The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-01/08/2026 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 January 8, 2026 10:10 A.M. Board Members: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member MARGARET STEINBUGLER— Member(Vice Chair) KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant January 8,2026 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Christine Calarco#8061 3 -4 Adjournment of William Todd Jeffcoat and Stephanie Desiree Visceglia #8046 4 Adjournment of 1460 The Strand LLC, Demetrios and Vasillia Ziozi, Members#8042 4-5 Peter Stein and Allison Kronick Stein #8053 5 - 19 Anna K. Thorsdottir and Franco Marinai#8066 19- 23 Travis and Sofia Garcelon #8071 23 -37 Evan Touhey#8070 38-41 Rebekah Schulz#8072 41-45 Christine MacDonagh #8073 45 -48 Strong's West Mill LLC#8027 49-72 2 January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and Happy New Year a little belated. Will you all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.The first matter on the Agenda is the SEQRA; 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 c including the following : Stein and Stein, Thorsdottir and Marinai, Garcelon, Touhey, Schulz and MacDonagh, 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.SEQRA statement for Strongs West Mill, LLC#8027.The Subject Action concerns the construction a Marine Storage Building adjacent to the Mattituck Creek and request for a Reversal of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval relating to the building height. Declared Action and Determination of Significance to be Determined by the Planning Board as Lead Agency, so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye.We now have one draft decision to deliberate on for Christine Calarco # 8061. Rob would you just give us a review briefly of this application. MEMBER LEHNERT : This application was a request to demolish as per Town Code and reconstruct a single-family dwelling. Originally proposed with a lot coverage of 2.4.6%where a January8. 2026 Regular Meeting maximum of 20% is allowed. We asked the applicant during the hearing if they can bring the plan more into conformity and they sent in new drawings mid-December decreasing the size of the proposed deck to bring the project to 21.5% bringing it more in conformity with the town code. This was written to grant the variance as amended subject to the following conditions, septic system on the property must be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health .and the proposed deck-shall remain open to above and shall not at any time be converted to. habitable space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so you want to make a motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : I make a motion to grant as amended. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll second it. All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye,the motion carries.The first application listed for public hearing today is for William Todd Jeffcoat and Stephanie Desiree Visceglia#8046.We have a_request to adjourn this to March 5th public hearing, is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye MEMBER.PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER; Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Then we have 1460 The Strand.LLC#8042, this is a motion to adjourn this hearing to April 2, 2026 public hearing, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? January 8,2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye -MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye PETER STEIN and ALLISON KRONICK STEIN#8053 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Peter Stein and Allison Kronick Stein #8053. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A (1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 20, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and reconstruct a new single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side.yard setback of 20 feet, 2) less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 63417 CR 48 (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Greenport. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody and Happy New Year again, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. in Mattituck for the applicant's Peter and Allison Stein.As Leslie alluded to, we are here for as ide yard and bluff setback relief to reconstruct the single-family residence within substantially within the existing footprint.There is some proposed construction which exceeds the existing footprint mostly landward of the existing house. It's important to note that this property as.you probably know from going out there is essentially invisible as most of those properties are along CR48 from the road. Most of the homes up there are close.to the bluff are less than a hundred feet.from the top of the bluff and many of them because of their narrow configuration also have obtained side yard relief which I'll speak to in a minute. We're looking to maintain the pre-'existing nonconforming side yard setback-of 14.3 feet at its closest point; same with the bluff at its closest point would be 61.6 feet. However,the footprint of this house as you can see from the site plan is angular such that although we require relief at the northwest corner.at 14.3 feet the footprint actually becomes conforming as you go south along the property. Same thing with the bluff line which is a meandering bluff line such that although at its closest point we're at 61.6 it actually goes up to over 76 feet the existing footprint for which we're seeking relief. Noteworthy that,the applicants have applied to the Trustees and received a wetlands permit at their December 17th meeting for the proposed construction January 8,2026 Regular Meeting within the existing footprint. No material changes were required, a revised set of plans were submitted just to include some additional detail that the Trustees had that's on pages A2 and A3 of the recently submitted plans. Nothing substantive about the structure itself changed it was just additional notes on the plan.Also,just to note that the applicants do intend to upgrade to an IA system and to address the criteria.As mentioned,this neighborhood is kind of invisible but if you can look at aerials you can see that it's characterized by one-. and two-story waterfront dwellings or varying sizes most of which are less than a hundred feet from the top of the bluff. Several of these neighboring homeowners have obtained side yard and bluff setback relief from this Board for various projects and in my Memo of Law I've cited you about six different decisions ranging from 13 feet, 12 feet side yard setbacks,35-foot top of bluff relief granted so there's clearly significant precedent just right along the row of homes here for granting the relief that we are requesting here. You can see from the site plan the pier line is there, all the construction proposed is well landward of the pier line. The property to the east is significantly closer to the bluff than the existing home the applicant's home. All in all, we would submit that there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties associated with the granting of relief here.We do require variance relief due to the pre-existing nonconforming side and bluff setbacks. Again, the project is designed and the Trustees agreed that locating the property within the existing footprint would be the best where to go just to minimize ground disturbances and additional environmental impacts.As far as substantiality-goes, we have a 28.5 and 38.4 percent relief request here; I would argue that there's no increase in degree of nonconformity and again that angular configuration I mean pretty much halfway down the property you're conforming so it's kind of half relief we need to do what we're doing here. Same thing with the bluff although we don't go to 100 feet the vast majority of the house is well beyond 61.6 feet it's just that very northwest corner which is that close to the top of the bluff and again there is significant precedent for granting relief. As for environmental impacts I think the Trustees approval of a wetlands permit underscores that the granting of a variance here will not have any adverse impacts on physical conditions in the neighborhood. It's obviously a Type II Action, the applicant will be complying with Chapter 236 and as well as installing an IA so we would submit that there is a net environmental benefit. I understand that the LWRP came back as inconsistent, I think that is mitigated by as the Trustees noted by the best management practices they have required as well as the installation of an IA system and they did in fact find the action to be consistent with the LWRP. They also required and that's the one other I guess substantive change to the plan is that there will be a perpetual non-turf buffer required by the Trustees which would also serve as mitigation there. With that I'm joined here with Dav Snowden who's the project architect, we're happy to answer any questions the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's see if anybody has any, Pat? January 8;-2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I do have a couple, one is sort of historical, the ZBA decision I think it was 1104 that was submitted with the application that approved two.lots setoffs, were said to have sufficient acreage to meet zoning and would I think a condition was that they would not be allowed to have side yard variances; what changed between that decision and the current situation where now there are side yard variances, I just wondered what happened to these lots? MARTIN FINNEGAN.; I think that a lot of this was just pre-existing nonconforming it's just that we're all here this is the way the houses were built. I think at the time perhaps the setback regulations were different so I mean it could have been a 10-foot setback I'm not sure but that's essentially it looks like in most of the decisions that I sited in my memo it was just that it was recognizing pre-existing nonconformities and the fact that the impacts were minimal. I mean these are large lots, I know it's an R80 zoning district but they are this is a 56,000 sq. ft. parcel so there's obviously no lot coverage issue or anything like that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It looked like looking at the plans, there would be some alteration to the foundation on the front and the east and west sides, is it possible to bring the whole structure forward and increase the bluff setback? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well of course that's possible however,the slope and I can let Dav answer this probably better than.I can but I think having gone through this with the Trustees, the determination was that that would be a far greater impact much more impactful environmentally to have to move the property and then puts us in a position where the pool is in the side yard generating the need for further relief and it just doesn't seem to make sense from an.environmental standpoint. I can let Dav answer that if you have further questions. DAVYYD SNOWDEN : Davyyd Snowden Jones 85 Willow St. Orient, New York on behalf of the clients. We.actually did.extensive work with the Trustees on this and you know we assumed; . that one of the reasons they located the house where they did is that that's the flatter parcel of the land up there. When you actually move further east the land actually falls away it goes deeper. It also on the landward side starts to fall away.quite steeply on the landward side-as well. When we worked with the Trustees it was the idea, currently there's a basement with• about seven-foot ceiling height and very extensive foundations there so we would want to Out the foundation in the same location as that. Yes, as Martin pointed out, if we move it-further landward then the pool would actually become in the.side yard. Right now, you'll see that the -January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting extension that I've designed on the landward side is above the 20-foot setback required by zoning. If I move the whole thing further back yes, the pool then becomes into the side yard. MEMBER STEINBUGLER I was confused by the I appreciate the reference to working extensively with the Trustees, that is not visible to us, we have their-transcript of their hearing but when I read the permit they granted barring other information I would have concluded that the entire foundation is being demolished because the permit says to demolish and remove the existing dwelling,foundation,wood decks,wood fence etc.So, it actually sounds like everything is being demolished. DAVVYD SNOWDEN : Everything is actually being demolished so while there is an existing foundation there I would want to be responsible for the safety so any settlement that would have happened in that particular area the settlement of the foundation and how the house is unleveled I wouldn't want to build a new structure on a foundation that is structurally not as sound as it could be nor as level as it could be. Now, we know that the soil in that particular area is a heavy clay parcel in that particular area of the bluff and so clay moves all the time so maybe the foundation of its own because it's very substantial the foundation may have had the house settle in a particular way.So,yes,the entire foundation would be removed.Just to clarify, the extensive work these conversations that we've had and the working sessions and on site with the Trustees just so I can show that I've been mindful of why I'd want to put that home in the same location. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I appreciate the fact that the landward addition if the whole structure were brough forward might place the swimming pool in a side yard but it seems there is an opportunity I mean we did a site inspection, there was I think a quite a bit of distance in front of the house landward of the house before the ground starts to slope down it just seems like there's room to increase the bluff setback. Thereby also if it came forward it appears that it might address the side yard setback as well. DAVYYD SNOWDEN : Two points that we have looked at extensively if we did kind of move it: So,the first thing is,we'd be removing the house the existing foundation in that particular area and if you were to move it back what 35-feet to comply with the nonconformity of the bluff we would then need to bring in fill and everything else obviously to rectify the big gaping hole that we've done.This is what the Trustees did not want,they would rather if there's a big hole there put something back in that same hole was the theory. I understand your point. It has been verified by.the Plans Examiner in the Building Department that right now where the extension is on the landward side the pool is compliant, it's still in the front yard. As soon as I move that you can draw a line straight across the property and it would.be in the side yard. January 812026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing is that the pool has a Certificate of Occupancy so that wouldn't impact variance relief needed for a pool in the side yard. In prior years, one would have to actually now acknowledge the pool as being in the side yard with variance relief,today that's not necessary. DAVYYD SNOWDEN : Got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob, anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I would just add, by moving it back you made an argument about bringing in fill you're going to get the fill from digging out landward so you're really not taking it from off the side, you're not bringing it in you're just moving it from point a to point b on the site. DAVYYD SNOWDEN : Got it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO What I remark on is what Margaret brought forward about the two lot subdivision the prior Board relief under 1104, I'm a little confused because the house seems to pre-date that relief so I expect that the house was built it would appear to me from the 1930's or something like that. What is the approximate age of the house? DAVYYD SNOWDEN : I'm not sure, I'd have to go back to my files and take a look. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it's substantially older than the relief so I think the spirit was that the prior Board didn't want any further relief,they recognized that the house existed. I mean it would seem to me that if the house is being demolished whether you can pull it forward or not is a debate and I'm only one Member of the Board but it would seem that if the house is being demolished you've got this hole, at the_very least you could remove the need for the side yard variance just turn the house. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea the decision did say no side yard variances. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It has to acknowledge that the house was there,there's no way that house MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I was puzzled, I couldn't tell if the house was built or not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think that the intent was that there should be no future. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : side yard variances. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea, but. if the hole is' going to be there whether you build the foundation within that hole or,turn the structure so that it conforms to the side yard setback think would be a benefit at the very least. January 8;2026 Regular Meeting DAVYYD SNOWDEN : Got it, so when you visited the property you likely went around the side, did you MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Both sides. DAVYYD SNOWDEN : Did you notice how if we were to move it over a certain distance how it falls off sharply on the east side? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes DAVYYD SNOWDEN : So, that's what we're trying to be mindful of is let's use the topography the way that it is the least impact. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While the other Board Members suggested pulling it towards the roadway I guess south, I'm just suggesting tweaking it a couple of feet. While I hear your argument you still have that same terrain, I'm not suggesting re-siting the entire house. It's just a slight angle you've got you know where the proposed southern addition is it's kind of like a wedge shaped to the existing dwelling as opposed to coming out which if it followed the west fagade would of course I don't want to say impede there's still plenty of room between the house and the pool but you're sort of creating more of like that courtyard feel. I mean this is only my opinion. DAVYYD SNOWDEN : I get that, we did look at all the scenarios, we looked at creating a simple L-shape and rotating it so it didn't require side yard variance, we then applied it over the topography and stuff in that area and suddenly the east side of the home now if you were to stand on the east side of the property the elevation there would be quite extensive. It's what you know taking into the account the look and feel of the property. Do you really want to be standing in the garden and looking at this massive structure on the east side? It wasn't something that we wanted to do so we did play around with all of this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When I looked at the floor plan I don't cause that's where you sort of have this like basement access and everything, it's already excavated. At least what I'm stressing isn't substantial it's the same plan. DAVYYD SNOWDEN :That was the aspect of being mindful of this, it's excavated there because that side of the property is already lower. Rather than you know deeply excavating that area to create access to the basement it's already lower on that side of the property, let's use the property the way it's been designed which the way that we find it which is its flatter on the top of the bluff. -January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but that's what I'm agreeing with, I'm not I mean when I look at the plan I don't see any substantial difference by shifting rotating you know I don't want to say it's half a degree but it's a modest turn,just an opinion. DAVYYD SNOWDEN : Yea, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything from anybody else? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'll just add to what Margaret and what Nick have said with regard to you gave us examples of the other homes in the vicinity but now you're demolishing a whole home and you're going to need to make a new foundation. Why not move it further away from the bluff? DAVYYD SNOWDEN : I thought I'd addressed that prior. So, one of the reasons we didn't want to move it further, when you came there you talked about there is flattish kind of land on the landward side, it's still kind of steep. One of the reasons they love this property is,when you're in that home it's got this beautiful view, this beautiful vista you're enjoying you know the sunsets and everything else that you get there,that's one of the reasons they loved this home. If we could have renovated the home in the existing area to make it safe it was something we did consider. The original designs that we did would be to renovate there. You then start to apply what.cost would it be to renovate an older home in that particular area and that it wouldn't actually fulfill on what the clients actually wanted. It was going to be very expensive. So, because I know you wouldn't have gone inside the house but the structure inside the house .at that particular time no way complies with the codes that we you know I cannot put my hand on my heart and say, okay it's going to be a safe structure at this point so I wouldn't do that. I want to bring the house up to code and so to bring it up to code the most effective way of me doing that is to rebuild it in the existing location. If it's something that would make a difference at all and I'd rather not offer this, is leaving the foundation in the existing place. It's not something that I would want to do because I'd rather (inaudible) rather than trying to modify something that's kind of you know not in my opinion very stable but if it would make all the difference in keeping the house in the existing location if we kept the existing foundation I can go back to the clients and say, look, can we work with the existing foundation? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm sorry, I tried to pay very close attention and I did not follow the rational for why with essentially it's almost like a clean sheet because the existing home and foundation is being demolished I heard you explain to Pat that renovating the existing home is not practical for various reasons with having to do with perhaps not meeting the code but I missed the explanation as to why it isn't possible to bring it landward a bit or to Nick's point rotating it a bit or in some way altering the location that would reduce the bluff setback and reduce or eliminate the side yard setba.ck.,l heard you say something about views and sunsets January 8,2026 Regular Meeting but what prevents locating the house just a little differently such that the required variances would be smaller or eliminated? DAVYYD SNOWDEN :There's two,one was the rotation and I believe the degree that we looked .at is, if we were to rotate it twelve and a half degrees to comply with the 20 foot side yard. setback on the west side we would rotate the house and it's facing a different direction and then there's the impact on suddenly you got a (inaudible) on top or close to where the pool is, simply that rotation. So, we did do the numbers when we actually rotated this so to rotate it twelve and half degrees, 20-foot side yard setback and suddenly that side of the house is now very close to where the pool is. It's not something the,clients would like to do it's to replace the pool where it currently is. It's very tight,when you were there,you would have seen how close it is the pool is to the structure that's currently existing there. So,we're trying to be mindful of that and so that's why I designed the extension on the landward side. It's keeping it away from the top of the bluff. So, yes of course you can do anything, we could move it back 35 feet and we can rotate it, we can do all these things. The clients love the house the way that it is. The Trustees love the house exactly where it is. We can do all these things that you're asking for but what we prefer to do is to just be mindful of the structure in its location. It's_beautiful the way where it is currently. So, we'd like to keep it there,the clients would like to keep it there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, is the rational largely aesthetics? DAVYYD SNOWDEN :The rational is, it won't MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Character of the house? DAVYYD SNOWDEN : Character of the house, aesthetics it's like you know`when that house was built, when the property was built on in that particular time l think there was a lot of thought that had gone into it actually locating it exactly where to locate it, it feels beautiful, it feels balanced in that particular area. If we want to call it aesthetics the answer is, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is one example why sometimes the Trustees doing their work before the Zoning Board is very useful. I mean they don't usually want to do that but, in this case,they have determined with a non-vegetative buffer that there's less land disturbance you don't want to use a faulty foundation for new construction that is irresponsible.To say preserve the foundation,that's not a great idea. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think that that's a good point Leslie and what I was just going to say is, yes, obviously there are options here and the fact that the clients like the house there is whatever that's one thing. But, as Dav said,this has been vetted significantly with the Trustees. I think they would-be the ones first and foremost that would suggest moving it farther from the bluff and I think they recognized that.that is far more impactful than what is proposed to just January8,2026 Regular Meeting let this thing bereconstructed right where it is and not be getting into further digging around this you know property. I would ask this Board to defer to that review by the Trustees which was lengthy and thoughtful. All the houses along here are around just at the same spot, it's pretty much some are much closer, the house next door is probably 25 feet closer. There's other ones that pretty much fall (inaudible) here. This is not something that is completely extreme as compared to the surrounding areas.So, based on that criterion I would just ask you and that's really it, we're just asking to bless what is there and move forward consistent with how the Trustees have viewed this. Again, remember we have an angular footprint okay, so there's a very small portion of this structure that is actually within the setback, most of it is conforming. As to the bluff, we are you know pretty much almost 75 feet the bluff meanders out so we're going I don't think that it is 61 all across,,l think that it's a reasonable ask here just to allow to remain and we'd ask you to grant the relief_requested. I don't know if there's any other thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you do realize of course the job of the Board is to find out why you can't conform when as Margaret pointed out, there's a you know a clean slate. We discussed it; I think your architect answered a lot of those questions. I think we'll find some of the information in the Trustees notes also. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's also considering the character of the neighborhood and the impacts of whether they're there or not and I think what's proposed is entirely consistent with the character and with minimal or no impacts as the Trustees have found. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else? Anybody on Zoom? Anybody in the audience? PAT MOORE; Happy New Year,good morning. Patricia Moore, I actually represent Mrs.Spillane who is here and the Campbells. Mrs. Spillane family is on the west side and the Campbells are on the east side so both neighbors on either side of this property. hired me to present their viewpoints on this application. I would start that this is not a surprise, they want to be good neighbors, they've spoken to the.Steins personally. Steins met with them and they expressed their views but unfortunately it seemed to fall on deaf ears so that is why I'm here and hopefully the Board will consider their opinions. We did appear at the Trustees meeting, the Trustees at least on the record did not have much to say about the setback to the bluff other than the fact that they were relying on the pier line specifically,and it's obvious my clients both have homes that are very close if not on top of the bluff,these are pre-existing homes. If they were to have a demo/reconstruction they understand and, in their mind,they're never moving they're never selling, they're staying but if they had to go through the process, they understand that they would have to certainly have a much more compliant house. Where.-it would be located . January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting obviously would depend on the site conditions and everything at the time. I think there is a little I want to say I couldn't tell from your documents; I know from the Trustees documents there were setbacks showing from the top of the bluff and the setback on the Spillane side the west side is showing at 40 feet 2 inches that's the setback that was shown at least on the Trustees plan. I don't know why your site plan does not have that; I would have thought you got the same plan the Trustees received..I don't know it's one of your papers but maybe you can find it; because it's a piece of the overall I don't have the date of that plan but there should be one maybe you can share with DAVYYD SNOWDEN : It's the same plan,the Trustees this is the Trustees plan and PAT MOORE : Pardon me for the discussion, it doesn't show the setbacks from the top of the bluff on this drawing so all I can tell you is that, from the Trustees when they requested the additional information was to provide detail of the setbacks of the proposed addition on the east side was showing at 77 feet 3 inches which is the widest bump out of the top of the bluff. On the same note the west side was showing at the closest point which again does not show on this plan but the deck the existing covered deck is going to be reconstructed as well.So,that additional deck is the actual closest point so those dimensions were asked were requested by the Trustees. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I thought the deck was being removed and not replaced. PAT MOORE : The drawings I guess what we had were older versions, the deck is not being reconstructed, at all? DAVYYD SNOWDEN : At all. PAT MOORE : Okay,thank you I didn't have that information because we had only what we the most current or the most current from the Trustees. That's why you're not mentioning I was confused because the deck setback to the adjacent property was showing at 12 feet 6 inches, the house being at 14.3 so I guess,the clarification thank you is that the setback will be 14.3. Are you putting.a patio or something?Again, I don't know if the deck is removed is it going to be a patio, maybe that could be just clarified as well. What seemed to us and I know you've seen me here many of times on behalf of clients,when you have the reality of a new foundation is going in that is the time to try to make at least proact as much as possible what would be to the neighbors the most impactful setback.To Mrs.Spillane, I'm going to have her speak because she's taken the time to be here, this is her seasonal home so she came out, I don't want to be repetitive so I'll let her present her statement first. I would point out that, it seems to me that the subdivision condition is significant impediment to this development and unfortunately for the family I think regardless of the foundation is retained or not the Building Department will January 8,2026 Regular Meeting consider this to be a demo/reconstruction. It doesn't make sense to save the foundation to keep certain setbacks. There is the possibility without even impacting the top of the bluff setback obviously my clients you know understand the code is the code, they are so close to the bluff they are hard to it's hard for them to object strenuously when they're right on top of the bluff so therefore the top of the bluff setback will be deferred to you what is the most appropriate location. However,the side yard setback is important to my client to the Spillane's on the west side. On the east side there's plenty of room even if to code 25 feet and I think that what was being suggested by Nick was not a significant change, I know as a Board you can come to your own overall majority decision on that as far as setback, back versus tweaking the dimensions so that you can meet the side yard setbacks. Just comply with the 25-side yard setback would not impact the Campbells on the other side so I don't have a significant disagreement between the neighbors. The most important or at the Trustees we were there and if you have the transcript you know, my clients met with the applicants very early on, explained to them listen,you've gotta protect the toe of the bluff.They've had significant bluff erosion in this area so both neighbors and their contiguous neighbors all went in and put in some toe protection. At the hearing DKR (inaudible) was there and she made a representation on the record that she was retained to do the rock revetment to close up the gap which is like a missing tooth along the shoreline.At the time this particular property owner the prior owner did not want to spend the money. As it turns out my clients did offer to pay for some of it you know splitting it but she did not want to'do anything, I understand everyone has their own limitations. At this point the protection of this property really does require that and I would hope that you place as a condition of the approval addressing the bluff. I don't want to hold up I mean it made sense to us to do the application, to do that work first before you invest in this property so significantly but we don't want to hurt the family either as long as it's a condition that they will address we want to be sure that it's addressed for their own welfare, their own protection of the property and in particular my client's properties. We want to see that the revetment is completed a completion of the protection of the toe. I'll pass it on to my client so she can present and if you wouldn't mind a moment or,so afterwards if there are any additional points that I feel should be addressed.Thank you. WINIFRED SPILLANE : Winifred Spillane. Myself and my husband Ronald Spillane we own the property 63403 which is just west of the Stein's property. We purchased it in 1986. We are happy to.have a new young family moving in, we're happy a new house is being built,.it's badly needed and we hope they're there for many years. Ourselves and Donna and David Campbell who live on the east side of the property have a couple of concerns. One is, we respectfully request the structure be built to the current setbacks. The condition of the bluff continues to deteriorate after many years of replenishing with plants, coastal plantings, nature one in 2021 we decided along with the Campbells and two other neighbors to the west of us to do a 1 January 8,2026 Regular Meeting revetment on the beach. It was a very arduous project but it.helped, it slowed down the progression. The previous owner of the Stein's property she chose not to participate and that section of the bluff is eroding and it's encroaching on ours. The top of the bluff is crumbling. Our concern is, construction of a new home will further disrupt the bluff. This happened just west of our home, they're building a home and the bluff had a slide. We feel it's a reasonable to.request the structure be built to the current.setbacks. In addition, the Spillane's would respectfully request also that the side yard codes be adhered to. The Stein's are intending to build a very large structure and much of it is along our side yard within the 20-foot setback requirement.We feel that's a negative effect on our quality of life,we feel it'll block the sunlight into our home, it'll block the sunlight on our deck where we actually spend a great deal of time in the morning, we enjoy the morning sun, the view, we have our coffee and there is ample space for them to move the house over to the west side and it's all new construction with a new foundation.So,we feel that these requests are reasonable and we ask you to just consider this when you're contemplating their variance.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you be willing to submit this letter that you read? WINIFRED SPILLANE : Of course,yes. PAT MOORE : I also would point out something that was again pointed out I think between the parties really the Trustees don't deal with this but the pool equipment is actually encroaching on the Campbell's property.They had asked the prior owner to please address it,she never did. We were promised that that would be something that they would correct. Again, we hope everyone is honorable,obviously in their promises we expected we know that professionals are so we would just ask that the Board condition a correction of the encroachment. I know from my prior applications when we have an encroachment the Board typically wants to see encroachments corrected.The Board doesn't want to grant variances when there are certainly encroachments that can be addressed. It's the pool equipment, again, it's very small let's see oh you can see it there on the northeast side I think of yes correct that's where it is so if that could be corrected. Again, the Spillane's it's very important to the Spillane's this is going to be a two-story house it's a lovely house how it is,.it is a relatively a much smaller house now they ; want to build a bigger house as they are well intitled to build their dream house but they have the opportunity to correct non-conforming setbacks without really much if they're concern is the setback to the bluff and the Trustees disturbance area and so on. As Robert pointed out, there's really not if all activity again and the Board typically in your decisions you do ask that equipment stay on the landward side of the property rather than store it on the seaward side as to protect the weight and activity on the bluff side.That is typical in many of your decisions. There is the opportunity to without much impact and or change to the drawings center the house so that it corrects the setback.Those are really the most important points. I was pleased. January 8,2026 Regular Meeting to hear the discussion prior to from the Board and questioning why things couldn't be achieved and I think that it was very well discussed and bounced around. I didn't really hear much a strong reason why it couldn't be corrected and again we're not asking them to redo their architecturals. It could be accomplished with very little and as you pointed out, the code has changed as far as existing accessory structures with a C.O. where they end up being in a side yard it will not trigger a variance at least we'd have to check with the Building Department because I did get an interpretation of something recently that made no sense to me but again that's a code that's being interpreted right now. Certainly,the design could have been done in such a way right off right from the beginning that wouldn't really impact anything here but I understand how homeowners and the architects.spend a lot of time on design so we try not to, if possible, force them to go back to the drawing board when what they've done with some adjustment could accomplish the same thing.Thank you very much. MARTIN FINNEGAN :So, look I understand and appreciate the neighbors concerns and that you know when there is a demolition there is an opportunity. However, I think that again, I want to reiterate that we have a configuration that is really only partially nonconforming here. The impacts I believe are minimal. We're almost 15 feet off the line. It's a 5-foot variance for the northwest corner whereas everything else ended the Trustees looked at this and said, don't move it, don't do anything with it. I again would ask you to respect that finding because I think that they scrutinize these things as much probably a lot more than the you guys do in terms of environmental impacts and they came to that determination.As forthe need for variance relief, we were told by the Building Department that if this thing moved that we would need a variance for the pool,that was already we were told that we would have to go and it would be part of the Notice of Disapproval.With respect to conditions, I would say number one,we have no problem with relocating the pool mechanicals that's already been contemplated so you could do that. I don't think requiring a revetment of the bluff is within the purview of this Board or something that would be appropriate to condition any variance relief on. I think that that was before the Trustees and that's been discussed I think that's planned but I don't thing that that is appropriately a condition of a zoning variance. I again would ask you to look at the lack of environmental impact that is associated with blessing the existing footprint here and not having greater ground disturbance on this property. The house is currently a two-story house and is going to be replaced with a two-story house completely compliant with gross floor area. There was a prior reiteration of the house that.was determined to exceed, it was redesigned to scale it back so that it is conforming with the gross floor area regulations with the code.This is not some imposing house that's a reasonably sized house. With that I would respectfully request that the relief be granted. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just one last question, I hope it's my last question, what is. the environmental or physics based rational for making the case that bringing the seaward side January 8,2026 Regular Meeting foundation more landward would be more disruptive environmentally than rebuilding in its current location? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think any further excavation beyond what is already there you're going to dig up what's there and you're going to replace it in kind in the same spot but look I would defer to Dav, I'm not the environmental expert here but my understanding is, when you're going in there to dig out an new foundation and move this thing over that could impact the bluff, that could have a greater impact because of that type of earth movement. I think the Trustees made it clear that they didn't think that was the way to go here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, Martin aside from what Margaret just asked, can you build because this is a demolition and while it's deemed a reconstruction it's actually new construction, can you build a conforming house? Does the site allow you to place a house in a compliant location? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Does the site allow it? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes MARTIN FINNEGAN Yes, I mean subject to what Dav was saying about the fact that the slopes were there and you know to deal with that or remedy that would require much greater impact on the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To that point I'm still puzzled because you have basement access, you're utilizing those natural slopes already but that becomes a design standard I supposed and we're not here to discuss design we're here discussing the setbacks request,the variance relief requested. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Yes which again, I would argue is not substantial what is being asked under the circumstances here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? I think we should be moving on we have a lot more ahead of us. Anything from the audience; anybody on Zoom? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye January 8,2026 Regular Meeting ... MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8066—ANNA K.THORSDOTTIR and FRANCO MARINAI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Anna K.Thorsdottir and Franco Marinai #8066. This is a request fora variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building.Inspector's July 1, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing accessory garage and to construct a new accessory garage at 1) located in an area other than the code required rear yard located at 46660 NYS Rt. 25 in Southold. ANNA THORSDOTTIR : Good morning my name is Anna Thorsdottir. My husband cannot be here, he's on jury duty. The reason for the existing garage is in not so good condition it would have to be basically rebuilt so I was hoping to be able to bring the parking and the garage. and especially the parking closer to the front door of the house. I don't like that I have to leave the car in the back-and then walk around to get to my front door. I would like to use the front door of the house and I also would like to reduce the amount of paved area that's needed for the parking.The lot is an odd size and I understand that even if I had I mean the house was built at the turn of the twentieth century so there were no garages at that point,the garages are a later addition. I know that you can have a breezeway and attach a'-garage to the house at the same level as the house but you cannot do that with this side and respect the setbacks. That's the reason I thought use the.shape of the lot and locate the garage on that L-shape I,could reduce . the paved area, keep the parking closer to the front door of the-house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all been out to inspect the property we do that with every application just so we know.We looked at your backyard,we looked at the side yard,we looked at the nature of the street and so on.There aren't really a lot of garages in well it's a side yard but it's also a front yard. It's to the side of your house but,it's facing the street. ANNA THORSDOTTIR : I understand it's not behind my house. .. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Exactly.There's an awful lot of room in your back yard for a garage. The Board is required by law to.kind of grant variances only when they are absolutely required that you don't have an alternative that's conforming. I understand your application said you're removing some. pavement and so on, there's no reason why you can't put in a pervious January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting driveway, I mean gravel or something like rather than asphalt. I don't know what else I can say about this, it would be very, very visible from the street that's for sure. I understand you know wanting the convenience of using your front door but there has to be some sort of hardship for us to grant a variance of that substantial nature. Pat, do you have any comments or questions that you want to make? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wondered I know you provided the height of the proposed garage but do you know the height of the house and the height of the existing garage just to give us a visual comparison? ANNA THORSDITTOR : The proposed is slightly higher than the existing garage but much lower than the house. I don't remember exactly what the house height is but it has a cellar that is above ground partially and then two stories with a fairly good ceiling height the house being built you know in the around the 1999 or something like that or 1899. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Leslie alluded to this but, can you provide us with any examples of garages in nonconforming locations on the Main Rd? ANNA THORSDITTOR : I haven't done that research, I could. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you know it's pretty easy to just drive up and down the street and look. We did that and we didn't see very many. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : We didn't see any. ANNA THORSDITTOR : I've seen them attached to the houses and that is the house just down the street from me. It's a newer house and it has the garage attached to the house and that is pretty common. It's true there are not many but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any reason why can't attach the garage to your house? I mean you've got tons of room and you could if you could attach it then ANNA THORSDITTOR Well you wouldn't be able to attach it completely, it would have to be a breezeway and then the house then the garage would not be it would not have the right setback to the bottom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :To the where? ANNA THORSDITTOR : It would be too close to the corner over there so z January 8, 2026 Regular-Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean the corner where the angle then goes to your back yard. ANNA THORSDITTOR : Yea, because at that point you would have to turn the garage so that it's entered directly and then have the driveway in the front you cannot turn it sideways like what I've turned so which makes it less looking like a garage from the street because the doors are not facing the street. I thought that was preferable since I was putting it in there so it looked more like an accessory building although it is.a garage and it will not have it will always be a dry building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the option of attaching with a breezeway is still viable I guess right? MEMBER LEHNERT: I don't see the hardship. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's more a matter of convenience you know, it would be more convenient for you to have it over there, less steps to your front door. Convenience is not considered a hardship; a hardship is that there's just nowhere else to put it. Your back yard is too small to put a garage or something like that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm still trying to understand what the convenience is, so the house has a back door facing the existing garage, I understand that somebody might chose to use the .front door and that's always a nice ANNA THORSDITTOR : The back I don't like having to go through the back to get to you know the house is set up to use the front door. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just thinking logically most people off load groceries and want to get to the kitchen. I'm not saying as a guest you don't want to use the front; I mean you can easily resolve by creating a parking pad, in front of the house so that you can do whatever you need, use your front door.The garage whether it's on the side,front lawn or in the back it's still a distance to the front door. l don't see how that solves the problem of anything other than I'd . like to walk through the front door. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :There's also no walkway to the front door. ANNA THORSDITTOR : No; there is none right now MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to confirm my recollection that there's no walkway to the front door. ANNA THO_RSDITTOR No, currently no there's just the lawn and the steps. January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The only other question I wanted to add to the conversation is about the fence, there's a fence around the property, do you have a permit for that fence? ANNA THORSDITTOR : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that might be something that you want to go to the Building Department about. You're allowed a four-foot-high fence in the front yard; I don't believe this is a four foot high fence. ANNA THORSDITTOR : The front yard is a four foot high fence. It was pointed out to me by the Building Inspector when I had the front porch rebuilt that I need to cut down a portion of the fence on the east side because it needs to be four feet until you get to the setback but it is four feet. It's only higher on the sides and the front is only four feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was six feet on the side along Main Rd.was I mistaken about that? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the portion of the fence in front of the house parallel to Main Rd. is visibly shorter than the rest of the fence and it looked like it was four feet. I didn't have my tape measure but I think it was four feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep that's what I saw. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I stand corrected then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no more questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anyone in the audience.wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye zz January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we will have a decision for you in two weeks at our next meeting.You don't have to attend but you can call the office and see what happened.We don't take testimony now there's no discussion but if you want to hear us discuss the decision that we're about to vote on you can certainly do that on Zoom if you want or you can just attend in person. It's up to you it'll be at 5 o'clock for deliberations over in the other building. HEARING#8071-TRAVIS and SOFIA GARCELON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next public. hearing before the Board is for Travis and Sofia Garcelon#8071.This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124,Article XXXVI . Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector's September 17, 2025 Notice of Disapproval.based on an application for a permit to construct a new single-family dwelling with a rear deck addition at 1) less than-the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage.of 20%, 5) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plan as defined in Article Section 280-4 of the Town Code located at The Gloaming Extension (adj. to West Harbor) on Fisher.lsland. SAM FITZGERALD : Happy New Year good to see everybody. First let me say thank you again.for having the Zoom option for us far flung folks you know twenty miles away if the crow flies but still very difficult to get there we really appreciate it.Actually, also on Zoom today is one of the owners of the property, Travis Garcelon he's here on Zoom as well. Travis and his wife Sofia have two young children and when this house will be completed it will be their year-round house so not a summer house this is a-year-round permanent residence. The family has really deep ties on Fishers.Island going back generations. The extended family is really imbedded.in island life and very active in the community and I know that Travis and Sofia they definitely want to continue that tradition with the next generation.This property.here is a difficult site as we've surmised, it's a coastal property in.a flood zone. It is.very small, it's way undersized for its zone which creates a fair bit of zoning hardship. I would say that it is actually not possible to build a viable house on this property without a fair bit of zoning relief.That's how we've started, is we said OKAY well let's come up with the most viable house we can that requires that requires the least amountof zoning relief. By viable house I just mean a house with decent enough size that's going to be comfortable and functional for. a family of four for their forever house. To January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting achieve that viable house, I don't think that we need to,have any square footage relief, I think that the gross floor area that we are already allowed by the zoning code will be enough for us. The proposed house that we have is sorry I should say that the maximum allowable gross floor area for the property is 2,100 sq. ft. and our proposed house is 2,100 sq. ft. We don't need a variance for that, we do need several other variances however, setbacks for the side yards and for the front, for lot coverage and.for sky plane. I just would like to just provide a quick commentary on those variances. If you look at our site plan drawing and page two of the packet, you'll see that we've dashed in the required setbacks and of course within that area is the allowable building area. It's a sort of irregular shaped, it's a trapezoidal shape of 980 sq..ft. or so. If we were to design an irregularly shaped house that fit exactly the allowable building area it would be 980 sq.ft. and then you add a second-floor it will be 1,900 and some we would not be able to achieve our gross floor area for the property within the allowable building area. Stepping back from the setbacks one second, we just looked at, what is the smallest footprint most compact sort of volume house that we can build on this property.I think that what we designed fits the bill, it's essentially a cape it's a simple rectangular footprint, 25 X 45 think of it as just a one-story house and on that one-story rectangle we put a simple gable roof and within that roof space we built out a second-floor and we popped up some dormers. That's essentially what it is, it's a cape and again, it's the smallest most compact house that we could possibly build on this property for 2,100 sq. ft. With that however we have our flood zone to worry about and so we do have to elevate the house above the base flood elevations so essentially raising the house up one-story. The good news about that is that, we're still under our maximum building height and we're still lower than the ridge of the house next door. The bad news is, once we raise the house our sky plane now clips the roof. We have our house and what we've done is we've put a deck along the entire backside of the house on the waterside. As we raise the house up due to the flood zone,we've now lost connection with the ground so we really sort of lose our back yard or we lose the functionality of the back yard. This deck is going to serve as the back yard for the house and it's super important for the livability of the house that we have that connection from the living'floor of the house out to exterior space. With the footprint of the house and the deck we're at a lot coverage of around 24% which is absolutely in line with the other waterfront houses on the street. The house next door is we calculated I think a 35% coverage, the house next to that is 33, you know it gets better with some of the other houses but you know the average coverage on the street on the waterside of the street for those houses is about 23 % % so we're at 24 and change. Apart from the numbers there I just think that what's very clear is that our house is absolutely within the density of the existing neighborhood. In that regard let me just sum up by saying that our property and our house as designed will be the most conforming property on the waterside of the street, all the other houses will be more nonconforming than ours. Our property and our house will be of a scale and a density that's absolutely commiserate with the neighborhood and 24, January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting we don't see any negative impact on the character of the neighborhood as a result of this construction. I'll be happy to take any questions you have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Actually there's a question about the sky plane, it would appear that the diagram submitted on proposed elevation west, it's got you know that's a sky plane taken from a rear yard is that correct? SAM FITZGERALD : No, well it's an irregularly shaped lot and so we don't have so the lot line is not parallel to the house necessarily. It's one part of from one position on the property line and I think that what we did is actually you're right we're looking at the side elevation but it would be it's just graphically easier to see if we did it this way. You're right, we could have shown the front elevation or the rear elevation how the sky plane hits the house butt think that graphically it was just easier to show it this way. We can modify things if you'd like. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : To continue on that, it seems like the setbacks on the east and west side are the ones that are most constraining but the associated sky plane diagrams which for. those sides which would I'm sorry I'm saying this badly but, the sky plane as viewed from the south or the north side would seem to be the most noncompliant the most constraining owing to the small side yard space but they're not shown. Do you follow? SAM FITZGERALD : Yea I follow certainly and we can certainly provide some other sky plane diagrams. I think that what we are showing here is one just the fact that there is the nonconformity there but we can be we can I don't know if there's degrees of nonconformity with the sky plane that are important other than the fact that we just don't conform but we can better illustrate that yes, absolutely. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Fair enough. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry to interrupt Margaret, so that I understand,when you look at the side lot setbacks the 10 foot on the east side, 15 feet on the west side it almost implied to me if you just flip the house based upon your west proposed elevation and sky plane that you really wouldn't even have a second-story, is that-correct? SAM FITZGERALD : Oh I'm sorry, say that again. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Looking at the elevation the proposed elevation west where it illustrates the sky plane and you sort of lose that front dormer, if you were to run the sky plane from the sides you'd end up with I guess really more of a pyramidical shaped house but it would seem to me that you'd lose certainly the ends.the gable ends of the residence, is that correct? SAM FITZGERALD : Right yep, yep that's right. . January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Thank you. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to point out,the proposed elevation west and sky plane that 8%foot setback shown on the if go back to the sky plane diagram,that 8%feet,that's the distance perpendicular to the page or the screen, shouldn't that offset be to the rear property line? MEMBER PLANAMENTO :That's the front. SAM FITZGERALD : I think the confusion here with the where we have shown this graphically is that it would be we felt that it would have been more sort of more graphically clear obviously not, to show if you show the front elevation or the rear elevation how the sky plane hits the house it wouldn't be as graphically clear so we just tried to just say okay, since the sky plane hits the house in different you know because the property lines aren't parallel to the house and so it's not so the sky plane angle is not going to hit the house at exactly the same points around the house so we chose to show this sort of in one way graphically to say okay,,clearly you know we don't conform to the sky plane but we would absolutely happy to show we actually have a 3-D model of the house where we have the sky plane modeled all the way around the house and we would be very happy to provide that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I can't tell but it looks to me like you actually might not have a sky plane issue on the side where"it showed and you might have a sky plane issue where it's not shown so I'm just confused. SAM FITZGERALD :'I apologize for the you know for that and we can absolutely give you sort of a 3-1)view of where that sky plane hits the house on all sides sorry for the confusion there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If l could just ask, go back to the point made regarding this house as proposed being perhaps more compliant than the neighboring homes, did the neighboring homes on thewaterside that you kind of considered the comparables,did they have the benefit of variance relief or did they pre-date zoning do you know the story there? SAM FITZGERALD :They all pre-date zoning, we have a photo taken from the water these houses from the 1920's I think it is and they're all pretty much intact the way they are today. They've been added onto but they all pre-date zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Let me enter into the record since we didn't do that the variance relief that you're actually requesting. You need a front yard setback at 16 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35, aside yard setback at 8.5 feet, the code requires a minimum of 10, combined side yard setbacks at 17 feet, the code requires 25 foot minimum, lot coverage of 24.24%.the code permits a maximum of20%.There is the issue of the.nonconforming sky plane -January 8,2026 Regular Meeting - and then I also want just that we get this all into our,record, to mention a couple of concerns -that were.expressed in the Trustees hearing, that should be brought to the ZBA. One is, they suggest making the house smaller to reduce lot coverage, three, include vegetative buffers, non-turf buffers,four, move the dry wells landward. . SAM FITZGERALD : I can address those if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yep, why not. SAM FITZGERALD : Certainly the vegetative buffer would be absolutely,fine, I think we had already planned it to do something like that so that's absolutely fine. What we're running into on this very problematic site is trying to fit everything on the site. So, we have dry wells and then we have aseptic system -so the septic system is on the landward side of the house up against the front property line and it's an IA system but because it's in a flood plain we can't use the same leaching pools are we normally would so these leaching pools are shallower so we have more leaching pools that are shallower than we would in a typical system so it takes up more space.We have all of that septic equipment and we have the dry wells. I guess we can go back to the engineer and see if they can do some juggling and sort of move those things around but we're so tight as it is and I think we can move the house maybe back [guess a little bit maybe a foot or so but as of now I think the engineer is saying that-you know this is sort of what we have unfortunately but again, we can go back and see if he can shuffle some things around. As far as the size of.the house goes, you know we say 2,100 sq.ft. is enough for us but you know in most typical houses you'd have a basement or a crawl space where you could put mechanical equipment and laundry and we don't have that. So, within that 2,100 sq. ft. space which.by the way is not,a large house by any means for a waterfront property on Fishers; in that.2,100 sq. ft. space we also have to allow for mechanical,equipment and for laundry and I think that we have about 150 sq. ft. of space in the house that we would normally you know put in the basement. I really thing.that we're at a minimum when it.comes to the size of the house. I know you know it's very problematic the site here in terms of the size but you know we're trying to do all we can to strike that balance between you know providing a reasonable house and satisfying all the concerns the Trustees.and the ZBA. MEMBER STEINBUGLER.: Going back to the septic the IA septic system, the drawing from the engineer the CHA indicates I think it indicates a room for fifty percent expansion,, is that part of what is hindering your ability to bring the house to reorient the house.or bring it a little more landward? It's the circles that are kind of sketched that are you know the dotted lines. SAM FITZGERALD : Right, think that's a condition of the flood zone in this case. I think that the Health Department is asking for a placement area just because it is a flood area. We're having Z, . January 8,2026 Regular Meeting to get so there's a lot more work on the Health Department side too because of the flood zone. I think that's one of the requirements that they're asking for is to provide area for placement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While we're talking about you know water tables and flood zones, Sam did you get a copy of a letter that we received just recently from Ken Edwards who was a former Southold Town Planning Board Member who is a Fishers Island resident? SAM FITZGERALD : No, well he had written a letter in advance of the Trustees hearing and we asked if we received a copy of that. I don't know if that's the same letter but that's the only one I've seen. I'm familiar with his concerns. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because basically what he's saying was this was never a building site,this was used for a lobster business historically right? SAM FITZGERALD : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The original owner tried to sell the property and back to I guess Fishers Island Farms now Fishers Island Utility Company, Utility Company removed a small shed. The property was then several you know constructed a dock, rented three boat slips anyway the new owners bought a conditional sale of the site and I guess his son Ken's son Chris Edwards was going to be one of the bidders to operate another lobster business there,the other bidder was Steve Malunawski who said he was going to do oyster-farming. The property was sold to Mr. Malunawski who then sold it to his daughter last year and now the daughter is attempting to build a house. Given the number of variances required to build a house even when it conforms to the GFA I think he's got a point about whether it's really a reasonable building site; it is zoned residential it's not MII or anything like that even though it's been used historically that way. I don't know if you want to address any of that? SAM FITZGERALD : Yea I can and maybe Travis if he's still on line he can jump in here too. As part of you know we couldn't get this far in the process here,we couldn't get to the ZBA unless we proved to the Building Department that this was a legal buildable lot. We did a single and separate search and that revealed that it's not a mergeable lot it's as I said a legal buildable lot as accepted by the Building Department. So, I don't know what kind of agreements were made between parties during sales but I know that we had to clear up whether-or not it's a legal buildable lot, we had to clear that before we were even given an N.O.D. so I think there's no question as to the buildability and the legality of the lot. Again, in terms of what other stuff happened between sales and everything else I don't I can't speak to that. TRAVIS GARCELON : Sam I can add some history there if you'd like. SAM FITZGERALD: Okay great,this is Travis everybody. January 8,2026 Regular Meeting TRAVIS GARCELON : Good morning, thanks for is now a good time to speak? Again, thanks for having the Zoom meeting, unfortunately I'm not able to be there. As.Sam said, Sofie and I are really excited to build this house. We have very long ties,on the island, Sophie's family as you mentioned Steve and Sara Malunawski have been out there for a very long time, Sara's family has been up there for even longer.Steve and Sara run an oyster farm one of the few year-round businesses.Sophie grew up on the island year-round. For a little.history on the lot,Steve bought the property because he needed to have a way to potentially sell his business when he wanted to retire. Obviously, he runs his oyster farm off of his property where his family lives, if he wanted to potentially sell his oyster farm at some point when he wanted to retire, he wanted to have a property where a buyer could build a home and operate an oyster farm. So that was the intention fully intended to you know if the oyster farm is going to be sold someone was going to build a house there the new owner of the oyster farm. We also have you know evidence of there being a very sizable house on that lot, we have photos and we have maps showing what was a very significantly sized house. What happened was that shack that was there was actually the kitchen off the back of that house and it ended up becoming the Hedge Fish Market. That was in the forties after what we think was the 38' hurricane, I think it's the '38 hurricane that may have you know destroyed the house. There was a house there, it's certainly a buildable lot and so we have those photos if you guys ever want to see them showing the house with all the other houses. Again, we're super excited to try and build this house, we have a family,we would like to make it our primary residence.It is an extremely modest house; we are trying to build an affordable home for a single family to live in. It fits in with the neighborhood and I think that's very much in line with the Fishers Island community is looking for in year-round folks building modest single-family homes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Sam has provided us with some excellent visuals you know photographs and proposed super imposition on the site and it's very useful to be able to compare what you're proposing to build relative to what's already there. There's a number of substantial homes all up and down that waterway. I just wanted to make sure the record was complete so that's why I entered that into,the record because it's appropriate to give you an opportunity to address what we have gotten submitted to us. MEMBER STEINBUGLER: I just like to ask a question regards to the deck,I think it is contributing because it is above grade, is it contributing to your lot coverage? SAM FITZGERALD : It is, it is yes. MEMBER STEINBUGLER I heard what Sam said about it being an important element of usefulness of the home.Where I'm going is, is it necessary I just wanted to ask,the deck is large, January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting it's contributing to a variance for lot coverage that's kind of significant, is it important that it be as large as it is? SAM FITZGERALD : We feel so, as I said, it's going to be a stand in for the back yard I think that it's you know as the house elevated up one-story above grade due to the flood zone I think that you know the livability of the house on the property I think is greatly diminished and so I'm having this deck of a certain size I think is going to really help the livability of the house. The part I was trying to make about the coverage is that yes, we could reduce the size of that deck to get us down to a number but I MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sam, what is that number without a deck? SAM FITZGERALD : It's under 20%, 1 don't know what it is but it's under 20%. We could I mean we can certainly reduce the size of the deck but I think at the same time though you know we are absolutely in line with the density of the neighborhood with the 24%. 1 think that given the benefit it has to the house and also the fact that we're absolutely in line with the density of the neighborhood it just seems like it's you know it's not necessarily you know cause of concern for me but obviously you guys would be looking at it differently. It just seems like we are it's not the deck is not contributing to any concerning increase in density by any means. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Other than excessive lot coverage. Do you have examples of prior Board relief relative to excessive lot coverage for comprise sites or comparable sites as this along with the other relief that you're seeking? SAM FITZGERALD : We don't, we don't. -CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do the other homes that are you know adjacent all along this street. are they all predating zoning or are some of them newer or SAM FITZGERALD :They are all predating zoning.Some of them have been altered a fair bit but I have a picture that I can share on my screen of the houses from the twenties but they all predate zoning, yes. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Let me just ask further, they predate zoning but you noted they've been altered,quite a bit. If any alterations occurred post zoning one would have expected they might need a variance. Were all the alterations done before zoning went into effect. SAM FITZGERALD : It looks like it, it looks like I don't think that the houses have been touched too much since 1957. 1 think that what we have today is I mean it looks to be you know most of it looks to be pre '57 although I couldn't say for certain. 30 January 8,2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO :While'Donna is getting ready to allow you to'show a photograph I had a couple of questions. First of all, there was no survey in my packet. BOB BROOKS : Can I reference that property having been the letter that Ken Edwards had sent in, I'm a homeowner two doors up from where the property is being built. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Brooks, we will absolutely provide you with ample opportunity to say anything you want to, to the Board but we're kind of in the middle of asking a question of somebody else and we'd like to get their answer and image. BOB BROOKS : That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I promise we will get to you as soon as we can, we won't forget about you. SAM FITZGERALD :This was taken I think in the twenties or some bygone era. I tried to actually talk to the Director of the Museum to get a specific date on it cause he's really good at that but I couldn't but anyway we know it's an old photo and the house that's all the way to the right that is the house that.was built on the Garcelon's property so that's the house-that was there. There was definitely you know a pretty substantial house there for quite a few decades. These houses here I know that this warehouse right here has been expanded, a contractor has that warehouse now and then the house directly to the right of that,that house is absolutely intact I think the porch has been enclosed but otherwise absolutely intact. The house next to it is pretty much intact, that's the way it is today. These I think you know have been enlarged but yes so these are definitely pre '57 and mostly by in large MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) suggested pre 1940 1 mean that's going back I mean eighty-five years (inaudible)vacant. SAM FITZGERALD : Yes so this photo was taken probably in the twenties so I think that Travis was saying that it was in 1940 1 think when by 1940 the house was gone and we suspect that it's from the 1938 hurricane. We also have maps MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sam I'm sorry,would you be so kind to just email that photograph as part of the file? SAM FITZGERALD : Sure, let me just actually.if I could, let me just I have this one here too:So, this is a site plan from 1899 where we have again,the house on the far right that is the property we're speaking of so that's that same significant house and that was from 1899. All of these houses existing in 1899 but they've you know I think by 19571 think they were all they had been January 8; 2026 Regular Meeting altered and added on to but as I said I don't see much evidence of any newer alterations since then. I will email that to you, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That would be great.Okay, I think it's time for Mr. Brooks to be given a change to speak. -BOB BROOKS : My wife and I that photograph that he showed you with the warehouse and the- next house and the next house,the next house,the next house is my great grandfather's house, the next house which he said hadn't been altered,we just brought that up to code. We just got the C.O. after three years because the front porch which we didn't alter or anything but that's fine everything was up to code and we got a C.O. it took us three years. Their inspectors did their job which they should. The only thing, I've been down to that lot and I looked at that lot, I think that would be you know if someone wants to build a house there that's fine but I can remember I'm seventy-eight years old, that house that you show on the very end, I've never seen a building there. It was always a little shed there and as you say it might have been a kitchen but I'm not going to get into that either okay. I will say that we having been on the Fire Department, I'm no longer affiliated with them I'm seventy-eight now so I'm not on the Fire Department anymore we used to use that area to go down there to do drills and the one thing we were worried about, if there was ever a fire within the four homes that are there now okay that it would basically almost take everybody out. When I looked at the initial drawings that were submitted about this house where it has a 40-foot front deck and then it showed the house and then I went and looked at the back of the house or I should say the front of the house which is on the road I'm seeing that it's closer in some areas than any of the other houses along that are. My thoughts were,we brought everything up to code in the house that we just finished okay which is that third house and there's an actual dock in there now and I'm just saying things need to be brought up to code. You can say well,there's three other homes, they're as close if not almost as close, well that house there if I looked at things right, Brian (inaudible) house at the end there looks like it's going to be.4-feet from their line so if you bring in that house within the 15-feet well it's creating again more of a danger to any of the other houses if anything ever happened to any of the houses. I just things need to be brought up to code.Again, what Kenny Edwards had mentioned,the only thing I saw down there at(inaudible) Fish Market down there was a little shed and the picture I see there I can see my great grandfather's house, I can see the next house, I see the Walls house,the grandparent's house and then I see the next and then I see the vacant I see a house but that's I don't know to me because of the way.pictures were taken back then that could be over there by I don't know I have my doubts about that picture. Again, my only thoughts are, things need to be brought up to code. We had to bring it up to code, it took us three years, we had to go before you guys about the porch and we didn't do anything the porch but just replace it and we are closer to the water than they are going to be. So, other than that you know that's my thoughts on everything just do your jobs, bring it up to January 8,2026 Regular Meeting code. If you have to have a smaller house or a higher house you know,just bring it up to code that's all. My family has been there since 1890 so anyhow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody else on Zoom? SD RIVERS : Hello, I'm Sean David Rivers, if-you look at the plot plan you'll see that the road that fronts this property it says NF (inaudible) Rivers that's my mother, she passed in 2021 and I am now the deeded owner of the road. I like Bob Brooks have no objections to a house being built there although the setbacks that are required seem laughable to me in terms of if that were allowed that would be absolutely insane mockery of the rules. However, even if you were to allow something of that scale to go in there,there's sort of a view that hasn't been shown which is that septic system is going to require you know some elevation to it above the existing grade in order to achieve the drainage that they need. I don't see any plan for where to park cars that's going to actually work unless they are looking to park their cars on the road which is a right of way. I believe I'm not required as a right of way owner to allow parking but merely passage. So, if you can address that, that would be helpful. SAM FITZGERALD : Thank you for the comments.So, these I believe that these leaching pools they're only two-feet deep as opposed to the typical sort of six-feet deep and that's because of a requirement for the flood zone. My understanding from the engineer is that they are able to be installed at grade. They do have I know that they do make leaching pools that are drivable that are able to driven upon but I don't have that technical information on hand but I know that we've done it on Fishers loads of times. I do know that these leaching pools are very shallow as compared to what you see typically and the intent would be to actually just have them buried within natural grade. The-question here is, yea so there's a kind of a small area in the front where you could park a car but it has been our intention that you would be able to drive over these leaching pools. I would have to get more information about that from the engineer. I would say absolutely not,we would not want to the solution here is not on street parking that's not the solution.The solution here is, parking on this property and it's just a matter of specking the right leaching pools to be able to drive on them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sam, what is the elevation? SAM FITZGERALD : The elevation I think is it goes from 6 1 think yea it's 6-feet elevation 6 or it goes up to 6 let me just see here. Yea 5.7 or 6 it's an average of 6. So, the first-floor elevation of the house`will be at 15.5,the VE zone is at 13 so we have to be 2-feet above that for VE zone so with a little bit of wiggle room. We're at 15.5 for the first-floor elevation but natural grade is at 6. January.8, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the interest of time can we kind of try to wrap this up. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I had a bunch of questions that still remain unanswered so how do you want to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm suggesting that we do is, either close it subject to receipt or leave-it open. I'll poll you all on what you want to do but we need to have information on the sky plane submitted which Sam said he would do and we also want to get some more information that Sam can provide us on on-site parking. Let's hear from the other person on Zoom. KEN EDWARDS : Hi, I just like to make a comment. I have a picture of the so-called kitchen after the '38 hurricane. It shows the shed in the water and I question whether if there was ever a house with a kitchen on that lot. I'd like to include that how is the best way to do it? Take a picture of it and email it over to you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's fine. KEN EDWARDS : Okay, I'd like to do that and if you keep the hearing open I'd like that to go into the file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure KEN EDWARDS : My other question is, has any Board Member visited the site? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I mean we've driven around as you know Ken we've driven around Fishers Island at least Nick and I have. I don't know how many years and how many times and are fairly familiar with the island with various neighborhoods and so on and a lot of the nonconformity but ATA MCGIVNEY : Nick said he's been also to the actual premises. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick says he's actually been at the actual site. KEN EDWARDS : Good that answers my question,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I think maybe the best thing to do here is, why don't we just adjourn this to the Special Meeting and give you an opportunity to submit this other information and then we will see if we have questions. If we have more questions, we'll MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry I want to put a couple of things out if you don't mind not that they actually have to necessarily be answered but, I'm confused by my application packet January 8,2026 Regular Meeting and I don't know if a survey is required but it's customary that we should have a survey. There is a site plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a site plan by stamped by a licensed engineer or architect, that generally suffices. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible)just because I do like to see a survey,.but I do understand a site plan is acceptable. SAM FITZGERALD : (inaudible) but we do have,we did submit I believe we submitted the survey from the engineer showing the septic so it's not like a (inaudible) survey MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes I have the septic but it's not stamped and it's not well it's not stamped. I just saw it as an application or a sanitary plan. If the Board is fine with not having a survey or unstamped documents, I'll be fine with it too but that was the first question I had. The second thing, and we're kind of jumping around here or I'm jumping around in my head cause there is so much that I wanted to add that I didn't have the opportunity previously, there's an existing dock on the property, this property has transferred several times, the property card that was included does not show the most recent transfer but I'm assuming that the applicant is in fact the owner. Where is the Certificate of Occupancy on the dock or the C of C? SAM, FITZGERALD : That's a great question, when I prepare these applications I contact the Building Department and request all permits and C.O.'s that they have on file for a property and so they came back with nothing. I don't know the history of that dock, I don't know the problems, I don't know anything about it and I'm sorry I probably should, I apologize. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would think that you would need to have a Certificate of Compliance at the very least before we move forward with the construction of a house but that's,my opinion.The next thing is, we talked a bit about the sky plane and it's my opinion that the east and west sides you literally miter them off if you know you have the sky plane so we need the visual on that.The deck is at 35 feet from a rear yard setback,while that's great what I'm trying . to understand cause of the lot coverage I can think of other applications including someone else that's in the room right now that's come before the Board that's looked for similar decks that.you know unless you can substantiate a very good reason why you should be entitled to that I don't see how or why you just wouldn't have a stairwell that leads down to an at grade patio like other applicants have benefitted from and that's more of a statement. The- construction plans, the plans that we look at are not construction plans, are they? SAM FITZGERALD : They're.not, they are schematic plans that we brought to a certain point before we gained all of our approvals. January 8,2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Don't we normally look at construction plans that are stamped? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No MEMBER LEHNERT : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My mistake,then. I guess on that note I'll stop and let Leslie reiterate the list that we need I think in order to move forward. I do stand by that I think that if you could provide examples of prior relief granted, I'd appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I have down here now just to review it, my motion is going to be to adjourn to the Special Meeting okay and we're going to be looking from you Sam to receive sky plane diagrams that we've discussed. More information on on-site parking,any C.O. on the dock or anything you can come up with, a survey since you have it already anyway. Consideration with your client about amending the lot coverage based upon options which you may or may not chose to do but we're just asking to see if you can bring it into more conformity with the code. If you can come up with any relevant priors for additions and alterations over in that area. Did I miss anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, the only other thing I was thinking about and this came up more in the Orient application on Navy St. whether we're elevating the house to get it outside of the flood plane there was a question about the garage parking because they built the earth up to accommodate the IA system and here Sam said that he has more than sufficient space with a 6-foot water table he can actually bury it and have on-site parking but probably a cross section would be very helpful to ensure that you're not going to have the car you know that it can actually fit on site. SAM FITZGERALD : I think that it's part of the information that we'll provide from the engineer. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was thinking from a cross section like what the applicant in Orient had to CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN :Alright, he can do that with you know presenting information on on- site parking. Is that okay Sam? SAM FITZGERALD: Yea that's great,great suggestion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anything else from anybody? Motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on January 22, 2026. MEMBER LEHNERT: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I'm going to make a motion to take a five-minute recess. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye M EMBER-STEIN BUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye . MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER,STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 37 January 8;2026 Regular Meeting HEARING#8070-EVAN TOUHEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Evan Touhey#8070.This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 2, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" accessory pool house at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 1955 Albertson Lane in Greenport. JOAN CHAMBERS : Good afternoon my name is Joan Chambers,, I'm here to represent the homeowner Evan Touhey who is also here. When I first started to work on this project the mystery to me was why someone renovated this lovely little building, picked it up and moved it and missed it by 11 inches. The current homeowner did not do this work and I was not involved in this work but the prior owner did the work so I got in touch and she provided me with ten pages of explanation which I'm not going to read ten pages to you, I'm going to read you what I think is the pertinent explanation of how they arrived here. She says, when purchased the property there was an original wood framed shed located along the western edge of the property. It is believed to be over a hundred years old, possibly original to the farmstead that still stands on the land.The shed was dilapidated but intact,the siding and wood floor was rotted, rodents were living in it and the doors and roof were leaking. No other outbuildings or accessory structures were present on the property at the time. Its relocation was done under a valid building permit issued by the Town of Southold and performed by a licensed local specialist experienced in moving buildings. The location was based on a setback guidance provided by the town referencing the survey then on file done by Ariel Land Surveying Job No.21-851 dated May 13,2021 which is attached to the deed.At the time the town directed that the shed be moved 24 inches farther from the western property line. The contractor followed that instruction exactly. The surveyor did not physically stake the new location, the contractor positioned the shed according to the town's direction and the approved survey plan. In 2022 Ariel Land Surveying updated the plan to reflect the main house restorations and discovered an additional buried monument at the southwest corner of the property. This caused a rotation of the property line. The discovery meant that the original 2021 survey filed with my deed and used by the town contained a boundary alignment error. So, Ariel prepared two additional updates confirming the boundary shift but did not communicate that they had discovered an error with the original filed survey. Because of this, we have to file for a variance to allow the.shed to remain in its current permitted location which was determined in good faith based on the official record at the time. She summarized, the shed is the (inaudible) and was lawfully relocated under a town permit.The location was determined using the 2021 deed survey and the town's instruction to move it 24 inches.The surveyor later found new boundary evidence creating a technical discrepancy that no one could have anticipated. That's the - January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting escalation of how we arrived here. I can make a copy and drop this off the ten pages you can read at your leisure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That would be great. I think we should all get a copy. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Joan my only question about your statement is, what was the C of 0 or permit number that was issued? JOAN CHAMBERS : Building permit? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea JOAN CHAMBERS : I have not been able to locate that. This is what she wrote to me but the town has a C.O. on the structure but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the renovations to the house not to the accessory structure. JOAN CHAMBERS : They have a C.O. on the structure but not since it's been moved. I know there was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What year was it moved. JOAN CHAMBERS :That's a good question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought you said 2021. JOAN CHAMBERS : The survey was done in 2021 right and then in 2022 the discrepancy was discovered. So, it was moved between 2021 and 2022. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Do you have any questions Board Members? Is there anybody in the audience, anybody on Zoom? JOAN CHAMBERS: I will do another search with the Building Department.Actually, it was Tracey who noticed the discrepancy when they were perhaps issuing the permit for it to be moved so I know there is paperwork in the Building Department but I don't believe an actual permit was issued. I'm really as I said I'm sorry I'm in the dark about that part but I'll do a little bit more research on that to see if I can give you more paperwork on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we just do this then, we'll just close it subject to receipt of any additional information that you can provide on that history of permits. Does that make sense? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Which is the real configuration of this?The survey says 20.2 X 16.2 and then we have this latest one which says.20.9 %X 16.9 %. 3 January 8,2026 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Currently the Survey that's dated 2023 which is the one I included in the package and it shows 8.9 setback and also.a 9 foot setback so we missed they missed by 11 inches with the 8.9. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Was your question about the size of the structure? MEMBER ACAMPORA : The size of the structure also is- different on the survey versus the accessory structure. JOAN CHAMBERS : I'm sorry I didn't quite hear you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the size of the shed? JOAN CHAMBERS : The size of the shed I believe is as the survey reflects. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the 2023 survey showing the 8.9 foot side yard setback is the correct size of the shed. JOAN CHAMBERS :Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : where the pool house was. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not the drawing that was dated 7/15/25? JOAN CHAMBERS : I'm sorry everyone was talking, what?. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not the drawing that is dated 7/15/25 has different specs on it. JOAN CHAMBERS : What did you say Kim,the drawing matches the survey or it does not match the survey? BOARD ASSISTANT: It says 16 feet and 9% inches. JOAN CHAMBERS : And the survey says BOARD ASSISTANT : on the drawing but the survey says 16.2 JOAN CHAMBERS : I measured the building when I did those drawings so I would say the drawings are correct from my point of view. I can't speak for the surveyor although I usually defer to surveyors when it comes to dimensions. I can also check that but I mean I physically measured that building before l drew the plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it's "as built" so that'.s what we're really looking at, we're not looking at a proposed construction so maybe we want to have the correct information but it's not as compelling as simply the setback that we're looking at. Okay,thanks for bringing that up 4a . . January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting- Pat. Anything else from anybody? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision subject to receipt of additional information. from the applicant's agent. As soon as we get the information we'll formally close, no it's closed we'll start the clock from then. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Kim you're going to scan copies and send it all of us the submission? HEARING#8072-REBEKAH SCHULZ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rebekah Schulz#8072. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 22, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an addition to a single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 185 Riley Ave. in Mattituck. ANTHONY PORTILLO Good afternoon Board,thank you for having me, Happy New Year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So we're looking at a front yard setback of 11 feet,the code requiring a minimum of 35, it's a corner lot. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else do you want us to know about it? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's a little bit of a strange sort of existing situation,there's two residences on this lot. They're both C.O.'d, the garage is also C.O.'d it's the one in the rear of the house. We are proposing a pool that is in compliance, that isn't part of this variance request or relief request. It's a corner lot which I think is also important to recognize. Since two homes are on 41, January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting Riley Ave. it's really that would be considered I guess the primary front yard. Obviously off of Bay Ave. if that was the primary which we are calling the secondary,the houses are way setback off Bay Ave. Something that I forgot to include in my original submission which I just gave to Kim to give to the Board, I just wanted to sort of give you guys an aerial of Riley. I mean I'm sure everyone here knows Riley Ave., very much common on Riley that the homes were cottages you know summer.cottages that were built and you can see pretty clearly as you go down Riley that a lot of the homes are encroaching on the front yard. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get official documentation of that but I think it's pretty evident especially on the seaward side of the block the homes are very close to the street frontage in the front yard. The current residence is I think 4.1 feet and we are requesting the addition to be kind of tiered back on that second sort of tier of the existing house and staying in line with that so that's 11 feet. So, we aren't proposing that's encroaching more than what's there it's also less than the most noncompliant condition.The reasoning for this is, a growing family,they live there and they're ,looking to add bedrooms. We are designing an IA system that would be installed for the addition due to the increase of occupancy. I did provide the Board with a couple approvals in the area.One of the ones I thought was probably similar in nature,there was I believe the Board granted an addition I think it was like 11.3 feet front yard.We provided a few and I believe that was on Sigsbee. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Sig_sbee looks like 31 feet 5 inches where 35.are required.The one on Bay Ave.Jeffcoat? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea that's right the one on Bay Ave. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : 16 where 40 is required. ANTHONY PORITLLO : That one I don't have printed I'm sorry but I believe that was the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's put on the record the fact that the existing dwelling is 4 foot 1 inch. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : from the front yard and you're proposing an addition at 11 feet. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right, kind of the second tier of the (inaudible).Again, I think on Riley it's somewhat not somewhat it's in character of what's going on there and I think you really don't recognize it on Bay Ave.that it's really not encroaching much you have a pretty deep yard there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just kind of curious I mean I get with that huge let's call it a side yard okay, cause it's both a front and a side yard depending on which frontage you're looking January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting at. I know that you're putting it in a conforming location but boy that's squeezing that back yard that whole complex is squeezed tight as a drum back there, why not propose putting it you know over farther and screening it? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'm sorry is the suggestion to put it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm talking about the pool not the addition. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh the pool I'm sorry. I thought it was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not before us I'm just curious from a design point of view. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The pool ended up in'the rear yard due to the Riley (inaudible) primary and then we thought that the addition we're kind of using the addition as like a camouflaging of the pool and kind of creating a rear yard.We're obviously proposing a fence around the pool which is required. I mean we didn't get into like landscaping but again, I feel like we're so far off of Bay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very far-away from Bay. ANTHONY PORTILLO : it really doesn't impede and that's kind of the main road there right? Riley is kind of this dirt (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's also this existing stockade fence you know along that let's call it the rear property line to screen it. I mean I understand I just thought I'd ask that out of curiosity with all that open space there you know for a patio or whatever other you know things you want but okay applicant's choice. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry while you're on the pool, An do you say you have a building permit for the pool? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No this is part of our application we'll be submitting two applications. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, but without the addition the pool is still in a :conforming location? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The pool is in a conforming location correct not on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute, wouldn't it be in a side yard? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No it's considered our rear yard. The primary CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh, oh there's the line yea, yea got it I see. January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Our setbacks are fine and we're not over lot coverage we're like right there but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I have no questions, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to ask if either configurations were considered that would reduce the size of the variance? It is pretty large over 68%and it seems like as you noted as proposed it's kind of setback one tier.but could it be setback to the second tier? It would reduce the need the size of the variance required. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, in my mind that would really eat up the rear yard sort of what is there let's call it back yard so that was really the reasoning that we held it on that 11 foot line and made it narrow to give them a rear yard. I think like that's sort of a busy Bay is kind of busy so and I guess you can fence it but it is nice to not have your back yard on Bay in my opinion. I think it's you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very tightly packed family compound I mean you know so it could be just their preference. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean it was obviously part of a discussion with the owner how to kind of organize the structure and the pool in the rear yard the back yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? 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 January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#8073—CHRISTINE MACDONAGH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christine MacDonagh #8073. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123A and the Building Inspector's September 18, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing seasonal cottage at 1) a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use located at 7685 Horton Lane in Southold. So, we've all been out there to see what's going on, there was a Stop Work Order issued? ANTHONY PORTILLO :That is correct and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What happened here? ANTHONY PORTILLO : On record that the Stop Work Order was issued, no work has continued since that Stop Work Order and I made sure of that, I.told the owners you gotta you can't. So, I think that maybe they were guided incorrectly by their contractor that you know they thought they could basically do the work that they were doing on the inside of the residence. They're not doing any work on the deck besides decking,there's kind of two pieces I think to this project that I kind of want to discuss. Christine did go to the Building Department and thought that what they were doing was okay but obviously it went a little further than it should have that would require a permit, I explained that to them and they understand that and that's why we're here today. As I stated, they have not continued anymore work so they are CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is the first time that I have looked at a Notice of Disapproval that quotes that section of the code and then in parenthesis says, none substantial improvement. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I actually that was the first thing that I probably going to say to the Board cause I tried to find other variances that were granted for similar situations and I didn't find. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Breezy Shoes that's the only one you're going to fine. 45 January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I looked I couldn't find anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a precedent set for 3% enlargement cause they're nonconforming buildings with nonconforming uses but they are conforming to the zone district in that they're residential but because there's multiple cottages on one property it's considered nonconforming building in a nonconforming it's weird. We need to clear that up but that's of another conversation. This is a seasonal cottage which is going to be renovated because it's dilapidated and it's time to get a facelift. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes,that's correct, and that's the intention.Just kind of starting with the home itself and then we'll get to the deck, the home itself doing interior work, redoing the bathroom, redoing the kitchen you know sort of re-sheet rocking you know and so on, siding, windows you know basically trying to bring it up to date. No intention to increase the size or the occupancy so that's one of the reasons we're here I guess is because of there were some I guess minor structural changes in the interior of the home which seems to not be allowed under this purview of the code.The deck that's a little bit stickier, I think.The Building Department is basing their assumption that the deck was not there or that the deck was added. I mean it's pretty evident if you look at the condition of the deck that it's been there a long time. There was an application by Christine's father who was the owner at the time, I believe it was in '83, 1985 for a fence. That application included a survey, the survey doesn't show a deck so the Building Department is assuming that there was never a deck there wasn't a deck there and sometime between '85 and now a deck was built. Christine will testify that from the time her father bought it she remembers a deck being there. It's just really you know was the deck there, was it not there, did the surveyor make a mistake I don't really know. Was it built after '85, possibly? Again, based on my professional opinion that deck has been there at least forty to fifty years it's you know you can just tell by the condition of the structure. They're not looking to change the size of the deck, they're looking to re-deck it basically and any structural you know fixes, no modifications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to need Trustees on this? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That is our next appointment will be the Trustees Board, yes. Hopefully see in the next month that's our plan.That's basically the situation and that's what-we're that's the scope of the work that they're looking to do on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret 46 January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I don't think so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My only question is, have you researched aerials? The town has a really robust data base of aerials. I think that you could possibly establish when the deck was built. . ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, I can definitely do that. Again, I'm just going off like the condition of the wood and there's no sono tubes. -MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Whatever the composite material is you,can see..(inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO Sono tubes started coming in like the nineties,early nineties so those are the kind of things I'm going off based on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, look I've been in that neighborhood since 1985 living there okay, I live_on Soundview between Hortons and Kenney's okay so I'm quite familiar with the subject structure you know cause it's where I walk all time that's my loop from beach to beach. As far.as I know most of the what were seasonal cottages on Lilly Pond all had decks. I'm quite confident if a deck had been demolished and put on there, I would know about it cause those are the kinds of things I look for in my sleep and I believe it was there. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's built on CMU footings you know again, these kind of practices were like 1970's, 1960's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're old, it's old stuff. ANTHONY PORTILLO :Yea I just don't I think in the '90's you start seeing sono tubes, so when I don't see that kind of stuff that's when I assume that it's prior to those. I mean if the Board would like I can look at aerials Nick to answer your question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Why don't we do this, let's close it subject to receipt of any additional information you can obtain but do us a favor, if you don't find anything in the next couple of days just tell the office nothing is forthcoming so we can then just know that we can start writing a decision. We don't want to hold your applicant up more than we have to. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Is that okay with everyone? Okay, close this hearing subject to receipt of additional information from the architect. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, okay we're done. Motion to recess for lunch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO-: Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 48, January 8,2026 Regular-Meeting HEARING#802T_STRONG'S WEST MILL, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board of Appeals is for Strong's West Mill, LLC#8027. This is a request for a Reversal of the Building Inspector's May 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval pursuant to Chapter 280-Bulk Schedule for business, office and industrial districts, Article I Section 280-4, Article XIII Section 280-56 and based on an application for a permit to construct a boat storage building at 1) proposed height of the building exceeds the maximum permitted height of 35 feet located at 3430 Mill Rd. in Mattituck) adjacent to Mattituck Creek). Before we get started with this let me just do two things, first I'd like to say that our Legal Department in consultation with checking in Albany has determined as is also our custom in,my knowledge historically that a reversal a request for a reversal of a Notice of Disapproval or a request for a.code interpretation are (inaudible)well within the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals but do not require a SEQRA .determination. SEQRA is in front of the Planning Board as Lead Agency on a coordinated review and that is an ongoing process.We are here today just to look at a request as to whether or not the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval requiring a height variance for the proposed storage building was rational or Was not and that's what we have to find out through the hearing today. I also want to adopt our Resolution the fact that we're going to incorporate into today's record the prior public hearing that was held in August so that everything in that record will continue in today's record as one continuous hearing. So, I'm going to make- a resolution to incorporate the hearing on this particular subject application I believe it was in August. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'll second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT:Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, now it's all yours. MR. CUDDY : Thank you, I'm Charles Cuddy I.represent the applicant, I have an office at 445 Griffing Ave. Riverhead, New York. With me today is Jay Strong, Ryan Strong who are members of the applicant company, also engineers Jeff Butler and Douglas Adams:Thank you for making the resolution because I would have asked that it be incorporate,so I appreciate.that you did that. We're here and really haven't changed anything that we presented we made I think a full January 8,2026 Regular Meeting presentation at the time in August. We subsequently sent in a supplementary print as requested by one of the Members. I subsequently did one other thing and that was to ask for a Reversal instead of an Interpretation because I thought that was appropriate under the circumstances. Again, we're here we don't have further statements to make unless the Board wants to inquire. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well in reviewing the submission again with a fine tooth comb I think Margaret would like to kind of cause she's our inhouse engineer to review some of the findings of fact basically that have been discovered and to ask for you to comment on that. MEMBER STEINBGLER : Thank you, I just wanted to refresh my memory and the memories of the folks that are here representing the application; back in the August public hearing we determined that the method used to calculate of estimate discover the height of the building for town code involved summing up the area of each vertical side that is above the existing natural grade starting from the natural grade and then going up to either the eave or the gable summing those four sides and then dividing by the perimeter. I just want to confirm that that is correct. MR. CUDDY : I would ask Mr. Butler to comment on that. JEFF BUTLER : Good afternoon Members of the Board Jeffrey T. Butler, Professional Engineer. Indeed that's what we had talked about and then we had also had a discussion about that methodology and the use of on that drawing where the four corners were used and how a more accurate way to do it would be to project the topography into the side of the building and take the areas under that which was the supplemental drawing that was submitted which kind of confirmed it was very close to the original number but you and I had the discussion like well it's not really fair with the dips it comes up. More or less what's the best way to do it and we went back and projected the topography to the side and then did that same calculation when we took the areas and divided by the perimeter. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just so you know,that's the supplement sheet is what I have in front of me so I'll be referring to that. I had a lot of time to think about this method and it occurred to me that it didn't I have concerns about its validity. My question is, do you have a reference such as an engineering or architectural handbook or a textbook or a peer review journal article some method defined by a creditable source that suggest that this is an appropriate way to calculate building height? JEFFREY BUTLER : We only referred to your code and how it's defined and we've done that for decades within this town.We typically and I think Doug would concur we typically have always used for every project in -the, town the four corners to determine that height which was - January 8,2026 Regular Meeting problematic, if you have a round building like what do you do, there's no guidelines for it. So, the discussion you and I had was, because the building is so large what's the proper way to project average existing grade to calculate it based on the building height? The call it the shadow if you will that if you were to just take the building and plop it on the ground as the ground exists what's the area that's exposed divided by the perimeter? That would be sound engineering principles. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :So, I'm going to explain my concerns by way of a thought experiment. If I have a cube of a building, four.sides rectilinear, flat roof,flat bottom and I add up.the_four sides the area of those four vertical sides and divide by the perimeter I do get the height of that cube. I would ask you to consider a different case where now that cube building is more like a cape cod so it has two gables, it has eaves,the ridgeline is now the same height as when it was a cube; now if I take the area of each of those four sides it is less than it was when it was a cube. Each let's call them north, south, east and west sides, each side if I now have a gable instead of a cube each side has an area in the gabbled version the cape code version that is less than the vertical side of the cube. Now if I sum up those four sides each of which in the cape cod example is less than a cube example, I will have a sum of four numbers that is smaller than when I was considering a cube. If I take that smaller number and divide by the same perimeter, I will get a smaller number. It occurs to me that the method is really only valid for a cubic building. I don't think the fact that it's on a contoured hillside versus being on a flat surface makes a difference if the method works on a contoured hillside, I think it should work on'a flat surface. Do you follow? JEFFREY BUTLER : I do but we do when you changed your code in I think it was 2022 that area that we-take used to be at the mean height so we had the roof we would take the mean height and that's my that's the height of my building and that's where I calculate from. Your code changed and went to ridge height so we added that area on.both the gable ends to the calculation so I'm not following how the number would be smaller. MARGARET STEINBUGLER : I think you if I understand correctly and please correct me if I'm wrong, when you determined the vertical areas of the sides of the building you considered the area above the natural grade up to the eave. . JEFFREY BUTLER : Including the gable on the gable ends. MARGARET STEINBUGLER : Yes, including the gable but not including what I would say is the area that would be created if you had a horizontal surface at the level of the ridgeline. JEFFREY BUTLER : Between the ridge and the eave on the non-gabbled side? January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes, it seems like this method is to the extent that there is a gable. This method is bound to deliver a height that is less than the actual height of the ridgeline. For the thought experiment I just walked through the cape cod style house versus the cubic house. You can think about it but the steeper that gable angle gets the more acute it gets.The smaller each of those vertical sides gets and the more that method will underestimate the height of the building, do you follow? JEFFREY BUTLER : I do. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the code tells us to measure the height to the ridgeline from the existing natural JEFFREY BUTLER : Which we do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, while we're entering dimensional information here,these are engineers, I'll talk architecture alright. The architectural drawings which is the first thing I look at call out as they usually do the following dimensions, it shows the top of the ridge at 47 foot 9 inches, the mean roof height at 43 foot 6 inches, the eave height at 39 foot 3 inches and the door height at 35 feet. Now you can understand why that would be a little confusing you know when you're trying to say it's a conforming height and what complicates it more is that we are dealing with a natural grade over here and the proposal is to sink the building down to a flat surface so that it is basically parallel to the elevation of the water so that you know large yachts can be brought in this way, you can't go uphill with those things so that is the proposal. Of course, when our code height was established it's pretty clear that what people were worried about then and it was quite an old code at this point was, people attempting to like excavate for basement put a bunch of fill here and then put the house on top of it create kind of a berm or a mound that elevated the house. So, they're saying you gotta measure the height of the house from down here where you stared not from up here where you put the house.They did not in any way contemplate people digging down into the ground to establish a height. JEFFREY BUTLER : May I just interrupt one second? The code was changed in 2022 so it was looked at and there is a difference in the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There is and it's also being looked at again right now with the zoning code update trying to capture anything that is vague, that is not completely explicit or user friendly which is what this town deserves. People can't be asked to uphold the law if they don't know what the law is cause they don't understand what they're reading that makes no sense. So, yes, it's a work in progress for sure but from my point of view topological drawings you know elevational changes are things that architects deal with all the time. What we generally do in order to convey how a building sits on the earth at what grade as if we're digging into a January 8,2026 Regular Meeting hill or something building a house-whatever it is. We do a site section we go from one side of the property to the other side at a certain height this way and then reveal the inside of the building and it shows what's below that natural and what's above it. That kind of drawing in both directions north, south, east and west is really a visual diagram of where something is' sitting on the property which is a lot less abstract let's say than attempting to calculate you know arithmetic formula of some sort based upon contour intervals and data points taken along the perimeter of that interval. Did Mark Schwartz do these drawings? Who did the drawings, the architectural drawings? JEFFREY BUTLER : I did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did, okay. Then you're certainly familiar with the section with the site section? JEFFREY BUTLER :That's what we gave you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well,this recent drawing but it doesn't really well it shows this cube here it doesn't show the building, it shows a volume. JEFFREY BUTLER : No, it shows the building and the hatched area CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Proposed overhead door,this is the slope? MEMBER STEINBUGLER :That's the slope of the roof. JEFFREY BUTLER :That's the section CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the pitch alright I got that it's zero,twelve. JEFFREY BUTLER : It's better than a section, it's an actual projection on all four sides. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gotcha, it's so incredibly different than what I'm used to looking at, it's so much more abstract than what you know and maybe that's because of the massing of the building itself.which is you know has a very shallow pitch.. JEFFREY BUTLER : It's due to the methodology that we discussed would be more appropriate to come up with the average existing grade. Again, it's a big building, if I did one cross section it wouldn't be fair. I could pick that cross section wherever l want, this is continuous. It involves all four sides of the building and where the grade is today versus where the building is proposed to be. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'd just like to go back to my original question, is there a reference a , source that confirms this method as a valid means of determining building height? January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting JEFFREY BUTLER : I could ask Doug if he's heard of anything like that. DOUG ADAMS : Doug Adams, Professional Engineer and Professional Geologist, offices at 400 Ostrander Ave. in Riverhead. I like you're the way to look at this as you say and as you talk about areas, I didn't know you guys had discussed I wasn't at that last hearing and had discussed the methodology of using areas divided by the perimeter to give you a foot measurement it's pretty interesting. I thought that the methodology that you had come up with for using an area divided by a perimeter to come up with this height number was pretty interesting.When you're talking about the gables and the cube, I think if you put the graphic, you had back up a few minutes ago of what Jeff had most recently submitted. I think not including the areas as you said in a cape is probably fair but when we're talking about a building height; I think that a lot of this stuff at least maybe why it was put in the code has more to do with _what a building feels like when you're looking at it. Is it sticking way out of the ground or like what you had said about you know filling in ten feet and then putting a building on top that's kind of not fair either. As you look at this and you look at the grade going through the building even at this gable in section, if you look at the building and the grade to the right or what would be to the north put your mouse to the right of the building, that grade that's up there our building is only sticking out of the ground on that side if you look at you know very little right? On the other side it's sticking out of the ground almost as the height of the actual building. So, as a massing would seem this wouldn't feel like it's a very high building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Except from the water. DOUG ADAMS : Well this building is in front of it from the water so right?There's big sheds in front of that from the water so I don't know how and we can probably and maybe we have Jeff done I think I saw you know renderings of that and I agree. What I'm saying is it's not like we're filling in and putting on top which is what I think what the spirit of the code was about.Anyway, I just wanted to say this, sometimes that's what a building feels like and that's why I think why it.was why eventually wound up in the code which is very smart right?Also, if you look at this, this is not like a cape, this building almost is a cube. We have such a flat roof and this building is so big that this building probably does have more of the characteristics of a you know of the cube idea.A couple of other things I would say is that, in first to answer.your question because I didn't even start to answer your question.-I don't think there is a one valid I think if you look at you know a lot of lawyers trying to codify what it is and it's probably a little different in every town but usually that language is in there just for this purpose of trying to regulate how a building feels and how.big it actually is. In this case with all the different ways we did this we're still many, many feet under what that definition is in the code and I don't think there's a way to do this that you know get us to the point where we are in need of a variance. I just wanted S-41 January 8,2026-Regular Meeting to say that, I don't think there's a way you could calculate this if you were trying to make it so we're out of the code reference. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think if we you know I can perhaps agree that the area above grade of the area of those four vertical walls above the existing grade if calculated all the way to the ridge line on all four sides that's plausible. It seems to me implausible that leaving out the space between a horizontal plane and the roof that can't be accurate because if I make that angle at the ridgeline ever more acute my vertical area is diminishing my perimeter is staying the same the height is underestimated. DOUG ADAMS : I agree what I'm saying is that in our case if you look at the difference between the height of the non-gable side in the roof I mean we can'probably do the calculation pretty quickly now to see if it works out. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : You can. DOUG ADAMS : I was just pointing out that I think it's fair to do what you're saying for the specific reason of when you have a cape that has much less area to work with right, that structure also doesn't have the perception and the feel of it being a big building and a big tall building, this (inaudible) cube would. I'm agreeing with you on all that. We can see if maybe doing it that way (inaudible) somehow causes us to be more closer or over this you know the max height limit. I just want to say a couple of other quick thinks. I already talked about the spirit of the code and sinking the building is one way to help not make it look like there's such a massive thing out there and I can't read what I wrote after.that but I think I got my point across in terms of I think it's fair to do the way you were.looking at it to try to feel for another way to do it.The way we did the calculation in my office was a very simple four corners and the average height and we went up to the peak. I personally think that in any case when you have a cube or a building that is much, much taller but has you know much steeper roof slopes-or is a cape or a salt,box or something like that it's fair because you're"allowing more height on a structure like'that and it is technically higher but it doesn't have that perception of being so big. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly there was consideration originally as houses out here got bigger and bigger the concern was, keep them in scale with the size of the lot basically. That was.one of the driving motivations behind that code which was you know an old code a while ago even ,though it's been updated:There is a lot of land disturbance also when you dig down into the earth you know quite a bit.So,there's kind of slight a different impact the visual impact may be suppressed but there is a different kind of impact when you are.displacing that much soil in order to you know suppress something in the earth. We've seen this done a lot with far less complex projects like tennis courts in order to get a twelve foot high fence for a tennis court where the,code only allows for six foot high,they've been lowering them into.the ground January 8; 2026-Regular Meeting and you step down into the tennis court, it's surrounded by a fence but it's only sticking out of the ground six feet. This is one of the first times I think we've really seen a building doing the same thing.We just have to figure this out.We have been looking at different ways to calculate building height'and we've all been discussing it and agreeing that there are a number of ways that you can approach making that decision depending on which way you're looking at it and how you're actually creating the datum from which you're evaluating it. In this case what our job is, is to evaluate whether or not the Building Department was rational or irrational in the way it determined this Notice of Disapproval that says it's got a nonconforming height: Did I summarize that accurately?Are you all clear about what I just said? JEFFREY BUTLER : I just want to take you back to 2018 when I did sit with the Building Department to review how this was done with them to make sure that the way I was going to present it back to them; I sat with Mr. Strong and people in the Building Department and there was take the four corners, take the average and then come up with your height, use the side walls and the gable. That is what is typically done by the Building Department and what we have typically done as design professionals with this town I've done it for forty years now.That's the way we've always done it and that's the way that was acceptable to the Building Department in 2018. When the application changed, I think Mr. Cuddy can speak to this, when the application from two buildings to one building is when this came back up with the Building Department and they said,the code has changed you have to go to the Zoning Board.Then we looked at the code and we said Well,the only thing that changed was ridge height, mean height now became ridge height. The methodology didn't change, the average existing grade didn't change none of that changed it just we had to go to ridge height rather than mean height. So, that's why it's confusing to me why we're even here because the way they told me to do it we did it. They originally said yes, the building didn't change.in height from what they originally didn't have a problem with to this next building which now they send us here to ask for this reversal or interpretation. The code changed, we adapted to it and demonstrated. Now, if it makes you more comfortable to.include that eave to ridge height on non-gabled sides in the calculation we can do that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think all four sides need to be it needs to be included on all four sides. JEFFREY BUTLER :That's what I said,the gable side is already there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I don't think so. If I understand.your dimensions correctly this triangle (away from microphone walked up to screen) is missing and then the vertical that would be described by this height and the depth into the page is also missing. JEFFREY BUTLER :'I'm just curious why you feel from an engineering January 8,2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you getting this on the mic? ATA MCGIVNEY : Can you just reference what you're looking for the transcript? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's drawing A-103 it's page three of three titled grade plain calculation, project Strong's Marine proposed storage building dated September 25, 2024 received at the Zoning Board of Appeals Office on September 5, 2025. JEFFREY BUTLER : I don't understand why this air would be included in the calculation. I understand going this way is what you're saying from here. to here (inaudible) site plan calculations. We already have this accounted for. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :What you don't have accounted for is this triangle and I'm going back to my cape cod versus cube arguments (inaudible) it's acute. The smaller this side gets and if you use the area of.this side only up to the roof, you're underestimating the height when you sum up the four sides. DOUG ADAMS : Can I interject for a second, I think what Jeff is trying to say is that when you look at the other elevation the longer elevation and you look above the eave height there's a roof there so there's something there that you would see and would be able to calculate height but on this end section there's nothing behind in that triangle it's just air looking at it from this angle. I think that's what he's trying to is that correct? If you pan over to the section of the (inaudible) of the longer side CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Donna, do we have the architectural drawings scanned in? OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN :This is what we have scanned in as far as the latest one. DOUG ADAMS : If you just go up to that elevation right there, if we calculate on these longer side to the ridge you can see the ridge whereas on the gable ends on the in sections of the building there's just air there so you don't see anything there's literally nothing there whereas looking at from the side of the building there's actual roof. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I understand from a visual perspective that is accurate and I understand that from a visual perspective it may not contribute to the apparent massiveness but from an arithmetic*geometric mathematical perspective I'm saying the method needs to go all the way up to the ridgeline on all four sides. DOUG ADAMS : I would disagree with that on the gable,end because there isn't any(inaudible) in there Whereas on the ends there is a roof there that you can see, you can see the ridge on the right and left sides of the gable ends there's no structure to calculate. January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'll extend my cape code example to an American foursquare that has a sloped roof on all four sides.The ridgeline we leave the same place.The point of the American foursquare is the same elevation above grade as when I was considering a cube. By having four sloping sides DOUG ADAMS :That you can see from every four all four sides. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A pyramid. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :All four sides will now be lesser in area and if I sum them up and divide that by the perimeter I'm going to underestimate the height of the building. DOUG ADAMS :And I would say in that example, do it to the ridge on all four sides because you have a roof that you can see from all four sides,we don't have that here.We don't have a gable on all four sides basically. Anyway, I was just trying to help Jeff explain CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is very useful. I have your drawing here, this is yours right the elevations your name is on it, building elevations Strong's proposed sealed by Jeffrey T. Butler right here. This is A-101 okay and that's your elevation drawing is this scanned in? It's tiny notations but I have a magnifying glass and if you look along okay you see scroll up if you see those lines that are that's what I just entered into the record the information about the ridge height,the eave height,the door height and all of that, it came off of that drawing. How do you have that information there and at the same time then say based upon another calculus using a different method the height is conforming when the height right here says 47 feet? DOUG ADAMS : That elevation was taken from the grade that we're creating not the average elevation not the average grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's my point, thank you that's exactly my point. It's from the grade you are creating not the natural grade. The natural grade is what's there, undisturbed right now. JEFFREY BUTLER : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As soon as you dig down into it you are not you are measuring from a grade that is below the natural grade. . DOUG ADAMS : So by that same argument, if we were going to fill 30 feet and then put a 30 foot building up we would be 60 feet above existing grade but we would only you would only measure the building height is 30 feet. January 8;2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN 30 feet. That's the point, I mean try to unconfuse the situation, I maybe making it more confusing I don't know. ATA MCGIVNEY : Part of the definition is that it's before any grade alterations or fills so DOUG ADAMS : Right and that's what we show. MEMBER-STEINBUGLER : Can I ask a few more things? We might have to agree to disagree on whether that I persuaded myself that that slice the distance should be measured up to the ridgeline on all four sides. I did take a careful look at drawing A-103 and one of the cross checks I did was to make sure that the four sides of the building are consistent with one another. For example,that the west and east elevation areas if I add the above and below grade,they equal one another. On the east-and the west sides if Ladd the above and below grade areas of the .roof in both cases I get 7,966 sq.ft.so that's great. If I do the same calculation on the south and north sides of the building if I had the above and below grade areas on the south side, I get 13,149 sq.ft. I'm adding 1,781 sq. ft. below grade and 11,368 sq. ft. above grade and they sum to 13,149. If I do the same on the north side, I add 9,640 sq. ft. to 5,665 sq.ft. and I get 15,305 sq. ft. so something is amiss it seems to be unless my math is wrong. The north and the south sides do not have equal areas as depicted in this drawing and I wondered how that can be. JEFFREY BUTLER.: Did you scale the I'm not sure how you came up with that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm looking at drawing A-103 and the areas above and below grade are depicted on the drawing so I did not need to do any scaling,they are listed/noted. JEFFREY BUTLER : It's the north and the"south is your question. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The north and the south are the two that appear to be inconsistent with one another. JEFFREY BUTLER : It looks' like in'the north elevation we did include the roof but not on the south. It's about 2,000 sq.ft. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : 2,156 square feet difference yes. JEFFREY BUTLER : So, if we adopted the methodology you're suggesting we'd up by 2,100 whatever number that was and then we'd have a whole bunch of structure in the Town of Southold which were too high that had been approved otherwise. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :They would have been approved likely prior to the 2022 code change with respect to building height. - January 8;2026 Regular Meeting JEFFREY BUTLER : But it would the same problem only they went to the eaves on the eave side not the mean height. They weren't calculating that difference between gutter line and mean height. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, you believe on the JEFFREY BUTLER : I'll double check but I believe MEMBER STEINBUGLER : on the northside of the building which has the higher sum of the two areas. JEFFREY BUTLER : The fifteen and change MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Yea, well let's see, I should be able to take the 2,156 sq.ft. difference between the two and divide by the length of the building which is 335 sq.ft. and come up with a height of the eave so I get 6.43 feet. According to the drawing it's 45.66 less I have to change my glasses too, is 39.4 and that's close it's close 6.43 vs. 6.26 feet. So, it does seem plausible that is was included on one side and not the other but is that it strikes me as inconsistent to do it one way on one side of the building and another way on the other side of the building. JEFFREY BUTLER : Well the 15 and change that was an error it should have been the 13,149 to match the other side which would put our average height lower than the 2,413 that we have calculated. MARGARET STEINBUGLER : In my opinion the 2,156 extra feet needs to be included on both sides. That's kind of why I went to the is there you know is there a third-party reference? I understand there might have been a practice in the Building Department to do it a certain way, now that we're into this regime of using vertical areas and going to either the roof or to the ridgeline I'm looking for a third-party neutral referee to help us determine if it's more valid to include all the way up to the ridgeline surface or just to the roof. I think it needs to go to the ridgeline. JEFFREY BUTLER : I just know that what We've:been doing for decades not only in this town but towns on Long Island is the same practice. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It just mathematically incorrect. I can understand that different towns might have different codes and-perhaps different practices and methods for calculating but if I separate myself from codes and visuals and appearances and just look at the geometry of building as if it were a solid body in geometry class, I think it needs to include all the way up to the ridge line. I have a couple of other �t� January 8,2026 Regular Meeting MR. CUDDY : If I may I'd just like to say a few words. You started off by saying that there's a question of whether it was rational by the Building Inspector, and I guess after five months Member has come up with a number of hypotheticals, I don't know if your hypotheticals are based on any particular authority but you have a number of hypotheticals. The problem that we have is that, this is the way and this is the testimony,this is the way this has-been done for a thirty,forty years now it's not something brand new.The Building Inspector is saying, there's a change but there really was no change and that's a testimony also. He agreed in 2018 that the same building was acceptable and now he's saying and this is what I heard is that, maybe it wasn't in the intention when they changed it to leave it that way but they left it that way. So, the testimony is,that what was there in 2018 is the same as now and I don't think that you can just change it and say that's rational it's not that's irrational to say. You're taking the same terms and you come up with a different answer.This is going on for years and years and years the same way and so to say today we're going to make something new out of it I don't think you can do that. ATA MCGIVNEY : But it difficult when the Building Inspector your stating things that you had conversations with the Building Inspector that we're not privy to. MR. CUDDY : I didn't say that I had a conversation with him. ATA MCGIVNEY : Mr. Butler so that's very difficult for this Board to be able to determine what was and wasn't said at a different time. MR: CUDDY I was told by people who were involved in this that that's what he did say, okay? recognize what you're saying but what I'm trying to get across to you is that it was irrational for him to now say it's different, it's not different. It's been the same year after year after year after year and in your records by the way you have a third person Mr. Gardiello who also gave the same information and made the same calculations. Mr. Gardiello works in several towns, he works in Southampton, he works in Riverhead, he does work in Southold. He cam up with exactly'the same numbers that they did. So, this is something that's done universally by the engineers here. Now if you'd like to change it, I understand that but it should be a change in the code we shouldn't be hurt by the code that's here and then you're saying we're going to interpret it in a different way. It's never been interpreted in a different way and that's what we're trying to tell you. I think it's totally unfair to this applicant who got the same approval from the Building Department in 2018 for exactly.the same height.There's something wrong, I think we're way off.course at this point and I think that we gotta get back to what'should.be . done legally and I think what legally should be done is to follow what the town has done these years. If you want to change the code, change the code but don't take it out on this applicant. This applicant has been here now just let me finish, the applicant has been here since 2018 Via. . ... . . . January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting doing this so we're talking about seven, eight years and in that time, nothing has changed that should change the result of this hearing. I'm sorry if I've interrupted you. ATA MCGIVNEY :A couple of things about that, so, I thought Mr. Butler testified earlier that the four corners is the way that it's always been done. I thought he said something to that effect. That's a question I have, if it's always been done the way you're doing it then why was a Notice of Disapproval issued? I don't understand that piece of it. MR. CUDDY : I don't know why it was ever an issue quite frankly because we brought it in and actually said and I said this to Mr.Verity, I didn't understand the problem because you have an . engineer in the town and you could have gone to the engineer initially and asked how you do it. I think he would have said exactly the same thing and so ATA MCGIVNEY : I don't know that and I don't have the benefit of being a part of any conversation like that. MR. CUDDY : But I did and I was the one that had the conversation and I'm testifying to it. ATA MCGIVNEY : One other piece that I have is, and you said that another person came up with it the way that you're looking for it but you also have to admit that if you want to have something done the people that are going to do it are going to come up with ways to make you satisfied that you're doing it that way. I mean it's the same thing, you're coming up with four as two plus two and we're saying we're not we excuse me but there's another way of doing it which is one plus three. So, I don't dispute that you may have come up with a way to measure it but is that you're looking to find a way to mesh it into a definition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what's confusing. MR. CUDDY:We're not meshing it into any definition.What I'm saying to you is simply that this was done before, that it was done in this case before and we did it exactly the same way now. What Mr. Butler and Mr. Adams testified to when Mr. Gordiello if he was here would testify too is that this has been done this way in this town for thirty to forty years and what you're saying is, today we will determine that essentially that's a rational way and I'm saying yes that is a rational way and it would be irrational to do it any other way cause that's what the legal test is. I agree that that's what the Board is looking for:You can't just change it around because today we would prefer to not be that way, it either is that way because it's been that way or we really have a difficult case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have anything you just indicated in 2018 the Building Department approved this said it was fine. Ei2 January 8,-2026 Regular Meeting MR. CUDDY : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Do you have any documentation of that or was it just a conversation? MR.CUDDY:We wouldn't have gone ahead with a site plan,our site plan went entirely through, it was rejected because of SEQRA at the end. The site plan went through the Planning Board without any question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You don't have anything from the Building Department? MR. CUDDY : I don't know I mean I have to go look in the file it was eight years ago and'we may. ATA MCGIVNEY : That's.worth looking into. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That would be very,very helpful to us because you're right we want to compare apples to apples here and if it was okay before and then there was minimal diminimus change in the code and now it's not okay then we have to come we have to look at that but we need to have some nobody really has any evidence in our file of 2018 Building Department determination. They would have issued a building permit. I don't think there is a building permit that's been issued. MR. CUDDY : No because we had to finish the site plan process to get that. I think I can get something to show that yes,they saw that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you can that would really help it would help a lot. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just had another question or two, I take Mr. Cuddy's point that this is a decision about whether to uphold or overturn a Notice of Disapproval however depending on the outcome.)think there will be relevance to agreeing on a method to determining budling height. One of the elements, I think of the existing code is that it should be determined relative to average undisturbed grade plane. The method used in this example determines building height I believe incorrectly and then uses the building height to determine the average grade plane. It seems to me that the grade plane is what it is. I could put a ten-story building on it or a one-story building on'it. The height of the building should have no'influence on the pre- existing undisturbed grade plane so I am curious as to the rational for having to have the height of the building in hand to establish the average grade plane. MR. CUDDY : In going forward I think that's a very good point, but my point is we're not going forward we're looking at what's been done and how it's been interpreted all these years,and January 8,2026 Regular Meeting how it's been interpreted all these years is the way we've been doing it. So, I can understand in the future CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you referring to taking the four corners cause that's what the Building Department typically says they do,they look at the four corners. ATA MCGIVNEY : That's the way the Building Department does it-so I'm confused when you're saying that this is the way that's it's always been done that's not MR. CUDDY:The testimony from Mr. Butler and Mr. Adams and they can come up again is that this is the way it has been done. ATA MCGIVNEY : In other townships, I don't see MR. CUDDY: Maybe somebody who does it differently other than the Building Department but I think that's what they're telling you. ATA MCGIVNEY : The Building Department is who you're questioning whether or not they've done it this way or what the practice is.So, it's my understanding that this Building Department does use the four corners not the method that your clients MR. CUDDY :They can tell you better than I can cause I don't bring the plans into them. JEFFREY BUTLER :Just to back up to our last hearing, the presentation that we originally made was four corners and the discussion that we had had which it is more accurate and fair for a building of this size to project the grade profile onto the building because of the angulations in the grade. It's not a straight line as I have depicted on the four corners and if you look at the one that was just submitted that's the one which we agreed would be the more accurate way to do it to be fair for a large building even though it's not the practice, let's take a look at it.The difference between those two was a few inches that's it. That's why we adopted the second that's why we're back because we originally had the four corners but the discussion was, it would be fair to projected on because of the size of the building cause you could have high grade and thennothing right you can have for a 350 foot building you could have high grade or 10 feet and then go down to nothing but if you're taking a triangle you're'missing that whole area you're not being fair the calculation is not correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So how is then that you originally used the same method as the Building Department, four corners right? How is it that they came up with a Notice of Disapproval saying the building height is not conforming and you're saying, it is? JEFFREY BUTLER : I would love an answer to that question myself. . 641 -January 8,2026 Regular Meeting ATA MCGIVNEY : So how is it that right, two different using the same method come up with different numbers? JAY STRONG :Jay Strong,that was the whole reason that we're back here cause in August when we brought the other engineers as well and presented it from three different individuals to come up with the same number that was underneath your threshold why we're here disputing the Building Department's mathematics.That's exactly the.question. I think unfortunately in'all of this some of the other questions on the project get mixed in but it's really simply that three different.individuals for the original mathematics come up underneath the threshold but we're not clear on how or why it was originally sent back from the Building Department cause we haven't seen that math. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Just for the record, I wanted to not that there were three engineers who submitted independent analysis of the height that was submitted as part of the package we reviewed at the August 2025 Public Hearing,they did not all land on the same number.They got close and they were all under the code required height that is correct but they were not equal to one another. JAY STRONG : Correct, and if I remember they were within inches. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think they might have been more like a foot or two or three but it's in the record,we have it. JAY STRONG : To the point of it, we're not we have a large percentage from where the max height is, it's not that we're talking that any one of those within an inch or two we're talking feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this JAY STRONG : The question or the comment?. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look, it's very clear that in order to place your building in a way yes I was talking to Jeff, other Jeff, I guess the point I'm making is that the whole thing is complicated by the fact that, if you were to build the same building on undisturbed grade just exactly the way it is now you just find a spot and put four corners-down alright, that would be a very tall building okay. You can't do that because in order to bring those yachts in you have got to disturb the grade to put the building down as low as the water is that correct?You can't bring the yachts in uphill. January 8;2026 Regular Meeting JAY STRONG : Yes, that's correct, I think it's also fair to bring in that the existing buildings that are there were this is going behind that so it's also to make it grade to what we currently are using. JEFFREY BUTLER :The working grade exists. JAY STRONG :Correct so the existing buildings in front so what we're talking about grade wise there is to match what is already currently being used. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If I remember right, the proposed buildings are going to be 10-feet above grade, are you saying the existing buildings are 10-feet above grade? JEFFREY BUTLER :Ten feet (inaudible) MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay thank you and that is equal to where the existing buildings are? JEFFREY BUTLER :That's correct and flood compliant. JAY STRONG :Some of the comments and questions before about I thought your example about a tennis court was a really good one and you know appropriate around here but this the proposed building we're talking about would not be below anything else that we are currently using or working with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So all those buildings along the creek JAY STRONG : Yeah all those buildings like where the bulkhead comes down like and you keep scrolling down, like that building right there and the one in front of it the same grade-right from there everything that we're currently using. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's because the property slopes upward toward the adjacent. properties behind it. JAY STRONG : Yes, slope but it is you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an irregular slope. JAY STRONG : Well it's aggressive it's really a cliff if you will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's like a land bank in the back which we do have a couple there's one.over by Captain Kidd's Estates it's like.a bluff. JAY STRONG :That's across the street across the creek. January 8,2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's like a bluff but it's a land bluff instead of against the water it's land it's a precipitous drop in other words. Let's carry on with testimony and then we'll figure out where we're going from here. Did you want to say something? JEFFREY BUTLER: I just wanted to step back to,why did the Building Department see it different, we don't know this time around. They didn't give us a number; they didn't say it's this height not that height. They just said the code changed since you first submitted you have to go to Zoning Board.That was it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're just saying the height is 47 foot 9 inches. JEFFREY BUTLER:That may be they didn't maybe they didn't understand the code, I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let me see if there's anybody in the audience who wants to testify in any way. JOEL KLEIN : Joel Klein, Mattituck I'll follow the pattern today and switch glasses. I have something I'm going to read but then I have some additional comments based on the discussion today. As the Board is well aware, the limit on building height exists in the Town Code for a reason.The major goal set forth in Southold's Comprehensive Plan is the protection of community character. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Zoning Board of Appeals as a party,responsible for evaluating town code sections, quote, to prevent structures too large in scale from occurring in neighborhoods, end quote. Any structure that exceeds the maximum allowable height is clearly detrimental to the community character of Southold. The applicant has stated in his area variance application that the building will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. I strongly disagree. Additionally, Southold's draft Final Environmental Impact Statement to the earlier version of this project concluded that the applicant's quote, DIS analysis does not meaningfully address the potential impacts the community character that could be associated with the construction of the proposed action end quote.The maximum allowable height of buildings in the MII Zone in Southold is 35 feet with the height of the building defined as quote,the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing grade adjacent to the building before any alteration or fill to the highest point of the roof end quote. On July 30th the applicant's attorneys were advised by their consultant the Rainer Group of the calculated building elevation heights for each of the four building elevations calculated according to the town code definition. Those calculations measured the height of the south building elevation at 43.5 feet. In their letter to the applicant's attorneys the Rainer Group concluded that, quote, the average building height of all four elevations is approximately 26.6 feet with the south building elevation exceeding the maximum permit height by approximately 8.5 feet. I Would note that the Rainer Group does not appear to have been a member of the original project January 8,2026-Regular Meeting team (inaudible) DEIS for the project. On August 6th one week after the Rainer Group's letter was sent to the applicant's attorneys and presumably after it had been reviewed by Young Associates the applicant site engineer,Young Associates informed the attorneys that quote,the average height of the building pursuant to Southold Town Code is 27.05 feet which is well below the maximum allowed, end quote. Nowhere in the town code is there a reference to average building height as a factor in determining conformance with the code nor does there appear to be any accepted method for determining the average height of a particular building. Significantly no mention is made in the Youngs Associates letter of the Rainer Group's conclusion that part of the proposed building will exceed the maximum permit height by 8.5 feet. Average height of a building however calculated is not a factor in determining in whether or not a building conforms to code. If any part of a proposed building exceeds the maximum allowable height, that building cannot be considered in conformance with the code. The Building Department's Notice of Disapproval of the applicant's permit application was direct and should not be overruled. The applicant has not provided any basis for granting the applicant's requested reversal of the Building Inspector's finding. It's a very interesting discussion today and first I want to point out that Mr. Cuddy's statement that it's the same building is incorrect.The building for the revised project is several feet higher and I believe it's also larger in floor plan and either the two buildings in the original proposal. I struggled with this average building height issue as well. Aside from the fact that it's not mentioned in the town code at all, I tried to find whether there was a standard methodology for this as well and I wasn't able to find one. I mean just doing a quick Google search there are zero returns on this. One of the problems I notice here today is, everybody is relying on sections and you know buildings are not two dimensional. We have a very unusual site here in that the elevation the existing elevation varies tremendously over what would be the floor plan of the building. I think it was Mr. Butler who pointed out, you can pick a section anywhere and get slightly different results..Well, you could theoretically calculate the average height but what you would have to do particularly because of the extreme variation in the existing ground surface is you have to look at an infinite number of cross sections. Now, you could do that theoretically use the calculus but I don't think there's any existing methodology anywhere that explains exactly how to process that through.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, you want to submit that Joel? JEFF STRONG : Jeff Strong thank you good afternoon. I just. had a couple of comments and questions please. As to the point of the 2018 approval that we received from the Building Department and putting it on us to prove that I do take issue with that because if you were to check with the Planning Board, Heather Lanza would be able to point out to you that the Planning Board's process is our Planning Board,application would not be able to advance forward without having gone through the Building Department first, that's Southold Town's January 8;2026 Regular Meeting procedure. I would ask you to consult with Heather Lanza on that procedure and I'm very confident that will be verified. That's why our original application was able to move forward. Second is a question, five months ago and the fact that it's taken us five months is challenging but it was five months ago we had a lot of similar conversations about building height and one of the Members who is very educated on the calculations went back and forth with our engineer, they came in very close to the same measurements but not exactly the same and it was agreed that we should go back, make some modifications and come back with the height the way that she had suggested. There was very clear communication, very clear request and it's my belief that we acted exactly on that request that was outlined by the Board five months ago. Now we come back and we're being told that we don't know but maybe we should calculate it a different.way. As the applicant this is just really hard for me to wrap my head around. My last point is a question, I would like the code read out loud again and I would like to hear.from the Board why the way we are applying it even if you take the maximum right now, we're seven or eight feet below the 35 feet no matter how you calculate it. I would like the Board to read the code and explain to me how you would like the code applied to this application. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'd like to make a comment, regards what transpired during the August 2025 Public Hearing. My recollection of that hearing and we can go to the transcript was that Mr. Butler described a method for determining building height that involved and he did use the term calculus, taking trapezoidal vertical areas of the vertical sides of the building from the eave or from the gable down to the existing grade and summing them up,which is sort of applied calculus not analytical calculus but that was the method that he described in that hearing. I don't think that has changed between August and this hearing. What has happened is that he has provided the applicant you have provided drawings that depict the change in contour of the land projected on the sides of the building but the method has not changed and I would argue that nobody on this Board made a recommendation as to how to calculate building height. What did transpire was that we talked about the elevation as the four corners of the building and Mr. Butler's numbers did not exactly match what was on the drawings that had been submitted and we determined through.Mr. Butler's memory that the building had been rotated a bit owing to a review by the Fire Marshal as needing a different sort of access or a wider access I think on the north side of the building so notionally the building was the angle of it relative to the waterfront was changed a bit. It moved the corner enough such that. the drawing we had showing the elevation at that corner was a little different from what Mr. Butler's numbers were. So, we did not change the.method from August to now and we did not recommend a method back in August. The only disconnect that I recall is having is that the building angle had been changed and owing to a fire inspection recommendation and the January 8,2026 Regular Meeting drawings hadn't caught up with that change. Maybe Mr. Butler can verify if I remember correctly. JEFFREY BUTLER : That is correct and we had and part of that discussion was the actual grade plane as defined in the building code and where we take those points from which is six feet out as defined in the building code which is why you'll see a slight difference in the numbers between the three design professionals. Again, typically in this town we've used the corner at the corner of the building. The discussion that we have had is like, because it's a big building, we're going to use grade plane out 6-feet as defined in the building code defines grade plane. Then the calculus changed because there's_ no longer trapezoids it's curves as the topography that was the other part of the discussion is project the actual grade onto the building and come up with an area calculation which is what we did and presented to the Board.You're right about the discrepancy with the Fire Marshal, our plan not catching up with the grade discrepancy on that southeast corner of the property. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anyone else in the audience wanting to address the application? JEFF STRONG : Just my last question wasn't addressed about requesting the code to be read and asking the ZBA to guide us how we should apply that code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is not something that the Board of Appeals "does at a public hearing, we do not advise applicants that is what your representatives their very good representative, that is what their job is, is to make the case for you before this Board. JEFF STRONG : I am very well aware of that but you are not telling us where we're off base or how we should apply it and you've had five months to determine.that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're not the Building Department either,they're the ones who do that. Our job is to determine whether the Building Department was correct in issuing it's Notice of Disapproval or not. JEFF STRONG : So, are you then telling me to do that? You've consulted with the Building Department? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :No, we are consulting through this public hearing process with your representatives right,with the public which is what we are required to do.Anything submitted or you know written or visual documentation so what we have to do is look at the public record and then determined whether or not we reverse or uphold the Notice of Disapproval,_it's that simple. 70, January 8,2026 Regular Meeting ATA MCGIVNEY : One further thing,this application was originally an interpretation and then it was withdrawn and then resubmitted as a reversal which required re-noticing and being put back on the ZBA calendar so this was not a five month stall. There were things going on in the past five months that caused it to get to this time. MR. CUDDY : Excuse me but I take issue with that statement.The reason for the reversal is we were asked to do that at the ATA MCGIVNEY : By whom? MR. CUDDY:The original hearing the Chairperson asked and I said, I don't care do it either way. then go a message from a member. of the town government saying to me it would,,be appropriate and easier for the Board to deal with a reversal than it would be an interpretation and that's the only reason I did it. ATA MCGIVNEY : The only thing is that, I don't know who that person was but it didn't come from the Legal Department advising the ZBA to recommend anything to you so I can't account MR. CUDDY : I don't want to name names but I could tell you who it was. ATA MCGIVNEY : I know so that's why I'm saying it didn't come from MR. CUDDY : It came directly from the Board, yes I can tell you that much, that's correct and that's why we asked for it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience wanting to address the' application? Anything else from the Board Members any questions or requests?Are we ready I guess just to close?You did say that you thought you might be able to come up with something MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm good. .CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : Only if Mr. Cuddy if you feel that you want.to just dig through you. said something about having a look back to see what was in your paperwork to see if there's anything that could clarify for us the fact that the Building Department looked at:it one way and then looked at it a different way? I mean I think that's fair; I don't know what else another hearing.is going to do on this to-be honest and in fairness to the applicant we don't really want to delay the work that the ZBA is required to do. I know you're before the Planning Board,that's going to be a long process, the SEQRA determination is going to take a long time. We have determined that.for this type'of application before the Board, we do not require a SEQRA determination. That will allow us to move forward. Then hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to;make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of any additional information legal counsel representing the applicant wishes.to submit. Would. you ;be kind January 8, 2026 Regular Meeting enough Charles to say if you don't turn up somethingjust let us know because the clocks starts when you give us an answer one way or the other. If we don't hear from you, we'll just be in limbo so let us know one way or the other. 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. Thank you for your time and your expertise and everyone's taking this very seriously, it's a big project for everybody. Okay we have resolutions to do. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, February 5, 2026, 9:00 A.M., so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : 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 December 18, 2025 so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye January 8,2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. If there's nothing else, I make a motion to adjourn the public hearings, 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 January 8, 2026 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 :January 22,2026 74 _ .