective mitigation for-such a large variance. I would ask you to comment so that I understand if there is something-I'm seeing incorrectly. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, I understand what you're saying that a future owner could you know feel differently about it. Right now, there's a house there that sits right on that line that is you know and so I was just saying right now I don't think the Jeffcoats are going anywhere, they've been there this is their you know forever home and so I just thought that it, was relevant. You may disagree with me but I do feel that the fact that they own that they may will probably all be sold together, maybe they will be both house would be sold together and we'll deal with that issue to MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If the property line disappears I think the sky plane issue disappears. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe the GFA becomes a different issue, I don't know and that's what we're trying to decipher: Anyone else with comments? Donna, anyone on line? Is there 43 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting anyone in the audience that wishes to speak? So, Martin, I can't instruct you what to do to your point about the GFA, I kind of feel it's imminent in light of what Leslie presented to the Town Board. I don't know how long Code Committee will or will not take but as I said it was my objection just cause of the questions in counsel .with the Town Attorney, we couldn't figure out based on that C of 0. The hearing today would be adjourned. I don't know if you want to adjourn did, we establish a date Kim or from the prior hearing it would be January also. BOARD ASSISTANT': It would be best instead of without a date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think in all fairness if the GFA specifically is going to be addressed by.the Town Board that should be resolved very quickly. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well, nothing happens very quickly. Look, as a practical matter if they were ready to this is going to Code Committee which means it has to be drafted, presented to the Town Board, it has to be noticed for a public hearing that is going to take another thirty days I mean if they were ready to pull,the trigger next week, we're still looking at December at the earliest before they have a public hearing and then they wait for another two weeks to actually enact it. So, we're looking at January or probably you know if they really, they could do it but just under notice requirements MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Of course, there's a calendar but are you fine with January? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea, I'm fine with January and in the meantime I can look into that lot and that whole issue. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Perhaps that whole issue goes away but because of the C of 0 it was to me something that was glaring. So, with that said I'm going to make a motion then that we adjourn the'application 8046 to January 6, 2026. Do I have a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you Margaret, all in favor, MemberAcampora? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I vote yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Lehnert. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I also vote in favor, the motion passes adjourned to January 6th on the 8th sorry. Thank you. 44 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8045—ANDREW BROOKS MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The'next application before the Board is for Andrew Brooks #8045. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's March 24, 2025 amended May 29, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet located at 373 Broadwaters Rd. in Cutchogue, NY SCTM#1000-104-12-6.3. This is fora front yard setback of 46.1 feet where 50 feet is required. Zack would you like to introduce yourself. ZACK NICHOLSON : Hi everyone, Zack Nicholson I'm the architect and representing Andrew Brooks. When Andrew contacted me earlier this year his desire to add to this existing dwelling was to create an attached garage which would also include a•more functional mud room, laundry room, entrance sequence to the house. This home has become Andrew's primary residence and in order to make the home more functional because currently you walk through the front door and there's nowhere to put your shoes and you know he's an avid sailor and beach enthusiast and so there's nowhere to really enter the home in a mudroom as he's looking for. So, our first design which I thought was important to show on the next page includes the garage and addition. After speaking with the Building Department and they bumped me up to the Planning Board because when this property was subdivided in, I believe in 2017 the front yard setbacks were put in place and 50-foot front yard setback cuts right through the north side of the house. The way the house is situated'with the bedrooms being to the south there really is no other logical place to connect a garage to the structure other than the north side. In speaking with Planning because this is a subdivided lot, not only are these setbacks but these are Covenants and Restrictions so I was advised that the Board rare and correct me if I'm wrong here because we may want to take this conversation in a different direction but I was advised that the Board rarely ever deviates from Covenants and Restrictions which is why we decided to omit the garage from the front yard. We will just do the rear yard I'm sorry side back of the house, mud room, laundry room addition to give Andrew a side entrance to the home better integrated to the back yard deck and create a more functional entrance to the house. BOARD ASSISTANT : You will submit an application for the garage at a later date? ZACK NICHOLSON : That is our current plan, yes. Again, trying to be you know respectful of the limitation of the site we are going to consider putting the garage somewhere'else on the property. Unfortunately based on the way this setback cuts through the home we don't want to move the kitchen window.the sink basically boxes us into this little corner at the back of the house of where to put this modest addition and so our you know under 100 sq. ft. 45 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting addition does cut through this front yard setback by 3.9 feet. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Zack I just want it for the record to include that the addition that you propose just sort of and I don't want say square off the house cause you're adding some deck but it's 9 feet by 10.3 feet. ZACK NICHOLSON : Yes MEMBER STEINBUGLER : You'd be 9 and 1 % inches. ZACK NICHOLSON : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Again,, to repeat what you just said, if you were to slide the addition into a conforming setback you'd actually lose the kitchen window.. ZACK NICHOLSON : Correct - MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : It looks rather benign. