Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/05/2026 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peconic Community Center/Auditorium & Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Peconic, New York March 5, 2026 9:47 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 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Strong's West Mill, LLC#8027 5 - 6 Decision for Vinbar Realty Corp./Vincent Claps #8078SE 6 Marianna August/BMB Homes, Inc. #8068 7- 15 Richard A. Antunovich and Anne Antunovich #8081 15 - 22 Jennifer Shipman #8083 22- 25 800 Jackson Street, LLC, Andrea Tese/Joyce Tese#8089 25 - 26 Joseph and Ashley Romano#8084 26- 32 Peter and Maureen Moore#8085 32—34 615 Pike Street, LLC#8035SE 34 Nancy De Conciliis and Marina Elisabeth De Consiliis#8086 35 - 38 Maria Poubouridis,Trustee#8087SE 38-42 William Todd Jeffcoat and Stephanie Desiree Visceglia #8046 42 -47 Ronald and Mary Shelton #8088 47- 50 John M. Haslbauer and Kathleen E. Haslbauer, as Trustees#8049 50- 52 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm going to review the SEQR determinations 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 (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 © including the following: Antunovich 38081, Shipman #8083,Jackson Street/Tese#8089, Romano#8084, Moore#8085, DeConciliis#8086, so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. SEAR Statement on 615 Pike Street LLC #8035SE. The subject action concerns a Special Exception to construct a commercial building with four (4) retail/takeout units and basement storage pursuant to Town Code 280-45B (9). The Town of Southold Planning Board as Lead Agency has determined the action to be unlisted and makes a determination of non-significance for the proposed action and grants a Negative Declaration so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We're supposed to wait till ten so let's go to the resolutions at the end. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, April 2, 2026 at 9:00 AM, so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held February 19, 2026 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to amend #8028. Stephani and Richard Perl 2880 Minnehaha Blvd. in Southold to remove condition #2 so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye, we need to do the SEAR for Poubouridis and Shelton. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We also have a SEAR Determination a Type II Action for Poubouridis Trustee#8087SE and Shelton #8088. Is there a second? MEMBER'STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 4 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, thank you for that. Let's move on and take a look at, we have two decision before we get to the public hearings. The first one is Strongs West Mill, LLC #8027. Would you like to just give us a kind of a review of what this whole thing is about? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes, this was a request to overturn the Building Department's May 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval which stated that the proposed boat storage building is not permitted pursuant to Chapter 280 Bulk Schedule for Business Office in Industrial District which requires a maximum building height of 35 feet and the proposed height the Building Inspector noted to be 47 feet 9 inches. I wanted to remind everyone that the code defines the height of a building as the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing natural grade adjacent to the building before any grade alteration or fill to the highest points of the roof part of(inaudible). I will describe this in two parts, one will be with respect to the Building Inspector's determination and one will be with respect to the applicant's determination of building height. First,we find that the Building Department acted rationally in issuing the Notice of Disapproval in May 2025 because the proposed building was 2 feet 1 inch taller than the prior application in 2018 that had not been disapproved. Second, the calculation of average grade as depicted in (inaudible) from the applicant's engineer contained errors and inconsistencies. Third, the applicant's representative had sent the Chief Building Inspector a letter in January of 2025 requesting a letter of denial (inaudible) noting that the building was 49 feet 9 inches and they were to get a letter of denial so they can proceed with an application to the Zoning Board. However, considering information that came to light after the application to the Building Department and it came to light in two public hearings and document reviews including the change of the building height from 47 feet 9 inches in August of 2025 to 45 feet 8 inches in September.The clarification and correction of the applicant's method from calculating average grade plain the determination and the building.height relative to average existing natural grade is 27.2 feet which is less than the code maximum of 35. In light of those facts that came to light during our public hearings (inaudible) review I make a motion to overturn the Building Inspector's May 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll second that, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the Notice of Disapproval is overturned. Next determination is for Vinbar Realty Corp./Vincent Claps #8078SE, property on Mill Lane. Pat since you're on Zoom do you want me to review this briefly?This is a request for a Special Exception for an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure. The applicant first submitted plans for an apartment that qualifies all on one floor. The size was determined by the Building . Department to be nonconforming. We asked the applicant's agent to go back and consider if they could amend the application to (inaudible) of livable floor area. They did so, they also submitted additional documentation for our file about familial relationships (inaudible) and so all that information as amended conforms to the special exception standards. As a result, I make a motion to grant the special exception for an as amended and verified by the Southold Town Building Inspector having 749 sq.ft. conforming to the livable floor area as shown on the floor plan prepared by Lewis Schwartz last revised February 12, 2026 (inaudible) to renew an annual permit for a rental permit and (inaudible). Any discussion?So, the motion is to grant as amended is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting HEARING#8068—MARIANNA AUGUST/BMB HOMES, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public hearing before the Board is for Marianna August/BMB Homes, Inc. #8068. This was adjourned from December 4, 2025. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 16, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built"alterations to a single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 1900 Gillette Drive in East Marion. ANTHONY MITOLA : Good morning Board Members, Chair, my name is Anthony Mitola I'm the agent for the applicant. l live at 212 Soundview Drive Rocky Point, New York. I was here on December 4th and the Board had required a survey with lot coverage, plans for the decks and a building permits; I do have copies of those may I give them to you? I can make copies or I can email copies and I can bring them to the town. I was just told I thought I was told a copy of the building plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot coverage (inaudible) what's the date (inaudible). Final survey 9/11/2025 updated 1/8/2026 that's (inaudible).There's a lot on this updated survey(inaudible) calculated at exactly 20%. ANTHONY MITOLA: I would just like to reiterate as far as the setback issues. I understand we're at 30 feet now where the original survey was 32, it was built erroneously and I just want to say one thing and then if there's any questions or comments I will answer anything. My client personally I can personally attest to I've built over a hundred and fifty houses in Brookhaven which I've done building permits,there's been no issues of building things erroneously and I've also just recently I wasn't involved but he built two houses in the Town of Southold number one at 295 (inaudible) Rd.Southold building permit 51701 and also on 80 Deer Run in Southold, building permit 50232 there was no issues of anything built erroneously. I can honestly say what happened, it was built erroneously, I believe that the setback isn't like a crazy ask but if there's any questions or comments from the Board, I will be happy to answer. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Leslie, can I start thank you for the updated survey with the lot coverage. I believe in December we asked for a few other things. One was, a diagram indicating compliance with the sky plane and a calculation of gross floor area. ANTHONY MITOLA : Is that on the minutes of the record cause the notes that I have were just a set of building plans, the original permit and lot coverage calcs. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I believe the transcript, I think we also asked for the plans as they were submitted to the Building Department at the time of the building permit application and March 5,2026 Regular Meeting I think we discussed whether there had been previous relief for front yard setbacks in the neighborhood. That included discussion about you know comments about looking at aerial views and ANTHONY MITOLA : Yea (inaudible) yes I made those comments. MEMBE STEINBUGLER : We don't have a sky plane diagram? ANTHONY MITOLA : I do not have one, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know those are all things that the Town of Southold we generally we require the applicants to be .able to evaluate any additional nonconformity. Typically, the Building Department will (inaudible) they don't call it out unless they have documentation whether there is an issue. ANTHONY MITOLA : May I ask a question, what do you mean by the building is built up a little bit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's elevated a little bit (inaudible). ANTHONY MITOLA : Oh yea I kind of see the topography. MEMBER LEHNERT: I would still love to see the original plans that got a permit with (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I don't understand also. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : There was discussion about that at the prior hearing. ANTHONY-MITOLA :The original plans of the original MEMBER LEHNERT : You wouldn't have gotten a permit with a front yard setback issue. ANTHONY MITOLA : I understand, that's why we're here though as far as MEMBER LEHNERT : Where are the plans to get the permit?You got a permit ANTHONY MITOLA : Yes MEMBER LEHNERT : Where are those plans? ANTHONY MITOLA : What is that just I'm not being rude I'm just trying to figure this out, what is that going to establish cause we know I have the survey from the original decks they were built erroneously we all know that? I just want to know what that's going to establish, the original plans for the original smaller decks. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have a survey there that shows ANTHONY MITOLA : I do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and that would have been submitted with the application? ANTHONY MITOLA : That's correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could we look at that? ANTHONY MITOLA : Yes MEMBER STEINBUGLER : (inaudible) front yard averaging (inaudible) prior decision where the Board granted relief.for a front yard setbacks (inaudible). ANTHONY MITOLA : (inaudible) discussion cause I don't remember the exact language of that I would have to look at the minutes which I can do but so I'm just (inaudible) everything. We're asking you know it's not like and once again I'm not being rude, I'm not trying to build a Taj Mahal it's a 2 foot discrepancy. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think it's 5 feet. ANTHONY MITOLA : No, I'm talking about how it was erroneously built the setback issue. MEMBER LEHNERT:You're saying erroneously built, it's not erroneous, you're not showing the deck on the existing survey you used to get the building permit and on the setbacks you're going to the house not the staircase that is noticed on the disapproval. So, you got a building permit based on things that aren't you know weren't there but are there now that weren't shown then. ANTHONY MITOLA : Can I see what survey (inaudible). The original it was like a platform it was built wider. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You had an entry with a roof over the entry versus a front porch (inaudible). ANTHONY MITOLA : I understand. MEMBER LEHNERT: That doesn't need zoning that's a freebie, everyone gets that. ANTHONY MITOLA : And that's why MEMBER LEHNERT: Nowyou come back and it's a porch. It's an "as built" porch so an "as built" is not (inaudible). March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think he means it was built without ANTHONY MITOLA : It was built wrongfully, erroneously it was built (inaudible) not under their permit that's why we're here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Show it to Leslie, it clearly shows just entry steps and today there's a porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what we're trying to establish is how in the world this happened. The house was built with a conforming setback and that's because there was nothing but a landing and steps which is what was (inaudible) or you wouldn't have gotten a building permit. The rear yard setback was established at that time it was 31 feet (inaudible) inches and that's not (inaudible) it's supposed to be 35. MEMBER LEHNERT :To the house they did not show the steps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm talking about the rear, oh 36 feet gottcha. