Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/02/2026 Hearing ? TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall & Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York April 2, 2026 10:00 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 ? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Marianna August/BMB Homes, Inc. # 8068 3 - 4 Michael Dealy #8107 4 - 7 St. John’s Episcopal Church-Fishers Island #8095 7 - 10 Christopher and Alyssa Constant #8090 10 - 19 Bill and Christina Livanos #8094 19 - 21 Eloise Patterson/Corcoran EP 20YR FI QPRT #8091 22 - 27 Caroline Schrank #8092SE 27 - 43 Samid Hussain #8093 43 - 49 Braveporter, LLC/Joe Iavarone #88048 49 - 54 ? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for April 2, 2026 in a slightly different location than we’re used to. Would you all please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter on the agenda today is the State Environmental Quality Reviews. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 (c) including the following: Michael Dealy #8107, St. John’s Episcopal Church-Fishers Island #8095, Christopher and Alyssa Constant #8090, Bill and Christina Livanos #8094, Eloise Patterson/Corcoran EP 20yr FI QRPT #8091, Caroline Schrank #8092SE, Samid Hussain #8093 and Braveporter, LLC/Joe Iavarone #8048 so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have one draft determination in front of us, Mariana August/BMB Homes, Inc. on Gillette Drive in East Marion. Rob, can you review some of that relief requested in this? MEMBER LEHNERT : The relief requested was for a rear yard setback for a basement steps and front yard setback for “as built” covered porch in the front of the house. These were both done after the applicant got a building permit to build the new house. The front porch in the front, he had many options for bumping in the front, he chose to build out to the allowable 35 feet and then without a permit went beyond that. This was written to grant the rear yard setback relief of 32 feet for the steps to the basement and deny the front yard setback as applied for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any discussion on this decision? Do we need corrections or anything like that? Okay then, you made a motion to grant the rear yard setback and deny the front yard setback as applied for, is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second ? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING # 8107 – MICHAEL DEALY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Michael Dealy # 8107. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s December 17, 2025 AMENDED February 19, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 3080 Bayshore Road in Greenport. WILLIAM WALTERS : William Walters, I’m the agent on behalf of Michael Dealy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re looking at a lot coverage of 22.7% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. WILLIAM WALTERS : Yes, I do think that that could be brought down though cause there’s a shed on the property that would have to be removed to install the pool and that could just be removed altogether. I’m not exactly sure how much that would save but it would bring that overall lot coverage down (inaudible) square feet or so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 96 square feet? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so we’ll figure that out. The pool itself is 10 by 26 which is you know not a substantial, not a huge pool. Do we have any prior ZBA decisions for that neighborhood with excessive lot coverage? ? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting WILLIAM WALTERS : I know there are some just based on what I’ve seen in the neighborhood but with the Laserfiche being down I haven’t been able to do that research. I know there’s lots of variances in that neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You probably know that all the Board Members have been out to inspect the property prior to this hearing. It would appear the rear yard is pretty well screened, side yard with evergreens, fencing, deer fencing a lot of brambles. WILLIAM WALTERS : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like there’s kind of a commercial building in the distance of some sort. WILLIAM WALTERS : Behind there is August Acres and there’s a four lot subdivision. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It looks like there was some kind of agricultural operation immediately in the rear yard. WILLIAM WALTERS : I’m not sure what it is exactly behind there, I think it’s a gentleman’s farm. I’ve never met the person; I think there are five acre lots back there each. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : On the tax map it’s noted to be (inaudible). I don’t know what that means in tax map language but WILLIAM WALTERS : My understanding he has like a little vineyard back there, he has chickens but it’s all (inaudible) for personal use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess the point that we’re trying to make is that it has very little to minimal impact on anybody. WILLIAM WALTERS : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And this is not a dimensional structure it’s a pool. So, Billy, just to your point about removing the shed, I don’t quite know if sheds are technically when they’re under 144 sq. ft. counted or not but it’s nice that you offered to remove that from the survey, the map that I end up with is that you have lot coverage with the proposed pool after the removal of the shed as 21.92% so you’re sort of amending the application from the 22.7 you’re suggesting to 21.92%, correct? WILLIAM WALTERS : I mean in order to try and you know bring the lot coverage down as much as possible that would be something that we can easily do it’s not mounted or fixed to anything so it can easily be removed. ? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, it all helps. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was 21.92% after the removal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Instead of doing that on the survey we can grant that as alternative relief and then request condition the approval based upon an updated survey showing the removal of the shed with a lot coverage, does that make sense? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : My question was relative to, there were two Notices of Disapproval an original and then an amended a revised, do you know what changed between the two? WILLIAM WALTERS : We had to get a new survey and with all the snow you couldn’t get the surveyor out to the property so there was like a three month delay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just as a reminder, pool mechanicals, I didn’t see them on the survey or the site plan, where will they go? WILLIAM WALTERS : I think the best place is probably right off the back west corner of the house. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right where the shed is? WILLIAM WALTERS : It would be closer to the house, that’s the electrical panel is (inaudible) to put it there. That also meets regular code. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Depending on its location it obviously needs to meet the setbacks or it needs to be in a sound deadening enclosure. WILLIAM WALTERS : We can certainly do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, relocate indicate where you want to put the equipment on the updated survey that you know you’ll be submitting with the updated lot coverage. WILLIAM WALTERS : Sure MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You do show dry wells but is there a specific one for the swimming pool and that should also be indicated on the survey when you update that document. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other questions from the Board? Is there anybody on Zoom? Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second ? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, we should have a decision in two weeks. HEARING #8095 – ST. JOHN’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH – FISHERS ISLAND CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for St. John’s Episcopal Church-Fishers Island #8095. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector’s November 7, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for a lot line modification at 1) proposed lot no. 14 having less than the code required minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet in area, 2) proposed lot nos. 14 and 16.1 having less than the code required minimum lot depth of 175 feet, 3) cottages (two) located on proposed lot nos. 14 and 16.1 less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 4) existing cottage on proposed lot no. 16.1 constitutes a non -permitted second use at 806 Oriental Ave. on Fishers Island. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Martin Finnegan, 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant, St. John’s. The applicant has a lot line modification application pending before the Planning Board and the relief requested today is triggered by the movement of the lot line the re-subdivision of these two parcels. Just to show you, ignore my scribbling, the existing line is right here and lot 14 which is the northwestern lot here is improved as Leslie mentioned with three (3) dwellings all of which benefit from a Pre-Certificate of Occupancy issued in 2011. The church is in contract with a non-for-profit organization called Lighthouse Works which is an organization on Fishers to sell lot 14 to them. The deal contemplates that if these approvals are granted by this Board and by the Planning Board and obviously the Health Department that the church would be able to reacquire the cottage the southern cottage here which is the Shire that’s what they call it. That historically has been used to house the church musician during the season the summer months. It’s an important structure to the church and it’s important for them to have it obviously if the approval were not granted then Lighthouse Works would acquire the property but because the (inaudible) the line is simply as you can tell, due to the side yard variances that ? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting are being requested just essentially bisecting the distance between those two cottages and that’s where you get the 13.7 side yard relief that is requested here today. A lot of the relief is just simply less than pre-existing nonconformities that exist with respect to lot depth. The new variance is really for the decreased lot area, right now we have two conforming lots but the movement of the line with reduce the size of lot 14 by about 10,000 sq. ft. rendering it nonconforming. On the other side obviously lot 16 is getting bigger so there’s really nothing changing here in terms of density of residential uses but because it’s still less than 80,000 sq. ft. and the church would like to maintain the Shire structure; we’re going to need some lot area relief to allow the two uses to remain on what is about 62,000 sq. ft. a little less than the 80,000 for the two uses. Everything here is legally existing; we’re really just asking you to grant relief to allow this lot line to move and really the intent of this is so that as I said the church can maintain the Shire. It is for housing and for their musician so their seasonal worship services can continue and really, it’s also about the church raising (inaudible) to continue to defray expenses and continue its mission on Fishers. In turn you know if the relief is granted the Hansen House will free up three hundred thousand dollars that they would like to use to restore the Hansen House which is the main structure on lot 14 and you know that is a beautiful historic house that has unfortunately fallen into disrepair and Lighthouse Works is going to take