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a small addition, Margaret? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add that it's a very difficult lot to find. We sort of joked this morning prior to our meeting while we were waiting for the arraignment as far as each of us driving by at different times because the incline up the driveway you couldn't really tell if there was a second house there etc. It's a beautifully maintained property, I guess relatively new construction. MEMBER LEHNERT: I remember this application when they were creating the lot. ZACK NICHOLSON : Not too long ago yea they did the additions for the bedrooms on the south side several years after merging the lots and you know as I mentioned that you can't really put a garage attached to a bedroom so that kind of precludes us from being able to attach a garage anywhere else on the house so we are considering and will be in front of the Board when we can fit in the schedule to place the garage on the east side of the property. 461 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, there's no application but I mean the tough thing also is I don't want to suggest again the sort of natural terrain but there's constraints, you got retaining walls and there's all kinds of ZACK NICHOLSON : That is a hardship that we are going to present to you at a later. date. I'd be happy to discuss it now MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, I don't think it's important, we're just looking at the small addition for the laundry/mud room. I think with that any other questions, is there anyone in the audience here to speak about this application? Sir would you come to the podium and state your name and address. XAVIER FLEMING : Good morning, my name is Xavier Fleming I own the property known as 375 Wunneweta Rd. which is lot 104-12-3. I have full support for Mr. Brook's application, it's minimal, it clearly fills his need to build a mudroom and a laundry room and hopefully if there's any detriment to the adjoining neighborhood and I suggest that you approve this application.. He's waited a long time for it and the size of this application I think you should go through with what (inaudible).Thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you Mr. Fleming. Liz, Donna do you have anyone on line who wishes to speak on this application?Anyone have anything else to add. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, with that I'll make a motion that we close hearing #8045 Andrew Brooks and reserve decision for the October 16th Special Meeting. Do I have a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you Pat, Member Steinbugler. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Lehnert. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I also vote in favor the motion so moved. Thank you so much Zack. Just as a reminder to anyone in the audience application #8027 Strong's West Mill is adjourned without a date and application #8009SE Ulster Farms is adjourned to November 6th. Perhaps we want to take a break now just for a few minutes and we'll have the final October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting hearing of the day. I'll make a motion that we take a bathroom break for ten minutes, do I have a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you Margaret, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'd like to make a motion that we resume the October 2, 2025 Public Hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals, do I have a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, all in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye,thank you the motion passes. HEARING#8047—GREGORY WHITE MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The next application before the Board is for Gregory White #8047. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's May 14, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct first and second story additions to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) the construction exceeds the October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting permitted sky,plane as defined in Article I Section 280-4,of the Town Code located at 550- Locust Lane Southold, NY SCTM#1000-62-3-31. Just to site the relief that is being sought, this is for a proposed 21.6 foot front yard setback where 35 feet is required, a proposed 2.7 foot side yard setback where 10 feet is required, a proposed 19.4 foot combined side yard setback where 25 feet is required and of course the sky plane as mentioned.. Megan, I believe you're here to speak on behalf of the application today. MEGAN CARRICK : I am yes. My name.is Megan Carrick thank you for your time today. I'm here on behalf of my clients who reside at 550 Locust Lane. We are requesting some zoning relief in order to make some improvements to their house. First, the owners plan to enclose their existing front porch that is covered, this will allow them to reconfigure one of the front bedrooms of the house and add a bathroom. This portion of the project as you stated requires the front and side yard setback relief. Currently when you enter their house you walk directly into their living room. To improve the layout, we are proposing a small addition on the side of the house measuring 6 feet by 5.7 feet, this will serve as a mudroom and give them some space for their shoes and coats. Off of the mudroom we're proposing a covered front porch that is 3 feet by 6 feet. This will serve as the new main entrance to the house. In the rear of the property, we are proposing a one-story addition that is measuring 16.5 feet'by 17.8 feet. Attached to this addition will be a porch measuring 11 feet by 12.5 feet. Finally, we are proposing to remove a portion of the existing roof and replace it with a new roof with a steeper roof pitch• and some dormers. This change will create space for two additional bedrooms on the second floor. The new roof will sit on top of the existing second-floor joists but this will require the sky plane relief. Please let me know if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them,thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret do you want to start out? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Sure, I think in the application it says that the existing house exceeds the sky plane but I could not find that I couldn't see where. I wondered if that's shown on any of the drawings. MEGAN CARRICK : I'm not sure that the existing house exceeds sky plane, I'm sorry if that was noted in the application. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think it was in the text of the application but okay�you think it does not. I just wanted to clarify. MEGAN CARRICK : I do not believe it does. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I couldn't find where it did. 49 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEGAN CARRICK : With the sky plane being 10 feet above the grade and then going at a forty- five degree angle there. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you look at the front elevation you mark the existing roofline and it doesn't. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The rear of the chimney the same thing, it's all sort of shadowed. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would ask if there have been other sky plane variances granted in this neighborhood. MEGAN CARRICK : I know that a lot of the houses have small side yard setbacks, off of the top of my head. I am not sure if there is a sky plane that has been granted but I wouldn't be surprised if there was due to the side yard setbacks that are characteristic of the neighborhood., MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The project also proposes an outdoor shower and I just wonder what would be done with the wastewater from that? MEGAN CARRICK :.That would be piped to its own dry well, we are in the Health Department we need your approval first before we are able to get full Health Department approval but that is shown on our Health Department. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was question that I was going to ask, so you're abandoning the existing or the hope is to abandon the existing system which services the two bedroom house and you will be installing an IA system. MEGAN CARRICK : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it will be for four bedrooms. MEGAN CARRICK : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I hope I get the directions right here but it looks like all of the sky plane exceedance is in the well it's all on the right side of the house as you're facing the house and I think that's north but I'm not sure. MEGAN CARRICK : I always get that messed up too. so October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I wondered if that could be mitigated or reduced? I mean I think it would be difficult to eliminate it entirely but it might be possible to reduce it by having some of the added space be further towards the back of the house rather than squarely on top. MEGAN CARRICK : We're essentially looking to give them the space on the second floor without adding a full second floor so we're making that roof pitch steeper we are really it's the dormer that protrudes out that is exceeding the sky plane which is giving them that primary bedroom as we're calling it on the floor plans. They really are hoping to keep the existing ceiling height in the kitchen and living room. We would have to investigate how to make the house look nice while and cost effective by giving them that second floor if we were to shift it all the way to the left side of the house. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Even if not all the way, I think if that dormer on that right side was stepped back somewhat and the end of the addition pushed back towards the rear property line. I'm not an architect so I don't know the cost implications of this or the aesthetic implications but I'm just asking if there are other options that can reduce the sky plane exceedance? MEGAN CARRICK : I guess we would have to put a new roof on most of the from what I'm seeing right now, we would have to put a new roof over the back portion of house. We were hoping to keep the existing that is over the kitchen and living room and then we would have to reconfigure that space to be able to get that second bedroom up there to reduce that dormer.' MEMBER LEHNERT : It would make the framing a little more difficult. MEGAN CARRICK : It could potentially increase the cost for my clients. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would argue, these are the unintended consequences of the GFA which we just discussed at an earlier hearing and the sky plane law because this is a very small constrained lot with a well substantially older home than most and you know it's very hard to alter it for today's needs without penetrating that sky plane. The existing side yard setback on that one side you're not proposing any changes, you're just working off of 2.7 feet. ROBERT RILEY : Robert Riley, I live at 470 Locust Lane. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're a neighbor? ROBERT RILEY : I have the fence 2.33 inches away, 2.7 feet, yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Since you're at the mic right now did you want to share something? October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting ROBERT RILEY : I was just concerned about my privacy in my back yard. I don't want a dormer to get switched to the back yard. I'd rather have the dormer where it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry you said your address was 470 Locust Lane? ROBERT RILEY : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, which house when we look at the flax map are you? ROBERT RILEY : I'm on the corner. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Korn Rd. ROBERT RILEY : Yep MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You are the immediate adjacent neighbor. ROBERT RILEY : 2.7 and I have a fence there, I'm curious how you get a footing in I just don't want any damage to my fence. I don't have a problem with anything, I just wanted to see the homeowner but they're not here to tell them they have four windows looking at my fence, 33 inches, they open a window they can touch my fence. I was going to suggest that they redo their plan because that really doesn't make sense. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't even see the elevation, do we have the elevations? MEGAN CARRICK : There should be front and rear. MEMBER LEHNERT :Just front and rear. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But we don't have'the north -and south. So, you're speaking of the north side ROBERT RILEY : The rear,the rear of the house is my back yard. MEGAN CARRICK : You can see it on the plans. The windows were more for light than anything. ROBERT RILEY : As long as they're up like high that's good for light cause you need natural light. MEGAN CARRICK : Of course and that's what our client was hoping to achieve. ROBERT RILEY : (inaudible) I just don't want them to spend a lot of money on big windows when they see this much fence (inaudible). -October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEGAN CARRICK : Of-course,the windows are for natural light. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 1'.11 just remind you if you don't mind address the Board as opposed to each other,thank you. . MEGAN CARRICK : I think what we were just saying was he was concerned about the windows that face his property on the side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the addition on the north side and it appeared to be two banks of two windows. MEGAN CARRICK : Correct, which we were considering to be higher windows in preliminary design phases just to add some light into that space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would be more of a transom window than a full double hung. MEGAN CARRICK : Correct, yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you understand that comment? ROBERT RILEY : Yea, yea I wanted to talk.to Greg and Jean, they gave me a .plan. I got everything very nicely I signed no problem I was just hoping to see them today and address the transom windows instead of a double hung and to make sure they're not going higher. MEMBER PLANAMENTO It's very tight, there's a cat that kind, of ran down that space between your fence and the applicant's house when I was doing my inspection. I couldn't visually get back in there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I met a cat as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : L think Margaret asked a question, is there any way to.alter the design to better accommodate the sky plane? I think you gave a response relative to the expense and other points. Overall, I think you're maintaining an existing you know setbacks that you have site constraints because of the age of the house and .just as a visual.and we each all inspected the property independently but it seems that side of the street has much older housing stock than houses across the street that have greater front yards,or maybe they're actually even larger lots. I don't have any additional questions, Pat do you have questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rob S3 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Donna, is there anybody on line, it looks like a blank screen on this side. I'd like to see if there's anybody in the audience but it looks like we have an empty room. Sir, would you like to add any other comment? ROBERT RILEY : No, I just hope the plans stays the way it is,that's all. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, whatever relief if and when granted-it's tied to the actual plans as submitted by the applicant so they get stamped by the Zoning Board, those go to the Building Department so when a building permit is issued. The Building Department at inspection will catch any deviation. ROBERT RILEY : I did the same thing with my house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You've stated that you're going to be installing an IA system, you did make the application to the Board of Health? MEGAN CARRICK : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Great and I don't remember did you illustrate and I don't see it as I glance now, any proposed dry wells etc.? MEGAN CARRICK : On the Health Department site plan we do, we calculated it for the two inches of rainfall required in those, they will go in the rear yard of the house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're going to comply with MEMBER LEHNERT : The Building Department MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a stockade fence there and I think for the most part a pretty clean application to expand alterations and additions to a single home. Does anyone have any additional commentary? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I was just hoping to get some examples of sky plane variances in the neighborhood so we could do subject to. i ROBERT RILEY : I was also concerned about the fence. I mean I'll buy a new fence if it gets destroyed but as long as MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's your fence you said. ROBERT RILEY : Yes it is but it's 2.7 feet, how do you dig a 3 foot footing and not where do you put the dirt? 54 October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT: (inaudible) ROBERT RILEY : I'm in construction every day for forty years I know what happens. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think if the footings are supposed to be there and Rob you can better comment to it, I've seen many sites like literally right up to a lot line. ROBERT RILEY : As long as me and the builder are on the same page. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's between you guys. ROBERT RILEY : I'll put a new fence there. MEMBER LEHNERT :Again, that's between you and the homeowner. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The hope is that you should have you know a positive relationship. If,that's a problem, Megan you're hearing the concern maybe your client would choose to install the fence at their cost, I don't know. Megan, could you coordinate a couple of examples of variance relief for older homes? MEGAN CARRICK : In the neighborhood? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ideally in Founders Landing but if for whatever reason cause this is a relatively a new law to be fair if you could pull things, if it's not found in the immediate Founders Landing neighborhood maybe along Pequash Ave. or neighborhoods within the town�of Southold that are comparable to Founders Landing. MEGAN CARRICK : Sounds good, I will do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good, so I'm going to make a motion then that we close this hearing subject to the receipt of some examples of prior relief granted for sky plane and I'm going to ask for a second. MEMBER STEIN BUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you Margaret, Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I vote yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes ` MEMBER PLANAMENTO I also vote yes so motion passes. Thank you so much and we'll have a decision for you at our Special Meeting later this month. We have a little housekeeping to October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting do. I'm going to remind the audience again about Strong's West Mill #8027 was adjourned without a date and that was scheduled for 1:20 to start right about now but I don't think that anyone is here. Subsequently also Ulster Farms #8009SE which was schedule for 1:30 that is adjourned to November 6th. Finally, I will make a resolution for the next Regular Meeting with public hearing to be held on Thursday, November 6, 2025 at 9:00 AM. Do I have a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. A final Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on September 18, 2025, is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. Anything else to discuss or any items that need to be addressed. I make a motion to close the October 2, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals Public Meeting. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye 5,6 l October 2, 2025 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION i 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 41t— Elizabeth� �4(m Sakarellos DATE : October 9, 2025