Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/06/2025 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 November 6, 2025 10:13 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member(Vice Chair) MARGARET STEINBUGLER—Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant (left early) JULIE MCGIVNEY-Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant x November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Randolf J. Polyn/Andrea and Angelo Prowisiero#8044 4 John M. Haslbauer and Kathleen E. Haslbauer, as Trustees#8049 5 - 10 705 CR 48 LLC, Ulster Farms, LLC#8009SE 11- 15 Thomas Smith #8011 16- 25 Henry H. Bostic III and Ambriel Floyd Bostic#8055 26- 36 Rowsom Andrea Fagan Irrv. Trust#8050 37-40 Jacklyn Costantino and Andrew Charron #8052 40-48 Michael Liegey/Town Creek Real Estate, Inc. #8069 48- 53 Sean R. McCoyd #8056 54- 58 Robert and Nancy Bertorello#8057 59 - 70 Isaac Israel and Stephanie Israel #8051 70-74 615 Pike Street LLC#8035SE 74- 77 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for November 6, 2025. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter on the agenda before the Board is the State Environmental Quality Reviews SEQR. 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: Haslbauer and Hausbauer as Trustees #8049, Henry H. Bostic and Bostic #8055, Rowsom #8050, Costantino and Charron #8052, Michael Liegey/Town Creek Real Estate, Inc. #8069, McCoyd #8056, Robert and Nancy Bertorello #8057 and Israel and Israel#8051 so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have, two SEQR determinations, 615 Pike Street, LLC #8035SE. The subject action concerns a Special Exception to construct a Commercial Building with four (4) retail/takeout units and basement storage.pursuant to Town Code 280-45B (9). The Declared Action and Determination of Significance shall be determined by the Planning Board as Lead Agency, so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We also have a SEAR Determination for Ulster Farms #8009SE. The subject action concerns a Special Exception to construct two (2) commercial contractor business buildings. The Declared Action and Determination of Significance has been determined by the Planning Board as Lead Agency to be a Negative Declaration. Is there a second on that SEAR? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have one draft Decision before us, Polyn and Prowisiero #8044. Rob, do you want to summarize this for us. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes it was a waiver of merger, two properties up on Grand Ave. in Mattituck where one of the properties was sold out of the family but the subject property in question was not. Going through all the facts and also the chain of title to the subject property it was determined that the Board can grant the waiver of merger as applied for subject to the following conditions; proof that the waiver is in effect by way of a recorded deed from the applicant to a separate individual or entity conveying title to that portion of the property known as 3000 Grand Ave. The other condition of approval is, granted subject to condition approval shall not be deemed effective till the required conditions have been met. So, this was written to grant the waiver of merger as applied for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any discussion from anyone? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you said you're going to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to abstain. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'll make a second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye November 6,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I abstain. HEARING#8049—JOHN M. HASLBAUER and KATHLEEN E. HASLBAUER AS TRUSTEES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for John M. Haslbauer and Kathleen E. Haslbauer as Trustees. This is a request for a variance from Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's May 22, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 square feet in area located at 50 Osprey Nest Road in Greenport. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. As Leslie stated, we are here for a Gross Floor Area variance to allow my clients to construct a second-story addition-to their home. This is a 15,000 sq. ft. parcel in the R40 zoning district located on Ospreys Nest Road in the'Cleaves Point subdivision. My clients have lived on this property for over twenty years and have just simply grown out of it and it requires some additional living space for their family. The project contemplates.a 1,581 sq. ft. second-story addition. There is a small bump out in the back of the house and a little 58 sq. ft. enlargement of the porch. The property is entirely conforming otherwise to the bulk schedule the construction is that is. We are seeking a variance for 646 sq. ft. above the allowable gross floor area. As you know, the Cleaves Point community.has many shapes and sizes of homes. Many different sized lots and many homes within the Cleaves Point community have GFA's that exceed what is proposed here. Just to address the variance criteria, as I said Cleaves Point. has many one and two-story dwellings on various sized lots, some, larger, some substandard like this one at 15,000 sq. ft. The existing dwelling has been there since 1974 and is really in need of updating. I would submit to you that the granting of relief to allow a second-story addition which is tastefully designed and will have no negative impact on the surrounding community. I think we do have at least one letter in support that was submitted for the record. Unfortunately, due to the advent of the GFA regulations we do require November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting variance relief to allow for this addition. I would submit to you that the relief sought is not substantial under the circumstances here there are several houses I cited in my memo in the immediate vicinity that have greater GFA's than what is proposed here. The house two doors down has a GFA of 4,205 sq. ft. which is significantly higher than what we are seeking. The house around the corner is fifty-five hundred plus, another one is 4,237 which need a variance to maintain that, it was a pre-existing nonconforming GFA -but was sustained. Another house with 4,800 sq. ft, another one with 4,200. Based on the configuration of this subdivision the guidelines don't work here. Honestly, I'm not sure where we stand with that, last month we had a hearing that we adjourned to January while the Town Board is potentially considering a change in the code to eliminate the averaging. If that has to happen here, that can happen here we can't meet the averaging. I don't know how we would do it, there's only four houses on each block here but just you know there's many larger homes, there's some one-story homes that are similar in size to what is there. I would suggest to you that if you were to vary this based on the standard 267 criteria, we could certainly establish entitlement to relief just based on the consistency of what is proposed with the character of most of the homes in Cleaves Point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Martin, where did you get these GFA calculations and who did them? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Using.property record cards and Mark Schwartz is the architect on the project so you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We only accept GFA calculations from a licensed design professional. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I thought that was the whole point of getting rid of this averaging thing because it is kind of erroneous CHAIRPERSON FINNEGAN : It isn't gone yet. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And everybody else who has submitted this given it's difficulties and challenges this neighborhood is not the only neighborhood where people could not conform to a straight street on both sides of the street and so on but it says right in the guidelines, do the best you can. We don't have anything other than your memorandum which confirms square footages that were not submitted by a licensed design professional and telling us which subject lots they're including. 6 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : I can certainly submit that. I think you can tell by your normal review and observation that there are many houses, the house two doors down was just built and the one is referenced in the Zoning Board decision that you already determined what the GFA is there but I am happy to have Mark sign a letter and get it into you that would verify the MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think what's on -the screen is Mark Schwartz's signed analysis of four of the homes,.no? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Those are for the properties that are over.- MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You could take seventeen houses if you just count the linear like the immediate neighborhood all visually shown there, just on the two streets and around the corner there are seventeen houses that you can do an average on but I think as Martin just even said, because of the review if he's willing to table it why don't we just adjourn? CHAIRPERSSON WEISMAN : Yes but I want to make sure that whatever is in our record now is MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Why should Mark Schwarz or somebody have to do the calculation if this goes away? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to do that you can. I can't guarantee in any way how long it's going to be before MARTIN FINNEGAN : I understand that and I've stated for the record that because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause if you look at them they're very different sized lots. MARTIN FINNEGAN : because of the size of the lots here and existing homes achieving under the current guidelines the averaging we can't do that okay. I'm not going to you guys know that just from walking around the neighborhood but I do believe that from a character of the community standpoint and if you take that off the table that we can certainly be entitled to this relief. It's a basic second story addition that will create a home that is entirely consistent with the character. So, yes, I understand that we have to wait for the Town Board. My understanding, Julie has, been trying to update me but I know it's in Code Committee and I adjourned another one till January but I think my clients are willing to wait it out because they need the second story addition, they need the space and nobody can afford to knock it down and build a new house anymore so we have to do what we have to do to try to get the relief here. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you look at some of the houses, existing houses are very comparable for other houses on that size lot. The bigger houses that are there are on much bigger lots. The neighborhood as you said, varies substantially and we're working on it is all I can say. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I understand. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have a Code Committee date yet set up. We will do that as soon as absolutely as soon as possible just to try and keep this moving forward until the zoning update is complete and the bigger picture is looked at. I mean what we're proposing is not necessarily the total scope and thelinal thing that the code update (inaudible). The ZBA was proposing an interim state to make things much easier for us and for property owners and for expeditors and so on. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yesterday during the open session Paul addressed with the Board having to go to Code Committee and they want to have so we're going to schedule that appointment. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good. So, should I just kick this to January 8th with the other one or is that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know if we can do January. To tell you the truth I think you'll be safer going to February. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean why keep doing this cause then you gotta renotice and this and that just put it on for February. Let me see if there's anybody on Zoom who wants to address the property. Liz, do you want to tell people how they can participate on Zoom if they wish to? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We don't have any hands. Good morning, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application, I ask that you raise your hand. I will see you and I will move you in and you will be able to talk. If you are on a phone, please press *9 to raise your hand and then I will tell you what to do to unmute.Thank you, no hands Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to add one observation, of the homes that for which Mark Schwartz did perform the GFA analysis and I think there are four of them, fully three were built prior to the law being enacted that the (inaudible) size and the fourth appears to have been grandfathered because it didn't require a variance and it looks like the application November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting was filed at about the time the law was enacted. So, understanding that the law may change, under the current law these homes were all built prior to the law being enacted and possibly were motivational for the town to pass a law restricting large homes. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I understand what you're saying Margaret, I honestly don't think that Cleaves Point was the model for the GFA law there's some more egregious examples out there in the town. Just so I'm clear, Leslie, if we adjourn this to see if the code changes, do you still want me to follow up with the GFA? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, look we do have something from Mark in here I just didn't think it was inclusive of the range of sizes which would have been more accurate in terms of the averaging. We have something here and I don't see any point in struggling to provide more, I mean do you anybody? MEMBER PLANAMENTO :-No, I think it's a waste of time and money. My concern is, is a February date sufficient because I think it needs to be later. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I doubt it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Which I don't mean to keep you waiting but I think maybe if you said like April. ' MARTIN FINNEGAN : We could just monitor it and if it has to be I have the other one and I'm sure I'm going to have more. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's in the same category. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right so they have to be, I will be pestering people down the hall here to see if they can't get this before CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what else you can do is just call the office. If you see that it's getting close to whatever it's scheduled and just simply request an adjournment so that we don't have to go through this whole thing and appearing.you don't have to show up and all of that. We'll just do it that way and we will have it in our agenda requested adjournment to whatever date. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay J CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just easier for you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe then just adjourn without a date to begin with? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'd rather stay on the radar there the calendar. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think February is realistic. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well, then maybe MEMBER LEHNERT : Make it February and then we adjourn it again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN What we're proposing should get through the Code Committee very quickly. It's just a'matter of what the Town Board wants to do with it and what they're schedule looks like in terms of, it has to be done by public hearing. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right, of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see the down side to it but somebody else might. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can we take a five minute recess cause we're going to have ask one of the two ladies to come over cause Kim has to leave she has an emergency. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to adjourn this to February 5th is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I'm going to make a motion to recess for five minutes or so because Kim had an emergency and Donna will be coming over from the office in the Annex. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye to November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll be right back. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie you can continue, I can handle it from here while Donna runs over there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thanks Liz. Motion to reconvene. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye m HEARING#8009SE—705 CR 48, LLC/ULSTER FARMS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is 705 CR 48 LLC/Ulster Farms LLC #8009SE. This was adjourned from August 7th and September 4th and October 2"d and we are hoping not to adjourn it anymore. Since all of this took place, we did get a SEAR Determination of Negative Declaration which is what we needed to proceed. We read that into the record so we now have a Neg Dec. You have amended your application 'a couple of times and the Planning Board submitted a bunch of comments to us which-1 know you have. I believe almost every recommended condition of approval which they included are things you offered. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're confirming? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes, correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name for the record. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Paul Pawlowski owner of 705 CR 48. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think at this point we have pretty much everything we need, does the Board request or want anything else or do you want to talk about anything, put anything in the record that isn't already in the record? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a question and I think it's just relative to the various updates that have occurred, I think the Planning Board issued a September 11th memo asking for some changes like an increase of parking spaces from forty-five to sixty and a request for a PDF before going through all the official plans just an informal PDF showing that update. Is that something we need to see? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : You should have it. Since that September we did have an October meeting and submitted all the updated plans as per their comments so it's on the official stamped plans that you got for your comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Since it's an October memorandum from the Planning Board so they're referring to those current plans in their memo. PAUL PAWLOWKSI : And they're in the plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, are there any questions or comments from the Board Members? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? ELLEN TALBOT : I'm Ellen Talbot and I have the piece of land that is just west of the Ulster Farm application at 405 CR 48 and I have submitted some comments via Zoom the last time you guys met that's on record already. My two largest concerns right now looks like the application is going to be successful in going forward would be that no utility poles get put up in front of my piece of land that's going to be used to service the applicant's project which would impeded any kind of use or development from my property going down the road. The other concern I have is that, the person who purchased the land before Mr. Pawlowski had it put a lot of fill, they came in illegally and raised the grade and I'm concerned\about the runoff over my piece to the west. Those are my concerns and I would like the Town Board to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Planning Board will also be having a public hearing I'm sure you're aware of that right? No, no more are you all done? 3L November 6,2025 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : 1'11 speak to.those two things if you want. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, why don't you do that Paul. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Paul Pawlowski, 705. So, PSE&G I met with them and what they're proposing will not prevent any sort of curb cut on any neighboring properties so access will never be denied and it's completely illegal.Two, we had to do because it's larger than one acre, storm water prevention plan for during construction and after and it's designed for like a three-inch rainfall, no water will leave this property in any way. There's something like twenty-five dry wells, ten foot by twenty foot deep on this property. It's the most drainage I've ever done on a project because of the new code so we're fairly confident between the landscaping and the pitch of how it was designed and required by the DEC there will not be any neighboring runoff whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you will be in compliance with Stormwater Management Code? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes during construction and yearly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so that you're aware, there is a code in place that the ZBA and Trustees and pretty much every board Planning Board included, requires that you uphold and that is to prevent any kind of stormwater from running onto any other property. It must all be contained on site, it can't run into the road, and it can't run onto adjacent properties. The applicant has just explained that they're going to be in conformance with that requirement. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes, it's been approved both by the Town Engineer and the DEC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,terrific thank you Paul. Anybody else in the audience? CHRIS SHASHKIN : My name is Chris Shashkin, I think the project is good and will be very useful for various commercial enterprises that need space in Mattituck and Laurel. My only concern is not so much traffic but more of vehicles that are exiting and the safety of them making turns. I don't know I'm not a civil engineer but I just know that let's say that I'm renting space there and I exit with my pickup truck which has a long trailer and I'm doing a job in Greenport, I would have to go to the second light by Wendy's and make a very wide left turn. I mean there is striping there, I think it could be done but by the same token if I am in Riverhead and coming back'there is a cut out by Strawberry Fields but on the eastbound, I'm sorry on the westbound side of the North Rd. the road is already narrowing to one lane there so I don't think that you could really make a turn there. I'm just thinking of course of the stretch limo tragedy in Cutchogue. Then the next cutout is closer to (inaudible) and again, I assume it's wide enough but maybe you can speak to that. 1 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting PAUL PAWLOWSKI : So we met on site with the DPW and went over this quite a lot with the Planning Board and DPW, but I'll talk from like a person that had a commercial piece of property there many years ago and of even the neighboring property. It's actually a very good situation for traffic because of there's two lights right there almost at the entrance of the property and for many, many years many and so what we're proposing is indoor you know for smaller companies. If you look at the site plan it's not developed for tractor trailers or large landscape trailers it's predominately for indoor contractor, use number one. Let's just say there is a delivery during construction or our site is set up to handle a tractor trailer so they're coming in and out of it. Now leaving the property for twenty plus years if not longer every I would say Marty has serviced every Mack truck on the. Northfork with forty-foot beds and they've gotten in and out of there no problem. I personally had a landscaping company behind Wendy's Deli and have had to navigate those roads many times and making a U-turn at the light is plenty wide enough and then there are several ways to get back to the property if you're heading east. It's a good situation for navigation but ultimately for our site it's really developed and designed for smaller businesses, vans, box trucks not so much tractor trailers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me also for your benefit, the memorandum from the Planning Board sites traffic safety as something that they're looking into. I'm going to read you what they have told us so you'll be informed. It says, the Planning Board has request that the Suffolk County Department of Public Works review traffic safety and turning movements at the site and at CR48 Cox Neck Rd. Particular concerns include, limited eastbound access, potential U-turns by large vehicles and the risk of vehicles using the public right of way for staging. The Planning Board recommends that the county and town consider installing a no U- turn sign at Cox Neck Rd. Evaluating a dedicated left turn signal for the eastbound movements, installing no parking standing signs along CR48 to prohibit roadside loading or staging. These measures will help reduce conflicts and improve circulation consistent with public safety objectives under 280-143. So, I think between the Planning Board and Department of Public Works and the applicant your concerns are their concerns also and are being addressed. CHRIS SHASHKIN : Okay but then wouldn't that inhibit vehicles again, that are exiting and want to go to Greenport? So now you wouldn't be able to make a U-turn at Wendy's that doesn't seem to make PAUL PAWLOWSKI :Just to talk on that, the Planning Board has met with them on site as well. A Member of the Planning Board and they're going to make like certain things like not parking on the shoulder but there's no intention to get rid of that light and that U-turn. November 6,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These were thoughts they had, they were not conclusions they were things they were looking at to see what would work. CHRIS SHASKIN : Okay, cause (inaudible) would be swinging totally in the direction that probably no one would want. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No, no one in the town would want that let alone our project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? Are we ready to close? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Just for scheduling purposed do you know when a decision happens is it the next meeting? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We make every effort to have a draft decision to discuss at the next meeting which would be in two weeks. Depending on how many we have and how complicated they are at the very worst it would be at the next meeting after that which would be a month from now at the public hearing but we will try to have it at the next at the Special Meeting in two weeks. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8011—THOMAS SMITH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Smith #8011. This was adjourned from May 1, 2025. The application has subsequently been amended, we have field inspection notes from the Trustees but we are not sure whether those notes related to the old application or the amended application. So, Liz Kim was going-to find from Liz Cantrell if the Trustees were aware of the amended application and had reviewed it, do you have any update on that by any chance? SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I believe Julie and Kim talked to Liz yesterday, I don't know anything more than yesterday's conversation. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can you just go next door and check with her because Kim sent her the updated amended plans and asked her if the Trustees had seen that so that. happened between probably three and this morning from yesterday afternoon. SR. OFFICE SAKARELLOS : I will ask. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the meantime let me who is here to represent the application. TOM SMITH : Tom Smith the owner of 3121 Oaklawn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN . September 24, 2025 we have an amended Notice of Disapproval, I'm going to enter into the record what the current variance requests are. This is to demolish a single-family dwelling per town code and reconstruct per FEMA regulations a two-story dwelling with additions and alterations to an existing accessory garage and an accessory pergola and accessory hot tub. One, the rear yard setback of the dwelling is at 11.8 feet, the code requires 35 foot minimum, lot coverage is 23.17%, the code permits a maximum of 20%, the accessory garage pergola and hot tub are in the side yard where the code requires a rear yard location. I'd like to ask you a question, you stated in your application that based on a feasibility study the only feasible location for an IA system is in the front yard. We have no record of a feasibility study, who did it? TOM SMITH : Once again I'm Tom Smith the owner and I'm here with my wife Jen and also with me is Jeff Patanjo from Island Wide Engineering so he conducted that study. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me get some testimony from you then cause we don't have the study, did you write anything up on that study? TOM SMITH : It's a schematic, it shows the property and the different quadrants that were considered. November 6,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have that schematic. TOM SMITH :There were some notes on there as to why certain quadrants were not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But there was no conclusion on it that said, this is the only place it can be which is what your application stated.Just tell us what the story is with your JEFF PATANJO : Good morning, Jeff Patanjo from Island Wide Engineering. We were hired to design and prepare the sanitary system for the project. Obviously, it's going to be an IA style system. There it is right there with the red X's through it. We analyzed the other possible locations for the sanitary system. All of the ones with the red X's don't work for various reasons. Number one, the Suffolk County Health Department for a new system was not allowing to be placed in the rear yards so they require it in the front yard. If there was an existing system in the rear yard, we could potentially put it back in the same location but since this is considered new construction it has to be in the front yard. In addition to that is the setback requirements for various items as the IA tank and due to the high ground water proximity, we have to do infiltrator style systems which are eight inches deep. They have to be three-foot separation to ground water. That would make the system going in the driveway area not work because of the height. We'd have to raise up the system in front of the garage that it wouldn't work grading wise and there's a little section down there on the bottom just to show it. The proposed grade if you move the sanitary system further away from the waterbody it would be about four-feet higher than the floor elevation of the garage so that garage would be non-functional. In addition, grading to the neighboring properties and slopes grading towards the wetlands they don't work. The rear yard, the two rear yards I'll say behind the garage and then one further, those are closer to the wetlands. Again, there's not enough room to install the infiltrator's system with the raised grades. The current location that we have it we originally proposed it I think it was six and half feet away from the bulkhead in its current location. We did make some modifications and we brought it in as tight as we could, I believe it's now 10.1 feet away for 10.2 feet away from the bulkhead. Again, this is being placed in the same location as the existing system, the existing system is a non-functional old style it's a pool in the ground and that's it. Now we're bettering-the whole entire application by installing an IA system moving it further away from the waterbody and there's now proper ground water separation. We have three foot to groundwater which is the required minimum, it meets all of the requirements for a typical Suffolk County Health Department approved system with the exception obviously and that's why we're here today separations. This is one of the tightest sites that we have ever worked with. The proposed project is making groundwater safer, it's providing new updated sanitary system and it meets code. 17 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you that's what I wanted in the record because we're very aware of the very small size and irregular shape of the actual subject parcel and it's extremely constrained by a lot of things. TOM SMITH : One other thing just to comment on, one of the other concerns expressed by the Trustees where the retaining walls that would have been needed based on the old configuration in the front yard especially the fact that it would have been up right up against the bulkhead. So, the fact that the infiltrators now are going north and south, we have more distance to the bulkhead going from what was 6 feet to 10 feet and that will all be a natural buffer. We were able to remove those retaining walls completely and that was a major concern of theirs. JEFF PATANJO : To add to that is not only did we remove the retaining walls but we did it all vegetated and as part of the proposal we're providing a 10 foot wide non turf buffer, vegetated non turf buffer along the whole bulkhead and wetland line so we modified it to remove any hard structures with vegetative. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, do you have any questions about this amended application? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just to go back to that vegetated buffer, does that mean what is now a graveled area will become vegetated? TOM SMITH : The area right now if you look at the area that is along the bulkhead is actually that's not gravel, that's natural grade it's just soil right there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm talking about to the I'll say the right side, if you're facing the creek with the house behind you the right side of the property adjacent the brick walkway is gravel you know stone. TOM SMITH : So, if you look at the northeast corner will stay the way it is which is gravel. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That was my question,the northeast corner. TOM SMITH : The entire front yard will have a 10 foot buffer and that's where the IA septic system is. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thank you. November 6,2025 Regular Meeting TOM SMITH I just wanted to make sure just to touch on maybe the lot coverage improvements we're making as well cause those were an area of highlight or concern by the Trustees as well. Did everyone get a copy? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we did. I think you reduced it from 24.6 to 23.176%. TOM SMITH : Yeah there were four areas that we're looking to you know improve for our- benefit and we made substantial changes. We reduced the pergola in half, the outdoor shower being moved eliminates it from lot coverage completely, the garage stair overhand was removed so that's no longer part of lot coverage and then jacuzzi is about twenty-five percent smaller. We reduced the pergola by fifty percent, the jacuzzi by twenty-five and the other two items no longer contribute to lot coverage. Again, to the point that was made by the Board, this lot is still'small if you tweak anything it has a more meaningful impact on that lot coverage percentage number than you would in typical (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a question then which I'd like to hear your answer for, the August 6, 2025 field inspection report from the Trustees quote questioned the amount of construction on such a small constrained lot. The garage is there one story now, the addition of a jacuzzi, pergola I mean I know it's an old one that's been there a long time. TOM SMITH So the pergola now being reduced down to only 50 sq. ft. is pretty much the same size as the trellis there now that's been there and I've owned the property for twenty years, that trellis was there,when 1 took possession of the property. In my view we're not really adding to lot coverage that's physically there maybe the town was not aware of it but and that's 50 part of the 89% increase. The house was there pre-existing, the garage.is there pre-existing I mean the shower and the overhand on the garage we've eliminated that from lot coverage, it's now only 89 sq. ft. that we're adding. So, we're trying to do what we can, think the other thing I just want to touch too is, so we're asking for 89 sq. ft. of improvement. When I think about all of the environmental improvements, we're making I'd like to touch on these quickly. We're lifting,the house, so it's now protected from a five-hundred=year event which Jockey Creek has never experienced.There's no longer any basement or crawl space. We're removing a fifty-year-old concrete block cesspool what was horrific for the environment. We're adding a new state of the art IA system, we're adding a storm drainage system, we're putting all of the electric underground working with my neighbor to do-that and there's a non turf area of 9S of this property. So, when I look at all the things we're doing to help and support the environment and we're also building a house that's still in character with the neighborhood it's the same house, same size same everything. When you look at all of those positive enhancements or improvements to the environment and then what we're seeking which is 89 sq. ft. of additional lot coverage I think it's a very fair request. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Keep in mind that this is a self-imposed hardship, you demolished the house. TOM SMITH : Well, the plan originally was a major renovation 49% and when we opened up the house it practically fell down the roof so it wasn't practical so self-imposed to some extent. The original plan that was submitted to the Trustees over a year ago and was approved and we acted upon with .a building permit was just a major renovation of 49%, we're trying to keep it just below that 50%. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the photos submitted and just from visual inspection you see the entire interior was gutted, I mean it was way beyond 49%. Regardless of whether you feel that is was because it was the age of the structure or whatever and I believe•bringing the house to FEMA compliance standards is a benefit to the community and the neighborhood and the waterways but I do think that we're here and there's things that are being discussed, pergolas, jacuzzies and the location, whether you were aware of it when you acquired it or not may or may not have been recognized by the town. So, I mean there's a responsibility on the property owner also. TOM SMITH : That's fair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One other thing though that we do not just with you but with any application before the Board is an effort that when things come before our Board to make the property conform to the greatest extent possible to the code. The argument that well, this stuff was there anyway is something the Board kind of discusses with applicants because the removal of certain things in order to gain other things is something that we particularly explore with applicants so that we get the most conforming possible lot coverage. As you said and your neighbors know and we do too, it's a very small lot, you couldn't build anything on there now probably. I mean everything would require major variance, relief but it's there and it's a viable residential property and you know having said that, our job it is to make sure that you are doing some environmental improvements certainly and the Board recognizes that but we're going to try and do what balances the benefit to you as the applicant with the welfare of the community that's our job that's what the law requires us to do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add that there is opposition from some neighbors .in addition to support. It's a very difficult lot to work on. Are there any variance requests that you're willing to perhaps remove? We have six different requests; I understand the need of having a FEMA compliant residence and we support the idea of an IA system. These are things you have to do regardless of what the outcome of this hearing is. Is it a necessity to have a jacuzzi or a trellis and can you explain again why? If you're willing to remove something that makes it easier to offer other relief. Zip November 6,2025 Regular Meeting TOM SMITH : Again, I came in removing two of the four so that's at least the impact it had on the lot coverage so that was my effort to be accommodating. The IA is an absolute right, that's for our benefit and the environment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't have a choice about it. Long before the Department of Health formerly required this sort of thing the Zoning Board was implementing conditions of approval to require IA systems.on new construction or major, major construction. The whole North Fork we're water, we're water everywhere, we have incredible environmental we're fragile environmentally and so all of us who live here want to do whatever we can to make sure that it's as healthy as possible for all of us. How about you Rob, questions or comments or anything? TOM SMITH : Again, let me just say one thing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to wait for Liz to get back to us and see what the Trustees have to say. TOM SMITH : Our most important priority right now is to start moving right, we started this a long time ago and we're really excited to move forward with the project. If we have to accommodate a little bit more, please we're just looking to start. It's been a year since we started the project, we were in front of you six months ago, I did go to the Trustees based on your guidance I still have to go back to them so I'm looking for closure as much as anything else and to move on and you know start the project. JENNIFER SMITH : I want to speak to one thing which is the self-imposed, yes we hear you and we understand but I want you to understand that it wasn't a premeditated self-imposed thing. We thought we were staying within the constraints of what we did when we did the 49% build and when we got there the roof was rotted and we did do more but I want you to understand. I think our character is very important and it wasn't a self-imposed gotcha, we think we can do more so I just wanted to make that clear. So, yes, it is self-imposed but it wasn't a premeditated self-imposed it happened and we saw it. Does that make sense? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea MEMBER PLANAMENTO : First, I think for future for anyone in the audience that's listening when you find yourself in that position that's when you should run to the Building Department and say hey, there's termite damage or there's a problem here you don't continue gutting a structure. JENNIFER SMITH : I just said I don't disagree. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't mean to make it JENNIFER SMITH : No, I think it's important the most important thing here and I know is the character of who we are. We're in this town so we're really good people so that to me is the biggest thing that I want people to understand.there was no premeditated let's see what we can get out of here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that you made that very clear at the last public hearing, you're just repeating what you said before. JENNIFER SMITH : Thank you, but I obviously that's the most important thing even if we didn't get approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we hear you. JENNIFER SMITH : The second thing is, I agree with Tom and my piece would be then the first thing to go would be the hot tub. I also want to let you know, none of that was in"the thing because we weren't doing this phase, we were never going to do any of this, we were advised if you have to go through what you're going through go for what you guys would want to eventually to go for. So, then we put the addition of the hot tub in, it wasn't in there in the beginning cause we weren't we were just doing a 49% build we knew we couldn't have it but then when we knew we had to go through all of this we were advised if you're going through it go through what you might want to do eventually. So, my and I don't know if I can speak to my husband on this, I would say take out the hot tub. I don't care it was an extra, we were like if it's not take it out, I really don't care. We need a house that's the most important thing so take that out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,thank you. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I have a question about the Stop Work Order, can you just go back through you had a building permit and then you had a Stop Work Order. Where did that go awry? TOM SMITH : We had lengthy discussions with Amanda in the Building Department about our initial project and what we planned to do. Originally, we wanted to keep it small, we wanted to keep it within a certain budget, it's a. cottage it's 1,200 sq. ft. and we're going to use it probably half the year. We worked very closely with her and submitted plans multiple times to get to I said listen, I really want to stay below that 50% so we agreed to what that was and I'll be honest it always felt like it may up end being more just because the number of windows and things like that but we consulted with Amanda in the Building Department and they said, you're approved on this basis. So, we said fine and we moved forward. This house is fifty plus years old right. When we opened up the roof it was the plan was just to replace just the November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting perimeter of the roof. It was physically impossible, it was falling down, it was you know structurally unsound, there was no sheathing in the walls, this was really a cottage that was in much worse shape that we ever thought. The entire roof had to be replaced, I was in Florida we were both in Florida at the time so we were relying on our builder on what to do. Granted to the point made you know we went beyond that 50% which again, we knew it was borderline to begin with and that's where we got the stop order the Stop Work Order. Then at that point we came to the town and said OKAY what's the next-step and they said, well now you have to go to the ZBA so if you want to do more, now's the time to do it. Now we obviously thought about okay what's the bigger plan here, what do we want to consider doing and that's what you have in front of you now. It's just which we're thrilled with, at the end of the day what this final outcome would be but it wasn't the initial plan anyway. I hope that helps. JENNIFER SMITH : It's also kind of a blessing in disguise cause I don't think had we known we were going to do this we would have built a completely different house. We are allowed to go up, so we would have put a second floor, we would have tried to put a second floor. It's all about my grandkids and three adult daughters so we really could use an extra bedroom. In hindsight we're staying it's the exact same we never changed the footprint at all which is not really an ideal footprint at all but now we're stuck with it. TOM SMITH : I think that's a valid point, had we known originally that we were going to go this far in this detail and (inaudible) ZBA we would have redone the whole house, second floor going up to thirty feet. I think at the end of the day this is in very much in character with the neighborhood. It's still single story, yes, the garage is going up but also keep in mind with the garage our lots sits about eight feet below the neighbors behind us. A second story on a lot is not what it typically is on a normal parcel because right now only about three feet or so of that garage is visible it's a very unique lot. It's lower as well compared to the neighbors behind but to my wife's point, we would have definitely built something very different. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Please come forward and state your name. LUCY HARRIS : My name is Lucy Harris I've seen you all before. I'm very confused about what's happening here. I got a notice that this was about the garage, the pergola, the hot tub and the outdoor shower nothing at all about the house was mentioned, nothing. The neighborhood thought that this was about what was originally called Phase Two which didn't include anything on the house. I just want Tom and all my neighbors were (inaudible) to my objections to know, I was here for the hearing about the house and I didn't object. Tom has the right to build his house, he has to comply with zoning regulations and that was that but November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting things changed dramatically when the house was closed up and there was a Work Stop on it. We don't object to Tom building a house on a' property that he has because the house is already there. We're here to object, today we have other objections to the house, to the garage, pergola, the hot tub and the outdoor shower. I didn't see anything on the plan or in the notes to what I got about eliminating the outdoor shower. I don't know what happened to that. The changing of the size.of the outdoor shower.and the changing of the size of the hot tub is still abut his two neighbors directly on the property lines, they're not setback in any way. The lot coverage is still over what the Zoning Board allows, so those conditions haven't changed. The fact that the water level is so close`to the surface there, I don't think that if the house coming back to the house, was two stories and all that I don't think that would have been allowed so I think that's just continued (inaudible) on the part of and his plans just to confuse things. We also got a drawing of what the new garage is supposed to be and it's completely different from what the drawing of what, the other garage was. There's no staircase, there's no bathroom I don't understand why there needs to be a second floor. If there's no staircase, how are they gonna get to the second floor? It's a tiny little space. So, we don't object to Tom having a house on the property. We object to all the other stuff that overcovers it and we're not addressing the house issue yet cause we don't know anything about it, we didn't get any notice about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house still has a rear yard setback of 11.8 feet as it originally did,that's still before the Board for a rear yard setback which is where the house sits now. LUCY HARRIS : That wasn't in this notice that I got, anything to do,with about the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can't speak to that but it is still a part of the application. LUCY HARRIS : The letter I got saying certified mail dealt only with the garage and-the garage stuff it didn't mention the house'at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not sure why that is but I think I entered into the record you know what the application was as amended. I'll repeat it, it's the rear yard setback of the house, it's the lot coverage of 24.6% and its accessory structures, jacuzzi, hot tub, accessory garage in a side yard that's where they're proposed where the code requires a rear yard. That's the amended application. LUCY HARRIS : Okay, I guess I misread it, I didn't see anything about the house. We don't want all those accessory buildings it's going disrupt the neighborhood, it's going to disrupt the roadway. It seems unnecessary on such a small piece of land. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, we hear you, anybody else? Is there anybody on Zoom? November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting RENATO STARCIC : My name Renalto Starcic I'm at 205 Private Rd. #3 and they have a roadway through my property which I don't have a problem it was grandfathered. I'm for this project because it's improving the area. The old septic system is definitely no good and what they improving it I think is good for neighborhood and Jockey Creek.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anybody else? Anything from the Board? Tom did you submit your amended application to the Trustees? TOM SMITH : No, the tweaks that you're seeing that I made was not shared with them. I know I have to go back to them and it will be shared the next time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have not resubmitted. TOM SMITH : No, I have not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that answers our question. TOM SMITH : I was told not to by them, I was told to share the results of our discussion with you, you make a final decision and they don't want to see me again until that time essentially. SR. OFFICE ASSISTANT : Excuse me Leslie, I spoke with the Trustees and correct what Tom Smith said. They have not received any revised plans or whatever from the applicant. They received the email late last night so they weren't able to review it yet and it's very blurry so maybe we will get them bigger copies or if Tom Smith will submit. Also, the Trustees have tabled it for the ZBA decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay just wanted to make sure we were clear. Alright are you ready to close Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8055—HENRY H. BOSTIC III and AMBRIEL FLOYD BOSTIC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Henry H. Bostic III and Ambriel Floyd Bostic #8055. This is request for a Reversal of the Building Inspector's June 11, 2025 Notice. of Disapproval pursuant to Article III Section 280-13C and based upon an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage containing an artist studio at 1) the proposed use in the accessory building is not a permitted accessory use located at 5305 Narrow River Rd. in Orient. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. We are here for a Reversal of a Notice of Disapproval to permit the construction of an artist studio in a proposed accessory garage on my client's property. I guess technically I'm asking you to deem it incidental to the single-family use. This is a nearly seven-acre parcel in the R200 Zoning District on Narrow River Rd. in Orient. The property actually takes off access off of the back of Platt Rd. and there's a driveway that would' go up and actually connect to the proposed garage. The proposed accessory structure is entirely compliant to the bulk schedule so the only relief we need is just for the acknowledgment of the use. A little bit about my client Amber Bostic, she has been a professional artist for over thirty years. She launched her career with a line of handmade fashion accessories back at that time and later transitioned to creating a line, of hand painted textiles which were know as the Amber Floyd her maiden name Home Textiles. They continued to be distributed to this day. She is an expert in many mediums including sketch painting, screen painting and sculpting. Her work has been featured in shows in New York and Los Angeles. She also leads up a project called The Econ Project which is a non-for-profit producing community art and theater projects in Brooklyn and out here on the North Fork and she's also a poet. So, she is heavily invested in the art world and she would like to continue doing art in her home here in Orient. The project involves creating an art studio within a structure that will have a two-car garage and a half bathroom. Making reference to back in 2021 when the Board completed its interpretation of the code and established a list of elements and conditions that have to be net in order for the artist studio used to be deemed customary and incidental, that would be from the Wilson, Ryckman and Nardolillo decisions which I remember well. Just to review those, the existing single-family residence will remain, the principle use on site, the artist studio would be located in the portion of the conforming accessory garage. It would be strictly for the applicant's personal use. There will be no lessons or any type of public involvement with the proposed artist studio, no demonstrations. The applicant has no employees, it's again, just for personal and private use within her home and property. We don't anticipate anybody even realizing it's there. The structure is proposed in the northwest corner of this property. As you can see from the survey, it's a very large property, the neighboring parcels are farm parcels one of which is DRS land you know there's nobody next door is the bottom line. It's not going to have any November 6,2025 Regular Meeting impacts on the neighboring lot. Again, it clearly will not even be visible from the street because of the proposed location of the structure on a seven-acre parcel. All of the art work created and in existence will be stored within the interior of the structure. As I mentioned there will be no sales of any kind on the property. There is a half bath proposed on the lower level and despite having many different mediums for her art, glass blowing is not one of them and she will be limiting her work to sketch painting, screen printing and sculpting, there will be no cooking or sleeping. We have provided the Health Department approval for the structure which makes that cleat that that's not permitted. I mean in addition to the art studio there will be garage and storage space that's essentially the whole thing, no accessory apartment and no gym. That would be the list of criteria that you established for the use and I'm happy to answer any other questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you talk to us a little bit about the actual proposed design of this studio? It seems to be it's an upper studio, a lower studio, it's a two-car garage, the bathroom it actually goes into the garage and not the studio. A few unusual things here. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I anticipated that question, I talked to the architect about it. There's like a mezzanine approach. He explained to me that the vision for her art work is that she has an area above to look down on it and refine things and evolve them. The upper storage area is really for storage of conditioned storage of pieces of art whereas the lower area was for actual creation of art. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I'm sorry, you said it's for storage? MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's part of the studio but it's MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Part of the studio? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Studio loft it's called. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He said the other room is storage. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, no, no the upper to the other side of the stairs I mean storage meaning that's where she will place completed art as opposed to art that is a work in progress kind of thing. Quite'honestly, I do think that there'll be a portion of that area that they their existing home has a very tight footprint, they have almost no storage in it. I would imagine that they may need a part of this garage area or whatever for regular non art storage. The configuration of the bathroom is a good question cause that I realize that and the architect explained that she asked for it to go that way just because it creates another wall, another 2.7 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting working area so there's not limited wall space for creating or hanging or having an area. I guess that could be tweaked but that was the vision that my client had for this place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not sure I followed where that wall is that you're talking about. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well just as opposed to the door going into the studio that would obviously eliminate a wall, the wall space within that lower level studio area. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems that the bathroom services the garage, the pool and the potentially also the studio. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't know who is going to use the bathroom Nick but it's in the building it's intended to be part of the studio space certainly not servicing the garage. I mean I don't know MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just the orientation of access. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'm just trying to explain why it is that way. I mean if that has to change, I assume that it can, it's not other than maintaining this I don't even know what side of the building that is but that western side wall there open since you have the entryway right next to it. That's how the architect explained it to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is some concern I mean the way the bathroom as currently designed as a half bath is connected to something called outdoor storage and it looks like a bench of some sort that could you know that's often what happens in a pool cabana kind of thing like a little changing room or something. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't see it. CHAIRRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a little line across. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : On the left side. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Oh, oh yea I see I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See what I'm talking about? It could also become another shower very easily which we've seen over and over again. I don't know I mean that is just one element I mean if the upper studio which is huge is proposed basically as storage, I mean look; let's go back cause you were there at the beginning you were part of this whole code interpretation basically. What we were looking at at that time was, permitting existing small accessory structures maybe not that small maybe a barn but'letting them be artist studios if it was a personal use of the homeowner period, not commercial use just a place to go and paint or sketch or whatever.This is a brand-.new construction, yes, it's an accessory structure so yea November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting we could say okay we did say you could use accessory structures but you see how it's evolved and now we've got two story you know studio space proposed cause it's called that. It should maybe be called storage I don't know. Do you know what I'm saying? If you're saying that's really a storage area MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think we've checked off every one of the criteria that we're establishing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not questioning the applicant's credentials. MARTIN FINNEGAN :There's nothing about dimensions in those criteria. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right there aren't. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So, I mean if you have an artist that creates a significant amount of art work and needs space for it then they're just being realistic about what the space.they need is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did do approve a very large artist studio but it was a principle use not an accessory to a dwelling or a second use in a garage. I'm just trying to lay out I'm not I have not concluded anything. I'm not saying fine, not fine I'm just trying to look at where we're going with this particular type of use. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The one side upper level is just a loft it's all open. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I get that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You explained that very clearly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I got that. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So, yea I mean it's just a matter of that's the space that is above the garage, that's the dimensions of the space above the garage and so that's the part that they're using for the rest of the studio space for storage of art and such. You can't make it any smaller you know what I mean because they have a two-car garage beneath it so that's why. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not suggesting that but I mean it's just we haven't seen a proposed new construction artist studio like this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would say also I mean what begs the question in my mind's eye are the partitions. At the top of the stairs if it's all studio space what is the need for the partitions? If it's storage I get that maybe you want to have something tied off separately. It's just labeled studio so it seems that there's three spaces and that was my concern. 2 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it was just something cause the stairs come up and so there's you know that sort of bisects the space. You're talking about the doorways? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The back and forth, yea. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Oh yea I mean I think MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm not suggesting that it becomes a bedroom or you know who knows what, you mentioned storage which I liked actually. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea, I mean it really I mean I don't know that's because of the conditioning of the space and whether it would be you know inefficient to not have doors there you know in terms of but look I mean I think that there's they want to have this space, I think that we've established that she's a prolific artist and has a lot of different types of media that she does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look here's the thing, obviously you can't work in this year round unless it's conditioned. It's going to have to be habitable conditioned space okay. That's a lot of habitable conditioned space. MARTIN FINNEGAN : But I think that's why we're asking for this approval, if it was just unconditioned whatever we wouldn't need to be here but it is just because of the type of artwork and the things that are going to be there require that conditioning.That's that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions or thoughts? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Martin is this going to be a permanent residence and this is why they want to build this? She has the address listed as Brooklyn so I'm wondering where she does all this in Brooklyn? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well this is she wants to do it here. They do have a home in Brooklyn, her husband still works in the city but this is you know where their family intends to come and spend their time. I don't know exactly what the breakdown is of how much time she's in either place right now but the intent is to create this and to have more full-time presence on the North Fork. I don't know if she has a stand-alone studio somewhere else or but I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She has to be making her art somewhere she's not making it here cause this doesn't exist yet. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's happening some place. We have to figure this one out, I guess. Have we ever done a new construction on an artist studio? I don't think so, I think every other November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting artist studio that we've looked at via since the code interpretation we do ask that they obviously get a Notice of Disapproval cause the Building Department can't determine these credentials of an artist that we required so you're here but I think they've all been in existing accessory structures. MARTIN FINNEGAN : But I don't understand what's the difference, there's no requirement in the code that says it has to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just I don't know if there's a difference, I'm just bringing it up that's all so that it's part of the record. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Understood CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Originally what we were attempting to do is to say that there are certain uses in accessory structures on residential lots that we think under certain conditions should simply be incidental to the principle use the way its inside the house you could have a studio as of right why not in an existing accessory structure of the workshop as you know from Nardolillo no that was the other one, Ryckman, no Nardolillo, Ryckman is the studio. So, we were attempting to say, let's bring these up to date; we're still trying to do that in the zoning code update. I'm proposing that certain uses MARTIN FINNEGAN : Be permitted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Be permitted as of right. We don't have to look at them all the time but they're not there yet. So, I'm just simply saying, this is a new one for us, we haven't had something like this and we'll have to figure it out. MARTIN FINNEGAN : But just again, in terms of the established criteria I think we've checked off the list and I'm not aware of anything in the code that would preclude what we're asking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There isn't anything in the code. MARTIN FINNEGAN : A garage is incidental there's a lot of things that are customary and incidental and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just a code interpretation there's nothing in the code at all which is why you're here. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right, understood but you know if it was just a garage right I mean to mention whatever there's no dimensional limitation nor is there any certification requirement. 1. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right we didn't put any of those requirements on it you're right. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Any other questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A little bit about the HVAC system, I don't know how relevant it is or not but I think it's important to understand because you discussed maybe it's for conditioning. Is one area, is the whole area, is the garage to be conditioned? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, not the area of where the cars will go no just the area that is the studio space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're suggesting the lower loft, the upper loft, the hallway and then the second floor storage/upper studio? MARTIN FINNEGAN : That is my understanding, I don't have a no the garage is not going to be a heated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? GAIL WICKHAM : Good morning, Abigail Wickham. I'm here representing (inaudible) LLC which owns the property to the southwest. I'm sure Martin is thrilled to see me. She has some concerns, Abigail Wickham of Wickham, Bressler Mattituck, New York. The concerns are, the size, the use, the elements of construction design and the enforcement that I'd like to address today. I realize the Board has been struggling for a long time with this customarily incidental interpretation, it's a slippery slope. You've had to look at very specific conditions case by case. The problem is in the details I think of the use and the enforcement of what is being proposed. This subject this whole subject of interpretation does border perilously close to or is in fact really in the nature of almost of use variance if it's too far away from very, very close terms rather than an interpretation. I'd just like to give a little background on the specifics of the case since we have to address them before I get into the concerns that we have in detail. There is a considerable amount of traffic on what is a very small private road that comes from a lot of large family gatherings and entertaining on behalf of the applicants. That's been going on for some time, my clients own the property well before they did and it has significantly increased. This is a subdivision of five-acre minimum lots which are not subdivided but the so there's plenty of room for buildings and not scrunching things up and having congregations of buildings except that this lot is while it's seven acres it's mostly wet. So, as a consequence all of these proposals all these buildings and the new one are being congregated into that northwest corner there. I realize that the code allows that but I do think the Board should consider that in all of their deliberations that this is a unique aspect of this l November 6,2025 Regular Meeting particular lot that they all have to get congregated and they can't be spread out. Further, the building of the pool could have been further from this line but it wasn't so that's a self- created hardship that now they're having yet another big structure back there. That is not a variance, because they are a corner lot. Another unique aspect of this property is that the corner is hundreds of feet away down Narrow River Rd. There is crowding up against neighboring properties by virtue of. the �ype of property it is. My clients there is .a neighbor and that is this particular property that I'm speaking for. I do think the size of the parcel, in your deliberations has to be given fairly low weight. The size of the proposed structure you're right, a lot of the points were made by the Chairperson and some other Board Members; it's a two-car garage, a two-story structure, a porch that goes directly to the pool and it is fully insulated and I thought it says somewhere -in there that the floor of the garage was also heated so that might be explored. It's completely insulated, many of the decisions that you reviewed in your prior analysis talked about open to the studs and non-conditioned so this is another aspect that you have allowed but should be considered as yet another concern. I looked a little bit at 280-13C the home occupation which is not this is not a home occupation but there are some conditions in that type of usage which again we know is a principle " building usage but it had a 500 sq. ft. limit. It's not clear how big this is, I couldn't read the diagram on the materials on the screen but I think we should know how big is this proposed studio but we do know that it is big from what we've talked about.,Also, as a prolific artist as Martin described her, is it really for her personal use or is she generating a lot of product that she's going to be commercially using. She's producing it personally but how does that relate to a commercial use where it's going to be shipped out and sold elsewhere? The materials that come in and out and the shipping in and out adds to the traffic on this road which is not an improved road by the way, it's quite rutted I'm sure the Board saw when they went there. Also, the type of artist there's many meanings of that and I think no fabrication is one of the things that was a condition. If you do approve it, concern about no lighting after dark outside (inaudible) because we have dark skies. One of the big concerns to me and I thought I was dating myself when I was going to mention this but I see that it's been mentioned, is it really a customary and incidental use as an artist studio because to me I always envisioned an artist studio as an open room, one single open room, didn't have to be fancy but that's where it happened and this is really a big, big space on multi levels. I think the Board is very correct to be concerned about that and given that it's new construction perhaps that also goes to whether it's customary and incidental to an accessory use because the accessory use is not existing now as a garage. I hope you followed that but I think that that is a concern that we should look at. I mentioned a question of enforcement, I don't know how you can enforce as a town that there may be lots of private parties here which have happened and they couldn't be for customers who come out and look at the units, look at the artwork and decide that they're going to purchase because she is a self-styled widely known, internationally known .1 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting artist. My other points are in terms of the conditions that you have allowed on some of the other applications. Obviously, the ones,that went through on Wilson would apply should you decide to somehow approve this application. The ones that standout to me is on the Wilson application number one, the one use in addition to a non-habitable unfinished open rafters and stud walls storage of general household items. I don't think we have that unfinished use anywhere in the building. You have a porch and a storage area that opens up right to the pool, how can that not be expected not to be a use of a pool house for people to go in and change and dry off and use the bathroom? I think that's really pushing the envelope on that. The other question I had was on the QJSG, the art studio viewing platform is not to be conditioned in any way, plumbing should be limited to a utility sink only, no half bath or full bath should be permitted,.basic electricity should be allowed. I think there was 300-amp service in this building proposed so I'd like to mention that as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would just add, I think that decision was nullified in the more recent. There were two applications of QJSG so that was the earlier determination that in the newer one that decision was voided basically; it was no longer an artist studio. GAIL WICKHAM : Okay, but 300 amps is a lot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea, but (inaudible) also is this a pool house, does it exceed the square footage? GAIL WICKHAM : Yea, exactly. In conclusion I think the size, the design standards, the elements of construction, the applicant's use of the property, is it really an art studio or is it a disguise for basically what would be habitable space and second family dwelling and how do we enforce that?Also, in closing and there's certainly no disrespect intended to the Board but would reserve the right to question any decision that you make in interpretation as actually legitimizing or legislating a new code provision, with no disrespect to your ability to interpret and you need to interpret this code in many respects. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else in the audience? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I just want to reply to a couple of things and remind the Board that what is proposed is entirely conforming to the bulk schedule. The location does not require any variance relief. The northwest corner of this property abuts a farm and the southeast end of Gail's client's property which is vegetated that property also has large and many accessory structures as well. I don't think you can infer anything from the fact from the size of this. It is proposed as an artist studio, there is a means for you to approve that which we have acknowledged. I don't think it's within the purview of this Board to enforce that but we certainly have a whole office of people in the town that can enforce whatever is ultimately 3,41 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting approved here and whatever is C.O'd the use is. As far as you know family gatherings and whatever I think that also is not within the purview of this Board to limit my client's ability to have visitors to their home. Nothing is contemplated in terms of commercial sales or I would assume that would be part of the determination that it is for personal use and that's what the request is here. With that I'll leave it to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I guess I would like to inquire about the heated garage floor, it does appear to be heated throughout not just in the studio portion. Is there a need for that for a garage storing automobiles? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I honestly was not aware of that but I don't know whether it had to do with some type of car being stored there or whatever but if that's an issue you know you can condition it any way you see as to that but some people heat their garages. Honestly, I was not aware that that was part of it, I thought it was just (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea heated garage floor would be radiant heat, it's expensive. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I wanted to ask a question about, one of the sheds and it kind of goes to the issue of enforcement but I think a prior decision on this property required that the two sheds be unconditioned space. The one on the far right appears to be potentially in use, there's a desk in there, there's spools of thread, there's stuff in there that suggests that it's being used for a hobby or art; I'm just asking if it is unconditioned? MARTIN FINNEGAN :To my knowledge it is, I'm not aware of any conditioning there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It has a door that is what you would have on a house unlike a more rudimentary door that's on the shed on the left. It just looks different in nature than the shed on the left. It looks like someone is using it for more than storage but for doing something, some kind of hobby or craft. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I have no idea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Isn't it interesting what happens when your client only reveals certain things and not others. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't think anyone is trying to hide anything but it's (inaudible). GAIL WICKHAM : Can I just make a quick response? First of all, my client's property is five acres, there's a house and a shed and a barn that are very well spread out. I believe it may have been the farmhouse to the original farm I'm not sure but they're very old buildings so 1 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting don't think that's at all comparable. I forgot to mention, in the event anything here is approved one of the mitigating factors should be a very strenuous screening because the garage is only'33 feet from the line which is within code but it is close on a big piece of property. I'm also noticing that shed on the right seems to be within the jurisdiction of the wetlands. My client said they would put up without a permit and then had to go back to the town but I'm not familiar with that,history so I can't say. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think we legalized it on an earlier application. GAIL WICKHAM : I think so, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did. GAIL WICKHAM : They were put up without permission so. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Maybe just sorry going back to that shed, I noticed that shed on the right had a small almost an addition to it that was you know four feet high, three feet by four feet not shown on the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else, anything from the Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. November 6,2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8050—ROWSOM,ANDREA FAGAN IRRV.TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rowsom, Andrea Fagan Irrv. Trust#8050. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 10, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" accessory in-ground swimming pool and an "as built" accessory shed with an attached deck at 1) both.structures are located in an area other than the code required rear yard located at 825 Munn Lane in Orient. JOAN CHAMBERS : Good morning, Joan Chambers 895 Greenfield Lane in Southold, I'm representing the owners. According to the adult children of the prior owners the swimming pool was built in 1972 so I don't know about the rest of you but I was still in high school so it's a little hard to address on how this happened. I did as much research as I could with old surveys and when the house was built and the pool installed there were right of ways, dirt lanes, gravel driveways and private roads basically crisscrossing all around in that neighborhood which is to say that I'm not a hundred percent sure the owners of the property knew where their front yard was when they built the swimming pool. Things have changed you know in the way the roads are configured as of now. I did some research on the surrounding neighborhood and there has been a variance granted for a swimming pool in the front yard. All of those properties there are you know basically sitting on their own roads not a main road. Basically, it's an old project, it's there and it's wonderfully hidden from everybody else's property because of its topography and the geography of the property the way it sits down in the lower part. It's got wonderful mature plantings around it. The pool equipment is well away from any of the neighbors and I just you know as I said I'm representing them hoping that we can just legalize this ancient swimming pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you know we've been out to see the property. It's a very old area in Orient. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a very old house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very old house and there is no regularity of anything in there, there's no subdivision experience, there's no similar lot size or even lot shape, there's rights of ways going all over the place. It was built long before zoning was in place. Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat any? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret 371 November 6,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I do have a question, you mentioned that the adult children of the prior owners maintain that the say the pool was built in 1972, was that a family other than the Rowsons? JOAN CHAMBERS : No that's meaning their parents. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Their parents I see. JOAN CHAMBERS : These are the inheritors of the property and now they've discovered that mom and dad built all kinds of things without permits so they're trying to just clean it up. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I see, I just wanted to clarify that cause it sounded like the property changed hands without the pool being legalized. JOAN CHAMBERS : No MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It was inherited and it's for sale. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yea MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Then maybe I'm not sure if you know this given the age of the pool but the Short Environmental Form indicates something about a dry well to drain the pool and I don't know if that means one is needed or one already exists. JOAN CHAMBERS : We can't find one exists, there may be one there but I have no knowledge of that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Got it. JOAN CHAMBERS : There is a drain shown on the patio which I think is just drainage for the patio. Given the way the topography of the lot steps down I'm assuming that's a place where the rain likes to gather so it looks to me like someone's put a dry well in at some point but that's just my supposition. I have no clue. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would seem if somebody is pumping or dewatering or whatever, the water is just going to stay around the pool deck cause it's in a bit of a bowl. I mean even if they pumped it out to the right of way it would still come back down to the site. JOAN CHAMBERS : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I guess it's been happening for a long time, it's been raining for a long time and the pool is still there so it didn't float away. i r November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Interestingly enough I was out there one day and it was pounding rain and it was almost like if there was going to be a natural drain for that whole neighborhood it was going to be around that pool. That patio I walked across it in my sneakers, it didn't puddle so someone did some drainage, maybe when the pool was built. I searched and I can't find plans or anyone who claimed to build it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Also, the topography I guess is sort of to the northeast it's still lower so whatever rain runoff etc. goes between that house and the neighboring home on the sound. JOAN CHAMBERS : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it's sand. JOAN CHAMBERS : And it's sand. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Joan,just quickly, you discussed the pool but the application is also for the shed with the little attached deck to recognize. I noticed there's electricity and it just strikes me as being a shed. JOAN CHAMBERS : It is, it's not finished on the inside, it's just for pool storage, outdoor chairs things like that. It's really just it was open; I don't know if any of you stuck your head in there or not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I tried but I walked around everything. I think I have my own idea of how this came about but walk us through the process. Obviously, we're here but what triggered this?You're getting an updated C of 0 on the house or something? JOAN CHAMBERS : Updated C of 0 on the house and they discovered there was no permit for the pool or the shed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 1972 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the updated is Rowsom is JOAN CHAMBERS Rowsom, yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is just a practical question but I think it says it's a vinyl pool? JOAN CHAMBERS : I think it's a gunite pool. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, I was going to ask how a vinyl pool survived over fifty years without needing a vinyl replacement. November 6,2025 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Oh no, no, no. MEMBER ACAMPORA : You have to replace the vinyl every like seven years or so. MEMBER STEIN BUGLER : Right but I thought somewhere I read it was a vinyl pool. JOAN CHAMBERS : It might have a vinyl liner in it, it's kind of hard to MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Inside a gunite, okay. MEMBER LEHNERT : On the pool plan it says inground vinyl swimming pool installed 1972. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Liners get changed regularly. Maybe the heirs have knowledge of it or not but (inaudible) pool rather in regards to material. JOAN CHAMBERS : It's definitely a concrete pool not a metal frame with vinyl. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anybody in the audience want to address the application? Anybody else on the Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8052—JACLYN COSTANTINO and ANDREW CHARRON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jaclyn Costantino and Andrew Charron #8052. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's May 27, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit 0 November 6,2025 Regular Meeting to construct an accessory swimming pool 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 155 Manor Rd. in East Marion. Tell us your name please. ANDREW CHARRON : Andrew Charron CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have the pleasure of the traffic from the Lavender Farm going back and forth in front of you all the time. ANDREW CHARRON : And the view so can't complain, right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The view is rather nice, yes. ANDREW CHARRON : So, do you want a summary of how we got here, is that helpful or do you just want to ask me questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I guess you went in to get a building permit for the pool. ANDREW CHARRON : Yea I went in to get a building permit CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they said you're in a side yard. ANDREW CHARRON : Yea exactly. So, I consulted a little bit over there with you know Amanda and Connie and everybody else and just kind of said, hey what's bets because with this yard it's a pretty unique external lot. There was actually a little bit of dispute on what was the front of the house because there is a C.O. for the house on Cedar Lane which would make that the front of the house but there's also a C.O. for Manor Lane which would make that the front of the house so there was a little bit of confusion there. There is not a driveway from Cedar Lane so we understand why you know maybe you won't consider that the front yard but looking at all the setbacks along with just you know where it makes sense to put a pool the side yard seems to make the most sense without disrupting the neighbors without disrupting you know all of the environment that's there. The back yard is already up against a setback, the house itself is and if you were put something back there, there's the patio that would have to be removed and there's a lot of trees. back there that would have to be removed. Again, it seemed like the side yard was the best place to move forward with the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you know even though it's a road and you're adjacent to it you have no access to it.That goes to another subdivision, right? ANDERW CHARRON : Cedar CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cedar does and if you have no access to that right of way or road it is not considered a street frontage although the Building Department doesn't always do that 4:1 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting research to figure that out. They just see a road and they say well, but they did call it a side yard for that reason. ANDREW CHARRON : Right, exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which also says that because it's a side yard you can legally construct a six-foot high fence. Normally in a front yard you couldn't do that, it would have to be four foot high. You could always put in evergreens but you certainly gonna want to have some additional screening along that for your own privacy for the pool so the Board would typically condition any approval for either a fence you know solid fence or wood or vinyl whatever you choose or heavy evergreen screening whatever you wish to put there. It'looks like there's one large tree that's going to have to be cut down, it's kind of an old gnarly tree, is that correct? ANDREW CHARRON : Yep that's correct'. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick did you have a question? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to say not to contradict you but I think you sort of stated about what I noticed also is the lavender field. I don't know if you would want that sort of privacy screening. Maybe that's something to discuss with the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, yea I mean do you would you rather preserve I don't know if you can see ANDREW CHARRON : We were looking ,forward to the view. You.guys have gone to the property, right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we have. ANDREW CHARRON : We already all the evergreens on the north side we put up already to give that neighbor some additional privacy. We weren't looking per say to put additional privacy between the house and the lavender farm but if it was something that you all required then we would do what we need to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't really require I mean it's not a requirement primarily it's mostly for the applicant's privacy. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I thought you were going in the direction that you wanted to have evergreen screening. I'd rather talk about it here than give them something that they CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I'm glad you clarified that cause I wasn't saying you should do it, I was saying you could do it but if you're 4z November 6,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think this is one of those cases that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you want to sit and look at the cars going by and smell, the lavender. ANDREW CHARRON : (inaudible) the purple for the forty-five days that it's there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, got it, anything else from the Board? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have a couple of questions, thanks. I think the architect's plan ti indicates the pool is 16 by 36 but it also indicates it's 544 sq. ft. and that math does not work. Sixteen times thirty-six is 576 sq. ft. so there's an error somewhere. I don't know if it's in the size of the pool or the area. ANDREW CHARRON :The are errors on the actual survey there you're saying? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well, the survey doesn't show the pool, the survey is as existing as the property was in 2024, it's the architect's plan page A-0 this one. ANDREW CHARRON : Mark did those so if I didn't pay attention to his maps so if there could be a mistake. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : One of the reasons it concerns me is that the application indicated that lot coverage for this project was N/A, no applicable but it seems to me based on,some math I did the difference in the size of the pool could be the difference between, a lot coverage variance'being needed or not being needed. That brought me to, what is the size of the lot. I think the Notice of Disapproval indicates the size but I could not find that size anywhere in a legible format on the survey. The survey is very I don't know what the right word is, blurry or pixilated. ANDREW CHARRON : The lot coverage is 13,149 we have an updated survey that since been done. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That's the lot area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's lot area. ANDREW CHARRON : Lot area is 13,149 sq.ft.. s MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that or is that not on the survey? ANDREW CHARRON : We had an updated survey done recently so it probably is on there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have that for us? November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting ANDREW CHARRON : Here this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have the original survey, that's a copy of it? ANDREW CHARRON : I have the original survey, yes not with me but I do. It's my first time here so I wasn't really sure what to expect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, understood. ANDREW CHARRON : Then after I saw everybody else that went before me I realized that's probably CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can only accept originals, stamped cause we have to stamp them, then it goes to the Building Department our files for the town so it has to be I mean there's a stamp on it so we know it was done but we'll need the original. ANDREW CHARRON : Margaret right? Do address what you mentioned as well, we're not dead set on that size pool so if you required us to reduce the size, we're open to that being a condition. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, thanks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do we need Mark Schwartz to calculate the lot coverage? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think we do. I had a couple of other concerns relative to lot coverage. The survey this is an updated survey, so relative to the prior survey it now reflects the patio and stoop, the stoop portion of the patio has some area above grade that I think would count towards lot coverage, the house and the pool so I think it could be close. I don't know because I didn't have the lot size. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Stoops don't count unless they exceed like 80 sq. ft. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Maybe it's pretty deep and it's pretty wide. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I walked by and I don't remember the scale of it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It might not but I think it would be good to know the calculation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's the thing, if we get the calculation and the proposed size of your pool is not going to put you over the 20% then you're fine. If it does put you slightly over then we would ask you to reduce the size of the pool so that your lot coverage is still conforming. That's typically how this would work. So, Ir mean I don't think we have any further questions about the location or anything. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well I kind of did. The original survey indicated that there were (inaudible) decks planned for the rear,this is the survey ANDREW CHARRON : Yea, not the original survey, Mark's plans indicate a deck in the back. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes ANDREW CHARRON : There's no deck going on the back, the patio is there, the patio is-brand new as you all saw so we decided to not move forward with the deck. I didn't ask Mark to update the plans cause truthfully, I just didn't want to pay for it. The house the way that you saw it whenever it was, I think it was recently that you all saw it, there's no other activity going on at the house other than this pool. You mentioned the stoop on the back, there is an open permit for that stoop right now so Chris Mohr installed that stoop per the Building Department required us to go out three feet for safety reasons which we weren't aware of originally so we had the stoop redone and Chris went out there a redid it and now there is an open permit. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm not questioning the legality of the stoop I just ANDREW CHARRON : I'm just giving you all the details. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : if it's three feet deep and I guess a little over twenty-five feet wide maybe it triggers that eighty square foot size for counting towards lot coverage. Really, I want to mention the decks and the'stoop in part because prior to them being built I think there was room to put the pool in the rear of the property in a conforming location.The plans I think the survey shows a 29-foot setback and if the pool is 16 feet wide or a little less wide 14 feet you could meet the 5-foot setback in the rear yard for an accessory pool. That's the requirement, right, 5-feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is the requirement but it is not one the Board particularly likes to suggest because you don't even have room to plant evergreen screening around there you know if that's the minimum the code says an accessory structure can be but that's different than a shed. A swimming pool there's lots of activity, there's a lot of movement around it, there's a lot of noise usually and we don't really like to see them that close to property lines. For the sake of neighbors more than MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was the question I was going to ask also Margaret, obviously saw that the patio is brand new, I mean that would be a bit of a hard thing to remove but a lot of people do unfortunately put things in, change their mind and alter something it would seem that yes you could have a conforming pool but for the reasons that the Chairperson just 45 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting mentioned also those are things we sort of have to sort of weight that you've got this very large side yard which ANDREW CHARRON : To be clear too, the patio is brand new but the stoop was pre-existing because they were sliders there, we didn't add that so you would be you know the town required us to redo the stoop, make it to code so I don't know I didn't measure it myself to see what that new area is from say okay maybe we didn't have to do the patio but we certainly had to do the stoop, what's that distance from the stoop out to the property line? Also, I mean I'm sure you all noticed those big pine trees there, those will probably would all have come down or all the ones in that section to put a pool in to dig there so we're trying to disrupt the environment as little as possible and actually add to it that's why we put in those evergreens. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know you do have a very open flat side yard and frankly you'd be crowding it in with or without a patio in the back yard. I don't really have a problem with that location, I don't think it has any impact on anybody particularly. We do try to make things as conforming as possible that's what we're required to do. My concern is, we need to clarify the lot coverage cause that's what's going to determine what the pool size could be. It's good to know the deck is not proposed. How about I don't have any further questions and if the Board doesn't then we could basically just close this subject to receipt of an updated site plan from Mark Schwartz that calculates the lot coverage of all the existing structures and the stoop if it's required whatever is required, he'll know and then the size of the pool and what that would do for lot coverage. Then we will know whether or not you're conforming and it's just the side yard location or if you need an additional you know if you have to reduce the size of the pool which you said you would be willing to do which is easier than going back to get yet another variance for lot coverage cause then you're over 20% which is expensive and time consuming and all that. It would be easier to just make a slightly smaller pool if you have to, if you don't have to there's no need to. Is the Board okay with just closing subject to receipt of that information? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just had one question about the drainage for the pool. I didn't see anywhere in the application or the plans that indicated the presence of a dry well and I just wanted to confirm that one is planned. ANDREW CHARRON : Yes there would be one being installed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you ask Mark to put the location of the dry well and the pump equipment MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The pump equipment is there. 461 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That should be we need that information. MEMBER PLANAMENTO So the three things are, the original survey, we need the lot calculation which determines the pool size and the drywell. ` CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have to have an original survey if we have a stamped site plan by Mark with all that information on it which will save you time and money cause it's going to say the same thing as what the survey says and it's a licensed design professional. Surveyors are notoriously very slow and expensive, so if you can get this all from Mark with his stamp on it, we need an original from Mark with his original stamp on it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was going to say, the site plan that you offered just had a little bubble with Mark's initials, we need the physical stamp his license. ANDREW CHARRON : Okay, I submitted like the big like 4 x 4 sheets maybe they didn't make it to you all. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I have just has his initials on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to look in the file to see what we have. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : We have the original here however if there are changes that are going to be made we will need a new one. ANDREW CHARRON : How do I get that back to you all? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just drop it off to the office and they will let us know that they've got it and we'll be good to go. ANDREW CHARRON : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're not going,to make a decision till we get that. If we got it right away in an ideal world like Monday, we might be able to have or Tuesday we might be able to have a decision two weeks from now at our next meeting which is over in the Annex there. We'll have a draft and we will talk about it and vote. If not, the worst that could happen, I'm sure is going to be a month from now at our next public hearing which would be the following month. ANDREW CHARRON : Do I have to come to that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions? ANDREW CHARRON : No, thank you. 47 November 6,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody, anyone on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended site plan showing lot coverage and a dry well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 1 HEARING#8069—MICHAEL LIEGEY/TOWN CREEK REAL ESTATE, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael Liegey/Town Creek Real Estate, Inc. #8069. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 11, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" accessory swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 480 Ackerly Pond Lane in Southold. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Since I'm.recused I'm going to just step out. MICHAEL LIEGEY : Good afternoon, I'm Michael Liegey representing myself. I'm looking for relief to put the pool on the side yard. I've been through the Trustees and they approved this location. The distance from the wetlands and the only real location that I could do it with this property and meet all the Trustees requirements. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob let's start with you with questions. MEMBER LEHNERT :Just walk us through how we ended'up with a Stop Work Order. MICHAEL LIEGEY : There was a pile of excavation dirt-that was there and I was removing it and when I was doing that I was moving soil waiting for an excavator a truck to come and me loading it up.There was a pool that's been there since a year November 6,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT :The one that's been on the site now. MICHAEL LIEGEY : It's been on the site forever, it's been sitting there and that's when, when started moving the dirt I got flagged for being installing a pool but I was removing soil that was there. MEMBER LEHNERT : Is that the pool that's going proposed to go in? MICHAEL LIEGEY :That's the proposed pool. MEMBER LEHNERT : You inherited the pool with the site? MICHAEL LIEGEY : Well no not really, I kind of had another it's a long story but I was installing a couple of these pools, it was cheaper for me to buy it at that point of time and have three of them shipped opposed to having individual ones shipped. So, I knew I was hoping to get it to go there but if not it's going to another location but it's been there for a year and a half. MEMBER LEHNERT : You were just storing it there. MICHAEL LIEGEY : Yes it was on the ground not in the ground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're saying you have a well you know we've inspected the property, you're saying you have the Trustees wetlands permit I think is number 10299 January 18, 2023 this is for the house. MICHAEL LIEGEY :That was for the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : prohibiting a patio or a hardened structure MICHAEL LIEGEY :They just gave approval on their October meeting for a pool. MEMBER LEHNERT : We don't have that then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, we don't have that, we have a July 9th field inspection report that says it has to be 50 feet MEMBER LEHNERT : We have the one from 2023. MICHAEL LIEGEY : No,this is from 2025 October, last month. / MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you get us a copy of that? MICHAEL LIEGEY : Sure, they were saying to me at that meeting that we're going to approve it for you and it would be a benefit for the Zoning Board. I thought you guys connected. 491 November 6,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The applicant has to go from this pot to that pot. MICHAEL LIEGEY : I wasn't aware of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, they granted you a permit for the proposed pool? MICHAEL LIEGEY : Correct .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that was in October you said? MICHAEL LIEGEY : Yea their last meeting, I think it was the 15th or 16th or something like that, October 15tn CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so we'll need a copy of that. MICHAEL LIEGEY : For all they're requiring that's why the pool is in this location. I had originally a site visit with them in June and they came out and looked at it and that's where they'd like to have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I see that you've already put some evergreen screening along the road that's MICHAEL LIEGEY : That's where I mean right now I need to have equipment to get in there again so it's not completed but I will put more in there and I of course would want I'm sure anyone would want to have fair screening so that when people are driving by you're not you know up there in your bathing suit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm not seeing a dry well for the pool on the site plan. MICHAEL LIEGEY : There is, if you look to the proposed pool equipment immediately next to it, that would be north I guess a little northwest maybe. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Can I ask a question about that dry well? If I understand correctly if I'm looking at the right place on the survey it is sort of adjacent the gravel patio. MICHAEL LIEGEY : No MEMBER LEHNERT : No the pool equipment is to the west of the pool. MICHAEL LIEGEY : No (inaudible)the west. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT :That's not showing on my plan. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : What's the circle that says 8 by 3 DW. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That should be dry well. MICHAEL LIEGEY : Dry well. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Maybe I have it you know MICHAEL LIEGEY : It actually says pool, I don't know how you don't have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sometimes drywells say pool. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : What I have in front of me this piece of paper is not the same as what's shown on the screen. MEMBER LEHNERT : No not at all. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : This is last revised August 1, 2025. MICHAEL LIEGEY : September 12th MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea we're looking at an August one. MEMBER LEHNERT : I wouldn't have asked if I saw that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : While we're on the drywell I can see if it's that left most circle near an arrow, I can see where it is. I have a question about that location though, I think the Trustee permit says the dry well is to be landward of the house and it appears here that it is I would say waterward of the house so it looks like it's not in an approved location. Can you explain? MICHAEL LIEGEY : Where are you reading that from? Is that from 2023? MEMBER LEHNERT : We don't have a Trustee permit yet. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It might have been the field inspection note. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was field inspection note. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, the location is inconsistent with the field inspection. MICHAEL LIEGEY : (inaudible) have one existing for the house it's on the other side. MEMBER LEHNERT :The approval it would supersede the field inspection. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep it would. So, what are we looking at here? MEMBER LEHNERT : We need the new plan and We need a copy of the Trustees permit. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Right MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Can I also ask what is the buildable area of this lot? We have the area as 32,440 sq. ft. but it appears to be MICHAEL LIEGEY : Lot coverage you say? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well, it would go towards calculating the lot coverage but we don't know what the buildable area is as far as I can tell. MICHAEL LIEGEY : I think that was just in the I guess the application, I don't know. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I -did not find it in the application materials, it's usually something that the surveyor would I think calculate or determine. I'm not exactly sure which of these MICHAEL LIEGEY : Buildable and then lot coverage you're saying? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, lot coverage is based upon what amount of structure on the buildable area of the lot. So, we need the size of the lot which includes wetlands, that's not considered buildable area. So, if you remove the wetlands then what you're left with is, this is the number of square feet I can build on that's how you determine lot coverage. MICHAEL LIEGEY : Is that considered from the like the high water mark or whatever that MEMBER LEHNERT :The flagged wetlands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Trustees would know about that, they should have flagged wetlands. MICHAEL LIEGEY : I know it all was and there is notes on that what the distance from the pool is and all that from the flagged wetlands but I don't know what the lot the total area acreage wise is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, how about you try and get that information for us. MICHAEL LIEGEY : I sure can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we don't need to adjourn this we can close this subject to MEMBER LEHNERT : We can close it subject to. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Subject to receipt of we need copies well the office can give us copies of the most current plan which Donna has. MEMBER LEHNERT : And a copy of the Trustees permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN And we need a copy of the current Trustees permit with any conditions of approval. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Can I ask another question? The application indicates that the proposed action which is the pool won't connect to any public or private water supply. How is the pool proposed to be filled and topped off? MICHAEL LIEGEY : Maybe by well it could be done by well. MEMBER LEIGEY : Well that could be a private water supply. I mean you can fill it with tanked in water but usually you need to top it off in between. MICHAEL LIEGEY : Yea you always need to maintain the water in the pool. There is a well right adjacent to the pool equipment. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So it's connected to the MICHAEL LIEGEY : It's actually marked on what with an X and there is it's all existing there now it's working. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, is everybody okay on this now? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, there's a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of additional information, the current plan showing the dry well, pool equipment and we're going to get the approval from the Trustees. Is there a second on that? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. Motion to recess for lunch. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8056—SEAN R. MCCOYD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sean R. McCoyd #8056. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's June 27, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a single-family dwelling and an accessory garage at 1) dwelling is located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) accessory garage is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 3360 Minnehaha Blvd. (adj. to Corey Creek) in Southold. This is a demolition and a new single-family dwelling and accessory garage with a front yard setback at 19. 4 feet and accessory garage in a side yard. ROB HERRMANN : Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of Sean McCoyd. Each variance is related as you said to the replacement of the existing dwelling and attached garage with a new dwelling, accessory garage. The existing structure has a Pre-C.O. for original construction prior to 1957. The applicant Sean McCoyd who is here in the front row with the crutches is November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting with his'project architect, Barb Ruggiero has been in the house for thirteen years since his purchase in 2012. As you should be able to see from the survey and the site plan, the proposed layout does not result in significant changes to the overall layout, configuration or scope of the construction footprint relative to .the existing. In fact, the new design improves on the pre-existing nonconforming front yard setback'which increases from existing 17.7 to 19.4 feet. It eliminates a pre-existing nonconforming rear yard setback and establishes a new conforming rear yard setback. It also improves on the wetland setback which is essentially the bulkhead and a prior setback variance had been granted by the Board in 2014. At the time your code had a 75-foot setback requirement from bulkheads that allowed for the existing waterside deck that exists now. That setback-is also going to be increased from the existing 30.2 feet to 37.2 feet. The design is GFA compliant, it's sky plane compliant, lot coverage on 'the property increases by only 228 sq. ft. and remains at a conforming 18.3% even on this small parcel. The new variance required results from placement of a proposed accessory garage in the side yard. A design change from the existing attached garage configuration, the need for which is effectively imposed by the recently adopted GFA restrictions which I say because the GFA code as you know requires inclusion of an attached one-story garage as if it were habitable space even though it isn't, it is in fact a garage. If we added the garage footprint to the GFA the GFA becomes noncompliant and even though the size of the proposed house would still be a hundred percent in harmony with the two homes on either side of it. The top picture there is Sean's house, the one below it is an aerial showing his house and the two neighboring parcels. As you also know, the formula for calculating GFA requires inclusion of houses located farther down the road some of which are smaller and so if we had gone that route, you would be precluded by the code as it's currently written from granting relief which would have been fair and reasonable relief but it leaves us with the accessory garage as our only option. I would side note that I understand the Town Board is currently discussing on whether or how well the GFA code is working and I would respectfully suggest this'is a case where it is not. With that said, Sean and his wife have come to embrace the idea of an accessory garage on the side of the house which necessitates the relief we're requesting and we think it's grantable relief for several reasons. First, given the shallow depth of the lot and the wetland constraints to the rear, the house has to have a relatively linear configuration which.is common along the shoreline here for the same reasons. If the garage were again attached to the house, it would create a longer continuous structure from one side of the property to the other which if you've walked along the shoreline here on Minnehaha Blvd. waterfront in this neighborhood is actually a common arrangement. There's a couple of pictures below the aerial, the first is the house immediately adjacent to Sean, to the east or to the right if you're looking from the road and the one below it is several doors farther down the road but you can see that configuration is common in the neighborhood the house with the attached garage. Separating the garage actually creates a corridor of, open November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting space between the two structures and creates an additional viewport to Corey Creek which from a visual perspective benefits the neighbor across the road and everyday passersby. The garage as proposed essentially in the same place as the existing attached garage and thus does not change the overall location of the garage structure or the parking area and there's really no new impact on the adjacent neighbor. It will remain setback slightly farther from the road than the new dwelling and the new dwelling is setback slightly farther from the road than the existing dwelling so it's not a structure that's going to be imposing on the road or the front yard. Ideally, we would like to back it up I mean that was Sean's original question, can we just put it behind the house and then it's in a rear yard but it's impossible to do that because of the wetland setbacks. I don't think well, either this Board or the Trustees would really prefer to see that. For all of those reasons we believe and we argue in our application that the relief requested is really our only practical alternative. It's a reasonable request and we're not adverse impact the surrounding neighbors and requires the least relief possible given the size and depth of the parcel combined with the wetland constraints associated with Corey Creek. We also outline in our application why granting of the requested variances will not result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood in general. We site various prior Board decisions in the neighborhood relating to both front yard setbacks, decisions that have accommodated garages and other accessory structures. For the Board's immediate reference, I'd like to quickly relay that section of our application in the hearing record. As we present, the subject property is one of roughly twenty waterfront parcels created more than eighty years ago by the map of Laughing Waters section number one. It is been improved with a dwelling since the 1930's. In its decision last year, the grant of relief for dwelling additions with a nonconforming front yard setback of 16.4 feet at 2880 at Minnehaha Blvd. which is six properties to the east. The Board described the neighborhood of Laughing Waters as a community quote, made up of a variety of house sizes and styles developed primarily in the mid twentieth century, many recently updated and enlarged on a variety of small less than code conforming lots both upland and waterfront. As a result, a meandering roadways that follows the creekfront, many homes within the community have received many forms of variance relief from the Board of Appeals, end quote. I thought that was such a good description of the community by the Board that I included it in our petition. The Board elaborated, the nonconforming front yard setback in that case would quote, not be discernable to passersby and residents of the neighborhood since the immediate neighbors of the subject property also have noncompliant setbacks, end quote. We argue that a stronger version of that same argument can be made here because in addition to the nonconforming front yard setbacks of the surrounding homes exempli the house to the east is 19.4 feet which is the same it's identical to what we've proposed. The new dwelling as I mentioned earlier would increase the existing front yard setback whereas in case 7901 the previously existing front yard setback was actually decreased as a result of the Board's decision. Relief to create 561 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting or maintain similar and lesser front yard setbacks has been granted to other properties in the neighborhood including 2950 Minnehaha Blvd. located five properties to the east where in 2006 additions and alterations increased the degree of nonconformity of a dwelling with a 16.2-foot setback, that was case 5865. Included with the above noted various forms of variance relief have been those for accessory structures in other than conforming yards. As described by the Board in its above referenced decision in case 7901 which also permitted an accessory shed in a side yard quote, garages, pools and sheds are common improvements within the Laughing Waters community end quote. As another example for 1515 Minnehaha Blvd. located south and inland of the subject property, the Board in 2006 granted relief necessary to connect a previously existing accessory garage that was located historically in a side yard to the primary dwelling structure which then created a nonconforming side yard setback to the newly attached garage and that was case 6342 which I thought was interesting because here the applicants are just proposing to do the exact reverse. They're separating the existing attached garage from the dwelling to create the accessory with no side yard setback , nonconformity. Just to wrap up, of course there's the other variance standard that requires no adverse impacts to the environmental or physical conditions, those are listed in our application. Just quickly, the new house will of course be FEMA compliant. The existing conventional septic system which is located only about sixty feet from Corey Creek will be replaced with an IA system located closer to the road. They're proposing to remove the existing asphalt driveway and replace it with a new pervious gravel driveway thereby additionally decreasing lot coverage by impervious surface even though it's not counted as lot coverage by the town. A ten-foot-wide vegetated non-turf buffer which is something that we would anticipate the Trustees would look for as proposed to be, established adjacent to the wetland area and of course a stormwater drainage system is proposed to capture and recharge roof runoff. Sean can attest, we spent tremendous amount of time on the design on the application, we think it's a good one and we hope that the Board will agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's see what question the Board has, actually my only question was, given how many attached garages are essentially characteristic of the neighborhood why,detach the garage and you answered the question without my having'to ask it. ROB HERRMANN : I knew you would ask, well I mean we struggled with that from the get go of which way to go and you know if not for the GFA they would have had a choice but without the GFA in position we don't have a choice and based on a prior decision that didn't go well I wanted to make sure the Board understood that this is truly our only practical alternative. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob, questions? 57 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : No, I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : At this time I'm fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Will the new house be connected to public water? ROB HERRMANN : I believe the answer to that is yes. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just ask because the Short Environmental Form indicates it won't be but all the surrounding properties appear to be connected to public water. ROB HERRMANN : It's connected now, that's probably a typo and we can correct that, I apologize. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That was my only question, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience want to address the application? Anybody on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? . MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8057—ROBERT and NANCY BERTORELLO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert and Nancy Bertorello #8057. This is a request for variances from Article III-Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 2, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage and. to legalize an existing shed at 1) accessory garage is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) accessory shed is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1800 Country Club Drive in Cutchogue. Good afternoon, would you state your name for the record please. JIM DELUCA : Jim DeLuca, I'm the architect on the project. I'm here representing Nancy and Bob Bertorello. The two items that we'd like to address today is the existing shed approximately 200 sq. ft. and the proposed garage which is 1,500 sq. ft. The reason for the garage is that we added an addition on to the house and the existing garage the three and a half car garage that was there has been eliminated and he's putting the proposed garage where it is because of two reasons. Number one, the terrain and access to the small,garage that is in the addition also the reason it's going in that location is, it can be tied into the existing driveway. Actually, to the north is the entrance you can see it in the design drawings that I presented to the Board. The elevations and the floor plan of the proposed garage shows that's the shed and there's some place .there it is and to the right that's the there we go, as you can see to the north side of the garage there's a two entrance doors and if you look at the east elevation the side you can see the elevation there of the existing is about four feet below the plate height of the garage and on the west side of the elevation you can see there's a full that's at ground level. So that's the reason why and you can see in the front elevation there you can see where the retaining wall is and that is the driveway to the existing garage. That's the reason why we.had to put it in that location. Also, this is not going to be a wet garage, it's a garage for his Bob has a couple of antique cars plus his own vehicles that's all it's going to be used for and the shed has been there and he uses it for garden equipment and different items. The existing septic system, when we added the addition on was upgraded to the new required systems by the Board of Health. Part of the existing it doesn't show on that survey cause it was put in afterwards the retaining wall is already in and as you can see on the elevations before the garage the eastern side of the garage is going to be resting on that retaining wall. We had to put it where it is because of the site conditions. If I put it any further back, he would have to increase,the size of the driveway and it wouldn't be any further from the wetlands than it is now. We have 100.8 feet to the proposed, we can probably push it back another foot or so but that's definitely the only location that is advantageous to the terrain and to the existing driveway that's actually he's taking it out because of the construction and he's going to reinstall it and there will be a sort of a dog leg on that garage to attach to the entrance to it from the existing driveway. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was fun driving in and backing out let me tell you with all that asphalt being torn up. JIM DELUCA : The architecture as you can see is conducive to the neighborhood, it's not it fits right in with his as a matter of fact I designed the house about thirty years ago we did the existing house. We tried to make the addition match, the existing architecture, it matches the neighborhood it really doesn't have any impact on the neighbors. The lot is as you can see the survey it's quite big it's probably the largest lot in the development. You can see that the property is well maintained when you go there. Right now, because of the excavation it's a little bit lawn is taken up in spots but we wanted to be good neighbors and fit in with the existing character of the neighborhood and I feel it does. If there's any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. As you can see, we supplied drainage for everything,there won't be any runoff into the wetlands nor to the adjacent properties. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it's an unusually you know constrained lot based upon the shape,the wetlands boundaries,the terrain itself. JIM DELUCA : Everything is made it complicated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No visual impact on anything here at all. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Mr. DeLuca, are there any Covenants and Restrictions on the subject property or within the subdivision? JIM DELUCA : There is when we got the addition onto the'house they had some rules he went around to neighbors and nobody said' had any nobody said anything as far as I know. I don't think there's anything relevant to the construction, I think it's just architecturally that they were concerned about but otherwise I don't know of any. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The garage is proposed to be an unheated, unfinished MEMBER STEINBUGLER : And no water. JIM DELUCA : Unheated, unfinished and no water. He collects cars like I do but mainly it's his first personal vehicles. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It was puzzling over the elevations, is it possible that the east and west labels are reversed? 6G November 6,2025 Regular Meeting JIM DELUCA : Well, its' funny you ask that. When you look at it, you're looking at the east side but realistically it's on the west side of the property so I could have you understand what I'm saying? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes I do. I interpreted it to mean an east elevation was the east side of the structure I see. JIM DELUCA : It's how it's oriented on the property or how you look at it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think on'the west elevation what we're looking at is the side of the garage that would face the house. JIM DELUCA : Right on the east side but when you look at it it's on the west side of the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whatever happened to front, back and sides? JIM DELUCA : I was trying to be more specific but it got too involved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing out here is north or west, it's northwest or southeast. MEMBER STEINBUGLER I had another question just relative to the shed, it's in a nonconforming location, would it be difficult to relocate it to the rear yard? JIM DELUCA : No, he can I'm sure he can get a forklift to pick it up and move it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got enough equipment on there to move the house let alone a shed. JIM DELUCA : He can move it. On the other drawings I'm going to rename it and make it left side and right side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. DeLuca, apparently there are Covenants and Restrictions and it disallows accessory garages. JIM DELUCA : Okay, I didn't see those. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a civil matter. MEMBER LEHNERT : Laurel Links didn't even propose it. JIM DELUCA : All I know is what I told you, I don't know any more about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have them. What is it saying, no detached garages? Maybe they're not enforcing them. We can make you a copy of the C&R's that we have for the �1 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting neighborhood. Apparently, there are some accessory garages in the neighborhood but the Covenants and Restrictions prohibit accessory garages. Maybe they're not enforcing it, I don't know. JIM DELUCA : It's funny that you say that because I have where I live in Riverhead, we have Covenants and Restrictions and they had a when they file them they have a date where they cease to exist anymore and for instance (inaudible) a sunset clause and where I live it was twenty years and they had even where you couldn't put a clothes line out. When I bought the property and put it up, they wanted to look at the drawings they sent them in and they said don't bother everything is sunset so now there isn't any. Most of these Covenants and Restrictions have sunset dates. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Quite a lot of them do. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Do you want to ask about the date of the survey indicating 100.8 foot setback from the wetlands? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We had an interdepartmental meeting on this we do often when there's concurrent jurisdiction Trustees, Planning and Zoning and there's a little,confusion about the date of the survey and the delineation of where the wetlands is on the property because you are setback at this point in a conforming location to the wetlands but there was it's a very old survey and wetlands change all the time. I think Planning was suggesting T. A. MCGIVNEY : The LWRP Coordinator CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was right on the MEMBER LEHNERT :The survey, you mean this one from Nate? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea MEMBER LEHNERT :July 28, 2025 JIM DELUCA : I can't get any information out of him. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's not well. There's nothing that's showing the flagging of the wetlands delineation and by whom and the date so that was something that they were looking at. Right now you don't have to go before the Trustees because it's showing it as conforming to the wetland setback but we don't really know exactly when those wetlands were flagged. JIM DELUCA : Well, I would say probably originally when I did the original job thirty years ago it was a very simple survey and it wasn't by Nate it was by someone else. When I wanted to November 6,2025 Regular Meeting when the Bertorello's wanted to do this job I ordered a new survey to put the addition on the house so there was nothing done between thirty years ago and this addition to the house. The original survey as I said wasn't done by as a matter of fact if you look back at the original files see sort of a square and that's how they did it back then they did a C.O. and that was over. With this survey was not was done just for the addition on the house and the new septic system, this was not an old survey updated this was a new survey. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : What year was that? MEMBER LEHNERT :The survey was done in '24 but it was last updated July 28, 2025. JIM DELUCA : Yea that's what I'm saying it's fairly new. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to find the LWRP, we can't approve anything without finding it consistent with the LWRP and sometimes we do that JIM DELUCA : I have the one I submitted if you want that a copy of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have an LWRP, that's why we can't find it in the packet. know what it was, we were talking about it at a meeting and we have finally gotten in the Planning Department an Environmental Planner who will be doing them going forward. JIM DELUCAN : I received an email with the very question that you raised and I forwarded the email over to Mr. Bertorello and he could not or did not or could not get in touch with,Nate. To be perfectly honest with you I .told the Bertorellos to get a new surveyor to be honest. With my other projects that I have, I have many of them, I've gotten other surveyors to do the work. That's where the status is now and as far as the neighbors, I don't I know the Bertorellos talked to the neighbors and there was no problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have anything in our record that's either supporting or objecting it's just we haven't (inaudible). JIM DELUCA : I can't vouch where the information you're the LWRP is, all's I know is I filled one out and I have a copy of it here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess we didn't get one because they couldn't determine where the flagged wetland they didn't feel that the wetlands were flagged recently enough in order to write an LWRP consistency or inconsistency. JIM DELUCA : I can only advise the client but if they don't do what I advise them then there's nothing I can do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting JIM DELUCA : My suggestion is that,,they just get a new surveyor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean I think we've heard everything we're going to hear on this. I don't want,to delay everything forever but, it would be beneficial if we did stamp a new survey that you know was updated that showed that you are still conforming to the wetland setback. What we could do is just if we're going to approve it, we could condition the approval subject to the submission within say a year. JIM DELUCA : I'll take care of that. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Is it definitely going to conform? JIM DELUCA : It's going to conform and I'll tell you why. I know it for a'fact because the retaining wall is in and I know exactly where the retaining wall is. As a matter of fact, it's slightly more to the east so that setback line is actually about a foot and a half further away from the 100.9 it's actually further east of that. So, it's actually less of a variance not a variance it's less of an encroachment on the wetlands. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's the creek not the bay it's not going to vary tremendously. It's not like the Sound or the bay with a shoreline. JIM DELUCA : If you want I can add something to what we're talking about. DEC has been there already and they asked Mr. Bertorello to install some I guess grass or some type of stuff and he's done that and I'm only telling you what I was told. He was sent the photos in and they said that was good, it was fine. Now, I don't have anything in writing again but I can tell you that has been done and they were satisfied with that. He wasn't fined, there wasn't nothing apparently for some reason DEC was down there which I don't know and they looked at the site and they said we want he add like a peat moss area and they said they wanted it changed into grasses. He brought sand in, put the grasses in as they CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not turf, in other words just grasses. JIM DELUCA : Oh no, it was grasses and he did that and they as of yesterday they were fine with it, they said it was absolutely okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, if you're pretty confident that you know that a new survey is I mean as an architect you can well you need to get an environmental specialist to flag those wetlands but other than that I mean we would accept your stamped site plan but you know JIM DELUCA : No, I'm confident, I would stamp it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : somebody licensed to 641 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How can we determine or even think about relief on a structure that the Covenants and Restrictions forbid? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a civil matter. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) if in the event that they weren't allowed maybe you were to reconsider your design that's the reason that I brought it up. JIM DELUCA : I was going to say that but I'm glad you said it, it is a civil matter it's not a zoning matter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No if they have problems they have to take it up, with the homeowners association. JIM DELUCA : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sometimes when there are C&R's the homeowners will submit a letter of approval,.a letter of support or something like that. JIM DELUCA : Well,the construction is obvious, I mean they've been working on that for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A longtime. JIM DELUCA : and the lot is flagged as you can see it, we flagged the corners of the with the pictures I sent in as flagged. He knows the neighbors and I mean they know so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what are you thinking? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Will the LWRP Coordinator we need that input to make a decision so I don't think we can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we can't that's part of the problem. I think we're caught in a catch twenty-two here. The LWRP Coordinator doesn't want to make a determination because they're not confident that the survey is current enough in order to be able to say, that is where the wetland delineation is and without the LWRP consistency or inconsistency we're stuck because we can't really do an approval. I think the thing to do is to submit whatever you can that is updated that confirms from whoever is licensed to do so which may even include you exactly where those wetlands are. Then we can get the determination from the LWRP. I mean I don't see the point of having another hearing unless there's something.we haven't predicted happening. I mean we can just leave this open so that we don't have to mess around you know re-noticing and everything else we just leave this open till we resolve that so that we can make a decision. 6S November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting JIM DELUCA : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We legally can't it's like without SEAR if we don't have a SEAR determination we can't decide on anything either. JIM DELUCA : I have it in my records here in the file. If I showed you the original survey that was approved to put the building in I mean the survey with a square on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We had VanTuyl surveys here that we are lucky to have a square. I mean the mimeograph machine was so faded that purple ink that everything was printed on. JIM DELUCA : I'm confident that this survey is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then if we can just get an updated 'confirmation you know somehow. MEMBER LEHNERT : Updated flagged wetlands. The survey is from this summer, we know that so the wetlands are flagged that's all we need. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : That way we can get you know the LWRP what she wanted something with a current date on it. If you have something with a current date on it our office can send it up there. JIM DELUCA : This survey has a current date the only thing I can do is I mean he signed and sealed it so he's specifying that that's where it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What date is on that survey? MEMBER LEHNERT :This summer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then what was the problem? MEMBER LEHNERT : It's July. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then what the heck is the problem with LWRP? JIM DELUCA : That's what I don't understand, to get another one with a signature on it I mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't need it then. JIM DELUCA : I don't understand. . T. A. MCGIVNEY : Is there a flagging of the wetlands, a delineation on his survey? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes, edge of the wetlands as of July 28, 2025. 661 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting JIM DELUCA : Yea, as I said this is a current survey. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Who did the delineation? JIM DELUCA : He's certifying it, he's stamping it that that's where it is. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Who did the flagging,-who flagged the wetlands for him? JIM DELUCA : For'him, as I said I can't get the information out of it now exactly the person who did it because he's ill but he's certifying that that's where it is. I mean once he signs and seals it that's his signature. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's a legal document at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think under the circumstances that may be an unreasonable request an unnecessary request. JIM DELUCA : For me to get my seal and put it on this I mean that's the same thing: This was done the original was done this is a brand-new survey it was done in August of 2024 and it was updated to put the addition on septic system and the proposed garage. It's exactly what we did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what we can do with getting an LWRP out of this. We'll talk to the LWRP Coordinator at the moment temporarily it's Heather Lanza who is the Planning Director of the town. It's my understanding that an environmental planner has been hired and will be taking over that job. JIM DELUCA : Of course to be honest with you I mean I've seen some on other projects I've done here some comments and frankly I couldn't understand them. I mean some of them mean were kind of bizarre when I was reading them, they didn't make any sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What LWRP? JIM DELUCA : Yea I mean when I checked off something we were adding a second floor on and it's out of the wetlands it's above the elevation ten and it doesn't affect anything I mean it's right in the existing envelope and I can't understand why now it has an affect on the it had nothing to do with it so you know sometimes I have to disagree with some of the things that are said because they don't make any sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN You're allowed to disagree, you're absolutely allowed to disagree. You won't be the first and you wouldn't be the last. The LWRP is an interpretation of the policies in the town code and whether it's consistent with those policies or not. We've had plenty of people here disagreeing and making their own argument and sometimes we simply 6,7 November 6,2025 Regular Meeting say, well it is consistent based upon conditions imposed to your (inaudible). You need Trustees approval you know what I mean? We work around it we need to have something in our record cause there are wetlands. JIM DELUCA : What would you like me to do at this point? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think you have to do anything at this point. I think it's internal, we will probably just have to contact Planning and just say, we discussed this at length, if need be, they can read the transcript to this hearing to see exactly what we discussed and then we'll say we really need you to issue something because we believe we have everything in our record that is required. JIM DELUCA : Realistically I know from the location of the retaining wall now versus the width of the garage being added onto it it's further than what shows on the plan, actually it's about a foot more than shows on there. I mean we did that when we did the planning of the garage, I marked it out on there according to the grading where the garage we could fit it. Then they were constructing the retaining wall because of the addition and shots were taken from the wetlands to where the retaining wall was is an we backed out the dimension to thirty feet, it actually added a foot onto that I was trying get a survey showing that but I just couldn't get it for the reasons we discussed before. I was supposed to have it before the meeting today and obviously I don't have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess the only question was, who actually flagged the wetlands? I think that the current coordinator wanted to make sure that it was a qualified individual who flagged them; obviously the date is okay cause it's current but it,didn't say who flagged it. JIM DELUCA : Yea well that's a little bit of a tough thing right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we understand that entirely. JIM DELUCA : No one would like it more than 1. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I get it. Alright so we're going Liz can you make a note to call up to Heather and explain the situation and see just tell her we think that we're confident that we have the right information, it's current and that we can't find out who flagged it but that it is being certified by Nate Corwin as accurate. We don't know who did it so would they please issue an LWRP report under circumstances and let me know what and if I have to talk to her Julie does we'll talk to her. JIM DELUCA : I thank you very much for your time. 691 November 6,2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Anybody else want to address the application? Please come forward and state your name. SCOTT MASTERSON : Hello, I'm Scot Masterson I'm representing North Fork Country Club we're the neighbors. This may be completely off cause we're watching this build; it certainly was in conformity what we've seen built and feel this is a nice thing, you can walk down the fairway it looks great. What's confusing at the moment is now a new foundation that's been built and attached to something that was already built so question one was, what's the foundation is that the garage? If it is our first statement would be, if that's the garage how come they started building it without having approval? Secondly, if it's not the garage what is it and where does the garage go in relationship to that new foundation? I have a picture if you'd like to see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, sure. SCOTT MASTERSON : If I could see them I could tell you. That's the retaining wall holding up the driveway this is all a retaining wall, the garage starts right there so what's between the house and the garage? JIM DELUCA : There's nothing there's a driveway. SCOTT MASTERSON : That's it that's a driveway, what's the one that looks like a-garage door there? JIM DELUCA : It's the addition that we had done and we had a building permit. I said there's a small garage on the addition and that's the garage. SCOTT MASTERSON : Okay, from our standpoint the only thing we again, this is whether we can make this request or not, could they landscape to a certain degree the side that we see. They do a great job of landscaping the pool that's there probably for privacy, garages don't often get the same privacy. From out standpoint if they can somehow address that we would really not have much of an objection. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : You want the garage side facing the country club the golf course landscaped or the retaining wall area or both? SCOTT MASTERSON :They'll definitely do the landscape. JIM DELUCA : It is going to be landscaped can I go up to the screen? T. A. MCGIVNEY : Maybe before you do that can you just repeat what you said the conversation between the two of you because it has to go into the transcript. November 6,2025 Regular Meeting JIM DELUCA : (up at the screen) for this area and retaining wall his question about, this is the retaining wall if you look at the grading you can see the difference in the grading that's why we had to put a retaining wall and now the retaining wall is going this way and it's going to go into it'll go down to nothing right here where the driveway is going to come in. As far as the landscaping, he's putting this is a planter here and then he's carrying the shrubs all the way around (inaudible) bushes all the way around. SCOTT MASTERSON : Perfect JIM DELUCA : Mr. Bertorello I can say actually he's a fanatic when it comes to landscaping, I can assure you that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anybody else? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Mtg. until we get a LWRP determination. I don't anticipate any further questions or any need to have another hearing so let's just leave it flexible till we can get what we need and expedite this efficiently. JIM DELUCA : I appreciate it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8051—ISAAC ISRAEL and STEPHANIE ISRAEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Isaac Israel and Stephanie Israel #8051. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 10, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a 701 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting permit to demolish (by Southold Town Code definition) an existing single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 300 Private Road#4 (Diachun Rd.) in Laurel. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good evening Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good one Anthony. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It would have been good afternoon if it was an hour earlier. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : We're looking at a rear yard setback of 47.6 feet where the code requires 50 feet. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct and basically we are demo'ing the building but we're leaving the foundation,, we're basically adding to the northside of the building and then we're also doing the detached garage. We have non-jurisdiction DEC, non-jurisdiction Trustees. We are providing a new IA system and proper drainage for the new structures for rain water collection. We are not increasing the existing nonconformance so it's somewhat of a formality I would say that we're here today for this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we've all been out to see the property and it's incredibly isolated, nothing is going to be visible from there, you don't see from Peconic Bay Blvd. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The owners are actually looking to make this their residence it's currently it's a rental.They want to move to Mattituck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The yard -itself is very large, it overlooks basically an open,field. There are some landscaped screening in place already, a cyclone fence. There were a whole bunch of priors in here which are in our file anyway, things that were granted on the property. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Basically being a reconstruction is the reason. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep, Margaret, questions? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just about the shed that's in the back left corner that isn't on the survey, is that going,to remain? I don't really think there's anything wrong with it I'm not sure it meets setbacks but there's a small shed that isn't on the survey. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We'd like to keep it, I think it's not that it requires a permit but.we can make sure that it's within the setback requirements. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : You can't tell looking at the property, you don't know where the property line is, it's not spray painted so ANTHONY PORTILLO : If you'd like to put that as you know part of the approval that's fine we'll verify it and make sure it is. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thanks, that's the only question I had. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While you're making notes, Anthony this might be a better question for Ike, the property that sort of surrounding this is like county owned, what is that right of way lead to? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The one that goes past the property? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea to the north. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I believe it's just an empty lot. ISAAC ISRAEL : Isaac Israel. This property was the Diachun family farm it was about thirty acres. The existing lot has been split where the house was split for a pretty long time and there was two other building lots.The County of Suffolk with the town purchased it and made it Brush's Creek Preserve I want to say like in 2018 which I believe is about thirty acres overall. r We have the easement we have a road you know a vehicular and a utility easement from Peconic Bay Blvd. that you see over there to our property that's kind of like an island in the middle. So, we're surrounded by the preserve on three sides. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So is that like a public preserve that people can (inaudible)? ISAAC ISRAEL : Yea it's like a little pocket park, it does have a sign at the street. You do see a lot of neighbors coming just to walk their dog and MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I thought there was a sign that said, the right of way lead to a parking area for the preserve. MEMBER LEHNERT : I remember when they built that when they created that. ISAAC ISRAEL : The map is showing which also was done by Nate Corwin but that's really showing our easement area but there is a parking area where the cutoff is on the south. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry if you want to continue whether it's Donna or Liz I don't know whose moving the mouse,there's a parking area to the north of the subject property. ISAAC ISRAEL : No, it's just for walking MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To the south. ISAAC ISRAEL : It says where there's this concrete monument that's the end of the easement. Right here there's a chain so it's really just walking from here. So, people pull up and then park over here or park over here. They allow archery there so you also see hunters there. There's a couple of tree stands but it's a neat little, it's a loop, it's probably less than a mile just a little CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : little hidden gems in the town of Southold. ISAAC ISRAEL : I believe the reason they bought cause it's sensitive cause it was really that whole side a lot of waterfront of the creek, Brush's Creek which CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, Brush's Creek is very delicate. ISSAC ISRAEL : It goes under Peconic Bay Blvd. you can get there by kayak but that's like I don't think a Boston Whaler or anything would CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN No, no, no a kayak and duck, I've tried it. I don't have any further, questions? Margaret anything from you or Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything you guys? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience? Anybody on Zoom? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye 3 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#80355E—615 PIKE STREET, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We, did on our agenda earlier today indicate that the SEQRA determination it's a proposal for commercial building with four (4) retail take-out units and basement storage pursuant to Town Code 280-45B(9), declared action and determination of significance shall be determined by the Planning Board as Lead Agency. We can hear the application but obviously we can't make any decision until we get a SEQRA determination. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I guess I'll just say where we're at with that. We went to the work shop and there were a few requests for some additional items so we are actually handing that in tomorrow and then we're going to be on for the next work shop I believe is in two weeks. In regards to the SEQRA I guess I'll have to check with them, I don't know why maybe they're waiting till they approve the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They won't do a SEQRA until you have a completed application. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right, so that's probably what happened. Okay, that's fine, should we just table and then I'll come back or you want me to talk about the project? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In case there are changes to what we have in here it probably makes sense to just adjourn without a date until you tell us that you're ready you know we have a SEQRA determination. As soon as we have SEQRA then we're going to assume they've made a determination based on what they have and if we have the same thing in our record, we're good to go. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Since I'm here I've actually never done this before so the Special Exception for the take-out, is there anything I should bring with me? I read the zoning code, it seemed that it was more about parking, having a loading zone, it seemed pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Most of the Special Exception standards-for this type of building have to do with site plan approval. We would still be looking at some environmental impacts 74 November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting but we would be looking at character of the neighborhood, some variance kinds of things that would overlap with the SEQRA standards I mean the Special Exception standards. MEMBER LEHNERT : Paul Pawlowski down here, didn't we do one a couple of years ago? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Was that Good Food? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think for Steve (inaudible) house next door. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh correct yea, he's the owner of the adjacent property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who was the guy that owned the Old Colonial. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Brody CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This was his property and he was before us at least three or four or five times. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea so actually a funny story is I was hired by him originally CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You were in high school. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I was hired by him out of high school four years ago, five years ago and we did come up with a plan for this property, retail totally different and he might have had a heart attack because of this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First it was one thing and he kept changing his mind. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well, he had a septic design this is the reason it didn't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN That's the problem it was wet uses and not dry retail. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Designed by Dunn, they didn't do IA, the Planning Department said you have to have an IA system. He couldn't get passed that and he basically told a couple in Planning off and I said I can no longer work for you because you don't talk to people that way. Basically, that's how we ended our relationship and then funny enough Steve bought this from (inaudible) after Mr. Brody passed and Steve called me and asked if I would be interested in working on this and�that's where we're at. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know this flat empty featureless piece of property right. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting l MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That once had a beautiful house on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It did have a nice house on it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I do think this I mean I don't know how much we can talk about it but I do think this is a great addition to Love Lane and the area and what Steve is looking to do with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a perfect and appropriate use. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely but why wouldn't you have a second story with some apartments? I understand that there's an added expense but there's the septic credits. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well, the parking was also very difficult unless we shrunk the retail. Steve owns and there could be a possibility that he uses one of these retails or both the retails and then rents the take-out spaces. He's not in the food business. He's not really sure MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not anymore. ANTHONY PORTILLO : He's not really sure what he wants like if he's going to rent all four, if he's going to use two and maybe move (inaudible) from Love Lane I don't know but I think the accomplishment here was one of the main things when I was working with Mr. Brody was that Planning wanted the building aligned and extending that walkway that they have in front of Good Food and basically making it very pedestrian friendly; people can eat out there. I do think this is what I was going to talk to you, I do think that the take-out scenario he does have kind of people talking about it. It's great for that little area there cause I could see that being a nice little picnic area. We also were able to accomplish the parking so we don't need to use the municipal parking across the street. I think based on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : People will park there anyway if it but that's fine I mean look, parking is always a problem in this town when it comes to commercial stuff. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Not that I'm saying these are the tenants but currently it's one's a bakery and one's a like a brick oven pizza kind of place. That's kind of what he imagines there as well, that's where we're at. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As I recall the septic was a big problem with whether it was dry retail or whether it was a wet you know use. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I kind of look at this property as bridging the commercial to the residential section of Pike. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a transition zone really. November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : If you look at my design I sort of (inaudible) the residential and commercial I thought. That was how this sort of (inaudible) happen. That would be the final kind of look, you get a little residential look. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nice, it (inaudible) street well too. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think so yea, I think it's pretty and I think it works well next to the Good Food building is a little bit CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is why the barn like ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think it's kind of the breaking*point for residential. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a big improvement over what Brody was proposing, quite different is it not. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay, I guess I'll wait until I have that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we just what do you want to do, do you want to adjourn this what do you think the best way to handle it is? T. A. MCGIVNEY :Adjourn it to January, February? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could why don't we just adjourn this to February? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think that's fair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's keep a date so that you're not delayed if you don't have to be. We'll do that and see where we are with SEQRA. They should probably be okay by then I would think. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to February 5, 2026. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Before we do these quickly, we didn't add the Resolution to extend the Enclaves. What the applicant's attorney was asking for was a two-year extension November 6,2025 Regular Meeting which would put them to the max., they get three years automatically and then three additional years but we have only ever done one year at a time and I think MEMBER LEHNERT : They're under construction right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would suggest we do another year and if they need the final extension they'll, (inaudible). So, we would .be extending the second request would be to extend to December 2, 2026. Does that make sense to everybody, I mean they more or less are entitled to it. We've always done one year at a time and if he needs the final one, he'll get it but he just has to stay on top of it and ask for it. So, I will make a motion to extend the application approval for the application for the Enclaves#7046SE December 2, 2021 to extend the Special Exception permit to December 2, 2026 for a period of one year. Any discussion? This is for ZBA # 7046SE at 56655 Main Street LLC The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant. All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, December 4, 2025. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on October 16, 2025. November 6,2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Aye. Motion to close the meeting. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye November 6, 2025 Regular Meeting 1 CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape-recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature U Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : November 19,2025 o