on the task of renovating that and restoring it. Just to touch on the criteria, obviously you know we believe that there is no impact on the character to, to the outside world nothing is really going to change here other than ultimately the house will be renovated. The church isn’t contemplating any structural changes or anything like that so no impact on the character, no detriment to the community. Unfortunately, we do need the variance relief to make this happen so you know there’s really no alternative for them to achieve the objective of reacquiring the Shire and renovating the Hansen house. I think it’s noteworthy that the Planning Board has commented on this, I think positively and pointed out that you know this relief and the project in general is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the town’s intent to encourage preservation by providing appropriate zoning flexibility for historic structures. The requested relief would allow the church to realign property boundaries to better reflect existing site conditions without altering or expanding historic buildings thereby supporting the preservation of these cultural assets and consistent with the Comp Plan. Also, the Planning Board underscored that the total amount of land and existing development on the site will remain unchanged and the proposal does not introduce any new or intensified use. With that I mean clearly there’s no perceivable environmental impact we’re just asking to move the proverbial imaginary line between these two parcels so these organizations can achieve their goals. I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let’s start with you Pat, any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. ? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : At the Planning Board meeting on this application, Planning Board Member Pierce Rafferty commented on the lot line change potentially adding affordable housing to the Fishers Island community. I didn’t see anything about that in the application, is there some connection here between this lot line change and establishing affordable units on Fishers? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Lighthouse Works is a community organization that brings artists and musicians to the island in the season and they do provide housing for them, it’s like an internship kind of thing. That is part of their mission. Obviously affordable housing is needed everywhere I mean it’s not really part of this application or anything that the church is seeking to do. The church is the applicant here so what Lighthouse Works applies to do in the future I don’t know it’s not really part of what is presented here today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, what we have here are a bunch of dimensional issues. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, that’s basically it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it will need Planning Board approval and since they’ve already written a notice to us a memorandum indicating that they have no objection to it there’s no increase in density, there’s no perceivable change visual at least just a line on a piece of paper. I don’t really have any questions, there’s no really, I don’t even think we need to enter all of them into the record. Nick, any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions Martin. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom Donna? Anything else from the Board? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING # 8090 – CHRISTOPHER and ALYSSA CONSTANT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christopher and Alyssa Constant #8090. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207, Article XXXVI Section 280-208 and the Building Inspector’s October 2, 2025 Amended November 25, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town definition) and construct a new single-family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum secondary front yard setback of 20 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 4) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 10,000 square feet in area, 5) the construction exceeds the permitted sky plane as defined in Article I, Section 280-4 of the Town Code) located at 2655 Village Lane in Orient. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. for the applicants Chris and Alyssa Constant who are joining us on Zoom together with Kate Samuels who is the project architect. At first glance based on all that that Leslie just read, I know this seems like a lot of relief but just for context, this is a very small parcel 8,832 sq. ft. on the corner of Village Lane and King St. in Orient. The existing home is a landmarked home known as the King House. It is kind of tucked up into the northwest corner of the property and that is what is necessitating a lot of the relief this is a deemed demo and reconstruction. Essentially the project involves a relatively modest 667 sq. ft. addition to the first and second stories of this home to create a more functional layout and living space for the Constant family. I think you can see by the existing floor plan that it really is kind of wonky and doesn’t work and this is really at the end of the day just creating a functional three-bedroom home of about 2,500 sq. ft. The design has been intended to really kind of tuck in the addition so even though we’re asking for a GFA variance, it really does not appear as you can see from the elevations to drastically increase the mass of the house. The house is going to be elevated for FEMA compliance, that really has triggered the sky plane relief that’s required. We have a preexisting nonconforming rear yard setback just 2.7 feet and the secondary front yard setback is just at 7.2 feet. That’s where the footprint exists and pretty much all the construction except for about 225 sq. ft. of the addition will rest on the ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting ground which is going to trigger a need for a little more lot coverage relief above what is already a preexisting nonconforming lot coverage. With respect to the sky plane, again, as I said there’s no way around it because of the setbacks but the addition there’s such a minimal part of the new addition that is kind of trading the sky plane, if you look at this little guy on the front here you can see that it really is all going to fall behind the roofline the existing roofline of the main part of the house which is up on the western end of the property. That’s just sort of the context here of the project. As I said, the intent here is really just to create some functional living space. I would note that there are I think at least twenty letters in support from neighbors and this is not unlike the application that I presented to you last month for the home in Mattituck that was hugging the property line and it was just an eyesore in the neighborhood. It’s that house that’s screaming to be renovated and that’s what the Constants are seeking to do here. Chris grew up in Orient, his family is there you know it’s kind of dream of theirs to have this home for he and his wife and children right in the heart of Orient Village. With respect to the criteria, as I said, you know there will certainly be no change in the character, there are many shapes and sizes of homes in Orient Village, there are actually many homes that are larger than this one home. Across the street is a significantly sized homes that at the end of the day we’re talking about a 2,500 sq. ft. home, it’s not going to be some massive structure. I think as evidenced by the letters of support it’s pretty clear that the sentiment is that there will be no detriment to nearby properties or to the neighborhood if relief is granted, you’re simply going to allow them to create an aesthetically pleasing and historically appropriate addition to their home. I should not that this obviously did go before the Historic Preservation Committee in December and a Certificate of Appropriateness was granted for the proposed construction. Unfortunately, because of all of the preexisting nonconformities and the advent of the GFA, sky plane regulations there’s no way that they can achieve their goals here without variance relief. As to substantiality, you know again, most of this is relief for preexisting nonconformities, the applicant as I said did make the effort to move the addition (inaudible) like center it so that it does minimize the sky plane relief and while the GFA relief at 23% may seem mathematically substantial for about 400 sq. ft. of GFA I think that it is entirely consistent with the character of other homes in Orient Village where you know there’s a whole variety of shapes and sizes of homes and many that are much bigger. Lot coverage is the same, this Board granted relief for about the same about 28 plus percent lot coverage to the next-door neighbor in 2016 and just similar relief to that is sought here. Again, I would suggest that the relief sought while in the aggregate you know there are several variances here it is really not substantial relief in the context of this kind of constrained small parcel. No perceivable environmental impacts, they are upgrading to an IA system and elevating the home for FEMA compliance. Again, with over twenty letters of support and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission I would submit to you that this is a net positive for the neighboring village ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting community. With that as I said, Chris and Alyssa are here and Kate is here as well, if you have any questions, we’re all available to answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just make sure that cause these are very specific, I want to enter into the record exactly what the variance relief is for these nonconformities. The secondary front yard setback is 7 foot 2 ½ inches where the code requires a minimum of 20 feet, a rear yard setback at 2-foot ¾ inch where the code requires 35 foot minimum, lot coverage at 28.5% where the code says a maximum of 20% is permitted, GFA at 2,586 sq. ft., the code allows a maximum of 2,100 sq. ft. on that lot size, that exceeds the code by 486 sq. ft. which is 23% relief. The sky plane you mentioned and needing HPC approval which you already have. Let’s see if the Board has any question, Nick let’s start with you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you, Martin could you just walk us through the FEMA compliance issues where the freeboard is, what the actual height of the structure will be, how much above grade, etc. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Can I have Kate address that? KATE SAMUELS : Hi, basically the FEMA compliance we are currently in the AE Zone and that zone is at elevation six. So, the current grade of the existing first floor is 1 foot 4 above the ground at this moment. With the freeboard included we will have a new first floor elevation at 9.5. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : And the height of the building? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What’s the actual height to the ridge? KATE SAMUELS : The overall height to the ridge is 25 feet 11 inches. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Is that with the FEMA elevation? KATE SAMUELS : Yes that is with the FEMA elevation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, the other question I wanted to actually sort of two questions, Martin you had mentioned a neighbor received GFA approval in the past, you have the actual file or do you have copies of those or the other relief that you used as examples for this particular project? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I do, I can give you a copy of that. 6130, 28.5 it’s ZBA 6130 and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was GFA? ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would have been before the GFA was even MARTIN FINNEGAN : Were you at, yeah that’s the one I referenced when I was talking about lot coverage, did you MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well, I’m actually asking for actually what priors you have, I don’t have the actual file numbers so if you can share the examples of relief for the lot coverage and the GFA I’d appreciate it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don’t have them for GFA, I was referencing the lot coverage relief (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You said one for GFA. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I was talking about the last month we were talking about the I just referenced the hearing that was granted the relief that was granted on Jeffcoat for a similar renovation for the same amount of GFA. There is a decision 6961 of 2016 where the Board kind of did an analysis of I guess a bunch of priors that the applicant had submitted and you rejected some of them as being relevant. If you look at that in there and they’re really what I took away from that is that on a property of this size you know less than 10,000 sq. ft. the Board has recognized the need for lot coverage relief in that instance as opposed to this applicant had submitted situations where there were larger lots relief was granted and that wasn’t persuasive to you. There was another property where 34% relief was granted on Orchard St. on a parcel that was about 8,500 sq. ft. so yea those are the kind of examples that I was just referencing but I thought it was you know back to the lot exactly next door that got the same relief that’s all we were trying to (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So actually I guess the bigger question that I just kind of you know the access to priors how do we address that from our MARTIN FINNEGAN : We have the same question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No access. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only way we can do that for now is to impose upon staff’s goodwill because they have access to it through the town computers but the public doesn’t and we’re working you know constantly yelling at IT to do something about it because this is part of our process. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : It’s very challenging, thank God I had done this before you know the cyber- attack I had pulled some of them so that’s the ones I have but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, I’m sort of at a loss but I understand the situation but it ties into the second part of my conversation or question, there’s a back stairwell so when you’re talking about the excessive GFA what is the purpose of the back stairwell? In the plans there’s a front stairwell which exists and then through what I would call the owner’s suite at the rear of the house where you have the addition there’s a back stairwell that leads down to like the dinning room. Maybe Kate it’s better coming from you, it seemed to me that without the stairwell you could actually reduce the GFA. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Kate did you hear that? KATE SAMUELS : Yes, so the owner requested the back stairwell to you know have a more direct access into their primary bedroom. We’re using the underneath of that stair hall for storage so it might be you know a smaller GFA increase than perhaps it looks on the plans. Because of how the original historic house is laid out you really have the front stair hall in the you know historic part of the house and the you know having a very linear rear addition having that back stairwell we felt was appropriate for more privacy and direct access. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob, anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a similar question relative to the layout of the addition and its contribution to increase lot coverage and GFA, understanding that it was a client request to have a rear stairwell I will quote Leslie, we’re required to ask for the minimum variance. It seems to me that there is opportunity to reduce GFA and lot coverage by altering the design and making it extend not quite so far to the I think it’s to the east, maybe Kate would like to comment on that. KATE SAMUELS : We purposely did not extend the first floor and second floor all the way to the addition from the seventies because of some of the issues that you brought up but also because of the historic nature so we actually brought back the addition approximately 8 feet from that end of the rear wall there in order to comply with some of those regulations. The stair also as I mentioned we brought you know we have a living space under the stair, a closet under the stair so we’re really trying to maximize any issue with GFA at that point. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just to be clear, the design does not avoid issues with GFA and lot coverage, it increases the noncompliance of both those parameters and we’re required to ask for the minimum variance and I’m just I’ll restate ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think one of the issues was also as I said, the placement so we could trade a greater sky plane variance and lift things up potentially and push it back but it would just this was I believe this is the minimum relief necessary to create functional space. That seventies addition is a very wonky it’s not a functional layout. We’re talking at the end of the day about 600 sq. ft. added to this house. Yes, it’s a constrained lot in terms of lot area and it triggers this relief but if you look at this house and look at what is proposed it is thoughtfully designed, there is not a lot of I mean if you look at the primary bedroom that’s added, it’s not a big bedroom. It’s a bedroom of modest size, a modest bathroom and one closet. We don’t have two big walk-in closets and you know this