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct ANTHONY MITOLA : They're showing 35 feet to the house and 32 to the steps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I think we understand now what happened. We wanted documentation to see exactly what the series of events that brought you here, how you got the house built and now you want to obviously you have (inaudible) and front yard setback and then you want to put a porch on and you're going to need relief because (inaudible). ANTHONY MITOLA : I understand. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When was the porch added or. how did that conversation occur? ANTHONY MITOLA: I wasn't involved in that, I honestly don't know.That's all I asked my clients to ask them what happened and he said you know the builders built it; I don't know what transpired. My whole point is, I'm just being sincere and honest I've done a hundred and fifty houses with this gentleman in Brookhaven and there's never been I've been doing this for sixteen years on my own as expediting in the Town of Brookhaven obviously different. My whole point was, I've never experienced this with him, I'm just being honest. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) no reason as far as (inaudible)the porch we're ANTHONY MITOLA : I honestly can't answer, I don't want to answer as far as I don't not that I'm lying, I wouldn't know I don't want I don't know exactly what transpired. My client called March 5,2026 Regular Meeting me up and said I have an issue you know Zoning Board, the deck can you help me out so here I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, here's part of the dilemma,we have of course you know there are standards, codes that we have to statutes, town laws that we have to have answers for ANTHONY MITOLA : I understand that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : in order to make a decision one way or the other and everything in there the reasons that variance relief is something that we should consider granting it just simply says, it's build already. That's the only reason that's offered, it will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood cause there are other porches in the neighborhood and they all look very similar to this one and this one, because other relief for nonconforming front yard setback was granted in the neighborhood you know (inaudible) substantiality of the variance. Somehow, I think the homeowner filled that out, I can't imagine an expeditor would just simply say it's built already. ANTHONY MITOLA : I honestly don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what I'm saying? ANTHONY MITOLA : I totally understand and respect you know what I've dealt with in Brookhaven is totally different. I have done over a hundred and fifty hearing with Paul DeChance the Town Attorney for Southold and we didn't even be heard on these applications. I understand it's different but my whole point is that, it conforms with the area as far as there's no discrepancy and I understand you said that's not the issue, the issue is that it's built. So, I feel like we're almost maybe at a standstill, how do we move forward? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We move forward by a better set of look the Board is not permitted to make the case for the applicant. It is incumbent upon the applicant or their agent to do that before the Board. We could fill in the blanks but we're not allowed to so what we're asking is, for you to basically take a look at Gillette and tell us what that neighborhood looks like; are there other nonconforming front yard setbacks. If so, did they get (inaudible) can you find the ZBA file number from Laser Fiche (inaudible)? ANTHONY MITOLA : I'm familiar with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, is it substantial,what percentage of relief are we looking at?The code requires 35 feet, and you're asking for 32 feet, 30 feet so you're asking for two variances? What percentages of relief was that and is it substantial or not substantial? If it's substantial, what mitigates it? Why should we say okay? Is the property fully screened in that back so you March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting can't see it? That's a mitigating factor, it doesn't have an impact on the neighbor. So, you get the idea? ANTHONY MITOLA : No, I definitely got the idea and just from I believe I may have submitted pictures of the neighbors on December 4tn CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We had asked for examples of prior relief and that's something that you should have brought with you today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no photos and we haven't received anything from you except what you submitted today. ANTHONY MITOLA : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At least now (inaudible) that's conforming, you know what the original submission to the Building Department for the building permit looked like so I think mainly and let's see if there's anybody in the audience or on Zoom who wants to testify. Board I'm going to suggest that possibly we adjourn this to the Special Meeting to give you one more 'opportunity to submit the kinds of things we just discussed today. No more testimony, if you can find priors if you want to submit (inaudible) other than the fact that it's build already. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would also argue that there should be priors for new construction. You might look at something (inaudible)front yard setback (inaudible) blank slate. MEMBER LEHNERT : Built out the original to the max. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : (inaudible)setback and then there was encroachment with the porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN The front and the back encroachment. So now we have a better understanding of how that happened pre-you. However, in order for us to make a rational decision according to the balancing test that we have to apply we would like to have some more reasons in our record from the applicant's agent as to the standards we have to apply in the balancing test other than the fact that it was built already (inaudible). That is not a justifiable reason. ANTHONY MITOLA :Just like I said I've done over a hundred and fifty with Paul DeChance so I'll speak with him directly and just as far as I know what I need to do as far as to see if I can get prior grants and do what (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you have the application and you have what your client.who filled.out right, they addressed the standards. Right here, reasons for appeal 1. (inaudible) 2. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting Can't be achieved any other way. Granting relief is not substantial because you tell.me why. Just go through those and give us more(inaudible) material because just simply saying it's there we (inaudible) you're basically saying well everybody builds anything that doesn't conform to the law well they did it already so give it to them. ANTHONY MITOLA : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There is no neutral relief for anything. ANTHONY MITOLA : No, that's what I'm used to in sixteen years but obviously Brookhaven (inaudible) and I do understand that. I will do my due diligence; I know what I need to do and I will come CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have another meeting in two weeks and we will close the hearing at that time. Right now, we will close the hearing at that time. Right now, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on March 19th. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : (inaudible) sky plane but I'd like to see that the sky plane is not violated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what the code is regarding(inaudible) on dwelling size in the Town of Southold. ANTHONY MITOLA : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is where you will find the definition on sky plane. Here's your (inaudible) now, it's like a pyramid law, basically it's measuring from let's say this is the setback over here on the property line and here's the elevation. So, what we want to know is, when you go up and then over does part of that in that zone is it overhanging into the sky plane setback? This was a way of basically saying you can't creep too close to the property line; the house is too big. You're going to have to change the roof pitch, you're going to have to (inaudible). It is a pyramid law essentially,the closer you get to the lot line the more of an angle you have to have in the roof pitch.That's what we're asking you to provide. Any architect who has done work (inaudible). ANTHONY MITOLA : What is that sky plane BOARD ASSISTANT : I will send you the code. ANTHONY MITOLA : Okay, (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Just one other thing, I believe there's an outdoor shower attached to the rear of the house and the snow had melted sufficiently for me to be able to see that it sits 2-3] March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting someone taking a shower would be standing on a slate patio,there is no provision for drainage. I just wondered if there's a plan to capture the wastewater from the outdoor shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's not in the (inaudible) but there's no (inaudible) ANTHONY MITOLA : When would I, I'd be coming back in two weeks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't have to appear, you can attend, you can't testify. We deliberate in two weeks on decisions. We won't be deciding in your case cause we'll be waiting for this new information. What we will do is, we will take it in, we will close the hearing that means we're done and then we will put a draft decision on the agenda for next month's public hearing which again two weeks later. ANTONY MITOLA : So I don't have to return I can just email the information. BOARD ASSISTANT : You have to submit originals of what you submitted that one copy submit five CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Every Board Member needs to have their own copy so that we can take them home a study it. ANTHONY MITOLA : Oh yea, definitely. BOARD ASSISTANT : Plus the sky plane information. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) prior relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, rather than adjourning I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt, in other words, when we receive ANTHONY MITOLA : I'm familiar with the language. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so if we don't get it in two weeks we'll just keep it open till we do receive it then we will close it at the next and make the decision. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's closed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We won't start making a decision, we have sixty-two days from the day we receive your information that's when the clock starts. ANTHONY MITOLA:Again, I wasn't trying to be rude by I got put in a weird position and I'm not formally familiar with Southold I'm being honest. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's alright. ANTHONY MITOLA : I'm a real person. I will get any information that I can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date subject to receipt of additional information. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8081- RICHARD A.ANTUNOVICH and ANNE ANTUNOVICH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard A. Antunovich and Anne Antunovich #8081.This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 16, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%at 1845 East Gillette Drive in East Marion. URAL TALGAT : Good morning, Ural Talgat representing the Antunovichs'. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, we're looking at a proposed in-ground pool that creates a lot coverage of 20.99%,the code permits a maximum of 20%.This is a 14 foot by 32-foot swimming pool. URAL TALGAT : In-ground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In-the ground and existing lot coverage is 16.51%, is that correct? URAL TALGAT : Correct, this is I guess (inaudible) application which we went through a ZBA application for this house which had a prior ZBA from I don't know how long ago. