Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/04/2025 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York December 4, 2025 10:12 A.M. Board Members: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member(Vice Chair) MARGARET STEINBUGLER—Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Henry H. Bostic III 5 - 6 3850 Alvahs Lane, LLC/Cutchogue Vineyard, LLC/Justin Mirro#8059 6 - 11 Nathan Brzozowski #8060 12 - 17 Christine Calarco #8061 17 - 21 Edward A. Harvey and Mary H. Harvey#8062 21 - 23 Marianna August/ BMB Homes, Inc. #8068 23 -30 Jane Beineman and Gianfranco Mitrione #8064 30-32 Braveporter LLC/Joe lavarone#8048 32 - 54 Shelter Island Sound Inc. #8067 55- 63 John G. Bradley and Irene Bradley#8063 63 - 67 Sangrok Lee#8065 67-74 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter is, the State Environmental Reviews. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)6 NYCRR Part 617.5 © including the following:- 3850 Alvahs Lane, Nathan Brzozowski, Christine Calarco, Edward A. Harvey and Mary H. Harvey, Marianna August/BMB Homes, Jane Beineman and Gianfranco Mitrione, Braveporter, LLC/Joe lavarone, Shelter Island Sound Inc., John G. Bradley and Irene Bradley and Sangrok Lee so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a draft in front of us for Nancy and Robert Bertorello no I'm sorry we do not, I'm going to make a motion we have the LWRP and the C&R's, I'm going to make a motion to close that hearing reserved decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a draft in front of us for Henry and MARTIN FINNEGAN : Excuse me Leslie, can I be heard on this on Bostic before the decision is made here? 3 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On Bertorello? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, on Bostic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Martin, your request for reopening the hearing was denied, you did make that request. MARTIN FINNEGAN I never heard that from anybody officially but I guess I don't understand why and why I understand there were some concerns that were raised by the Board. I made a request to reopen the record so we could address them and make some modifications to the plan. To deny the application and require my client to refile completely and repay the fees again I don't think is fair. I made a legitimate request to reopen the record and I don't think it's unreasonable and I don't know why the Board would have a problem with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The revisions that you submitted included changing a bathroom door that was is. There was no other change in the revised plan that you submitted. The Board looked at that and felt that that was not adequate and therefore I mean you said specifically to make revisions and here's a revised specifically about the bathroom door the orientation cause you knew we were concerned about it becoming a full bathroom and so on. Everything else was identical, the Board decided that it had sufficient information to proceed on making a decision. Am I right Board? Does anyone else want to address this?As a courtesy to Martin I mean I don't want to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Some of the discussion also I believe in the request was that the applicant wanted an opportunity to speak and we also discussed that there was a public hearing that if they had an interest in speaking should have actually participated in. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well, my client was not able to attend the hearing obviously we were sort of ambushed by Gail at the end of the hearing and so the issues that were raised I probably should not have closed the record and that is on me. I should have kept it open but I didn't think it was unreasonable to request on those grounds. If the Board had other concerns, we could have continued to discuss that but the door was the major issue raised at the hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, there was also a question as to why it was two story, the fact that we do not have much precedent if any for a purpose built artist studio in a new accessory structure. MARTIN FINNEGAN : But there's nothing in your interpretation that speaks to that or requires December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right, there's nothing there that speaks to it. The precedent was to establish that use on the basis of sixteen conditions of approval. No one is denying that you didn't you know meet those conditions of approval, we're confident this is a legitimate,artist but that was to be in an existing building, one room that's it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : But where does it say that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is not appropriate for us to be discussing. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Look, I appreciate the opportunity I don't know I guess we'll see how it works out. I would renew my request to reopen the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Now do you want to deliberate on this draft? Let's review what's in this decision. Margaret do you want to walk us through it? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : This is a property on Narrow River Rd. in Orient, it's a conforming property in the R200 zoning district. The request was to build an accessory garage containing an artist studio. The Building Department denied the request because the proposed use in an accessory building is not a permitted accessory use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, this was not a variance it's a request to overturn the Notice of Disapproval. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Overturn the Notice of Disapproval. While the Board agreed that the applicant was persuasively established to be a bona fide artist and designer, the location of the propped garage studio adjacent to the pool and labeled connected to the pool according to the architect's language, new porch to tie into existing pool terrace, the presence of the bathroom, the presence of an outdoor shower on the porch suggested that it was likely the building would be used also as a pool house in addition to garage and household storage and as an artist studio. The artist needs to view her art from a height above the single level was brought up in the hearing and the Board believes that there are other options for achieving that goal such as scaffolding, a ladder or rolling safety platforms/ladder. Additionally, this Board has that we know of no precedent for approving a purpose-built multi-floor, multi-use accessory structure or for approving particularly where such uses are not permitted. In light of all those facts I make a motion to uphold the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 5 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,the motion carries. HEARING#8059—3850 ALVAHS LANE, LLC/CUTCHOGUE VINEYARD, LLC/JUSTIN MIRRO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for 3850 Alvahs Lane LLC/Cutchogue Vineyard LLC/Justin Mirro#8059. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's August 1, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to change a lot line at 1) proposed parcel No. 1 having less than the permitted lot area of 80,000 sq. ft., 2) proposed parcel No. 1 having less than the permitted lot width of 175 linear feet, 3) proposed parcel No. 1 having less than the permitted lot depth of 250 linear feet located at 3850 and 4050 Alvahs Lane in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? JUSTIN MIRRO :Justin Mirro CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, we're looking at a proposed lot line change. Tell us what you want us to know about this. JUSTIN MIRRO : I own both properties wholly by myself, no liens, no mortgages and the larger property which is approximately four acres which sits behind the smaller property, I was trying to establish a passage way from Alvahs Lane that's thirty feet wide so that someday in the future when I build a house on that property for my daughter that she will actually have a proper driveway going to that property. Right now, the existing driveway is on the far side of the property, it's sandwiched between vine, post and a neighbor's deer fence and it's very difficult to navigate that roadway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let's enter into the record the specifics please, the lot size is this is proposed lot one, 24,888 sq. ft. where the code requires 80,000; lot width of 96.31 feet where the code requires 175, lot depth of 231.92, the code requires 250. The lot is conforming 24,888 sq. ft. in an AC zone; lot 3.4 is conforming now. Let's see what else, does anybody have any questions, Margaret? 6 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's an observation apd maybe you can comment on it but it looks like the proposed lot one would be rather oddly well the area would remain the same, it would be oddly and perhaps somewhat inconveniently shaped for future development having kind of a long tail running north/south. Do you have plans for that lot? JUSTIN MIRRO : I have no plans at all .for lot one, the only thing I was trying to do was maintain the frontage on Alvahs Lane to be consistent with the neighbors. The three neighbors that are directly to the north of the property have actually much narrower lots than this one. So, this lot is actually wider than the three closest neighbors. I know the depth is a little is much deeper and you're right it does have an odd shape at the end but that's just excess property, I don't think anyone would complain about having more land behind their house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So actually to that point if I can Mr. Mirro, is there any intent or this is an AC zone so in.theory you need 80,000 sq. ft. approximately two acres for a house the proposed lot 2 is 3.7 acres so while you can't subdivide it by right would there be any interest in subdividing it in the future or seeking variance relief to achieve that? JUSTIN MIRRO : I have no plans to do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In changing maybe the lot line shape a little bit adding extra land to propose lot one, would that be a possibility? JUSTIN MIRRO : My goal was to try and make sure both lots are exactly the same before and after. I was told by the Planning Department that I was supposed to do that so that's why I tried to maintain exactly the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to need site plan approval from the Planning Board after this variance if granted you're going to have to get this blessed by lot line changes have to go to the Planning Board also. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just thinking it would be more conforming rather than half an acre it would be more conforming to the zone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you had a pre-conference submission with Planning? JUSTIN MIRRO : I've sat down with Heather Lanza, we went over this and her thought was that this did not require her Planning Department to review as long as you guys were fine with it because there's no services on either property, I have no plans to do anything in the imminent future. I mean I'm talking about maybe in ten years from now so I have no plans, I don't want to do anything. So, she said to me as long as you're not planning on anything and 7 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting currently there is no building structure, there's no services there wasn't really anything for her to really review. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically when a lot line change takes place that requires variance relief if it's granted by this Board then it has to be codified by the Planning Board. JUSTIN MIRRO : Her comment on that was, if the Health Department has to get involved yes that is the case, I don't have Health Department here because there is no water, there's no septic there's nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that will be something the Building Department will I guess look at but that's only going to happen when you're proposing to build anything. The Building Department isn't going to look at it now. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right, nothing to build. I just wanted to ask one more thing, you mentioned that the proposed frontage on Alvahs Lane for the property directly on Alvahs would be larger than the lots to the north, do you know how it compares to the lots to the south? JUSTIN MIRRO : The one directly to the south I think it's about fifteen feet shorter from a frontage standpoint, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : This was sent to the Planning Board for comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn't get them yet. The Notice of Disapproval here that the Building Department issued that you have a copy of JUSTIN MIRRO : I know it says the Planning Department CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : says the lot line change requires approval from Southold Town Planning Board. What we would take if the Planning Board has verification with the Building Department that site plan approval is not required, we are going to need something in writing from the Planning Board of from Heather. JUSTIN MIRRO : I asked Heather for that specifically cause I gave her that document, I read her that line and I said what should I do and she said she cannot comment until it goes in front of ZBA. It was kind of the chicken or the egg here I didn't know what to do at that point. 8 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well what do you suggest, do we want to close it subject to receipt? What we need is some confirmation that you do or you don't need site plan approval. MEMBER LEHNERT : We can condition it subject to receipt. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We don't know what the comments would be so how can -we determine? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Until we know what comments are forthcoming I don't know how we can condition it because the conditions may change something that we're looking at here. I think what we need to do is to get you need to get back to Planning saying we heard it, we're keeping it open because your testimony indicated that your conversation with Heather said site plan approval is not required but our Notice of Disapproval says it is. We will need something in writing from either Heather and or the Building Department to say it's not or whatever comments she wants to say about it. JUSTIN MIRRO : Could we get a conditional approval assuming there's no comments and so if there are no comments then it's approved, if she has a comment then we can go back because otherwise it's kind of circular loop unfortunately. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have to wait until we hear what the comments are. This is a standard procedure, this is what we do all the time. It's the first time I've heard somebody come and say, well I met with Planning and said they don't require site plan approval even though the Notice of Disapproval says they do. I want to know on what basis Heather is making that comment. JUSTIN MIRRO : Me too. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Is this just a I don't know what the word is but a definitional thing? It doesn't say that site plan approval is required right cause there really is no site plan it's just a lot line change. So, do we need the Planning Board's comments on the lot line change? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea MEMBER LEHNERT : Or the Building Department to remove that, line from the Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you can convince the Building Department to remove that from the Notice of Disapproval we're fine or just indicate that what we need are have we requested comments? 9 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so we have requested comments and she is saying that she's not going to comment until MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well Kim hasn't been informed. BOARD SECRETARY : We just haven't received them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, we don't want hold anything up for you anymore than necessary and so what we'll have to do is just adjourn this without a date until we get the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I say just hold it to the Special. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll just adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks. If they have a meeting on Monday it can probably be resolved on Monday and then we can proceed. JUSTIN MIRRO : Would I have to come back again? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, not necessarily. JUSTIN MIRRO : Fill out these green cards again? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you don't have to do any of that and there's no more additional charge, we're just waiting for those comments. JUSTIN MIRRO : Okay, that's fine I'm in no rush I just want to make sure I don't have to redo the whole process again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the Board finds something in the comments that we get that possibly requires an answer from you or some sort of comment then we will see you two weeks later at our next public hearing but you won't have to re-notice, we're adjourning it so you don't have to do anything you just show up if needed. If you're not needed based on comments that we receive at our Special Meeting which is in two weeks in the Annex in the afternoon then we're just going to close it and proceed if we have the comments, we'll close it and if we don't have any other questions and we'll write a decision. JUSTIN MIRRO : Is there anything else that I should be doing right now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just making sure that they address the request for comments at their next meeting just to expedite it because if they don't have it for us in two weeks then we will adjourn again to the next Regular Meeting in a month assuming they can get it to us by then. All we're doing is our due diligence we're just doing what the law requires us to have. December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Or he can also get the Building Department to change the Notice if that can happen too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's another option but the standard procedure is always, Planning does review lot line changes. JUSTIN MIRRO : So, I should go speak with Heather Lanza and her to respond to your request for comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly and that's it. JUSTIN MIRRO :Then l would wait to hear from someone? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, we'll let you know if we get them you'll get a copy, we'll make sure that you have a copy of whatever comments we get. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just a thought, if the Planning Board's meeting is Monday the agenda for that meeting should be available today or tomorrow maybe not online but if you go to the Planning Department in the next day or so you might request an agenda to see if this is on their agenda for Monday.That would be just information for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's not on the agenda you can request that it be put on the agenda based upon today's hearing. JUSTIN MIRRO,: Perfect, any other questions for me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience want to address the application? Is Zoom working? No hands. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on December 18cn MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 11 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting HEARING#8060—NATHAN BRZOZOWSKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Nathan Brzozowski #8060. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 31, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application -for a permit to construct an accessory barn at 1) located in an area other than the code required rear yard located at 34460 NYS Rt. 25 in Cutchogue. LISA POYER : Good morning, Lisa Poyer on behalf of the applicants. The application before you is to construct an accessory structure which is a barn in the side yard of the residence that's under construction on the property. It was a vacant lot, it's a uniquely shaped lot, it's kind of an L-shaped it's got a large frontage along Main Rd. and there's a dog leg that kind of sticks off to south. It's a long skinny kind of lot but there's a lot of lot frontage along Main Rd. There's extensive wetlands in the corner of the property that runs basically the south and all along the western property lines. I don't know if you have the survey in front of you just so you can see that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep LISA POYER : The lot was vacant, there was recently a building permit issued for the house which is under construction with an attached garage with a breezeway, swimming pool; everything has received a Trustee permit including the proposed accessory structure in the I guess side yard, other than the rear yard. It's received DEC approval as well for that accessory structure. The owner is just looking to construct that barn in a more logical location than trying to stick it back behind the residence where it's the lot is a lot narrower there you have a lot steeper slopes in that area so additional grading would have to,be. done, additional clearing of the property would need to be completed in order to place the proposed barn in a conforming location, extensive tree cutting. It would be up against the school property so the owner is just trying to keep it more towards the front. The lot to the west which is where the barn would be located nearest that's a vacant property at the moment. The proposed barn does meet the required front yard setback as well as side yard, wetland setbacks. I'm here to answer any additional questions you may have or anybody in the audience or Zoom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a difficult lot, that's for sure. Margaret? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I do have a question, what's the use of the barn, what's the planned use? 12 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting LISA POYER : It's for the owner to just store items and he does boat making in his spare time, it's his hobby, like smaller boats. I have photographs of him making an eighteen-foot boat so he just needs space to do his hobby. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's meant to be a workshop. LISA POYER : It's a workshop but he has a bigger hobby that needs space. It will be unfinished. MEMBER STEINBUGLER,: The architectural plans show a curb cut on the west side, it's labeled construction entrance but think it is probably intended to remain for access? LISA POYER : Correct, well it's actually currently still there. The DOT there were two curb cuts onto the property, one on the east side and one on the west side. The east side is the one being used for the existing for the proposed under construction house sorry and then the west one that's already there will be utilized for the barn as a secondary access in there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Is that west curb cut currently LISA POYER : It's currently there, it's a little overgrown with grass and stuff but it's there as far as cutting the curb. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Does the cedar hedge go through it across it? LISA POYER : I believe it does but he'll remove two of those or three of the MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So no NYS DOT approval is needed? LISA POYER : Correct cause it's existing and as you mentioned there is cedar trees that are planted between the proposed barn and the roadway to help screen it and it was I believe staked on the property if you visited the site. It's in a fairly level area it's already cleared. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I did want to run through some of the and I want to thank you for giving the examples of prior ZBA approvals of structures in non-conforming locations. I went through them and I want to run through them with you now to give you an opportunity to comment on LISA POYER : I know some of them are a garage or other structures it's nothing of this size for this kind of a nature but MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right, I think the 8016 Flowers and Flores was a lot line change and the barn there was no new construction on that approval that was an existing somewhat historic barn. Maybe I'll just summarize and say that most of the other if not all of the other examples I think three or four of them, the home lacked a garage so they were getting a 3. December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting garage. In one of them there was an attached garage and an additional garage was approved. I think the property had three front yards so they were constrained in finding a conforming location. As far as I could tell the largest of these garages approved of the examples that you provided was 1,200 sq. ft. and this request is for, I think 2,400 sq. ft. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to I'm kind of making a distinction between these prior approvals and this application before us and I want to give you the opportunity to respond. LISA POYER : Those were submitted as examples of other accessory structures that were approved by the Board previously for properties where the accessory structure was in other than the rear yard. Like I said, this lot is you know unique shaped, it's got constraints by significant wetlands, it's up against the school on one side. He was trying to site it in a good location what he felt for what the current site conditions were with previous clearing that was done on the property, previous site disturbance you know we're not having to cut down anymore trees. If we were going to have to put in the rear ya,rd of the property, we'd have to bring in additional utilities, bring in additional site grading potentially retaining walls back in that area to put the garage in a conforming location. They were submitted to try to provide examples if they aren't valid then that's okay. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I did want to ask about visibility, I think the height of the proposed barn is twenty-one feet and change and based on my site inspection it seemed like it would be visible from somebody just somebody walking along Main Rd. either the south or the north side of Main Rd. particularly the north side and I realized there are cedar plantings but they vary in height and they're actually kind of short on the east side of the property so I think it's going to be pretty visible. LISA POYER : It'll be visible, it does meet front yard setback so even if you were to put a residence in that location it would still be visible to the same degree that a residence would be even less because it's only twenty one feet not a residential height. Again, we're trying to take into account the conditions, extensive wetlands, the surrounding property uses. He wants you know trying to keep it away from the school kids next door that kind of information. So, he just we felt that it was located in a while not meeting code in a good location for the site and not having to push it further back into undisturbed land right now. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think those are all my questions Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO Lisa, would you mind elaborating a bit more on the workshop nature of this building? LISA POYER : As far as it's 141 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just to repeat what you were talking about how the owner intends to use LISA POYER : He builds, I'll submit a couple of photographs. It's his hobby, it's not a business, it's not any kind of thing like that. For his personal hobby for his personal pleasure, he builds small boats so he just needs space to actually do that work just storage space you know it would be no different.than any other personal hobby. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where does he presently build them? LISA POYER : I don't know, I can find out but he's building a new house on this property so he would like to be able to you know go to this other structure and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It does have a substantial garage already why wouldn't he build the boats in the existing structure or LISA POYER : Maybe that he's moving to this new location, I don't know that I can find out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lisa, Donna just pointed out that the owner is on Zoom if you want to bring him in to answer that question? LISA POYER : If he's available, yea. NATHAN BRZOZOWSKI : I actually I do build boats currently, I build small wooden boats that's a hobby of mine. The two-car garage on site is to house cars that I will be driving. I purchased the property several years ago to relocate to out of New Jersey. I'm moving back east after twenty years out west working in Manhattan, I'm coming back east. I grew up on the South Fork, I want to put all my stuff out there on my property that I just bought so I'd like to have the workshop, my wood shop and boat shop out there with me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you sell these boats? NATHAN BRZOZOWSKI : No ma'am, unless of course you know I'm done personally using them and I'm just building a new one for myself. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How many boats have you built? NATHAN BRZOZOWSKI : I finished my second one this past summer, it's currently being stored right down the road in Southold Marine Center. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have a code interpretation much like artist studios which the code does not clearly at this point maybe when it's updated it will have workshop as a permitted use. It's permitted by virtue of review by the ZBA based upon a series of standards 151 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting that were part of a code interpretation that basically indicated that under certain circumstances if it was not at all for commercial purposes, there was no retail sale going on out of there that it was basically a benign personal hobby of the property owner. The property owner owned the residence and so on. I'd have to look that one back up to tell you the truth. There is that precedent that did permit that but we would have to double check that's why we want to know what you were going to use it for. Some workshops are not permitted I mean if it's going to be if there's noxious fumes coming out of there, if you're doing welding it could be dangerous things like that. This looks primarily like carpentry is that correct? NATHAN BRZOZOWSKI : That's correct, it's wooden boats and it's just me I don't have people joining me there you know creating tremendous amount of noise it's me you know on the weekends messing around in a carpenter's wood shop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so there's no employees or anything like that or apprentices, assistants. NATHAN BRZOZOWSKI : No, nothing sometimes I wish I did but no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was also just going to add, there's an awful lot of gravel and parking, the driveway access to the proposed structure sort of runs immediately in front of Main Rd., is there a landscaping plan is there anything to shield that? LISA POYER : If it's required we can submit that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Some consideration maybe to reverse the design so that the like just the gravel driveway would lead behind the barn? I mean the area with the school there's a lot of visible parking in that part of the world and this is you know a historically well open sort of area. LISA POYER :That's something we can review and take a look at. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These plans are so small, what's the front yard setback? LISA POYER : Sixty feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board?Anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? Okay, are we ready to close? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? :t6l December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#8061—CHRISTINE CALARCO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christine Calarco #8061. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 26, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single-family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 245 Glenwood Rd. in Cutchogue. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant. Yes, this is a proposed one-story addition 600 sq. ft. about as well as an open deck which is about 613 sq. ft. on this lot, it's an 11,250 sq. ft. lot down in Fleets Neck on the corner of Glenwood and Hamilton. As you know the .area down there is heavily vegetated, lot of trees. The interesting thing about this property is that the neighboring lot kind of wraps around it, it's an L-shaped lot in this (inaudible) but visually it kind of appears that that it's a fifty-foot-wide strip that goes the width of my client's property and so it's a substantial buffer off the north end of the property between our property line and the property to the north and visually kind of appears like it's part of our property.The garage sits right there kind of almost right off the actual driveway property line there. All that to say that, while the lot coverage variance at 24.6 may seem significant at first glance, if you look at this property and as practically speaking and I kind of did the math and if you included the square footage of that driveway area that the neighboring (inaudible) doesn't use for anything it's just simply access but it takes us down to about 18% lot coverage and I know you have to review the lot we have,but just in terms of analyzing it based on any type of impact. I would 171 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting suggest to you that it would be minimal. Fleets Neck as you know, there's varying lot sizes, house sizes just in this neck of the woods there the lot sizes very significantly, many lots have very large homes on them in relation to the size of the parcel. Here with what is proposed with this addition we're still 500 sq. ft. under the allowable gross floor area. My clients really wanted to do this as a single story you know they could have gone up but they want to maintain kind of the cottage style of the house, they want to maintain the one-story living.as they grow older for convenient use. The deck is just simply for you know outdoor seasonal living space, again, this is tucked back in Fleets Neck there really visible only to just a few other homes. I would submit to you that the relief sought even though 23% is not you know practically substantial in light of the location of the lot, the significant buffering that exists to the north where all of these improvements will be and you know there's no perceivable environmental impact the project contemplates an upgrade to an IA system so we would say that you know really no adverse impacts here to speak of. With that I'm happy to address any questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did have one, in reading the application there's a reference to the deck being needed for quote, appropriate access, what does that mean? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well, just to access to the house, I mean the way they're removing right now there's an access there's a set of stairs that are going to be demolished, there's an outdoor shower that's going to be demolished and the new door the addition will have a new access so just access. That's how they have to climb up the deck to get into the house, it's nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a big deck that's being proposed and when you're dealing with a lot coverage issue you're not going to understand somebody needing the space in the house. There's plenty of flat grassy area along Hamilton you know where an at grade patio for outdoor recreational purposed could be incorporated and I'm just suggesting the possibility of reducing the size of the proposed deck to reduce the lot coverage so that it's not as quite a variance. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To that point, if you took the deck out of the mix it's actually the house is at 19.1%so they've really maximized their lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With the house, yea. MARTIN FINNEGAN : But again it's a rather modest addition to this house and again still 500 sq.ft. less than allowable GFA so it's not like some massive expansion here. If you look around the corner there's some houses that are just like you can't believe I don't know how they got them but they got them. Understood though, I mean I'm happy to discuss with my client and 1$ December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting maybe come back with something that's a little tighter than what's proposed. If you'd like we can adjourn this to the next meeting and I can just talk to my client. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to adjourn to the Special Meeting in two weeks or to the public hearing? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think we can do it to the Special. I can talk to them and we can maybe if I can send revised plans by then and see if we can pair it back and come up with something a little bit tighter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, no I agree, the house thing makes a lot of sense but you do have options for outdoor recreation that could reduce the lot coverage. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay MEMBER LEHNERT :Twenty four and a half is a big number. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Understood MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin clarify, in your opening statement you discussed it's a proposed addition, why does the Notice of Disapproval announce this as a demolition? MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's by town code definition. MEMBER LEHNERT : Are they doing work on the rest of the house? MARTIN FINNEGAN : There's going to be interior renovations and alterations. The house is being all interior redone with this addition so I guess CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's based on the valuation, they're doing a lot of interior demolition. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean almost anything you do these days is a demo I mean it takes almost no work to get to that determination these days. Everything is deemed a demo so that's that but at the end of the day the relief we're seeking is the same no matter what. Let's move on and I will come back with something. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would like to ask a question, it goes to the lot coverage but it looks like in the proposed plans there is no driveway access to the existing garage and I wondered if that might be an opportunity to also reduce lot coverage. The plan shows a driveway but the driveway doesn't appear to intersect with the garage on the site plan. 1911 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : No that just referencing that's the neighbor's driveway that I'm talking about that fifty foot right of way. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea I'm talking about the site plan the proposed site plan that shows a driveway on the right side of the property CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Running along Hamilton. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Intersecting at a ninety degree angle with Hamilton, not the dirt driveway belonging to the neighbors but the driveway that will belong to this subject house. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, yes that's there that's existing. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes, yes but currently I think it goes all the way to the garage and it appears in this plan that it doesn't go all the way to the garage. I was just suggesting that maybe there's an opportunity to work on lot coverage via the garage. MARTIN FINNEGAN : You mean by removing the garage? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well it looks like it's not even going to be in use for car storage maybe I'm interpreting incorrectly but MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think they use it for pretty necessary storage for the house this size but I can ask the question. I thought you were referring to the driveway in contributing to lot coverage though, we know that doesn't (inaudible). MEMBER, STEINBUGLER : No I'm just saying that the garage'counts and I don't see that the driveway in the proposed plan even connects to the garage. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Let me talk to Mark about that cause that could just be an error on the site plan. My recollection is that it does go their driveway does access the it's very MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Currently, yes. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't know what the methods of the madness is there.but I'll double check though and we can correct that as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from any other Board Members? Anyone on Zoom, anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on December 18th for potential reduction in lot coverage. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 20 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8062—EDWARD A. HARVEY and MARY H. HARVEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before th,e Board is for Edward A. Harvey and Mary H. Harvey #8062. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 1, 2025 AMENDED September 5, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit it demolish (as per Town Code definition) a single-family dwelling (per Building Permit #51905) and reconstruct a single-family dwelling with additions and alterations at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet located at 3549 Clay Point Rd. on Fishers Island. We have a front yard setback proposed at 23.35 feet where the code requires 50 feet. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants Edward and Mary Harvey. Yes, we're seeking a single front yard setback variance. This project was underway and this little bump out as you can see, I know you don't have it up there but we're here for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've got it here, we have all our packets. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Sol this little bump out what we're here about. It is a total of 28 sq. ft. it was a slight expansion of the foundation to increase that bedroom, obviously in a very modest way. I don't think this was really discovered on the initial review by the Building Department there were further inspections and then it triggered us coming here. The construction is actually continued, it was deemed a demo so we're in kind of pausing right now just to get before you and make sure everything is good to go. Again, just to quickly I don't believe that the granting of relief here will have any adverse impact. We've obtained three letters in support from the surrounding neighbors. Essentially what the relief is granting here will be imperceptible in terms of the renovation, the balance of what is being renovated in the house is all complying and conforming so no need for any further relief. However, we 1 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting do need the variance because of this pre-existing non-conforming front yard setback here, it's a corner lot so you know clearly if it weren't we wouldn't need any relief but we're here because it's a corner lot. So, because of the pre-existing non-conformity and the deemed demo we require relief. I would suggest to you that the relief is not substantial in light of the fact that this is such a minor, small addition only being you know really two feet in the same pretty much same existing pre-existing non-conforming setback. Obviously, no, perceivable environmental impacts here so I'm happy to address any questions the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin, would you tell us what the existing setback is for the house prior to that small bump out? It's not shown on the survey or the site plan. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think it's pretty much the same thing, that was what I thought it can't be more than a you know 24 feet, I don't have that I don't know why they didn't put that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was thinking maybe it was like 25 feet or something and I don't know how important it is cause it is modest as you were saying. That's the existing house so whether or not relief is granted, that structure is physically there. I'm just asking what the distance is. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I honestly don't know why that was not included in the plan but yea I mean you just by visual you can see that it's probably about 24 or 25, a little bit more than 24 it's on an angle so I don't think it would be the full few feet but MEMBER LEHNERT : I can't be more than 2 feet. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It can't be, I think it's probably 24, 25. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I did the ruler method, I got 24 to 25 feet and I had the.same question. Less than two feet difference I'd say. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing that I would add and I know that we're not screen sharing with the audience or Zoom attendees don't see, when you look at the elevation of the house you can understand architecturally why the little reverse gable it's just augments what would be otherwise a very long structure. Even though it's an original structure it's just in keeping with the proposed changes it enhances the design. I don't mean to make your case but MARTIN FINNEGAN : No but I appreciate that Nick. 22. 1 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody on the Board?Anyone in the audience or on Zoom? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8068—MARIANNA AUGUST/BMB HOMES, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Marianna August/BMB Homes, Inc. #8068. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 16, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" alterations to a single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 1900 Gillette Drive in East Marion. ANTHONY MITOLA : Anthony Mitola for the applicant, good morning Board Members, Ms. Chairwoman. These two structures in front of the Board today, the front roof over, the front deck is 30 feet, it needs to be 35 we're only asking for 5 feet. The rear deck is 32 feet, we're asking for 3 feet. There is no adverse effect to the neighbors. These structures were built in April of 2025, 1 mean it seems pretty simple. Is there any questions or comments from the Board? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob can we start with you? MEMBER LEHNERT Yes, the front deck, is there any way we can bring it more into conformance with the code? 23 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY MITOLA : The front deck is pretty much it only bumps out 5.1 feet, it's pretty standard for a roof over front porch like that. It is existing and like I said we're only asking for 5 feet. Most of the houses in the area the houses are actually closer to the front property line, the houses itself. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have evidence that would illustrate the either averaging or the closeness that you just stated? Usually, it seems that those neighboring homes are set further back. ANTHONY MITOLA : Yea I have a couple of pictures on my phone. I mean to be honest with you I just my friend just asked me to do this the other day. I've been doing variances for fifteen years, I am somewhat well versed with this, I only have a couple of pictures on my phone and it's just of like MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well, I think you need surveys or actual data you know some research that illustrates that this is common to the neighborhood. MEMBER LEHNERT : Old variance approvals. ANTHONY MITOLA : I understand what you're saying. Once again, there really is not adverse effect I mean it's not really going to set a total crazy precedent in the area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, front yard averaging is an option but you should have been advised by the Building Department if that was viable. In other words, in both directions on either side of the house going on the same side of the street. We have done a site inspection as you probably know, we've all been out there to see it personally and our visualizing what we looked at on that side of the street it seemed that things were set back a little bit farther. ANTHONY MITOLA : Okay, the reason why I did make that comment is, cause quickly I did look on it was just like Zillow and like looking at the houses and it looked like from the phone that they were closer. I can't be totally sure to that comment, it just looked from my experience I'm pretty well versed I've been doing this for a while but the whole thing is, this has built already for eight months. It's a beautiful house, it's a beautiful deck and there really is no adverse effect to the neighbors at all. They're pretty much both entry decks, I mean a roofed over porch is pretty standard in general the way it is and then the back is just an entry deck as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you explain to us how we ended up here, where was the error made in the original survey, what are the occurrences that transpired that brought you before us? How did the house get built? 2Q December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting. ANTHONY MITOLA : That I cannot talk to, what I do know is that the two structures were built in April and I don't know I'm being honest with you guys, I'm just here helping out a friend. What I do know is, we are here in front of the Board today to move forward. Once again) will say that you know the setbacks are very minor. MEMBER LEHNERT So, obviously the house was built to a conforming setback. The house was built to a conforming setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house has a conforming setback. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct, it seems the deck was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As soon as they added the decks on the front and the back that's where they MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We don't have the benefit of the original building permit. ANTHONY MITOLA : They must not have been because they were added in April. Generally, though, a four-foot width, five-foot width is typical on a front porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, we know that but the point is, I think they must have gone in to get a building permit for the house and then later decided they wanted to have these entries on the front and the back and therefore required variance relief after they built the house. Is that correct? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The Building Department sent an email to the applicants indicating that the this is in September 2025, the front porch and rear deck do not match the original plans and do not meet setback requirements and I will have to write a Notice of Disapproval for the project and then you will have to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for setback variances. So, it appears the home was built not in compliance with the plans that were submitted to the Building Department.. ANTHONY MITOLA : Okay MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just from a mathematical standpoint, I just want to check the number.The applicant's submission for the actual plans for.the house as it's built today shows the house as being 29 feet in depth without the front porch and the front yard setback of 35 and the rear yard setback of 35 offers a yield of 99 feet for a lot that's 100 feet deep. So, this is something that perhaps the applicant knew when they were building the house that there was no room for a front porch. 25 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY MITOLA : Cause the setback to the house is 35.1 anyway but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly so there's no way that ANTHONY MITOLA : you wouldn't need every house that is built I've been in this business you know even through my father who built houses in the nineties no matter what this was going to require a variance anyway because of the setback to the house was 35.1 MEMBER LEHNERT : No, without the deck it wouldn't require a variance you just have steps up to the house which are allowed. ANTHONY MITOLA : Which is a beautiful 1.8 million dollar house. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm not questioning that, I'm just saying as per the code without the deck you would have steps to grade that would not require a variance as per the building permit that they received to build the house. ANTHONY MITOLA : I understand what you're saying but what I was stating is, this is a 1.8 million dollar house and just like regular steps you know it looks beautiful the way it is. MEMBER LEHNERT : But they applied for a building permit, I'm assuming with regular steps. I don't have the existing the plans from the permit in front of me. So, if they got a permit for 35 feet they would have steps to grade. ANTHONY MITOLA : Yea MEMBER LEHNERT : And that's where they knowingly went and built this deck without a permit knowing they needed a variance. ANTHONY MITOLA : I can't speak for that whether they knew or not because my client that I deal with he owns like houses in Brookhaven the Town of Brookhaven. MEMBER LEHNERT : If they knew they would have come here first, applied for the deck before they built it. ANTHONY MITOLA : Once again, I cannot speak to that, I don't I mean I can get all that information and come back however the Board feels is appropriate that way is fine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm still perplexed even how the original building permit was issued because, front porch aside which 'the front fagade meets the front yard setback, the rear yard is 32 feet and that's just to sort of the basement access but if you review the 2 foot cantilever on the second floor it still yields a 34 foot. So how can the building permit be issued without variance relief? 2 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Like I said, we don't have those plans in front of us. Is there a C.O. for the house that was constructed under that building permit? ANTHONY MITOLA : I don't know to be honest with you. So, if I need to adjourn this and come back I will. I will be honest with you I'm always generally very prepared, in a situation like this I'm going to be honest with you, I'm not and I honestly thought just a couple of feet you know wasn't like a terrible issue. I also aware that I'm not as prepared as I probably should have been so I would like to adjourn it. I don't know what the best case is here to be honest with you. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'd be interested to see the plans that were approved from the Building Department for the house from the building permit. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What about the pool? MEMBER LEHNERT :They have a permit for the pool. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think Pat observed, there was no enclosure for the pool mechanicals. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's a little thing here that says pool equipment on the survey. MEMBER ACAMPORA : But it's not enclosed. ANTHONY MITOLA : What is the code for pools and pool equipment to property lines in the Town of Southold? MEMBER LEHNERT : Pool and pool equipment must maintain a minimum side and rear yard setback of 5 feet as per the building permit. ANTHONY MITOLA :Okay MEMBER LEHNERT : That was written in the building permit for the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess the point we're making is, the fact that someone spend a lot of money on a house is not a reason to build something that you know I'm not talking about you I'm you know the fact of the matter is, it's very difficult for somebody to come before the Board and say, well it's already there I built it, I built it without benefit of a variance, I built it without benefit of a building permit that would have created the Notice of Disapproval and so reward me for the fact that I did something incorrectly. ANTHONY MITOLA : I understand what you're saying and you know what, that's my life. I've done over three hundred and fifty variances of existing structures in the Town of Brookhaven. 27 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then you know. ANTHONY MITOLA : Now I know and that's why I was saying and I wasn't being rude to you at all I was just stating, I don't know what transpired I really don't in this situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : There's just one or two other things I'd like to I don't know point out or ask, the application that came before this Board indicated that the sky plane compliance, the gross floor area compliance and the lot coverage compliance were n/a, not applicable; I want to point out that they're all applicable and we're able to determine from the plans that the gross floor area complies. The lot coverage appears to have been calculated incorrectly. It appears to me that it didn't include the swimming pool which is appropriately included in the lot coverage. Lastly, I did not find on the plans that came before us a diagram indicating whether the house is compliant with the sky plane regulation, I can't comment, I don't know. It may be a building permit plans but if so, the applicant whoever filled out the form could have said, complies and this application could have included the same diagram that was provided for the building permit. So, I just think those particularly the sky plane compliance needs to be established. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems that when I think about it because the elevation of the house it's substantially higher than the natural grade so maybe to your point there was a sky plane issue. If you stand at the shoulder of the road, you have ten feet and then the forty-five- degree angle you're going to be hitting the roof not the roof but the second floor. It's really built up on the hill. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it wasn't called out in the Notice of Disapproval but then it's possible that they just didn't have a diagram and they didn't particularly look for it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Or if it was brought in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look, they also might have had plans without the porches on them without the front and back which would have made a difference. I'll tell you what, it's very clear that you are now being brought up to speed with this and what this application involves. In fairness, why don't we consider adjourning this to the next public hearing because we will need to talk about whatever you March? Well, it's there anyway so it's they're not like having a problem with it. Alright we're going to have to adjourn this to March 5th because we are so busy in January and February with other applications that have been calendared that that's the next available time when we can add additional hearings. ANTHONY MITOLA : Yea, that's a ways away and I understand. 2,8 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : In that time, can you provide us with the set of plans that were approved by the Building Department? CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Calculate the lot coverage with the swimming pool. MEMBER LEHNERT : The original building permit, correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Get the lot coverage calculated that includes all the structures, the decks on the front and the back which may not have been on the original plans, the swimming pool okay. ANTHONY MITOLA : Get the lot coverage that calculates everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep ANTHONY MITOLA : That's from the Building Department itself? Or is that, you're talking about on the survey? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You might need the surveyor ANTHONY MITOLA : Okay then it would be the surveyor, I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They would have to do that. ANTHONY MITOLA : Alright, and then what is March 5tn? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the public hearing that MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's a Thursday. ANTHONY MITOLA : Okay, thank you. Is that it then, am I free to go? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to March 5tn. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye- MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye 29 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING #8064—JANE BEINEMAN and GIANFRANCO MITRIONE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jane Beineman and Gianfranco Mitrione #8064. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 11, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) a single-family dwelling and reconstruct a single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 10100 New Suffolk Ave. in Cutchogue. Member Planamento is recused from this hearing. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. This project consists of a renovation of the existing first floor of the home including the existing attached garage space. The addition of a new garage to the north side and a modest second- floor addition for a primary bedroom. We're here simply because we're doing the renovation within the pre-existing non-conforming rear yard setback at 41.6 feet. This lot is the northern most lot of three lots that were created by the original grantors back in 1973. There are homes on the parcels to the south. The immediate home to the south just below ours is actually placed a little bit south on the lot so the impacts are even less to that property by what is proposed which is you know just a renovation really within the footprint. The second- story addition was actually pushed north so it is actually within the 50-foot rear yard setback to arguably not increase the degree of non-conformity there either. We do have a-letter of support which was submitted for the record from our neighbor to the south who has no objection to the proposed construction. The applicant is also proposing to upgrade the sanitary system as part of this renovation. Again, we submit to you that what is proposed is a home that is entirely in character with surrounding homes even though this home is barely even visible from New Suffolk Ave. it's all kind of clustered back there. It will certainly result in a more aesthetically pleasing home than there is there now. The house is pretty dated and its sort of screaming for a MEMBER,ACAMPORA : No driveway. MARTIN FINNEGAN : there's that although the pre-existing non-conformity requires a variance I would suggest to you that it is not substantial since we're not increasing the degree and as I said the second-story addition is going to be moved forward not within the setback. 30 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting The upgraded sanitary system would indicate that there's no environmental impacts. That's really it,just looking to renovate within the existing footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Included in our record is a parcel complaint report from 5/8/24, part of the attached garage was converted to living space without a building permit, just putting it in the record that's all. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'm not aware of that but that'll be taken CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : People are allowed to convert attached garage you know it can become habitable space but you need a building permit so I presume MARTIN FINNEGAN : That was resolved though before my client's purchased the property. The prior owner CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is prior? MARTIN FINEGAN : Kate Samuels is here by the way who is the project architect should there be any questions but it seems to like the project is pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's a 41.6 foot rear yard setback that's existing and the code requires 50 feet. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Existing that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there's no increase in degree of non-conformance, the existing footprint is being maintained in its renovations. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nothing from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Nothing from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing, I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Close reserve decision, is there a second? 31 r December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8048- BRAVEPORTER LLC/JOE IAVARONE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Braveporter LLC/Joe lavarone #8048. This is a request for a Reversal of the Building Inspector's June 16, 2025 Notice of Disapproval or in the alternative a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123A and the Building Inspector's June 16, 2025 amended October 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize the "as built" demolition (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruction of an existing single-family dwelling and to legalize the "as built" demolition (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruction of an existing seasonal cottage (converted to year-round use) at 1) cottage is a non-conforming building containing a non-conforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use, 2) dwelling less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) dwelling is less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1425 Bay Ave. (adj. to Marion Lake) in East Marion. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants, I have Joe lavarone with me the young guy over here and Kate Samuels who is the design professional. Let me start off by saying that the structures that are here on this property have pre-C.O.'s for them.The process was they filed for building permits right away well, let me start with there was some maintenance work that was definitely needed, the roof needed to be maintained so Joe put new roofs on the structures and siding which is non structural work. Then for the permit work they put in an application to the Building Department for window replacements for both the house and the cottage. The building permit was issued 'and the work commenced. The windows I think based on all the applications you've heard today and I think there is definitely a need to make a correction to our code because everything seems to be coming to you for a 321 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting demolition/reconstruction by definition and the second you replace windows you need headers. Oftentimes depending on the age of the existing structure and very quickly it becomes a demolition, stops the whole project or delays the project and we now treat the house as if they don't exist under the code. That is not the case here, we have two existing structures that my client wants to preserve, bought the property to preserve the structures and. was doing essentially what our code has now asked owners to do which is to keep the look of structures rather than demolishing and building with gross floor area variances and the rest. Here we have a situation where the owner wants to preserve the property but he's here nevertheless because it seems that no matter what you do you end up before this Board. The property as I've given to you in writing, this has two addresses.We found in our research that these were in fact two separate properties at one point. The front parcel ended I would say just slightly after the garage, the existing garage that has one address. The prior owners prior to Williams, Williams was the owner, my client bought from Williams. Prior to Williams the parcels were described as parcel one and parcel two. I wasn't able to get those deeds because the systems went down but for the Williams property, I have that deed and the Williams when they purchased the property it showed the old way of doing things, we saved money with the county clerk by showing it was one document that had parcel one and parcel two. When Williams purchased it in '81 they described it as parcel one and parcel two. A little history on the up zoning and the merger law, when up zoning occurred the parcels even two improved parcels were technically merged. The Williams family could have come in and gotten a waiver of merger but at the time that they were selling this property Mrs. Williams who is Mrs. Frausto they had previously been divorced, Mr. and Mrs. Williams divorced then the son was put on the title with the mother and by the time they were ready to sell to my client she was I believe in a wheelchair, she was incapacitated. I believe that ultimately there just wasn't resources to do anything other than sell the property for her continued care. So, my client purchased the property again, with the pre-C.O.'s of the property and one option we have down the line certainly not at this point because we need to get those building permits reactivated but at some point, it certainly would be possible with a subdivision application, lots of area variances to reestablishment of the two lots, that would eliminate a non-conforming structure scenario and maybe again, down the line my client is young his resources are limited. He's got two little kids and that process is kind of a big undertaking to go through but it is a possibility. At this point and time that's not our application because we have two existing structures. I have this is not the first application, you've heard from me many a times, the request to reverse the Building Department's determination of a non- conforming use for a secondary structure. The Dawson case is constantly being cited by me; I've been reprimanded in the past at hearings because I site the case but I have something that very fortuitously came out. Farrell Fritz sends out zoning articles to the bar and they actually have a very good article that I'm going to present to you to hopefully give you some 33 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting background. Also, you can educate Town Attorney, you can educate the Building Department. This particular article says, non-conforming use or non-conforming structure and it cites Dawson and it's very, very clearly written, very simply written not an extensive article you can read it in a minute and it describes the fact that in this case and in any case where you have based on our zoning code, when you have a secondary structure, it is actually a non- conforming structure not a non-conforming use. In our non-conforming structures law, you are allowed to make alterations, reconstructions all the work that may be necessary to bring the structure into conformity with the state building code. I'm going to give this to you for your reading, six is enough, right? Consistent with my many times I've argued this legal point and we used to have a saying that familiarity breeds content. When you hear from somebody that appears before you all the time.nobody wants to listen to legal opinions but here, I have an independent source that is educating the Board on a non-conforming use versus a non- conforming structure. Nevertheless, this is an article that cites cases that are the cases that I'm always citing for the Board and I'm hoping that eventually the Building Department will not send these applications to you. In our case here again, the existing structures need some remediation. Let me start with the main house, the main house the prior owners had-plans to demolish the house that was a prior special permit application as you know to demolish the house and build a whole new house by the Williams family. That was not within the financial plan of my client plus he likes you know these are very quaint houses that actually look very pretty right now he did a good job. They're lovely homes, this one is a two-bedroom house, you have the interior layout of the existing house. Relatively little structural work was needed, there are some remediation of some of the interior structural elements. Half the house has a cement foundation the other half is on posts and realistically you have to meet the state building code of today when you start doing any alterations. The Building Department doesn't let you go by the code that was in place at the time the house was built or even any renovations of it. The work that was needed turned into a demolition, reconstruction by definition. That is not what the client wants to do, he's preserving this is a renovation but in order to meet the Building Department's determination we are here before the Board to keep the house just as it is. There's no expansion to the footprint, there's no expansion to the use, it's an existing dwelling. I saw the LWRP comments, I just got them here at the meeting today. The Trustees had issued a permit in 2024 so the Williams family applied for a building permit to demolish and reconstruct, there was a building permit issued and there was a Trustees permit for a demolition and new construction. I'm anticipating that we are going to have to go to the Trustees for any work even though it's not changing the footprint, it's not changing the house in any way and the wetlands were identified on the survey and they are identified as WLF1-4 down at the bottom of the wetland delineation is on the survey the 2024 survey. Marion Lake you have the topography there as you know, you have it up above high as the crow flies we may or may not be withing their jurisdiction but 3,41 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting again, it's work to the existing house and the amount of excavation was done was around the perimeter just to get access to the underneath the house. So, there's no aggressive construction, demolition anything going on in the main house. If you have any questions about the main house, you can ask me now or I'll now go to the next the cottage. Based on your experience I'm sure you know, whenever you're dealing with a non-conforming structure and the Building Department and attached to that article, I actually had the housing inspection cause I didn't have it prior but there's`a housing inspection that was done when the pre-C.O. was issued. That was when I believe when Williams purchased the property. At that time, the housing code inspection pointed out that there was heated needed to be repaired, so the way the pre-C.O.'s are issued sometimes is that they will site what they call violations, there's housing code violations things that need to be corrected. They were listed and it shows an OK next to it so those things were corrected at some point. So, that cottage had heat, the insulation of when it was constructed was most likely inadequate. It was considered by the Assessors as a seasonal structure. My client anytime you're doing under the current building code, when the Building Department looks at any identified as a seasonal structure because of the energy code most likely more so than the fact it has heat or doesn't have heat the Building Department makes you, forces you to upgrade certain things to meet current code standards. So, as part of this project he has to put insulation, he has to put I think we have a heat pump proposed for the HVAC. I'm going by my memory of all the details of the renovation of the cottage. All those things are absolutely mandated, anytime you're making renovations to a pre-existing. Again, in our case we're not changing the footprint, we're not changing the structure other than what is absolutely necessary under the state building code. The last structure there is a framed garage, it has a roof it has a new roof. I asked Joe, Joe what are you doing with this thing? Again, his budget he doesn't have an unlimited budget so his plan is to paint it. It might require when you start painting it if it starts needing some work it might need to get a building permit to do whatever mediation might be necessary for the garage but at this point it is a very it's a good storage building. It's electricity for a light bulb, no water nothing it's not used for anything other than storage and that's how it's going to be kept. It has some windows for a greenhouse that is just a greenhouse.,We are here really because the Building Department forces us to be here but the ultimately the plan for these structures is to maintain them, preserve them and continue you know to enhance the character of the community. They have been there prior to zoning. They are somewhat consistent with the neighborhood because if you look at the tax map, the house that's on the water, the larger house there is a right of way there's an interior driveway and when the houses were separate lots that was the accessway for the main house. Mr. lavarone still has to pay I want to call it HOA, voluntary dues for the maintenance of that internal roadway so every year everybody that has use of,that roadway pays two hundred dollars a year for snow and snow maintenance. So, he still has that access point, a legal access as well as potential 35 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting use in the event the property got subdivided that would be a potential access point. I'm here to really answer any questions you might have. I don't want to go on and on unless I'm addressing questions you have. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Can I just ask you to clarify, the housing report that you attached to the article, you said that the cottage had heat? PAT MOORE : Yea, it says heat. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It says none. PAT MOORE : No, it said heat. JOE IAVARONE : There's an original fireplace that's part of the existing structure of the cottage which is'closer to the road. T. A. MCGIVNEY : Okay, so in here it says that the type of heat, none and then down below it says, occupancy not permitted 9/15 — 5/31 obviously because of the winter. I'm not clear where you're saying that there was heat. PAT MOORE : Well, prior to there was heat in the building, it was electric heat as I recall wasn't it or am I thinking of the main house? KATE SAMUELS : Kate Samuels, Samuels and Steelman Architects. From our initial look at the house before any sort of changes had been made, we found that there were pipes actually through the floor which indicated more of a radiator system as well as the fireplace that Joe was discussing previously. PAT MOORE : We have pictures if you need them but I don't have them with me right now do I? We can supply those. Unfortunately, the Building Department really there have been cases at the Zoning Board way back when I recently looked at for a client that was buying a house, the Building Department won't let you make improvements without meeting the energy code and you have to have heat. So, the heat pump is a way to provide some heat and air- conditioning conditioned space for this structure.• It makes a lot more sense to have an available housing unit rather than a seasonal just summer cause that would just be used what, summer rental that's it. Adding the heat pump will make the structure more compliant with well, not more but compliant with the NYS building code. That is the plan at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying that the intent here is to supersede or change the original pre-C.O. as a seasonal cottage to a dwelling a year round dwelling? You want a C.O. for a year round dwelling? 3,61 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : We have to, I think the Building Department will generally not allow you to they can't issue C.O.'s for seasonal. To make improvements to this house, to keep it standing and make it usable you have to provide some form of heat and you have to provide some insulation. So, yes it would make it for a available year round use versus keeping it as a summer what else can you do it's summer seasonal rental that's it. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Right PAT MOORE : Making it a viable single-family dwelling well, it will never be a single-family dwelling cause it's not 850 sq. ft. so it's always going to be a small a cottage under the definition of Cottage not a single-family dwelling but it will be more compliant with the state building code because it has all the elements, the hurricane strapping all the things that are necessary to bring the structure into conformity with the state building code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then, let's continue with that scenario assuming that that can be accomplished and that now means that on one lot you have two dwellings. PAT MOORE : Well, you never you really never have a dwelling under the definition of dwelling because the dwelling definition it says it has to be at least 850 sq. ft. So, it's always going to be a cottage that is going to be habitable so it'll be a habitable cottage. Is that making sense? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand what the goal is which is to rent it as a year round dwelling. PAT MOORE : Correct, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Forget the square footage for the moment. If it's not seasonal then it's a year round habitable dwelling, whether it's insufficient for the code's size it is in all other respects sufficient for the definition of a year round habitable structure. So, we're dealing with a hybrid that's kind of caught in the middle. PAT MOORE : It's quasi yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it a this or is it a that? PAT MOORE : It's not a hundred percent of one and not a hundred percent of the other. It's just again, the state building code and Kate you have to confirm this for me but everything that I've ever done with the Building Department where I've had a client that had what was called a seasonal cottage and put in a you know Mitsubishi system just to make the space and they were keeping it as a seasonal putting in a Mitsubishi they had to remove it because the Building Department said, no we can't let you make improvements to the property or 37 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting improvements to the cottage unless you meet the state building code. So, he had to remove the Mitsubishi otherwise he would have had to deconstruct, put in insulation, put in new windows do everything to make it conform with the building code. So, you have the building code and you have the zoning code and the Building Department doesn't care what the zoning code allows or doesn't allow. They say in order to maintain this structure you're going to have to.make it meet code and replacing windows was part of the process but that's not the only thing, you have to be able to bring the insulation and the heat pump the conditioned space up to code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In your application you make reference to the prior Special Exception proposed by the previous owner conversion to an accessory apartment in an accessory structure. Now we're looking at that was not done apparently in other words PAT MOORE : Yes, they didn't demolish the house and they didn't convert the structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : they didn't remove the garage. The point is, alright so it's now he purchased as is so let's move forward with that. The applicant now maintained that you said in your application that a pre-C.O. is a valuable entity. PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That they didn't want to lose but a demolition extinguishes a pre- C.O. So, now where are we with this hybrid? PAT MOORE : Okay, well, let's go back to is it a demolition or isn't it. The Building Department definition of demolition is not what actually is occurring here. It is there is no change to the foundation, there's no change to the walls, the headers for window replacement obviously was required. That's why I'm asking to overturn because based on the Dawson case now going back to what the law is, a pre-C.O. doesn't get extinguished because of lack of use which would be the equivalent of the demolition. So, let's say that in the Dawson case an appeal was brought because the Zoning Board said, the pre-C.O. because it had not been the cottage had not been whether it had not been used or not maintained I don't really know the details of that, that fact pattern but ultimately the court in their determination said that because it's a pre-existing non-conforming excuse me pre-existing non-conforming structure under our code you are allowed to reconstruct, remodel whatever it's a different definition section. It's not a non-conforming use that whether it's demolished by purposeful act or whatever it doesn't extinguish the right to put it back. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I disagree with that. PAT MOORE : Well, read the cases I can't 38. December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) in a court of law (inaudible) we're going to start talking about people going back (inaudible) the cases so we can eliminate that and you put that all into the record thank you so (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then maybe just as a point of clarification you said something that maybe I misunderstood what you said but you said that there was no change to the foundation. Looking at the existing site during the inspection it would appear that there's a complete new like framed foundation. PAT MOORE : No, come on up. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, those eight by eight posts that are pressure treated were existing with the concrete foundation? In your plans you proposed a masonry CMU wall where in the original structure I believe it was just on posts. KATE SAMUELS : Ok so, basically the original foundation was just a post and footing foundation with a small CMU wall that was existing'to the waterside. Why they designed it and built it that way PAT MOORE : No, are we talking about the main house or the cottage? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well both, it's identical but at the main house there's an existing you could see it on the waterside like from the 1950's or something a CMU wall. There are other wall well it doesn't matter what the blocks are but overall Pat just made a comment that I just wanted to respond to that, there has been change to the foundation. I can't believe that those 8x8 posts are at the two structures are original but that's just a comment that I have. PAT MOORE : Okay, let me one thing that Joe just reminded us, 1959 there was an addition to the main house that's probably the CMU that was built because in 1959 that would have been likely how they built not with posts. The CMU that you see there is from the 1959 building permit addition to that house. Now go ahead to what is being done to the main house cause I see the drawings KATE SAMUELS : So, in terms of the foundation I mean there was no demolition of the existing posts you know per our plan we're adding four new posts and four new concreter piers. That was you know in the original Building Department application with the amendment and then it was also shown to the drawings that you have. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry I don't mean to belabor a fact but, visually when you're walking around both structures I don't mean to make it a broad conversation, you can clearly 39 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting see what [,would argue 8x8 posts that are pressure treated wood. So, you're saying that's original to the structure prior to the C of 0? PAT MOORE : Here let me circle the ones that this one,this one and this one? KATE SAMUELS : Yea I mean they're clearly pointed out the new posts, there's four new posts and new footings on the drawings. The rest of them were existing and those were originally standing. We did do some excavation work as Pat had you know stated. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The whole perimeter is fully excavated on both structures. PAT MOORE : But you had to access it yea it's for access. KATE SAMUELS : For access. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then you can see all the new framing through the windows it's like little metal straps holding the floor framing. KATE SAMUELS : There was some existing you know existing joists that were you know removed and then repaired. Some of the interior partitions were also not structurally sound so there was some more additional work to that house that was you know that was done but it was all detailed out as built into the new plans and that was sent to the Building Department. PAT MOORE : So let me clarify, the existing foundation is there. They were required to add supplement with some it looks like a post in between the length of wherever the length was of that right? So, under the current code you can't go that long without some form of structural support of some kind so there was a need to supplement but the existing house, the existing foundation is still there. If you want to climb under the house, you're welcomed to but it's the original house is still there. That's the house, do you want us to go to the cottage cause that was on the main house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's go to the cottage. PAT MOORE : Okay, only because that was your question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : More of a comment than a question, I think it just seems that your statement (inaudible) that there was no alterations to the foundation, my opinion is that there is an alteration to the foundation and I don't want to get into the nuances of what was new or old but based on my visual inspection, the 4x4 posts all look to be contemporary new pressure treated posts that sort of look muddy not something that's seventy plus years old. I leave that to the architect to make that determination. 40 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting KATE SAMUELS : Yea, I mean I guess the only thing that I could say is that perhaps you know in the 1950's renovation they could have been you know changed out but it certainly wasn't work that we did or our contractor did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, look whatever way you want to describe it the bottom line is, the Zoning Board does not have the authority to determine a demolition that resides within the Building Department. What we have .in front of us are two structures which were determined to be sufficiently changed and altered to be considered demolition based upon new construction that took place that's one fact. Second fact, we don't know if it's a seasonal cottage being reconstructed with a pre-C.O. or whether or whether it's now going to be a year-round proposed to be a year-round dwelling not by virtue of size but by virtue of the state building code. I'm just trying to PAT MOORE : Do you not know because the Building Department makes that determination or is it that you want to hear from us is it we have to meet the code so you know. Whether a heat pump is adequate for a February winter I've lived in those kinds of cottages in the past and you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was on the property historically was a house and a seasonal cottage okay. So, I'm just trying to figure out what's going on here, this is clearly not proposed to be a reconstruction of a seasonal cottage. The goal is to make it year-round habitable. Am I. correct? PAT MOORE : Yes, that would be our goal is to be able to use it year round. My client runs what used to be the Catapano Farm you know the (inaudible) on the Main Rd. he has lots of people that need occupancy, places to live. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lots of people need places to live no argument about that. PAT MOORE : Seasonal cottages are a luxury you know. A year-round cottage is much better. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm doing the merits of that goal one way or the other. That is not really before us, I'm trying to clarify what's actually before us that's all because as you've recognized this is not a straightforward situation where you're basically renovating what historically has been there and been determined to be called a certain thing. Now, the point I'm making is, will the Building Department determine this to be another dwelling because it's brought up to state code for a year-round dwelling or will they still consider this because of the size even though it's got heat pump whatever you've got in there that makes it by building code habitable year-round?Are they going to consider this a cottage based on size or are they going to consider it a dwelling? How does that C.O. potentially going to look? I don't 41 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting think they're going to hold on to the pre-C.O. as a seasonal cottage if what you're proposing now is this year-round occupancy. You're going to need a C.O. for year-round occupancy. PAT MOORE : I can check with the Building Department on regardless of which way they are still calling it a second dwelling so therefore it's a in their minds it's a non-conforming use. I don't believe that whether if we had proposed it as a seasonal cottage that they would have treated it any other way. The fact that it's a second.dwelling I mean the two of us are specific on that definition as far as dwelling versus cottage but as far as having a second structure on the property that's a habitable structure they're going to treat this as a non-conforming use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just curious because it's complicated. PAT MOORE : I would expect them to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're citing is as the "as built" reconstruction of the cottage converted to year-round use. PAT MOORE : Oh so they've already identified it that way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes but it was not legally converted to year-round use. In other words you don't have a building permit. PAT MOORE : Well we haven't yet at all the work we've done hasn't occurred yet. T. A. MCGIVNEY : When was it converting it to year-round use was obviously done. PAT MOORE : No, it doesn't have heat in there, it's oh you mean previously? I don't know Williams could have done it or it could have been even prior to Williams because those structures based on and I only know from the transcript from that special permit hearing, I don't have the benefit of what they were doing. Those properties were being occupied year- round by and it was not a very nice scenario there they were kind of low level I don't want to be I don't want to paint a picture that's inadequate but or inaccurate excuse me. They were being rented year-round and people were there, whether they were renters or squatters I don't know. That was the record from the special permit application. T. A. MCGIVNEY : You don't think that converting a cottage from seasonal to year-round creates any non-conformance? PAT MOORE : Because it's considered a pre-existing non-conforming structure. T. A. MCGIVNEY : It's not, it's a use that's why we're here. PAT MOORE : You judge madam judge, when you become Supreme Court Appellate Division. 42 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting T. A. MCGIVNEY : You're trying to obtain relief from this Notice of Disapproval. PAT MOORE : Actually what I did I want to overturn the Building Department's determination cause I think it's legally flawed, based on the law it is legally flawed. So, as far as if you if I went if this was at the Supreme Court in an Article 78, 1 would point those cases out and say, the Building Department incorrectly identified this as a non-conforming use, it is a non- conforming structure. Now, whether the added heat or what we're doing increases the degree of non-conformity giving you the ability to grant a variance arguably that may be the case in which case that's part of the application. Whether or not that creates an increase in the degree of non-conformity for a cottage that's not expanding in structure use but is getting better systems that's a gray area. I don't know the answer to that and I don't know how a court might rule on something on that and I don't know how you guys rule on those things. T. A. MCGIVNEY : There's no gray, it was a seasonal cottage and now you're making it because of the heat a full time that's I don't see how you don't find that to be increasing in non- conformance. Whether it's a non-conforming structure or non-conforming use you're still increasing the non-conformity because you've changed it from a seasonal to a full time or it's being changed PAT MOORE : But isn't that an argument for the variance whether or not it's a reasonable variance that we're asking for? Again, that's part of the application here, because we've got we're saying there was heat in there and it was being occupied year round and we're saying that under the state building code currently we really have to make that a properly a proper habitable space. That is, I think a responsibility that under the state building code doesn't give us an option we have to do it that way. Now, whether you say to us, okay it can't be year- round it has to be rented seasonally you won't use it, you won't be able to use it for your year-round occupants it will have to be rented for seasonal occupancy okay. So, the rich people can come and stay there for seasonal use rather than somebody that needs to use it for year-round. Again,that limitation would have to come from you guys, it's not coming from the Building Department, the Building Department as far as they're concerned is forcing us to do things under the state building code. Those are the options as I see them. Again, I think because we start with the wrong the law that doesn't seem that we're not following we would be able to deal with this in.a different way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I guess the Building Department has been doing this for a very, very long time and you know PAT MOORE : Yes but they've been wrong and nobody seems to be able to educate them. 43 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bottom line is, look what would happen to Breezy Shores. One lot with multiple cottages. PAT MOORE : Oh yea, I came in for a use variance the first time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know you did. Our code maybe what is lacking in clarity not necessarily the Building Department or any other precedent from some you know legal citation. The bottom line is, the variances for setbacks are straightforward they are what they are, they're numbers you can't argue they're there okay. That I can get a handle on that one. PAT MOORE : I was going to say, I didn't even discuss it because what am I going to do with the buildings? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This whole other caught in the middle I mean previously and I think you said in your argument in your application one of your points that you were trying to make was that the prior application for an accessory apartment was the reason the notice was written that way was because the granting of that conditioned approval based upon the acknowledgement from the owner that it would extinguish the Pre C.O. That however you're not exactly correct in. It was not conditioned; it was stated in additional information that the applicant has testified and understands that the granting of an accessory apartment in this accessory structure which was the cottage will extinguish the Pre-C.O. PAT MOORE : Okay, in any case it's I mean it's gone away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Like this is what how do you transcript? My hands are going back and forth like a crazy person. PAT MOORE : I don't remember that he had a lawyer when he applied, I don't remember seeing a lawyers name in that application I didn't print the whole thing, I printed the decision and I don't think that there was a lawyer involved. I think that they were at the time thinking whatever you need for purposes of giving us the accessory apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was close to when the law permitted accessory apartments to be constructed in accessory structures that were existing. PAT MOORE : It had just been approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The testimony from that applicant/owner at the time was, I want to create an affordable unit for someone to live in in this town which was a good goal. They received permission but didn't do anything about it. 44 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Nick I don't know if you have experienced this in the real estate world but, that accessory apartment that's why I say the Pre C.O. is much more valuable, much more a recognition of the existing structures without the accessory apartment overlay is much more important, much more marketable because and we don't want to lose it. I've had other applications in East Marion we don't want to lose it we don't want an accessory apartment overlay, special permit because what happens is, when you go to sell the house and I've had deals that I have not been able to bring together because I have a buyer who can't fit the criteria of how one occupies the main dwelling. It used to be principal residence, fortunately that's gone out it's now their home but, in the situation, where maybe they have a house in Colorado or whatever and maybe they can spend some time here but it's going to be limited is that property a good property for them because you can't if you're not going to occupy CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but what we're looking at in the zoning code update are issues like that because they were never discussed or described in the code when it was originally created. It was a good goal but it had some unintended consequences which is making it very difficult to transfer to a new owner because there's not clarity as to how that can be used. PAT MOORE : Correct,thank you I'm glad you're aware of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh very aware of that. PAT MOORE : So anyway this is why we want these. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think for the moment my eyes are about to cross and I don't know what else we can say about this today. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the only thing we can address the variances cause it would appear to me that there's no alteration to the structure so the existing JOE IAVARONE : Yes that's exactly what I was getting to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes,they're sitting exactly where they were. JOE IAVARONE : (inaudible) in which I can continue work on the rear house and not it be deemed a demo being that I have proof of what the existing structures were, the condition they were in and how you know I'm really fixing what was there, I didn't change any walls (inaudible) roof lines or anything like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, because of this confusion let's say as to what exactly we're looking at relative to this demo and reconstruction and seasonal or year-round I do agree that the variances are much more straightforward .and doable. I mean you can understand if 451 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting something is pre-existing non-conforming it's there, it's being renovated in place you're not enlarging the structures, the footprint is the same whether it's a reconstructed foundation or not it's still where it was. PAT MOORE : Same number of bedrooms, same number of bathrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean from my point of view that's a clearer path let's put it that way. I'm not sure it's the right one but it's a clear one at least. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels but that's something we'll have to grapple with but I don't know what else we can learn at this point. Is there anything anybody else wants to ask or ask for or anything you can think of Julie that we can do here? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only other comment that I would make and Pat brought this forward that there's the possibility and I don't know the financial constraints of the applicant but you had suggested that there's the possibility for either lot recognition based upon the original two deeds, wouldn't that be easier. PAT MOORE : No,the bottom line is no. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then you will have a compliant house with you know non- conforming setbacks but it would be JOE IAVARONE : There's separate septic as it is right now. PAT MOORE : Yes. That is a down the line process because between the cost and let me tell you it's not just it's not you guys because it's area variance, the waiver of merger process the shortcut is not available cause it went to an outside family member. That shortcut doesn't work in this MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Go for lot recognition if the lot existed before 1957? You said that you have a deed. PAT MOORE : Yes but once the two parcels and I have applications coming to you just like that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would argue that and I don't know I mean this is maybe beyond the topic today. PAT MOORE : I don't know if your code would allow me to do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The code says that unimproved lots shall merge or unimproved lot should merge with an improved lot. These are two individual improved lots. 46 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Improved lots. PAT MOORE : That's a good point. I don't know whether the Building Department because one was considered a seasonal and MEMBER PLANAMENTO :.Yea but there's a history of so many cottages that are seasonal that are converted. PAT MOORE : I can ask the Building Department if they would recognize it. Believe me, I think I don't want to delay the process cause I really want to keep it going. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To me that seems so clear cut and you haven't mentioned it. I don't know my head spins as Leslie has pointed out with the idea of having a seasonal cottage converted to a dwelling unit, I don't understand how you can have a Pre-C.O. that clearly says it's a seasonal cottage and then you can argue that you can convert it to a residence where there's already a residence on the property. MEMBER LEHNERT : I think their argument is that they don't want to do that they're being forced into that. PAT MOORE : The Building Department does not allow you to keep a seasonal with improvements. You cannot call it seasonal with improvement. I thought you were kind of commenting sorry I misread your reaction. The bottom line is,these improvements have to be state code, we're making it our application whatever the Building Department calls it we're renovating that structure. Again, if it's not a non-conforming use look at the code, it gives you the ability to repair, replace there is no issue of non-conformity. T. A. MCGIVNEY : As long as it doesn't increase the non-conformity. PAT MOORE' : Whether or not the heat is considered an increase in non-conformity because it's a heat pump and not electric or whatever was there before T. A. MCGIVNEY : Now it's going from.seasonal to full time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that's what that is the degree of non-conformance. PAT MOORE : But in those scenarios I need a variance don't I? That's the whole that's the typical variance application, you're increasing the 'degree on nonconformities (inaudible) come in for a variance application and you in this case we're not changing anything other than making it habitable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But to complicate that even further that would not be an area variance, that would be a use variance I would think. It's a residential use but one is seasonal 47 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting and one is full time and that is increasing the degree of nonconformance because somebody is in there year-round rather than seasonally. Now, I don't see how you're going to area variances are dimensional, this is not dimensional. The setbacks are all area variances that's straightforward, they're there and PAT MOORE : Please look at that article because that was what the Board dealt with on the Dawson case. That case was .the reactivation, the pre that was considered I guess whatever that condition that Pre-C.O. was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will read it with great interest cause I love case law. PAT MOORE : Yes I know and it's very interesting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not sure how relevant case law is to the Board of Appeals which is a local Quasi-Judicial Appellate Board of appointed officials PAT MOORE : Very important, you have to follow state law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have one of these but I'm not a judge okay. PAT MOORE : But the way you operate always operates in consistent with the state code and the state law and the Dawson case was a Southold case interpreting the Southold code which hasn't changed. T. A. MCGIVNEY It dealt with whether or not the it was discontinued, the use was discontinued. That was what that entire case was based on so I don't see this being that specific same issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're not saying you know like in a commercial situation, historically the code has said, if you've discontinued you know your dry goods you know establishment for two or more years then your C.O. is extinguished the use is extinguished. That's not what's going on here, it's not really extinguishing a habitable use it's same whether the use is year-round or the use is seasonal so it's not extinguishing the use. I have read Dawson more than once; I'd be interested to see what Farrell Fritz had to say about it. PAT MOORE : In other cases that are addressing similar issue there. Here we are back to MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Can I ask just a couple of straightforward questions?You can always count on me to ask about septic and storm water. PAT MOORE : Storm water not an issue, we have to have dry wells. 48 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Good cause I didn't see any on the plans, thank you. The EAF said the discharges would not be directed to conveyance system so I think they will be. The Short EAF said that it would not be directed to conveyance systems. PAT MOORE : I'm not sure I'm trying to think of usually it deals with like is it going into the sewer not dry wells drainage. You have to have drywells no matter what. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the owner just mentioned that there are two separate septic systems. I think the architect's plans mention an IA system. I just wondered what's_the plan there. PAT MOORE : We have to get from the Health Department MEMBER STEINBUGLER : You have to get Health Department approval in any case. PAT MOORE : Here's the situation, there are two sanitary systems. The Health Department approved the system there's a record in the town records that Williams replaced the system in '94 because there are septic permits. The Town Clerk required septic permits at the time, I'm not sure if they do that still. So, there is a record of the system having been replaced. We don't have access right now to the Building Department construction drawings of the new house. My guess is that, the Health Department would have had to issue a permit for new construction for the demo reconstruction so there should be a Health Department stamp green stamp but obviously the system is down so we don't know. We think that the systems that are there because there are two of them are conforming. Whether or not we have to upgrade to an IA, I don't know the answer to that. JOE IAVARONE : They're precast and they were inspected by (inaudible) Cesspool. PAT MOORE : They're conforming to the requirements it's just they won't be IA because they pre-date the IA requirements. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : And there is no plan to upgrade? PAT MOORE : I mean it's a budget thing so I guess if you forced it or you know the Building Department but right now they are systems that are Health Department compliance systems. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Again, I will find it but I thought the architectural plans mentioned an IA system. KATE SAMUELS : I guess it's a conversation if it's deemed a demo then we will be forced by the Building Department to upgrade to the new IA systems I mean that's 49 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Or get from Health Department a dispensation that the system because it was previously approved can continue to be used. That's why it's still an issue that's unresolved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thank you. T. A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) able to obtain C.O.'s for the two separate structures as whether (inaudible) cottage or not (inaudible) amenable to file Covenants and Restrictions that it would be rented to somebody on the Southold Town affordable registry? PAT MOORE : That I mean as a lawyer I'd say no because that's an inappropriate condition. T. A. MCGIVNEY : For Special Exceptions you either have to rent it for PAT MOORE : But we're not a special exception. T. A. MCGIVNEY : I know but it's not inappropriate it's you know a family member or somebody on the registry. PAT MOORE : I don't want to put that I mean his worker may or may not fit the ,registry criteria because they may not meet certain whatever criteria might be. I'm more concerned about immigration status issues than you know so I don't want to put those kinds of burdens. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do you want to do, close this? PAT MOORE : You've got everything I've given you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm clear what they've said, I'm clear of what the issues are I'm not sure why or how the Building Department decided what they decided but we have two requests in front of us, one is to overturn and the other is to grant variances. State code is going to be required to kick in. If you want it to be habitable year-round state code will have to kick in. PAT MOORE : I know what is being mentioned is that, will the Building Department would even allow us to make these improvements even without heat as a seasonal to a seasonal I don't again, in my experience the Building Department doesn't let you make any improvements that would MEMBER LEHNERT : The state code won't let you once it's deemed a demolition, it has to square with the state code. PAT MOORE : Which means no seasonal, seasonal is not an option under the state code. You can't build seasonal structures. '50 December,4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : State code I mean it's not talking to zoning but the state code will force you to build a habitable space. PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, so I mean but frankly those things I believe are not, not irrelevant by any means but more peripheral to what the work of the Zoning Board is supposed to be. They really are more Building Department related to what you apply for, to Health Department to all those other discretionary boards. I don't know exactly how we would what we would overturn. If you're asking me to overturn the Notice of Disapproval, what am I overturning? PAT MOORE : The use criteria is the overturning issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then that's really a code interpretation, that's what it would amount to. Trust me, this would wind up as a precedent that was a code interpretation. It would be like Walz which goes back longer than me maybe you weren't even practicing law. PAT MOORE : I would respectfully disagree because when the Southold code was overturned by the court in the Appellate. Division or the interpretation of the code of the secondary dwellings as a non-conforming use goes back to Dawson and that's the issue that keeps coming up as a use non-conforming use with all the limitations of I forget whatever it is, 122 or 124A versus 122, 124B so it's an A versus B scenario and that's where the Building Department and the Zoning Board has forced applications to come in declaring that the use was not a permitted use. I don't believe that's, that's not an interpretation when a court an Appellate Division court comes down on the town and says, you're wrong you're interpretating your code incorrectly and it's been wrong since Dawson. T. A. MCGIVENY : An Appellate Division though clarified that the Zoning Board should be issuing Certificates of Occupancy, it's the Building Department, department so that's really what this Appellate Division was clarifying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't issue Notices of Disapproval either so if the arguments are to be made they really are to be made with the Building Department. PAT MOORE : I have no control over the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Neither do we. PAT MOORE : But you do, actually you'd be surprised you do because what happens is, taking their decisions and running with them is an acknowledgment that they made the right decision to be appealed. When you go back and many times you go back on other situations 5:1 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting where you go back to the Building Department and say no you're wrong this is the section of the code that applies please stop sending them to us, this is the section that applies and really that is within your purview. The Building Department doesn't have to listen to the Town Attorney, the Town Board no one but they have to listen to the Zoning Board because you are essentially it's an appeal of the Building Department interpretation. You guys are the only .ones that have the ability to direct them to correct their interpretations. I give you guys a lot more power than you think you have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At this point it's been fun. Short of going to the Building Department, having a sit down with them, reviewing all the documents, doing all of that stuff you know I think we you know what we could do, we could just adjourn this to the Special Meeting so that we can think further whether we want to talk to the Building Department about anything and then close it. I don't believe we're going to need another public hearing, that's my opinion. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there any member of the audience or someone on line that wants to speak? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And there were no letters of opposition. PAT MOORE : No we had one letter is support which my client already agreed, they put up a fence and the asphalt shingles we promised to scrape the ground so he'll do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do you want to do Board, do you want to discuss this further before we I don't want to close and then think oh, oh we forgot. MEMBER LEHNERT : Adjourn it to the Special Meeting. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :There's a lot to digest. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's quite a bit to think through so I think to air on the side of just so we can let's just adjourn to the Special Meeting, we'll likely close it then and deliberate. PAT MOORE : I do appreciate that you're asking what's the Building Department going to do with this because the last thing we want is for you to give us a decision that the Building Department says, well that doesn't help us or we can't you know we want to give you the building permit to fix this cottage so 52 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Before you make the motion to adjourn and I know you discussed the garage and the idea of scrapping the paint and the neighbors is going to be happy that you're going to rake up the shavings, are there any proposed changes? I mean it's kind of interesting I get the whole idea that you said that you got a limited budget maybe you'll address it later but you know clearly, I would expect that you're entitle to reside it to match the rest of the house if that's your choice, are there any proposed uses specifically to the garage? JOE IAVARONE : I took a picture of it today. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I've been to the property, I've seen it. JOE IAVARONE : I actually used all the windows from the existing houses at the waterside of the garage and I felt that structurally the rest of it was in you know pretty good shape being that there's no basement there. I think having an extra storage space somewhere MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it a dirt floor or is it a JOE IAVARONE : No it's on a cement pad. Extra space on the property is very valuable being that there's no basement. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pre-existing speaks to the lot coverage, you're, not expanding any roof changes, any setback an expansion? PAT MOORE : No, staying just like it is. We need a garage door so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea I was going to comment, I saw the plywood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Apparently there is a hand up here. ALLEY LEINWEBER : Hello, I'm also the neighbor. I just wanted to clarify I think we've reached a nice understanding with Joe but I just wanted to clarify that those shingles are not asphalt shingles, they're asbestos shingles and that's why I had a concern about the handling of them and I appreciate the point being brought up about the garage or any siding,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comment. Anything from anybody else? Okay, hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on December 18th. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 53 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye PAT MOORE : The Special Meeting is that here or is it a public hearing is there testimony? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, that's the usual where we're deliberating on decisions but we'll see what we can uncover whatever and we'll probably just close it at that point and then deliberate unless for some reason we can't figure out at this point there's a reason to talk to you more then we will continue to talk at a public hearing setting cause we don't talk to applicants who are represented as you know at a special meeting. That's open to the public to listen to but testimony is PAT MOORE : I get too much agita listening, I can't listen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Try being in my shoes. PAT MOORE : I will go to Mike and talk about the lot recognition without going through another process but I will double check that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you can get us that information before the meeting if you get any kind of information that's useful let us have it. This just has a lot of moving parts and we want to make sure we get it right. PAT MOORE : If we can simplify it absolutely put two and two together. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to adjourn for lunch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye 54 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene the meeting. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8067—SHELTER ISLAND SOUND, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Shelter Island Sound, Inc. #8067. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-13C (1) and the Building Inspector's August 11, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" accessory recreational structure upon a vacant lot at 1) "as built" construction of a recreational building and use is not permitted located at 900 Paradise Point Rd. in Southold. Good afternoon. FRANK ISLER : Good afternoon madam Chairwoman and Members of the Board, my name is Frank Isler I am the attorney representing Shelter Island Sound. I'm a member of the firm Smith, Finklestein, (inaudible) and Yakabowksi of Riverhead, NY. I'd like to address the application and the salient points of it. We've submitted a written submittal where we layout the evaluation of different factors of the statue of the area variance standards that I will still address for the record but I'll try to make it as short as possible. As the Chair indicated this is an application for a variance from Section 280-13C (1) to permit us to complete the construction and then use the child play house that is in the midst of being constructed at the site and to do so without a principle use at the present time. The playhouse that's being constructed is replacing a very similar sized and similarly located child's playhouse that had been at the property for some twelve years or so before it got torn down for this new installation. The significance of that fact goes to one of the factors which we will discuss is in 55 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting terms of the impact of the surrounding area. This has been there for over twelve years as a use albeit an accessory use in this residential area. Where this new playground is located or playhouse is located is in total conformity with the zoning requirements for an accessory structure. It also permits where it's located, the construction of a conforming residential house which would be the principle use that's not there at the present. We are familiar with this Board's decision in Mandelbaum from 2010 and there was a subsequent revision or subsequent decision based on an application of the owners which in many ways is very similar to ours. It was an application to have a tennis court which is an accessory use on a lot that did not have a principle use on it. This Board analyzed all the factors involved there and basically determined that that was permissible provided that the owner covenant and file a declaration in the County Clerk's Office that required the principle use a house to be constructed within ten (10) years and subsequently they asked for an extension with respect to the house they were building but ultimately, they got a three-year extension of that to complete the project which they did. We're essentially seeking the same remedy here. We have offered in our documents and commit that like in that case the owners would burden their property with a commitment to build a single-family primary use within a ten (10) year time frame. The analysis that this Board made in that 2010 decision and going through the various statutory factors of town law 267B (3) and the factors underlying it, pertain here as well and I spell them out in our submittal to you but I will just briefly run through why the application for this variance meets all the criteria favorably for a grant of this variance under the sections of the statute. The first factor is, will there be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood from the proposed use? Here the existing character is there's been a playground here for over twelve or playhouse for over twelve years or so. It has had no adverse impact on the community in fact, the neighbor who is immediately adjacent to this site which is 750 Paradise and got notice of this hearing are by the way I apologize I didn't introduce Mark Miller and Isla Miller who are the principles and my clients in this matter I realized that and I'm getting senile. Nevertheless, Mark Miller had a conversation with the neighbors and I would represent to this Board that they were all in favor of the application and that they had no objection to the previous playground and to this new one. We also have received and I believe the Board received a letter from an adjoining not an adjoining but a neighbor two houses down who was in support of this application. If you didn't get it I can submit it to the Board but I think it was sent to the Board as well if not I'll file it. Has the Board gotten this letter? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we got it. FRANK ISLER : It's from Edward Daly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we did receive it. 6 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting FRANK ISLER When you consider that if the house were built already and this was a playhouse that was being constructed here it's totally permitted under your zoning code. It's under the size limitation for this type of playhouse. It is setback from the property lines. I don't know if you've had a chance to actually go to the property and view the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we have. FRANK ISLER : I know that's normally what you do. You certainly saw how totally screened in this under construction playhouse is from the adjoining house next to it. It's really not visible to any big extent to the road. The neighbors across the road are you, the Town of Southold you own the property across it's vacant. The house that is built next door is owned by the Millers and so the impact of the playing on the playhouse is very limited and is totally screened from the neighbor so the grant of a variance to allow this to be completed and used is not going to have any kind of detrimental effect on the community and on the neighborhood particularly. The next factor is, will it be substantially screened and it certainly is substantially screened. That's not another factor that's just another factor that favors why this does not disturb the neighborhood. The benefit cannot be achieved by any other feasible means. We basically say here is that, since it complies with everything with all the zoning things that there's no need to vary any of those requirements it's permitted it's just not as an accessory by itself. There's no real other feasible means with respect to siting it. With respect to the issue of the lack of a principal use, that we're offering to settle the same way it was done in the other case where we will covenant and it will be built within ten (10) years. That is a feasible method that this Board has adopted in the past to meet that requirement of the need for the principal uses and the basis for the variance that we're seeking. It's not going to have any adverse impact on the environment any significance. The SEQR reports that were done in this matter that we submitted and reviewed by the Board and by the Town Planning Department show that there's no significant impact here. While this is self-created situation, we obviously know that and it was the same in the tennis court case, the cure that we're offering and that the Board implemented in the prior case commits us to curing that non compliance or self-imposed situation. Just also want to point out to the Board that when the construction of this playground the new one started prior to it actually commencing the builder for the Millers consulted with the Building Department and found out that he was told that it did not need a building permit at that time. Only once armed with that information did the work begin. Subsequently a Stop Work Order had issued by the town and was immediately complied with. The Millers take their compliance with the town rules very seriously and the minute that Stop Work Order came it stopped and this application was ultimately made. If the Board has any questions or wants me to go into any more depth into the factors of the statute, I'd be happy to do so. It's been spelled, out for you in your paperwork I just want to make a record for the public to hear it but I can go into more depth 57 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting and I don't want to take your time up since you've been here for all morning and there are some behind me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're used to it, it's our job we stay till night time if we have to. FRANK ISLER : I remember yes. If the Board has any questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do actually Frank, your clients the Millers live in the dwelling on the adjacent property is that correct? FRANK ISLER :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The subject lot which is vacant other than some accessory structures which are not permitted without -a principal use, whose using these play structures? FRANK ISLER : It's my understanding that the prior twelve year playgrounds were used by the Miller's children and that they're blessed with grandchildren now who would be using that. I would point out that the property that the Miller's house is on is a single and separate lot as is this one. These are independent lots, but yes, the trespassers would go from the Miller's house onto the playground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is not a neighborhood FRANK ISLER : Oh no, this is not available to anyone other than CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Personal, family use. FRANK ISLER :That is absolutely true. MARK MILLER : My name is Mark Miller 1000 Paradise Point Rd. in Southold. The use is for our grandchildren. The ten (10) year time limit we are asking for is based upon the fact that we're not aware of any other grandchildren under construction at this point but there may be more. My children have not asked for a variance but that's really what the use is for. It's not open to the public; the property is completely encircled by a fence and heavily screened and the only visitors who are uninvite are wild turkey and deer that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to bring this up because it is an option, I can understand some hesitation to do this but voluntary merger of those lots would solve your problem entirely. FRANK ISLER : That's not an option for us. I mean this is a fully developable property and that the merger of this would December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it would extinguish a lot of valuable use. FRANK ISLER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but I have to enter that into the record. FRANK ISLER : Yes that is certainly something to ask but you have to I believe treat this property as a stand alone parcel that it is. It is in separate ownership that there's a common owner now it's an entity that's a corporation that owns this property so there's a crossover in terms of interest on the thing but not ownership. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I ask this because, in part with Mandelbaum this property that where the tennis court was built literally had three front yards because there were three street frontages and it was across the street from a very I,arge developed property the owner of this big house on the water owned that lot across the street. They could not merge the lots to accomplish that because of the streets. So, that can be distinguished in part, they too didn't obviously want to lose the value of a piece of property that could be developed with a large dwelling conforming to the code the bulk schedule but there is that difference. This is an option not a desirable one necessarily financially but it is relative to their desire to put some accessory structures. For that one instance where we did grant this with C&R's attached, I can site twenty to thirty examples without even thinking about it where we have denied accessory structures on undeveloped lots because that was never the intent of the zoning code. That is not a principal use and an accessory must have a principal use in order to really be an accessory and you can't call that anything like a principal use. Some people would have argued that a swimming pool is a principal use but we didn't buy that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just as a point of clarification going back if I may cause it ties into what you're suggesting, this particular lot was part of the neighbor to the west lot and it seems that there was some sort of a lot line change or something. FRANK ISLER : No, this was always a separate lot. There was 750 which is the house on the other side and 900 were always separate lots. They had an agreement just to change the line between them as existing. They weren't subdividing in any point in recent times.This was that lot line agreement as I understand it modified an existing lot line between the two. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh, maybe I just misunderstood cause what I was getting after that perhaps prior to acquisition because you stated that the play set was there for approximately for twelve (12) years the lot was only acquired in 2012 twelve (12) years ago but there's already the boathouse on it so I was thinking that is was a part of the lot to the west, is it possible that the play set was covered by a C.O. on that existing house? How did that boathouse get there then? 79 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting FRANK ISLER : The boathouse by the way has a C.O. in the record. That has been there as a pre-existing use and maybe Mark will clear that up. MARK MILLER : There's been a lot of movement on those properties; 750 did own up to the property line between 1000 and 900. What happened was there was a lot line change that occurred so that it could encompass the dock and the boathouse. So that was originally with 750 and then there was a transaction MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just to back up, so 750 owned the boathouse. MARK MILLER : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So at the time that 750 owned the boathouse, was the playset there? Is it covered by a pre-C of 0? MARK MILLER : It was not. Then there was a transaction in 2005 where we acquired 1000 Paradise Point Rd. and we acquired not only the lot but all of 750 from I can't recall her last name right now and then we did a lot line change to have the dock and the boathouse as a single and separate lot and 750 was then sold off. There's been a lot of movement of that middle lot but unfortunately there was no C of 0 for the playground, it didn't exist at that point and time. Once we took possession of that lot that's when we built the playground. So that goes back to that twelve (12) year period that you were referring to. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that goes back to what you were saying. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a question about whether it would_ be possible cause the I think the lots as I understand them are 900 and 1000 Paradise Point Rd. and adjacent sharing a property line. The playhouse I think is on 900, was there no space for it on 1000? It's a big lot also. FRANK ISLER : I don't know if you when you went onto the property and saw the house property, that house which I have been fortunate to be invited to has been that whole property is developed with a major house, a pool, a major pool house it's fully landscaped and developed and if you want to add to that too I can MARK MILLER : There's a guest house on the property, when you visited I'm not sure if you noted where that is and the pool area and there's one little open area of lawn between the main house and the guest house in that pool area; that lawn is used extensively for hosting fundraisers for some of the non for profit organizations that we support and that is the spot where we do a lot of that work and putting a playground there really wouldn't work. Then going out to the street there's really no other space for it. So, we did look at it and being that 0 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting it worked so well for twelve (12) years where it was it seemed to be just a natural spot for us to be. As Frank mentioned we have no intention of being mad about this, we didn't even know that this was a requirement quite frankly and there was never a complaint about it where it was for the past twelve (12) years and just because our carpenter didn't want to get into trouble that's when he went down and spoke with the Building Department and asked if we needed a building permit and he was told no. So, we said great .and we had no bad intentions here at all. FRANK ISLER : If I may just go back to the point you raised madam Chairwoman about the principal use and the playground use, we fully recognize that playground use is an accessory and we fully recognized that what the code's requirements are. We're asking for a variance from them and the with the (inaudible) proposal that was adopted also in the other case there may be factual differences in part but looking at the overall purpose of the variance we're asking for and it's providing a remedy that does bring compliance with the code and the fact that the existence of this accessory use by itself in the interim period is really not anyway out of character with the community the impacts are nil from it, our neighbors the neighbors were all in favor of it are showing that on balance the grant of the requested use the area variance that we're asking for will not have any adverse impacts and will meet the statutory criteria for the variance. I understand the town's many decisions and they're even referenced in the decision about the tennis court case and I recognize that. I think if you look at a case- by-case basis and look at our case is you know a new case which we always will do. There is no adverse impact from letting this continue with the variance that there'll be compliance. It's a benign use and yes children can be noisy but with those huge bushes between them and the neighbor and the neighbor is all for this knowing that balancing the benefit to the applicant and the purposes of the zoning code we feel that you know this is a good application for the variance and justified by meeting the criteria that it's on balance it is meeting all the statutory standards that we're not creating an adverse impact on anybody or anything. The zoning will ultimately be complied with unlike a lot of variances you're allowing something that doesn't comply with zoning to continue forever. Here we're doing something that is temporary albeit several years that we're asking for and that were done in the other case. We're not putting a gas station there and asking for a use variance if you take that.metaphor. The fact that the Millers happen to have an ownership interest in the property that is being applied for the criteria and everything that we're bringing up here would be applicable to anybody who owned that lot whether they had that adjacent parcel in single and separate ownership in different title or not. It's really looking at the site and the facts pertinent to it that we're asking you to do and hopefully consider granting it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat? Margaret? December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think I know the answer but, are there any other cause we discussed the Mandelbaum case, are there any other properties in the neighborhood that have a variance for an accessory structure unaffiliated with a principle structure that you know of? FRANK ISLER : I do not know of any but I can tell you certainty cause I don't have familiarity with that whole area but I'm not aware of them and I haven't searched all the Zoning Board decisions you've made over the years so I can't tell you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There aren't any, I'll save you the trouble. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :That may be the answer but I'm new to the Board still so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, the one thing I would say is, look how important precedent is because you were clever enough to go and find the one time we said yes to an accessory structure.,on an undeveloped lot. We have to be very, very aware that those precedents really can create almost a de facto determination that well you did it before so now you should be able to do it again. You know what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting one way or the other, I'm not speaking about an outcome, I'm just simply saying, precedent becomes a determination becomes a precedent that is very important and can impact town wide. FRANK ISLER : If I may just respond to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please FRANK ISLER : Your decisions are fact driven on each site and you decided in that other case that the facts there warranted an allowance of an accessory without a principle use. That only is precedent based on its facts and doesn't compel you to have quote res judicata effect on every single variance that comes before you seeking this relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true. FRANK ISLER : What I'm trying to hopefully present to you is that even without the pool case but looking at only the pool case for the fact that things that the Board considered when granting that relief to that applicant, our facts are very in fact more compelling I thought than the tennis case only because it's one.lot, right now the use is not a tennis court that's being proposed which is larger, more visible this is totally screened in. I think there are facts that would warrant this application being granted if you had not decided the tennis court case. I understand the concern. You'll still hear about this case if you grant it but that doesn't mean you are res judicata bound by it unless the facts were pretty close to these or comparable. It only is precedent that you as a Board decided in a particular variance application that it was 62 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting warranted. That relief was granted and when I came here, I didn't think that just because you did the tennis court you would grant mine automatically. I had no such perception nor should any other applicant come in behind me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Point taken. Nick anything else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Anybody on Zoom? I think we're ready to close, 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 LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ay, the motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. It's open to the public, there's no testimony taken, you can listen, you can Zoom in if you want. We'll mail the decision to you but if you want to find out and you don't want to attend call the office. I'll go in the next day and sign it which will legalize it. It goes to the Town Clerk and we're done. HEARING#8063—JOHN G. BRADLEY and IRENE BRADLEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John G. Bradley and Irene Bradley#8061. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-13A(6) (d) and 280-13A(6) (i) and the Building Inspector's August 27, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family 3 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting dwelling to include a second-story accessory apartment at 1) apartment will exceed more than the code permitted maximum 25% of the habitable space of the entire residence, 2) foundation expansion will exceed more than the code permitted 25% of the living space of the existing dwelling unit located at 1450 East Mill Rd. in Mattituck. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good afternoon, Anthony Portillo AMP Architecture on behalf of the applicant Irene Bradley and -John Bradley. John Bradley is the son of Irene Bradley. We received that two days ago so we just weren't able to get it to you guys yesterday. That's just a supporting letter from the neighbor to the west which is actually the most effected by the addition that we're proposing. Good afternoon, Board, thank you for your time. John Bradley is going to be the tenant or the person using the proposed accessory apartment. Currently Irene has the ability to get grant money by March, she has to have approval by the Building Department to receive the grant money to be able to construct the dwelling unit, the additional dwelling unit. That's the reason we're here Board. The proposal that we're presenting we could as of right build the addition, build the second floor, get the C.O. and then come back and then as of right get the attached ADU but currently the main dwelling unit is too small to fit an ADU that would work for John it's just too small. What we're proposing is enough square footage for the 528 sq. ft. apartment and we would be within the twenty five percent of the total square footage, so we would meet code in that sense or we'd meet the zoning ordinance in that sense. We also have to increase the foundation more than the twenty five percent that's allowed to do this as well but again, the main reason that we are here and we're asking the Board for their approval is so that Irene could get the grant money to assist with building the project and John will have a place to live and not have to be on the streets of Love Lane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You indicated Anthony in your application that the improvements will conform once the additions are complete? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you address that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, I'll give you the calculations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, cause we don't really have the numbers. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We provided on the plans, if you look at SD-3 we're proposing a 565 sq. ft. apartment dwelling unit. The current habitable space is 970 sq. ft. and then with what we're proposing we'd be at 2,259 sq. ft. which would allow for the 565 sq. ft. which is twenty five percent of that number. December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So a portion of the addition would be used at the first floor of the primary residence, half being a workshop and half being a garage. The garage is not included in this calculation it's just the workshop and then obviously the second-floor apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the workshop going to be used for? ANTONY PORTILLO : I can let Irene explain that a little bit more but she does horticulture so it's going to be like plants, she does little projects nothing with like hammers or saws or anything like that it's just for plants and things like that. She also does maple syrup. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Fhad a question sort of along those lines, I get that the twenty-five percent criteria will be met once the project is complete but what portion of the project will be incomplete when the accessory apartment is ready to be inhabited? In other words, where's the missing piece during this interim time when the twenty-five percent limit isn't being met? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, the way the code states is that, the current residence or the C.O.'d residence you would have to whatever that dwelling unit size is you can only twenty-five percent of that can be used for the dwelling unit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The accessory ANTHONY PORTILLO : The accessory dwelling unit. So, because there isn't enough square footage currently we would have to expand that square footage and get more square footage, do the construction, get the C.O. as a one residence and then we would have to apply for the accessory. Again, which would be as of right and we would not need a variance, the issue here really is just time, it's very time sensitive so that's why we're standing before you. It's because we will the project will be done all at one time and we will meet the requirements of the code. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thank you, that answers my question. I was imagining a second- floor with an unoccupied open to the my mind was not working correctly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask this, the proposed workshop that's heated ANTHONY PORITLLO : Yes that will part of the habitable space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, because otherwise it would appear cause sometimes workshops in garages take place and then you're not allowed to have a full bathroom in there. You got a full bathroom in there. December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : It will be a fire rated demising wall between the garage space so that's considered habitable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's that question answered. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had one more thing, I don't know if this is perhaps not really a substantive question but more like a curiosity question, in the accessory apartment in the plans SD-3 the bathroom is listed as being 55 sq. ft., the closet is 35 but it actually looks like they might be reversed because the closet seems to be a larger room and the bathroom seems to be a smaller room. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So the closet is really I think just they're sort of like a corridor to the bathroom so I think the closet the way we've labeled it would be that are that's not in the corridor. So, essentially it would be like.l mean in our minds it's like a little built in closet area so it's not necessarily the whole rectangle. You're right it would be like 66 sq. ft. there's just no wall separating the closet from that corridor we just left it open. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, congratulations on the grant, it's not easy to get a grant it's a lot of work. We need more of these kinds of things here in this town for people to be able to live here. I don't have any questions, Nick, Rob? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have to ask my septic question. Is a new septic system planned or I think the plan said that there was Suffolk County Department of Health approval already? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yep, that's correct. So, we've checked with the Building Department, the current septic system is acceptable for the bedroom count that we're proposing. So, no new septic is required. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So no new the current has been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I had the same question. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The house was built after 1973, one additional bedroom is allowed, that's what the Building Department told me. 66 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's sized for one additional? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long at it's conforming to Health Department. ANTHONY PORTILLO : And we checked with the Building Department and it's not a reconstruction so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well ready to close? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#8065—SANGROK LEE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Sangrok Lee #8065. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14, Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 21, 2025 amended August 26, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and amend a permit for a single-family dwelling to add a roof top deck at 1) height at more than the code required maximum of 25 feet for a flat or mansard roof, 2) accessory swimming pool located in area other than the code required rear yard located at 200 Beebe Dr. (adj. to Eugene's Creek) in Cutchogue. So,this pool is in a side yard proposed in a side yard? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Partially in the rear partially in the side. I think we should start with the pool, I think that's a little bit more straightforward. I think if you just look at the site plan or the survey if you look at ZB002, this is a very I think unique lot really no neighbors. From the 67 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting beginning working with Trustees on this lot we had to be very careful how we sort of etched out our building area which I think is already started and they did a great job and Trustees we actually have a Trustees approval on this amended design which was minor from our original approval. They have approved the pool as well in this location but because of our restrictions with lot clearing it's very hard to get a pool completely in the rear yard and that's why it is partially in the side yard. Again, if you kind of look at I think the site.it really even though let's say Building Department is interpreting side yard, rear yard it's hard to even make that call here in my opinion but it is considered the side yard. I think keeping in mind our restrictions with Trustees this is really the best location, they felt it was the best location: As I said, they already approved it. What happened here just to give you a little history is, we filed with Trustees even though normally it would come to Zoning first and something I missed was I didn't even consider this the side yard. That's why I didn't come to Zoning first, we went and filed with Building Department and they picked up on it and they said, well this really is the side yard so that's how we ended up here. Same thing with the height and I'll get to that in a second. I think this is just about being unique in character, the lot, our restrictions with Trustees that this is really the best position for that pool. What I just provided the Board was another approval that was close by on Eugene's Rd. a very similar approval for in-ground pool partially in a side yard. I just wanted to show the Board that there was something that they approved in the past. The height part, so, not to get into what I believe or so on but this building when it was permitted there was no requirement for the 25-foot for a flat roof so we actually received the permit for this and really what is sticking up is just a clear story it's not actually the main roof. Where the staircase in the home, there's a clear story that sticks up and there's windows that go around so we weren't required at that time to get a variance because the restriction wasn't there or that code wasn't in place. Come to current again, something that maybe I missed cause I figured we were going for an amendment that we wouldn't have this issue but now we do so because of the change or what we're requesting here is basically on top of that clear story the owner would like to put his viewing deck. It's the railing that we're adding on to our original design that's creating the need for this variance. We're still if we were to go in the past when we originally filed this building, we're not above that 35-foot requirement so it's really just triggering this is getting triggered because of the railing and because of you know at the time when we filed this that clear story really didn't have to meet that 25-foot requirement for a flat roof. The owner obviously the structure is built he went up there and he said, wow what a great view and he really would like to have his roof deck there. Again, this has been approved by Trustees, there's a they had to approve the staircase and that's the reason we're here for the height variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are the plans that we have before us other than the railing are they exactly the same as what the Building permit 681 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes that's correct, the pool, the railing and we increased a little bit of the bottom deck but nothing to do with the building itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing with the height. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Nope, that clear story was approved, that was the original design. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, these plans are consistent with what was previously approved? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct with the original permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So,the pool and the railing is what you brought you here. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Basically, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Prior to that you had no pool proposed? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, we did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did, but you went to Trustee first. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The pool was approved by Trustees, the original pool it was in the rear yard but it was very small. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you show us where it was in the rear yard. I was going to ask about if you rotated it, it seemed to me that the request would also go away. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The problem is, you see that line there it's a very MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The 100-foot setback. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No the clearing line. MEMBER LEHNERT:The 75-foot setback. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Limit of clearing which is that line it's like hugging right against the side of the pool, it kind of comes around the side and you see we have like a drywell there. You would have to turn it like that we would be impeding on what is the clearing line from Trustees. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea, limits of clearing and grading. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're very limited, like I said when we plotted this MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You could have placed it where the terrace is. 69 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : The terrace is built. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you said that the pool design -was part of the original application. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea, so we added a couple of feet, the owner added a couple of feet to the first floor terrace. The terrace was always there but we added a couple of feet so that was part of the reason we went back to Trustees, it was a little overbuilt, the pool was smaller they wanted a larger pool which I believe this one is 18 x 32 I'm sorry 16 x 32 the other one was a lot smaller; I can provide that to the Board. It sort of fit into that corner pretty well and again if you look at the building itself we're not passed the building, we're actually the side yard is being created by the attached deck. So, it's really the deck ,that is creating that side yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would also seem that if the house was originally built just even 10-feet closer you've got what was the setback for the house? You got a demarcation where the 60-foot setback is but you've got a lot of front yard where the house could have been just closer and again there would be no variance relief requested. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right, and again, and from the original design no variance was needed. It's just really where we are now with the structure is built, the first floor there was a small addition to the deck on the first floor that sort of and to get a larger pool just sort of turned our pool that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) you can still build a conforming pool then? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It would be very skinny to fit into the rear yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you could? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It would be a skinny pool yes, it wouldn't be 16 feet wide, it'll probably be closer to 12-feet which is really a lap pool and I don't think is conducive to what to having a normal size pool. Again Nick, I think one thing to really, I think that we should look at here is, the shape of the lot and how do you even I think it's important to say, is this really rear yard, side yard? I get that we're calling it side yard MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was shocked that it had a Beebe, the address is on Beebe not on Eugene cause I would have thought this was Eugene. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I didn't even assume when I designed when we revised and did the amendment I thought I was in the rear yard cause it's confusing you know so I think that's important in this scenario. Again, being that there's really no one around like there is no 70 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting neighbor adjacent essentially, I don't think we're even with the pool being there we're bothering anybody or will anybody be bothered in the future cause we're not going to be able to build anything more. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have a question about the deck, there are second floor decks that probably also provide a lovely view, what's the additional benefit to a third floor deck? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Again, it's just going up there at night or during the day and getting a clearer view. I mean I don't know if you actually walked to the top there but it's pretty amazing. I can see why they want to do and why don't you do it safely. I hate for them not get the variance and I'm not saying that this will happen but then going up there with no railing and hanging out on the roof deck on top of their roof. I think again it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's not safe. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I know so I rather give them a railing. I mean again, it's an open railing they're not looking to do a half wall or something like that right so I don't think it's obstructive to the view and I don't think anybody can even see it at the end of the day. It's hard to see when you're like driving by in a car you know. He kept it pretty wooded the place. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have to just make the observation that upon finishing the site inspection and chatting with Mr. Lee I drove around to the properties opposite across the water and then I drove slowly along Eugenes to see if I could see from my car the properties across the water and I could and I think I would have an even better view if I were on the elevated first floor deck or the second floor deck so it seems there's probably a pretty nice view from the second floor. As you know we have to weigh the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the community and it seems to me people are going to have line of sight to a third-floor deck that's kind of unusual in the neighborhood and the applicant already has probably very nice views from a second-floor deck so I'm looking for some input from the applicant on the you know relative value. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just want to state one other thing, the house is also in a flood zone so part of our height issue here is because we are elevated out of the FEMA flood zone.so that's just another thing to state. If the railing was in the original design in the original proposal, we wouldn't need to have a variance for that I just want also put that on the record. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I think that the plans examiner may have made an error. I can't imagine that the third story would have been approved especially it would have been more noticeable if there would have been a proposed roof terrace. I think you would have gotten a Notice of Disapproval.That's just my opinion. 71 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : For the height? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For the height, it clearly exceeds the mansard limitations and that's my opinion. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The clear story? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The clear story. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think the definition would not be it would have been approved with the flat roof. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We had applications on Fishers Island where they had a clear story also they've come before us for the very same this was just last year since the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The code was in place. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The code has been in place I think for a long time and really I can just tell you that I spoke to the plans examiner about this application and was told that it was missed, it was a miss that the clear story exceeded the 25-foot height requirement that was in place at the time. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So, in October'22 when 25-foot max for a flat roof came in? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I don't know when the 25-foot limit went in place, I couldn't look it up because the website is down but the plans examiner told me that it's been there for a while and it's believed that this was an oversight. SANGROK LEE : (inaudible) actually my lifetime is second (inaudible) I be here okay? My wife is not here so that's why I blame my wife, anytime she comes to my sight she picked this one that's why I am here. We went on the second floor our deck second floor we made a little bit extended why; it was too narrow so hard to get in. Somehow, we have some chair on side it's very hard to get in so that's why my wife suggesting why don't make another a little bit more like 2-feet away that's why I ask Anthony would you mind to make 2-feet more? We got approval but unfortunately my wife went on the second floor we can see much further cause like tree, top of tree cover them all so she went on top of roof, wow this is nice view please, that's where I am. I'm sorry say that but it's Anthony, I ask him, what should I do? That's why we just stopped everything honestly, we have to get approval from (inaudible) from members so we are not doing anything honestly. The lady was on my job site I'm working just to clean up little things honestly. So, as soon as your approval we'd love to start. Our family moved over here from city, I'm driving from city every day when I have hours, I love this area so I'm 7Z December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting hoping like everything okay then me and my wife we start (inaudible) our journey start from here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome to Southold, the town not the hamlet. SANGROK LEE : Thank you very much. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think if I'm hearing Mr. Lee right we were required to leave a lot of the natural trees as you can see on our approval from Trustees so it sounds like they are very tall and maybe that's obstructing part of the view from the second floor so maybe that's why they're looking for this roof deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I want to remind the Board that we had a decision on Glen Rd. it was the same request where the trees were blocking the view they wanted to sort of get ahead of the crown. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did, I think we denied that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : We did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really a quite different lot and a quite different neighborhood. MEMBER LEHNERT : That was in a neighborhood with adjacent neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This one is an isolated kind of primarily wetlands, I think there's a big undeveloped lot across the street. I don't believe that the visual impacts would be the same as the previous denial. That was going to overlook the neighbor's back yard, they were impacting adversely the privacy of the adjacent neighbor. Here you're adversely impacting phragmites. Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom? Anything else from the Board? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye 73 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Thank you Board, happy holidays. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Resolution for next Organizational Meeting and Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday,January 8, 2025 at 8:30 AM we start earlier because of the Organizational Meeting, so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on November 20, 2025 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to close the hearing. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye 4 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 75 December 4, 2025 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape-recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature . Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : December 18, 202S 76