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wanted to ask you something, can you talk a little about this proposed retaining wall, drainage along the rear of the property? URAL TALGAT : At present, the property slopes to the east from the house and on the larger site plan there's you can see elevations front is 11-feet at the top of the retaining wall and the bottom elevation is 8 % feet. In order to build this pool level, we were planning on putting a retaining wall there to maintain a level surface where the pool would be. Portions of that retaining wall would be concrete and another portion could be,(inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, because of this tremendous amount of snow it was really difficult to get back there, we did our best. URAL TALGAT : I was putting that sign up and I was up to my waist. I went back there, I was the original architect for the house and I noticed how much the grade change there was between the house and the property to the east and when I went out there and measured it, it was and I don't have contours from the surveyor but from my (inaudible) it looked like to be 2%feet so I just wanted to make that level and having the pool and having space between the pool and the house we needed to get that pool right at that setback line.Therefore, we put that pool in and not make it into a (inaudible) this is an edge pool that looks out into the field where you can't see anything so the best thing was do a retaining wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That retaining wall is 30 inches high? URAL TALGAT : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where I was able to at least see was that the adjacent property is pretty heavily wooded in the back. URAL TALGAT : Also the owner has planted I believe evergreens as a hedge in the back there and we don't want to disturb that so we're going to do our best to keep them and then the retaining wall and the pool. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, that line of it looks like cedars or arborvitaes or something they will they are approximately on the property line and they are (inaudible)? URAL TALGAT : I'm not quite sure if they are on the property but they're definitely on his property, how much I don't know. Given a (inaudible) I don't know if they're right on the property line or on his property. I know that he planted them. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Is the plan to leave that in place? March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting URAL TALGAT : Yes and if they're not going to be in place then we're going to have to move them due to the construction and replant. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I did make it back there and it seemed like they would be you know the area was not staked so the corners of the pool were not obvious I had to use my imagination to picture the edges of the pool but it seemed like those evergreens might be overhanging the pool. URAL TALGAT : We're going to do our best to they want privacy,they don't have any control of the property (inaudible) and so they want to have those evergreen screening (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The other option of course is to on top of the retaining wall put some fencing of some sort that comes up to a maximum 6-foot high to ensure that cause you're going to need a fence there anyway and that way you don't have to worry about where the evergreens are or aren't cause it's so close to the property line.You certainly could not fit even with this pool up against this retaining wall you couldn't fit evergreens there while that (inaudible).Are they going to be comfortable with potential condition of putting the solid wood fence on top of the retaining wall to the height of maximum 6-feet total? URAL TALGAT :They will probably have to cause that's the law and they want their privacy and they will have to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're going to have to put a fence in anyway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're showing the fence behind the retaining wall. URAL TALGAT : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO :So, it's compliant fence just marginally higher than the retaining wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, it does look like it's hard to tell you know MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It doesn't make sense to have a solid fence at the pool edge, I would argue the land is owned by Gardiner's Bay (inaudible) and then there's a house which is more to the southeast URAL TALGAT : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know I think that the landscaping should be sufficient if the fence meets town code. I don't know how double the wall and the fence CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Typically those are cyclone fences not you know March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting URAL TALGAT: You have to provide safety for the pool and (inaudible) so if the fence is located on the low end of the pool as long as it meets pool code we're okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's my point. I don't know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was looking at (inaudible) for two purposes, one was obviously to meet the code for fencing for security purposes typically that's often a cyclone fence depending on where (inaudible). I was looking at in terms of permanent visual screening to the adjacent property that's the way to give the applicant (inaudible) assurance that no matter what evergreens live or die or whatever there's going to be there's a retaining wall there anyway. It's easy to put something on top of it simply to block that rear property line then you're done.You have both things accomplished. URAL TALGAT : Right we can put a 6-foot high but here's an interesting question to your point, if this code says a 6-foot high fence if it goes on top of the retaining wall CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The total elevation has to be 6-foot high maximum. In other words, you're going to have to reduce the 6-feet by 30 inches. URAL TALGAT : Okay if it's on top of the retaining wall? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Even if you put like a 5-foot high it's still going to do it. Are we good, is there anybody on the Board that has any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) is there any consideration or is there any alternative to make it a conforming pool, we're talking about basically 100 sq. ft. I believe? URAL TALGAT : I spoke to him about that because if it was less than 100 sq. ft. you just get a building permit and you're done. They specifically wanted this size swimming pool and I mentioned that it was over 100, it doesn't make any sense but they said this is what they wanted. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just want to make sure I'm thinking that I'm clear on the fence, I understand if the fence goes on top of the retaining wall that by screening and safety and maybe I didn't understand the prior conversation but as drawn the fence appears that it's proposed to be the base of the foot of the fence would be at the base of the retaining wall. URAL TALGAT : At the low end. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : At the low end so the 4-foot fence would only be 18 inches above the retaining wall. URAL TALGAT : According to your math, yes. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, and that would not provide sufficient screening or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't really care whether it's on top of the retaining wall, it cannot be on the property line as you•know it makes for bad neighbors. On the subject property somewhere between that pool and the adjacent rear lot line put in a fence that is that will be equivalent of the maximum 6-foot high. Does that make sense? URAL TALGAT : Yes, that makes sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just submit an amended survey showing that. URAL TALGAT : Along the side of where the (inaudible) back side would probably (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would have to submit that anyway, we'll put a condition to submit it anyhow. URAL TALGAT : Fine CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Send it in whenever you want. If you want to do it before that would be good, we're not amending the decision, the application we're just getting information that says URAL TALGAT : I'll put that revised plan that shows the pool fence should be 6-feet high along the backside of the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) excessive lot coverage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, it's almost de minimus and it's a pool which is not even a three dimensional structure. I don't think I mean that's additional (inaudible). Do you want one Margaret? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Nah CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before we go on there's somebody in the audience,state your name please. ATHANASIOS PAPPAS : My name is Athanasios Pappas and my wife (inaudible) Pappas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome, you're the neighbors? ATHANASIOS PAPPAS : Yes March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You've just given us a letter saying you have some concerns about this pool going in? Do you want to tell us what they are or do you want me to recite from here from the letter? You want me to read the letter? ATHANASIOS PAPPAS : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I'm just going to summarize it I'm not going to read it word for word. Here are your concerns,going through the noise and mess of construction, loss of the beauty of the natural greenery and especially the biggest concern of all is he proximity of the pool especially the equipment to our property line, deck and house. We frequently enjoy our deck and leave our windows open for clean air; the noise of the equipment will be very disturbing especially when trying to sleep through the night. Okay, where is your house? If you are standing on the road okay, looking at this house, are you to the right or to the left? ATHANASIOS PAPPAS : We are on the left before (inaudible), west. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you next to the pool? ATHANASIOS PAPPAS : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :To the left then, okay. Ural, maybe you want to first of all let me tell you the one thing that this Board always requires is that because all neighbors get affected by the noise of pool equipment, pool equipment is nearly as noisy as it used to be they have improved a lot. We require that they be in some sort of sound proof container and that they meet the required accessory structure setback from the property line. Maybe we might have them be able to relocate it slightly farther away from your house, I'm going to ask the architect to see what he thinks. MRS. PAPPAS : Put it on the other side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's possible, is there a neighbor on the other side? MRS. PAPPAS : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then they're going to get it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Leslie he's going to have that 30 inch high retaining wall on (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : Aren't we requiring that all the equipment goes into a sound deadening enclosure? March 5,2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we do but I can be moved farther away from the property line. We do have a requirement as I explained, all the equipment to make sure that neighbors are not bothered from noise that equipment has to be housed inside in a sound deadening container so that the noise is very muffled. ATHANSIOS PAPPAS : The other house that face the beach in other words we're only 100-feet from the beach we have a nice beach there, anyway, the other house has face from the beach so it's the back of the house if they move it.The other way they move it at the opposite side of Gillette St. on the back in the corner in other words (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Why don't I ask the architect to come back up and see if he's got any ideas. ATHANASIOS PAPPAS : Besides that it takes the view of the beach to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that we can't protect. Properties have the right to use their property they want to be good neighbors and we want to help them be good neighbors but we can't deny them a swimming pool. Yes,for a while there will be noise from construction, this is true if you wanted to put a pool on your property it's just the way it is. It doesn't last forever and sometimes you have to put up with noise temporarily because your neighbor is entitled to have it. They're only here it's in what's called a conforming location and they're only here because there's a tiny, tiny little bit of extra lot coverage because of its size and it's a pretty small swimming pool it's not a great big swimming pool. This is the size they want and they're willing to pay for a variance to come here to get it but we do want to consider these comments very carefully and we thank you for your testimony. We'll see what we can do. MRS. PAPPAS : Yea because there's not a lot of space between the two houses and my living room, my bedroom upstairs, my dinning room, my outside my deck it's on that side where they're going to put that pool, you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's see what the architect has to say. URAL TALGAT : You're talking about the noise, you can't help that but luckily does not happen. That would be the noise of the pool equipment using a variable speed motor really reduces the amount of noise that comes from the pool pump itself.We were planning on planting evergreen screening along that edge that would also help with the noise and not looking at this pool equipment. I can put that on the drawings also if that helps or even a 6-foot stockade fence. That would also take away from the view of looking at this equipment. MEMBER LEHNERT : 100 sq. ft. less it wouldn't even be here. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting URAL TALGAT : That's right. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think we didn't have the benefit of standing on the neighbor's property and appreciating whether a fence or evergreen screening would be preferable in terms of potential views of coastal water but (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to say you're going to submit this revised plan with the fence anyway and I'll leave it up to you to add additional screening to obscure both the noise and the view of the pool equipment. URAL TALGAT : Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anybody else in the audience, anybody on Zoom? I'm going to make a motion to close subject to receipt of a revised plan, site plan showing additional screening, fence. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8083—JENNIFER SHIPMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is forJennifer Shipman#8083. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's November 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and (legalize) construct a new accessory structure (principal use) at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 75 feet located at 2184 Elijah's Lane in Mattituck. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON : Brooke Epperson with AMP Architecture. We previously had a ZBA approval for the rear yard setback so we have been here for this property. We have a building permit and while they were taking down existing portions of the existing steps, they noticed that there was rot,there was damage.They began to try to replace that but it was too extensive that they decided to reframe everything. The existing foundation remains, none of that changed. The existing footprint has been maintained. In doing so to reframe everything they went up about six inches so that they could install overhead doors whereas before we had the openings for it but you couldn't fit the overhead doors in that space.There were no intentions there, they just didn't realize in doing so it would increase the nonconformity and become a new dwelling as opposed to just repairing the (inaudible). As for the steps getting bigger, they are using the second story for storage for the farm business that (inaudible) and they realized during construction as well that the smaller deck was not feasible to get all the equipment and storage that they need to the second floor. The owner actually took a little stumble down the stairs while he was helping during framing on the second floor so they decided to make the deck larger.Again, unbeknownst to us not knowing that that would increase the nonconformity of the rear yard setback that was granted and the building as a whole being looked at as a demolition in town code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so that's how that happened. There was a Stop Work Order on that. BROOKE EPPERSON : He actually was (inaudible) of the existing conditions of the (inaudible) that was found that you guys wanted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was because it went beyond the scope of the building permit and you got because of the relief. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO Brooke, is this (inaudible)? BROOKE EPPERSON : No, agricultural CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You just said existing home but you meant BROOKE EPPERSON : Sorry I'm used to everything being home MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have a question relative to when we visit the site, walked up the stairs saw the size of the deck, what sort of farm equipment will be stored on the second floor that requires a larger deck? March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON : So he did say to me they own Shamrock Christmas Tree Farm so they have a lot of big signs, big Santa (inaudible) it's larger size equipment that they use for MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I can't picture trying to rustle a tractor up there. BROOKE EPPERSON : No it's storage for signs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, it's for signage and you know commercial seasonal commercial BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) we changed the prior determination to allow electricity. There's no (inaudible)for any plumbing, no bathroom. BROOKE EPPERSON : Nope staying as it was previously approved just a little taller and a bigger deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What we actually (inaudible) on the site inspection and saw was actually the finished product there's no other than like painting BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct,the Stop Work Order came and the Inspector came to do the final inspection.As I said,they didn't realize that doing this larger element would cause it to become a (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And at an earlier time I don't remember the date off hand, did request a de minimus. BROOKE EPPERSON : Right, we thought it might be it was a de minimus but the nature of the reframing and everything turned it into a demo. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think also because it's a accessory without a primary. BROOKE EPPERSON : When I originally spoke to the Building Department (inaudible) she did check with Planning about there not being a dwelling on the property and because it's an agricultural property with an agricultural building that's how (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, ready to close? I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 800 JACKSON STREET LLC, ANDREA TESE/JOYCE TESE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 800 Jackson Street LLC, Andrea Tese/Joyce Tese #8089. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 28, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a shed addition to an existing nonconforming accessory garage with an accessory apartment at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 25 feet located at 800 Jackson St. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in New Suffolk. This was for a side yard setback at 19.39 inches where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet.This is a one-story shed. What's going in the shed (inaudible) looks like high hats. BROOKE EPPERSON : That's exactly (inaudible) existing first floor of this structure into an apartment and during construction she realized she lost all the storage for equipment of this nature. So, that's why we're proposing this small shed only accessible from the exterior, it will not be accessible through the inside of the apartment. The piece of the existing building that actually connects to the shed has the door and stairway up to the second story (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a question about the structure on the adjacent property I think it's to the west. This time of year, it's visible and I couldn't tell if that structure was a large garage or actually the dwelling (inaudible), do you know? BROOKE EPPERSON : I believe it's a dwelling but we can verify that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : On the tax map it looked like a separate dwelling but it's hard to say.f The concern is, the visibility there is some vegetation between the existing what is now an apartment with some second story storage (inaudible) existing structure and the (inaudible). This time of year, it's not in lease. BROOKE EPPERSON : I can talk to our client about planting some arborvitae or something. She actually I know it was hard to see because of the snow but the property is very nicely landscaped and there are large mature trees on the property. That's the reason why we didn't want to. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting place the shed elsewhere on the property but I can speak to her about adding screening to (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You still have storage on the second floor. BROOKE EPPERSON : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I know we were up there a long time ago. In the alternative you can put a rack on the side of the (inaudible) storage and (inaudible). Okay,you located it so that it won't be visible to the street (inaudible). It's an existing building already (inaudible), it's not encroaching any further on the existing setback it's already there so the nonconformity although would be slightly increased there's not going beyond what is already (inaudible). I have no questions, is there anybody on the Board with questions? Is there anyone in the audience? Is there 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 PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I am recusing myself from the next application #8084. HEARING#8084—JOSEPH and ASHLEY ROMANO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application is for Joseph and Ashely Romano#8084.This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in an area other than the code required rear yard located at 70 Arshamomaque in Southold. Let the record show that Member Margaret Steinbugler also is recused from this application #8084 Joseph and Ashely Romano. Good morning,Joan. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We deliberated on Vinbar earlier. JOAN CHAMBERS : No I wasn't here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we granted it. JOAN CHAMBERS : Well,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You'll get a copy but I just wanted you to know. JOAN CHAMBERS : Yea this way I can let the architects know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department they are fine that what you revised with your amended floor plan showed a conforming livable floor area and everything else we asked for you submitted. JOAN CHAMBERS : Great thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, we do this one. Let me just begin by asking, have you received we got four letters from neighbors, do you have any of them? JOAN CHAMBERS : No none of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's make sure you have all of them. JOAN CHAMBERS : Okay CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim do you have them? BOARD ASSISTANT : I have some here so I can have JOAN CHAMBERS : You can email them to me later this afternoon if it's easier for you Kim. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah,why don't we do that cause I'd like you to have them. JOAN CHAMBERS : As I see it, one of the issues with this is, once again, corner lot and the road along Arshomamaque that being the secondary front yard it only has a setback of 20 feet. As you go down the road it doesn't feel like a sufficient front yard because the huge front yard of course is on the Main Rd. so everything is pushed back south on this property. The architect I think did the best he could, there was nowhere to put a garage on that property other than south of the house. Putting it in the front yard on Main Rd.just didn't work that's where their driveway is but that would put it fully in the front yard. This way it is mostly in the back yard, the front of the garage sits forward of the house (inaudible) more than 3 feet. To move it back March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting right now it's only 10 feet away from the swimming pool and it's only 4 feet away from the swimming pool fence. I mean you can move the swimming pool fence but you still 10 feet between a swimming pool and back of the garage seems to be about the minimum that the architect thought we should do. In order to get what's a standard sized 24 by 24 garage in there the front of it sticks out beyond the front of the house. Although it still meets all the setbacks, all requirements, lot coverage this is the one issue. When they approached me, I even went around and around with the architect trying to figure out how we can you know move this, change it and.I didn't come up with any solutions so here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the questions that I had was, it looks like they're probably already using the driveway right, that's there? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yea for parking, correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me without going into detail, let me just go over a couple of the concerns that people who live in that neighborhood raised because they go up and down that street to get to Main Rd. all the time. JOAN CHAMBERS : I'd really like to listen to them but I'm really dizzy CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sit down. JOAN CHAMBERS : I'd rather sit down than falling. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely, you want to take a minute? JOAN CHAMBERS : No I'm fine it's just certain medications do this to me and I'm just careful, I'm not going to faint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Health first, always. They are obviously very concerned about the fact that this is the main entrance into that subdivision and it's very heavily trafficked. There's already cars going in and out, it's very close to Main Rd. and there's also landscaping there that creates like kind of site line problems. That limits views of cars going in and out and the pool already has a fence across it. The garage creating a visual barrier for the pool is not the issue cause it's already screened cause that would have been one reason to put a garage over there. The question is, well, how many cars are they going to have, they're going to have cars parked in this existing thing then they're going to have cars in the garage and why do you need a second driveway when you have a huge you know big driveway and you could easily fit the 24 by 24- foot garage into the existing parking area so they were wondering why? If it were there the other concern was,this is going to be like if it's where you're proposing a very long even though it's a few feet different it's going to be a very, very long you know continuous wall basically a March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting built wall, a building and it would be better if it was broken up it wouldn't look so massive in your face cause it's close to the street. In a sense that's what they were all pointing out. I actually when I went to visit thought the same thing, why don't just put it where the driveway is? I mean why do you need another driveway for you're not you know JOAN CHAMBERS : I believe the issue was that if we put it on the northside of the house it's fully in the front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That doesn't matter, from the zoning point of view if it's a nonconforming yard whether it's here or there it's a hundred percent relief and that's how the Building Department sees it. So, you know if it's going to make less visual impact and particularly if they consider perhaps removing a little bit of the landscaping that is blocking site lines for people entering and exiting around that corner,theyjust can't see around it that would you know really mitigate a lot. JOAN CHAMBERS : I talked to Joe Romano this morning and he reminded me because I wasn't involved in this two years ago that they actually deeded the whole corner of their property so that we could turn in there.They were well aware of you know the track of flow here and there, you see this?They deeded this whole corner of their property to Beixedon Estates so that they could so they tried to mitigate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this where it's marked easement? JOAN CHAMBERS : Easement, right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It shows an easement on here I was wondering what it was. JOAN CHAMBERS : Right, so that's registered with Suffolk County 2/8/24 as a way of you know making that turn to the Main Rd. on Arshomomaque you know safer and easier. Would it make sense then if I understand no one wants to come around that corner to go home and have someone backing in or out of the driveway right in front of them. Does it make sense to maybe remove the driveway from the north side of the property and only have one driveway on the property but keep it further south? That might be the solution, so you've got that sort of half of you know the length of the property before someone is coming down to pull in? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a possibility. JOAN CHAMBERS : That's a possibility, yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess part of the problem is yeah I guess it's which is the worst of the two. I don't mean to sound negative about it that's not my intent but the point is, if it's where you're proposing clearly you don't have a lot of wiggle room cause the pool is back there March 5,2026 Regular Meeting and so and I guess you have to remove the gate that's there and then put it, restore it on either side of the garage. What does it look like here, the setback between the pool and the garage? JOAN CHAMBERS : The garage is 10 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah this is a 10-foot distance. JOAN CHAMBERS : From where the proposed garage is now to the fence it's only 4-feet which that just can't get any tighter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, that's why I was thinking maybe putting it on the other side from their point of view it gives them a lot more breathing space in their back yard. JOAN CHAMBERS : I can bring that up as a suggestion and see how it you know, the architect, the owners and I went around and around with it and maybe I steered them wrong by saying that the garage in the front yard is a more egregious ask from zoning than for only 4-feet of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well actually Joan, from Arshomamoque if you put it where the big area of where the driveway is that's the side yard from that elevation even though it's considered a front yard from Main Rd. JOAN CHAMBERS : But it's a primary front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes but it doesn't have a lot of impact on Main Rd. I mean people are going to whiz by it. You know what I mean? It's not going and it's already evergreened screened. I suspect it probably because you can push it back farther it will give Arshomamoque a little visual breathing room and give them a little bit more of a back yard. JOAN CHAMBERS : If you drive down Arshomomaque the other houses are all set back further from the road because they're primary front yards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right JOAN CHAMBERS : Where this one the house is only 20-feet (inaudible)which makes it feel like you're driving down a (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely JOAN CHAMBERS : The other thing that is unique to this is, I don't know what fifty houses in that development there, more than half of them maybe have garages in their front yards because they're on waterfront and yes it's legal what they did it meets code but it's still the visual of seeing a garage instead of a house. I think that's the thing, driving down Main Rd. we shouldn't be looking at the side of a garage you should be looking at the house so you move March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting the garage into the back which is (inaudible). This will have to depend,on how you know his input and the owner's input but I'd be happyto go back and talk to them about this. If everyone feels like that would be a more suitable place to put a garage in that MEMBER LEHNERT :That's the first thing I thought about when did the inspection. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, I agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, is there anybody on Zoom? Oh, we have a hand, why don't you let that person in. KEVIN FORBES : My name is Kevin Forbes. A lot of what you said is our feelings. I live in 210 Arshomomaque which is the next home south of the Romanos and many of the things you stated are concerns of ours. The long continuous line of structures, the fact that that garage is wider than the house itself but also one point is, the driveway for this new garage at its closest point is 15-feet 7 inches to the road.Any car parked on that driveway the bumper is practically going to be touching the road which obviously is a danger potential danger for the community. As you said there's about fifty-five plus homes south of that place. I just want to everything you said is in line with our concerns, I am very concerned that putting that structure there,the size, it's closeness to the road along with the house already being very close to the road will negatively impact my property value particularly being that I'm the next house on the right or on the west side. Your point about the northside is what I was thinking looking the plants,they have a very large driveway, it looks there's room in (inaudible) to build a garage there. I don't understand why we can't use that space versus the southside which you know is just not in keeping with the aesthetics of the neighborhood quite frankly. I ask you to consider these concerns and see if we can move that to the northside if possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony. I'm just letting you know the agent has heard what your concerns are and what your suggestions are. KEVIN FORBES : I just have one more thing sorry, I noticed on the elevation that there's also going to be a 12-foot wide garage door on the back of this structure. I really am wondering are we building a pool cabana here or a garage? Regardless of either, I am concerned of where the structure is located, it's size and the continuing structure of the house and the garage being negatively impacting my property values.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so Joan it seems to me that you suggested you're willing to go back and take these comments to your clients the Romanos and have another discussion with them and consider everything you've heard today to see if you would like to possibly revise your amend your application to create a revised location for this garage. Why don't we just March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting adjourn to the Special Meeting(inaudible) might have more questions, it might take you longer so does that work for you? JOAN CHAMBERS : That works cause I have no control over the architect's schedule (inaudible) and if they decide to relocate the garage (inaudible) before your next hearing but like you said let's adjourn in case that time doesn't work for(inaudible). I'll be in touch in two weeks and let you know what's happening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's perfect. Alright, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on March 191n MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#8085—PETER and MAUREEN MOORE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :'The next application before the Board is for Peter and Maureen Moore#8085.This is a request for a variance rom Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 8, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 2155 Anchor Lane in Southold. FRED WEBER : Good morning. I'm Fred Weber, I'm the architect.The Moores are attempting to expand their master bedroom.They sold their house in Connecticut and they plan to make this their main residence and they're looking for some more room in the bedroom, bathroom and closet area. What they were hoping to do is, put a 4.5-foot addition sort of straight back from their existing bedroom that would enlarge all those rooms.The house was originally built in the wrong location, that particular corner of the house is only 13.9 feet from the property line but it was built at an angle so if they go back this 4%feet I guess it would be.the northeast corner it would then be 14.1 feet from the property line. They're also planning to build to expand they'll be taking over a part of the deck that exists and they're going to expand that deck in similar size but they're going to move it in so that it doesn't so it does conform to the 15-foot March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting side yard. They're also enclosing a screen porch and adding a mud room that is all conforming. The neighbor to the east l guess if you face the house to the right, they called me and they didn't seem to have they wanted more clarity they didn't seem to have any objections. They might be on the Zoom call. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on there? OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : There are two people Thompson is their name? FRED WEBER : No this is Lewis. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : I have a Dave and a Thompson. If their hand goes up,.1 will let you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As know we've all been out to look at the property. The difference between 14.1 feet in the snow and 15 feet is (inaudible) I can tell you that. It looks as though the property line is not exactly parallel. FRED WEBER :The house (inaudible) to the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That creates an issue. I really don't have any questions; I don't think you're going to have any significant impact with this proposal. It looks very similar to what's there or the other houses. Anything from anyone here? MEMBER LEHNERT : None CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay, look at that record time. Hearing no further question or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there is a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye.We have had a request from the applicant's architect and it has been confirmed by the Planning Board who says they need additional time for completion on this coordinated review so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to April 2, 2026 the public hearings that day. Is there a second on that adjournment?This was for application #8035SE1 615 Pike Street, LLC. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to adjourn for lunch. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEIN BUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8086—NANCY DE CONCILIIS and MARINA ELISABET DE CONCILIIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Nancy De Conciliis and Marina Elisabet De Conciliis #8086. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM No. 1000-78-1-7 which has merged with SCTM No. 1000-78-1-6 based on the Building Inspector's October 15, 2025 Notice of Disapproval which states that a nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at anytime after July 1, 1983 and that nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size.conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R40 Residential Zoning District)located 305 &415 Grange Rd. in Southold. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant. I am joined today by my client Marina De Conciliis that some of you may know. So yes, as Leslie explained we're here for a waiver of merger. The vacant parcel on Grange Rd. in Southold.The two lots that issue the vacant and the improved lot were originally created in 1948 by an approved subdivision map of South Harbor homes which was filed so they weren't created in 1948 it was 1964 I'm sorry, July 14, 1964. In 1970 lot 7 which is the vacant lot was conveyed well let me start one second, so my clients are Nancy De Conciliis and Marina De Conciliis, Nancy is Marina's mother. In 1970 lot 7 was conveyed to Nancy's father George McAdams held title to the parcels individually to 1987 when George conveyed the parcel to himself and Nancy as joint tenants in common with full rights of survivorship. Now, (inaudible) that cause that obviously doesn't make any sense the other tenant in common for your joint tenants with rights of survivorships so that error in title designation was subsequently corrected by deed in 1999 and that time George and Nancy took title as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The improved parcel in lot 6 was owned by George and Nancy as joint tenants with rights of survivorship from 1973 to 1991. Unbeknownst to the applicant the merger of the lots was effectuated in 1987 prior to the adoption of the merger of law when George conveyed lot.7 to self and Nancy.The parcel was never been transferred to an unrelated person or entities March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting since that time. Lot 6 and 7 have always been treated and maintained as separate lots and it was the family's intent to keep them single and separate. As the Board is aware in 2008 the Town Board amended the code to address this type of situation and remove the hardship criteria and change the code with the expressed intent of making waiver of merger available to families under these types of circumstances. This is exactly the situation that the De Conciliis family find themselves. These lots have always been owned by their family, there were various conveyances just simply between George and Nancy and then subsequently to Nancy and Marina. I just want to go through, based on that the fact that lot 7 has never been transferred to an unrelated person we can check off the first criteria eligibility for waiver of merger. The most recent conveyance of lot 7 was in 2007 and that was just a transfer of George's interest to his daughter and granddaughter. As such the Board can probably find that the lot remains in the De Conciliis family. As to the other balancing criteria as to whether it's of comparable size, I don't know if you have a copy of the subdivision map but I can certainly hand that up but it is one of twenty lots in the subdivision that are essentially identical in size, so it is comparable in size. It has always been maintained separately, I'm sure you've seen it but this is not a situation where there's any improvements on the lot the (inaudible) parcel stands alone and its vacant parcel and partially wooded and is not in any way related to the improved parcel. They've always had separate tax W.'s, numbers and separate tax bills. As to adverse impacts, there's clearly evidence of potential adverse impacts if the waiver of merger is granted it will simply create or restore one building lot to comparable size as intended from the approval from subdivision to be a separate independent building lot. Under current Health Department regulations, the construction of a single-family home there if that happens would include the installation of an IA system which would mitigate any potential impacts. With that if the Board has any questions for me. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well, (inaudible)to the file I think it's clear the (inaudible)ownership so I don't really have much specific to the application but to the property I guess it's on lot 16 which is also vacant, I wasn't able to research this because of the limited town records, what is going on with the property to the I guess it's the west of where Marina's house is? It is also a vacant lot. MARTIN FINNEGAN : What is going on? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea just to understand, Margaret? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's owned by the same family. MARINA DE CONCILIIS : Hi everyone I am Marina De Conciliis. On the other side of the improved lot was my mothers and she sold it a few years ago. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the west. MARINA DE CONCILIIS : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To the west, that was your mothers but it's been sold. MARINA DE CONCILIIS : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This one, I'm sorry here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 17 or 18. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and I was inquiring about 16. MARTIN FINNEGAN : You're talking about 16 cause 18 is lot is the vacant lot here. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : On the other side of 7 and 8? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No (inaudible) which is lot 16. MARTIN FINNEGAN : This is all literally in a three year period or something where there was (inaudible) and even you really broke it down to the because of the incorrect designation of tenants in common we can even argue that they didn't merge because of that because they weren't identical but they (inaudible). Any other questions? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a question about the being held single and separate, based on my site inspection it looked like there was two raised bed gardens. If you're facing lots the developed lot which was lot 17 tax map 78-1-6, most of the western most up here on that developed lot but the adjacent garden plot to the east appeared to be on the vacant lot. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The garden? MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Two gardens defined by timber outlines, like a raised bed. MARINA DE CONCILIIS : Vegetable beds. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right, right but the easterly on the one closer to Main Bayview Rd. appears to be on the undeveloped lot. MARIN DE CONCILIIS : I'd be happy to remove it, it's MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm not saying needs to be moved, I'm just suggesting that the use of the adjacent lot for a garden that belongs to the developed lot suggests that the lots were used altogether that's all. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : I would suggest that you know some minor landscaping or gardening does not it was not the intended use of that vacant parcel. I think that may have just been a matter of convenience but it certainly was not there's not a driveway on it, it's not used or accessed to the improved lot or it's just they owned it.They planted some vegetables on it but I don't think under the code if that constitutes it being used .or that vitiates the intent that it remains a separate buildable lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience that wants to address the application? Is there anyone on Zoom? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8087SE—MARIA POUBOURIDIS,TRUSTEE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Maria Poubouridis, Trustee #8087SE. The applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B (13). The applicant is owner of the subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure located at 2720 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck. MR.CUDDY:Good afternoon,Charles Cuddy445 Griffing Ave. Riverhead for the applicant.With me today is Anna Parianos with her two daughters Maria and (inaudible) and also (inaudible). I have a number of items but I think I'll hand them all up (inaudible). I think the history of this is existing building and the structure. In the 1940's this garage was converted to an apartment. I have the deeds into Parianos and Trust, I just want to make them part of the record. The Parianos bought this property in 1973 and he put it in trust in an estate type plan in 2013. Significantly in the interim in 1982 there was a fire, the house unfortunately burned but at that March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting time Mr. Goehringer as the Chairman recognized the accessory structure that we're talking about as actually a structure that could have been used by the family and guests.That was used continuously actually (inaudible) from that time until right (inaudible). I have an affidavit from Anna who is here indicating that it's been used in that fashion continuously. I think the significance of that is that there is a structure that actually had been used very similarly to what today call the accessory apartment. Perhaps more importantly is, this is unique because not only does it exist but it exists by itself in a sense it's off to the side, it has its own driveway, has its own fence around it and probably isn't closer than 70 feet to the only neighbor. It's on a corner lot they essentially the front of it is the street,the side of it is on the street and the back of it is on a right of way so there's really no one around it.There's no adverse impact to anybody in the neighborhood. The use is going to be exactly what I think the town envisioned which is a daughter Anathoula living in the accessory apartment, the mother will live presumably in the house so you have a mother daughter situation which I think was the idea originally to try and help the elderly family. Now we have that here and the daughter works in the town which is also a plus. I have looked at the special exception uses and I made up an affidavit to address the seven general standards and the thirteen additional standards. I'll hand that up. I think though that the use here is most appropriate in the sense that it's now recognized that accessory apartments are something that are permitted and even encouraged. We are all here if there's some questions, we'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob we'll start with you, any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You probably saw us on the property and we've all been there for the inspection. Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm good I just don't remember, did you acknowledge the Building Department's calculation of livable floor area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not yet, I was just waiting to see if Charles would, yea we do have floor area. MR. CUDDY : Right now it's a little less than 600 sq. ft. The reason AMP Architect is here, they want to improve the site and add to it so it would be just a little less than 750. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are they going to address that or do you want to address that? MR. CUDDY : I think that Brooke would be better to address that. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is conforming,we have confirmation on the livable floor area from the Building Department that indicates that the livable floor area first it was not this was from 2025, not conforming, then we got another one MR. CUDDY : The survey I think designates the square footage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at (inaudible).Yea, it's 697 sq.ft.the maximum is 750 so you want to do a small addition to bring it up to where the code does permit. Brooke why don't you address what changes you're MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would like to discuss about the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok, sure. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Sorry, I just wanted to confirm by name and relationship the residence of the primary structure and the accessory. You may have mentioned it already but I can't hear that well. MR. CUDDY : Anna Parianos's mother she's going to live in the house.The daughter Anathoula is going to live in the accessory structure. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Thank you and I just wanted to confirm, it's probably in your write up because you said you were going to address all the elements and criteria for an accessory apartment but the survey our inspection suggests that there's room for three off street parking spaces but the survey does not specifically note that. I want to confirm that there's room for three off-street parking spaces. MR. CUDDY : There would be because the driveway is quite long and the house has a separate garage. BROOKE EPPERSON :. Hi, I'm Brooke Epperson from AMP Architecture. The livable square footage we are proposing is 698 and the gross floor area is 750 as we know 750 is allowed by code for the livable so we are under what is permitted.We are getting them a larger living area, one nice sized bedroom and then a smaller essentially guest bedroom which she can potentially turn into her office.The revised plans also show a small kitchen, laundry,closet and (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that you're basically gutting the interior walls? BROOKE EPPERSON : Yes we are,there's a few exterior walls that will remain. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) to remain the same? BROOKE EPPERSON : Yes, we are giving them 401 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A covered entry? BROOKE EPPERSON : Yes MEMBER STEINBUGLER : You're adding on the BROOKE EPPERSON : We're going smaller on the side but we're keeping the same width. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While I don't want to get into the issue of (inaudible) Building Department (inaudible) declaring this a demo because it's removing the majority of the market value whatever that might be at the point with construction costs (inaudible). You change a window they pretty much beyond the market value with some of these older structures so I want to address that.in this application to avoid that problem so we don't keep running around in circles with this. Any thoughts?Alright we'll figure out something because I think perhaps if we stamp the plans as submitted that show the removal, they're all non-bearing walls (inaudible) it's all basically (inaudible). I just want to make sure that the Building Department understands that we're fine with that,we don't think it's extinguishing any of the history of the existing structure. It's reasonable to want to have an improved living space if you're going to be there for a reasonable time and I'm sure you're going to wind up putting (inaudible) to conform to the energy code and all of that which is the only way to build something responsibly. I just want to bring it up because from the previous hearing there was some discussion about a Pre C.O., a C.O., is it a demo, is it legally existing you know legally existing when something predates the zoning code just means it's there simply and most of the time people don't bother to get C.O.'s or even Pre C.O.'s unless they're going to sell the house you don't need it the bank needs it to make sure that you know (inaudible). I just want to make sure that we don't forget to address those issues. BROOKE EPPERSON : That would be great because we are keeping the existing floor system, the existing crawl space, we're adding a new foundation when it's necessary but we are raising the ceiling. So it is a very fine line between the reconstruction definition so yes it would be greatly upsetting (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's the floor system and foundation BROOKE EPPERSON : And some exterior walls. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Till you find out that it's rot. That's what concerns me because people don't know till they start hammering away and removing things and then suddenly on definition you know you can't sister up everything it just doesn't work, it's not the right way to build so I just want to get it out so that we can all get our heads together and figure out how to make this thing you know work. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON : The proposed additions do meet all required area requirements, side setbacks, lot coverage, height everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat is on Zoom, did you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? BOARD ASSISTANT : I just confirmed with Brooke that we have the most recent plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8046—WILLIAM TODD JEFFCOAT and STEPHANIE DESIREE VISCEGLIA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William Todd Jeffcoat and Stephanie Desiree Visceglia#8046.This was adjourned from October 2 and also January 8tn nothing has materially changed since that adjournment is that correct? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Correct so the Board will recall this is a request for three variances to construct a second-story addition consisting of 837 sq. ft. on the existing home that lies on the corner of Rochelle Place and Bay Ave. in Mattituck. The parcel is an 11,353 sq. ft. nonconforming parcel in the R40 zoning district. It sits just at the entrance to the Salt Lake community. Bay Ave. is the road and the whole community behind this property that it consists of houses of varying shapes and sizes. We adjourned this as you know because of the western 2 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting side of Bay Ave.there's a series of smaller houses, we weren't able to achieve averaging at that time but since the code has been changed, we're back to and I would.suggest you guys as we had argued last time that the you know granting of variance relief here to allow the construction of this second-story addition would be entirely in character with the neighborhood. On the east side of Bay Ave. there are numerous homes that are much larger than what is proposed here. Not to go back to averaging but I think I had done the analysis earlier I think it's pretty telling here, if you just look at allowable gross floor area for the homes on Bay Ave. on the west side, the allowable GFA I'm sorry the average of the allowable GFA along Bay Ave. is 3,056 sq. ft. and the average on the east side is near 5,000 sq. ft. of allowable meaning that any one of those homes could come in to the Building Department tomorrow and apply for a permit to build a home (inaudible) essentially be 400 sq. ft. GFA larger than what we are seeking here today. What we're seeking to do is to just add a second-story addition which sits back on the back end of the home so from the front view it is not some imposing structure onto the road as you go by. We have as you may recall I think at least twenty letters in support from the surrounding neighborhood. This home is in a state of disrepair, it's an eye sore and pretty much I know the Board is sensitive to community concerns and neighborhood concerns and I think this neighborhood is going to be pleased to clean this place up and that's why we're here.As to the individual variances,the existing home sits essentially on the property line, there's no way we can comply with the sky plane based on that but all the construction with the exception of a little front porch addition is contemplated within the existing footprint of the home and the GFA as I said is we're asking for a 335 sq. ft. of GFA variance which again will result in a home that's entirely in character with homes in the surrounding area. As I understand it, you're now able to (inaudible) GFA just based on application of the town law 267. 1 would suggest that variance relief here is warranted under the circumstances and my application of those criteria.There are no potential adverse impacts from this, again, it's just a second-story addition (inaudible) renovating the home within its existing footprint. I know that the Board is otherwise familiar with (inaudible) I'm happy to address any questions that may be (inaudible) at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do have one question, I want to be sure that when we construction begins that we don't end up with a demolition because this often happens with older houses out here especially ones that are near water and all that, rot is just so common termites and all. Then you wind up with a whole other set of conditions. You're looking at second-story addition (inaudible). I want to make sure that it's structurally sound enough to support that second-story addition so that you're not back here looking for a de minimus which we can't grant cause a demolition is never really tiny little nothing. I don't know whether you're (inaudible). MARTIN FINNEGAN : Mr.Jeffcoat is here maybe he can 431 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to get that into the record cause I don't want this popping up later, every time we turn around this is happening. TODD JEFFCOAT : Understood, my name is Todd Jeffcoat I'm the owner. I have had (inaudible) come out and review the property, he went to the basement and there has never been any evidence of actually termite damage in this house. He has reviewed it; I don't think that he has written it down anywhere but we did have (inaudible) they have both been out several years ago and taken a look at we kind of started doing the design to this and they found no evidence of rot or any of that.The structure from under the house is all visible so from the basement up there is none. I mean if it is it's only (inaudible). I haven't seen any around the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I just wanted something in the record to say (inaudible). Pat anything from you on this one? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience? Please come forward. JERRY NEVAR : I'm Jerry Nevar I live down the block from Jeffcoat. It's almost seven years that I had asked (inaudible). He bought a house right down the street from me and the doors are like this big and they come out and use it as a summer house and move out there, it's seven years that (inaudible) and he's still trying to get his house done. I mean it's not really funny because it's sad that their lives are passing them by and they can't even live in the house that they intended to come (inaudible). I wish you can expedite this and let them they're not asking for anything, they're not building a monster house, they're just staying within the same footprint and they're going to live the rest of their lives in the house. It's just life goes by too quick and it's terrible and (inaudible). I appreciate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) counsel so that we could do our job cause the code prevented us (inaudible). JERRY NEVAR : There's got to be ways to make exceptions to the (inaudible).Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We meet again in two weeks and we'll have a decision. JAKE JENSEN : I'm Jake Jensen, I serve as the President of the Salt Lake Village Association where there are eighteen homes that are directly behind Todd and Desiree's house and I'm just here to we've seen the plans and our community has seen the plans and I'm just here to speak in support of it. Desiree (inaudible) her property all the time, they're very friendly with all of our community, they walk their dogs together so we're you know on behalf of the association (inaudible) requests and you know we hope you will consider the variance. 44 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're thinking it's a 14.8%relief from the code permitted gross floor area. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes TODD JEFFCOAT : We have gone through different iterations of this, I have my ideas of how we wanted (inaudible) so we've toned all this down quite a.bit to fit into the community. We've gone through different iterations of this like I said with Mike Hand, all the design portion,we've lowered the ridge line from where it was originally, we've looked at a flat roof and a roof deck. I've gone away with all of that so we're trying to make sure that it fits in to the community. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, anybody else?Anything from you Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) sky plane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you mentioned Martin it's unavoidable cause it's sitting on you know inches from the lot line. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's .3 setback so you know I have mentioned that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think we made the point last time was that, sky plane is a hundred percent, once you violate it you're a hundred percent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Front yard, rear yard, side yard it doesn't matter a front yard is a front yard that's how the Building Department determines it,they don't care if your ten feet or twenty feet if you're in a front yard, you're in a front yard or partially in the rear they see it as a hundred percent. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would just say granted that, you're not going to carve out under the existing house to meet the sky plane cause if I remember the existing house (inaudible) but the addition made the pre-existing more modest in size the proposed sky plane just looking at the two dimensional elevation grows the sky plane probably by a factor of four (inaudible) elevation. So, I think we asked last time was there anything that could be done to make that a little less (inaudible)the growth of the sky plane (inaudible)? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think the other point was, the design was to push into the back so that really the intent of the sky plane regulation is that we don't have something imposing the house when you're looking up at but this 837 sq.ft. is really pushed to the rear of the property so that 45 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting I think that mitigates that and that was the intent of pushing it to the rear rather than having it cover the entire footprint (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a question,the adjacent lot is also owned by Jeffcoat? TODD JEFFCOAT : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the side yard setback from that property line of the adjacent house? MARTIN FINNEGAN : You mean to the, that's a good point cause it's actually set over to the south, it's pretty far over from the property line. (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) to reduce or eliminate impacts to adjacent properties but sometimes things went up and you know cast huge shadows onto somebody next door when you're that close to the property line, at least step it back a little. That's where the idea of a pyramid came from, it's like your property line is here and the wall is over here you can put on a second story and now you have a wall up to here. If you set this back a bit it's not as bad, it's more (inaudible).That's where the concept of sky plane came from but if that property next door is pretty far away then (inaudible). MARTIN FINNEGAN : This is 16 feet right here it's gotta be at least 25 feet (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looked like it was pretty far. TODD JEFFCOAT : I would say it's (inaudible) at least 25 feet over to the next house, it may be up to 30 but I can't remember cause we had talked about trying to shift the property line a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's for a new house so that's going to stay there a long time and (inaudible) mitigate circumstances that means (inaudible) adjacent dwelling it would have the most adverse impact on sky plane inclusion is going to avoid that impact by virtue of its own side yard setback. Anything else from anybody? Pat anything from you? I don't want you to think we forgot about you. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nothing from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 4 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8088—RONALD and MARY SHELTON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ronald and Mary Shelton #8088. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 18, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory pool house at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 1050 South Harbor Rd. in Southold. KEITH MARTONE : I'm Keith Martone from (inaudible) design I'm the'owner of (inaudible). Essentially last year I was called in by the Mary, they were doing some interior work on the house and at the time they said they had other plans to eventually put a pool and pool house in. As that was being discussed I essentially said to the client that if we were going to do it if I had somebody, I referred my friend Jared from (inaudible) pools (inaudible) he was going to be here today but his wife is sick.So,they worked together with him developing a plan for the pool obviously I was involved because we were in discussions for the potential pool house but that wasn't there yet. I think they wanted to figure out exactly what the (inaudible)of the pool were going to be before we (inaudible).So,that happened we can talk about that and while that was happening then they were thinking more seriously about the pool house so I said Well, in March of last year I said Well, if you're serious about it we need to really be serious about it cause these things take a lot of time but the planning of the whole thing even though it's an accessory structure it's basically is like a little house that's the (inaudible). So, we got the ball rolling, everything went on, the pool happened. RON SHELTON : The pool got installed last year in summer CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name please. 471 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting RON SHELTON : Ron Shelton. The pool was installed last summer somewhere around July we were able to get in the pool but we were on Astro truf because it was still all mud on the side of the pool but we KEITH MARTONE : (inaudible)was working on those plans for the structure so then but the pool company essentially and us we decided to all work together on it because they were going to be (inaudible) where's the patio going, where's the structure going, how is it going to work, what's the final thing going to look like. So, I worked with the pool guys,we altogether planned it out, plotted it out, staked it out the pool went in and the process was a couple of months and while it was happening the architect essentially was working on the (inaudible). I'm backing up just a little bit they decided that he did want to do that the powder bath and the sink so therefore it turned into Health Department which was the architect did all his things and we waited four to six weeks for the Health Department to do their thing. Once we got that approval (inaudible). So, having said all that, after six months the pool was already basically in and we were now approaching on the spring I mean the fall so we went ahead, I went by the plans that were submitted and approved measurements and so forth from the pool. However, what happened is that my team made an error, we were measuring off of the property line that was a fence that was actually several feet onto the neighbor's property.Therefore,when everything was planned out and we started to do the footing,yes, it is a pool house but it still has a footing and a foundation we put that in, it wasn't until that was done when the fall was coming Ian from Coastal wanted to get the pool fence in, he had found the marker in the back corner underneath foliage cause he was doing clean up. If you're looking at the pictures, it was very, very (inaudible) had trees and bushes and you couldn't even see it and there's no front line. The monument is not visible or gone so this can only be done by measurement. At that time when Ian was doing the fence, we were literally starting to frame the structure when he was putting the fence, I literally looked at him and said, why are you putting the fence so far onto their property line like by two or three feet and he goes, no, this is the line. I immediately stopped production and with that I called Paul the surveyor to find out exactly what happened and it was confirmed that it was basically we were measuring off the wrong spot.We are asking for a variance to continue the construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well,thank you for admitting the mistake, it doesn't always happen. There's a lot of blame game, I didn't do it, it's their fault. KEITH MARTONE : I was raised by women it's better to throw yourself on the sword. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It also looks as though the property.line gets larger distance. Do you know what that is, the measurement? KEITH MARTONE : It changes by several feet but with the distance of 48 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it couldn't conform RON SHELTON : It goes between 7 % and 8 % feet to the property line (inaudible) require 10 because the property is slightly wedge shaped. KEITH MARTONE : It goes on a tangent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is in part the mitigating factor. It would have been so easy for you to make this conforming but here you are you got the framing wall in and KEITH MARTONE : Right but we stopped. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : we understand why. KEITH MARTONE : I'm must happy that at that time that you know that pool fence could have gone in at any time. It was the-fact that Ian wanted to (inaudible) but good so the fence started to go in and that's when we realized 'and I unfortunately it was my fault but we have to (inaudible). RON SHELTON : The proposed pool house is out near the rear of the property, it's not close to any of the neighbors buildings or property at all. The neighbor on that side is fine with it, they had no problem in having the pool house where it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's screened.Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Are you going to install a septic here? KEITH MARTONE : Yes MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I noticed that the I think the project description says the pool house says it's 340 sq. ft. but the survey indicates it's 350, is that just a KEITH MARTONE : No,just whatever was the compliance I guess 350 is the max. RON SHELTON : I thought it was 350. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That's what the survey says, the form says KEITH MARTONE : I'm sorry about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it is 350. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :The survey says 350. KEITH MARTONE : We're going by the survey cause he's got the math. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience, anybody on Zoom? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we'll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. HEARING#8049—JOHN M. HASLBAUER and KATHLEEN E. HASLBAUER AS TRUSTEES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John M. Haslbauer and Kathleen E. Haslbauer as Trustees #8049. This was adjourned from November 6, 2025 and February 5, 2026 so (inaudible) read this Notice of Disapproval. MARTIN FINNEGAN :So,at the initial hearing oh Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants John and Kathleen Haslbauer. This is an application for a single first floor are variance to allow the applicants to construct a second story addition on their home which is in Cleaves Point community in Greenport. I honestly left the last hearing feeling pretty good about the whole thing (inaudible). Subsequently, (inaudible) was less inclined to grant the relief so I discussed that with my clients and you know they have done their best here to come back with something and scale it back.There's just (inaudible) they just need you know a certain amount of space to accommodate their family in this home. So, what they have done is, to reduce the relief requested at 14.2%from a 646 sq. ft. variance to a 260 (inaudible) sq. ft. variance at 386 foot less. They've had to sacrifice their garage to do so but I think we have submitted revised plans as you can see what was originally proposed and what the elevation of what it is now and it is significantly scaled back. Recall that obviously this was one that was originally adjourned to (inaudible)to be amended again because we weren't sure that actually (inaudible) and here we are but I would kind of review my argument from the last and really, I felt that what was initially proposed was not unreasonable, there's a house just two doors down that is over 800 March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting sq. ft. larger than what is here this is a community of varying size homes. Yes, there are some smaller ones, yes there's some bigger ones but what was initially proposed was not out of character with other two-story homes in this community. So, obviously now I would submit that this is you know completely in character with the surrounding community and we're now it's less than ten percent variance relief that is required and it really is the minimum that is necessary to enable them to achieve the benefits of having the living space they require for their family. If the Board has any further questions, I'm happy to address them. If you're still not inclined to grant relief, I would hope you would discuss that with me because I feel that they made a really good effort here to (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well,just (inaudible) original lot coverage was I think a conforming 18.6%and you increased that lot coverage to 19.3%which is still conforming in order to reduce GFA down from what about 24%variance to (inaudible). MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well, that's really there's just like a tiny little front porch addition I think that's why (inaudible) lot coverage. I don't believe it's related to this cause there's nothing on the it's just a front porch addition (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if anybody has any questions, Pat do you have any questions on this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Actually, I'm having a hard time reading some of this paperwork because it's so small so right now I don't have any questions but I have to keep looking at it further. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Martin (inaudible) MARTIN FINNEGAN : We submitted the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret, anything from you? MEMBER STEIN BUGLER : (inaudible) an IA system? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, (inaudible) that's already been contemplated cause of substantial improvement that's going to be triggering an IA system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. March 5, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? Alright if there's nothing else from the Board motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We've done all the resolutions. I make a motion to close the hearing. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye March 5, 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 c Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : March 13, 2026