is not that, it is a very you know minimal addition that is just so they can have you know a decent amount of living space and again, you know it’s a 2,500 sq. ft. house, it’s not offensive and everybody in the neighborhood pretty much agrees with that. I hope that you will and I understand the standards but I think the record is established that this is the minimum relief necessary here to achieve the benefit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I have to say I’m sure that when the you know the code was passed limiting dwelling size the greatest consideration was brand new construction. There was a recognition rightfully so that this would create some additional nonconformities for those dwellings that were preexisting especially since they preexisted zoning altogether. I think that’s something that is part of the consideration by the Board but Margaret is absolutely right, we really have to ask that people attempt to reduce to the greatest extent possible any relief that they’re requesting. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Understood but (inaudible) was done here I mean you can see I mean they could have come further out in the front. I mean the effort was there to just make it the minimum possible and you know and to restore this house and the historic attributes to the house you know it’s going to be a beautiful home at the end of the day and I think (inaudible) a real asset to Orient Village. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if anybody else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would just add a comment, sort of an agreement which was discussed about the GFA and everything, the difficulty is that if you really remove that back stairwell and even if you narrowed the dinning room or something you’re gaining maybe 100 sq. ft. so it’s either something that works or doesn’t work I think. I do have to just say that in the sense of like Skippers Lane which I think you came before us several years ago you know a house like this can be beautifully renovated in its existing condition without increasing the size but I do understand that people want things that function for current standards and needs. I do think that it’s something that we have a discussion relative to that extra GFA. Just my opinion. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s one thing if it’s just being renovated in place and in kind you know but clearly and that would have been a wonderful thing to see too in Orient but the owners obviously wish to have a larger living space. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Last month you granted a variance for GFA for this exact thing, the same amount of GFA for a second story addition. It’s a very similar circumstance, this is just I mean MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that we’re afraid of having a precedent and here we are. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea, yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Jeffcoat. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jeffcoat had a very, very tiny house sitting on the lot line. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Everybody in the neighborhood is supporting relief, I don’t think you’re creating a bad precedent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You also know extremely well that although it’s helpful to have support from neighbors, there’s nothing in our standards that say a support from the neighborhood is a standard by which we develop a balancing test. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well, but it’s character of the neighborhood and I think it’s (inaudible) establishes character. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that’s true. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) argue that the character of the neighborhood is defined by the existing house which that’s it’s a tough one and I understand that (inaudible) renovate it and alter it you’re in a tough spot (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that was a completely different standard here because it is in a historic district and MEMBER LEHNERT : And the historic district has granted an approval speaking to character of the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s right so we do have that in our file and it is a unique it’s a slightly unique situation when there’s a historic district and there’s another agency weighing in on what character of the neighborhood is supposed to look like and that’s what they basically they don’t look at variances they just need the architectural style. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, I reviewed the letters of support, it made me wonder if any of the neighbors had actually reviewed the plans, so do you have any indication that those who wrote letters of support reviewed the plans and understand the size and scale and appearance of the proposed renovation? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Remember that this is also has been to another public hearing, those plans were circulated with that hearing notice and with this hearing notice. I can’t answer that question Margaret, I don’t know. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The neighbors have the same challenge we all have which is no access to the Laserfiche for the records. MARTIN FINNEGAN : We do give a copy of like the elevations when we provide that notice. Chris and Alyssa are here as well as they know all the neighbors. If they want to comment on that they will certainly know kind of bait and switch here with the plans I think the overall sentiment is can we renovate this house and it’s been sitting there for many years in a dilapidated condition and I think the proposed renovation is really welcomed. CHRIS CONSTANT : Thank you so much for allowing me to speak. I can tell you that I did share the plans with our three immediate neighbors. The Rose family behind us, EJ Camp who is directly across the street and our new neighbor Mark Timmins who is two the across the King St. side I’m not sure what direction that is so all three of them have seen the plans and understand we tried to tuck the addition in behind the historic house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mr. Constant, Pat you had a question. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea, Martin I noticed that the garage is going to have a loft in it and you have a lot of windows, are there plans down the road to do something other than storage in this garage? What are they doing with this garage? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Not that I’m aware of, I think it was just cosmetic and storage just to kind of make it match the house. Nothing that I’m aware of to do that. The garage really isn’t part of this application. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, just a question because it goes with the whole with what’s going on with the property. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Just a question and I might have missed it, so the plans that were submitted to the HPC are exactly the same plans that the Zoning Board is looking at right now, the ones that were granted by the HPC? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, Kate can you confirm that. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting KATE SAMUELS : There was we added a bit more information on the trim detail at the windows, that was the only slight deviation from these plans that you’re seeing now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? Is there somebody else on Zoom? MR. FROST : Let me say that there was a question about whether people had reviewed the file and I will say that I’ve been out of town for two weeks and I did note and saw in the paper that the notice of hearing was. I was concerned when I first saw what was being proposed in terms of the scale of the number of variances. I did come in yesterday, I looked at the file, frankly I’m amazed at the good job that was done in my mind to be sympathetic to the character of Orient. Yes, the lot line they’re constrained by it but I thought that frankly it was a remarkably good job certainly in comparison to some of the more recent activity within the historic district. To my mind, I’m amazed at the way that they’re able to fit in what they’re trying to do and yes there is an increase in the ground floor, the GFA or whatever you refer to but I frankly thought that the design was remarkable and very sympathetic. I think they’ve taken great care including maintaining the original door so I think on balance I’m quite impressed with what they did. I did note that yes there were a number of frankly quite proforma letters of support there but I just want to weigh in that I actually did look at it fairly carefully yesterday and thought it was a job remarkably well done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, Mr. Frost. Was there somebody in the audience who wanted to come to the podium please. DAVE KAPPEL : Good morning, Dave Kappel 225 Fourth St. in Greenport, hi Pat my Assembly woman. I’m here to speak in support of this application. By way of disclosure, I was the I represented the buyers in the acquisition but I have no ongoing relationship with the project at all to them or financially. I come as a neighbor not in Orient but in Greenport as somebody who knows these people quite well. Chris grew up with my kids, I’ve known his family as long as I’ve been out here. His late father was arguably the most informed expert on antiquities on the east end, certainly on the North Fork and in Orient. I understand and I respect the Board’s obligation to steward the code carefully but we talk about keeping our kids here on the North Fork and here you have an opportunity where you have a well-established family, children of a well-established family looking to double down on their investment and in the community and I think the Board has an excellent opportunity to help that happen. I’m here to support it, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Dave. Is there anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? Is there anybody else on Zoom? ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I’m going to circle back, Kate about the trim with the HPC. So, I’m (inaudible) the trim that’s changed since the HPC approved these plans explain what it is and explain what the trim difference was. I don’t want you to have to go back to you know the HPC after if the ZBA grants this and then (inaudible) from what the HPC saw and then get a Stop Work Order, just try to explain what exactly the trim difference was. KATE SAMUELS : Yes, the trim profile of the windows themselves had just been altered per their request. So, we had gone with an (inaudible) profile which was a very, very slight change from our original window spec which HPC has approved. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It was their request. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I didn’t hear that before. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fortunately it’s not a dimensional (inaudible). Okay, are we ready to close? Alright, I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING # 8094 – BILL and CHRISTINA LIVANOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Bill and Christina Livanos #8094. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s October 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling and install in in-ground swimming pool at 1) swimming pool is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) existing shed ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting is partially located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1795 Summit Drive in Mattituck. CHUCK THOMAS : Good morning, my name is Chuck Thomas I’m the architect representing Bill and Christina Livanos. I came before this Board in 2016/2017 for this exact application. We presented it and the Board looked favorably upon it, we got the relief that we requested. We submitted for a building permit, we got the building permit, did the construction and during COVID we had a waterline issue actually where the water service to the property was being shared with another house. So, we had to deal with an easement to the Health Department a right of way and then COVID happened and then we got to a point where the Zoning Board of Appeals expired. So, we are here to seek the renewal of that, we are asking for the same exact reliefs that were granted previously. The only caveat to that is the shed that we’re talking about while we were able to access the town records, we did find the original application for the house did include that cabana/shed so, it was called a cabana not a shed, so we do have a C.O. for that building that we weren’t aware of six years ago, seven years ago. I have a picture of the houses surrounding us, they all have pools in their front yard and we’re looking to maintain our conditions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what happened here is, the Building Department is requiring for you to get a C.O. to get these variances reinstated. It looked like the we denied on January 10, 2025 a request for extensions because they became invalid on July 21, of 2022. So that was several years after they had already expired and that was exhausting the six years back sort of so it just didn’t make sense it just was something we couldn’t do. We’re just looking here to reinstate what the prior relief was so you can get a C.O., is that correct? CHUCK THOMAS : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let’s see if anybody’s got any questions, Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The prior decision specified and included a condition that the pool equipment if I can read this right, the pool equipment would be in a sound deadening enclosure, it’s not, what’s the plan there? CHUCK THOMAS : We’d be happy to surround it with a sound deadening enclosure. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The application says that the shed is for dry use. CHUCK THOMAS : It is. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The shed was unlocked when I visited and it includes a utility sink and an apparent an accumulator tank that I think is typically used as a private well or (inaudible). CHUCK THOMAS : Right, so when and I have the C.O. for that actual building so when that building was built it was built as a cabana that actually had a changing room with two toilets and a sink and it had the well service for that. That has all been disconnected, there are no toilets, the sink is there but it’s not in use. There is no water service to that structure. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Thank you, I think that’s it for me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone on Zoom who wants to address the application? Is there anybody in the audience? Motion to close the hearing reserve decisions to a later date. CHUCH THOMAS : Thank you very much. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting HEARING # 8091 – ELOISE PATTERSON/CORCORAN EP 20YR FI QRPT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Eloise Patterson/Corcoran EP 20YR FI QRPT #8091. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s October 21, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage with attached storage, half bathroom and outdoor shower at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 45 Avenue B on Fishers Island. ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : I’m Abby Boedigheimer I’m the architect representing Eloise Patterson. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of those Fishers Island lots that have more front yards than most people have teeth. It looks like the lot is also got some significant slope on it, it’s a corner lot. ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : Yes, we are requesting a variance because we have the three front yards and the closest part and the rear yard is where we would be allowed to build a (inaudible) accessory structure is quite inaccessible for a driveway so it wouldn’t really be able to function as a garage due to the high slope. The current driveway is on the lowest slope part of the site so it allows access to that section of the site and even though it is technically in a front yard it is set back from the water so it’s not in front of anybody’s front views. The slope of the natural grade of the site and the vegetation also mostly hides the garage from view you can see in the photos. The character of the building is going to be exactly out of their main house or even the same construction materials, same low roof slope with a low roof profile (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret let’s start with you. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Why is a half bath needed in the garage? ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : Currently the powder room in the house is only accessible you have to go through a couple of other spaces to reach it. This is intended for when they’re out like gardening, that back yard area they have some potted some plant beds and the shed is going to be kind of (inaudible) the garage and the storage is going to have a lot of like potting materials so like they want enough space that they could come with not have to go into the house muddy or like from the beach muddy and use the bathroom. They can stay in the garage where it’s already kind of dirty, we have the potted plants yea. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Why put the potting drain in the bathroom as opposed to another location? ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : The main part of the storage area is conceived as a place to store the deck furniture on off season. They don’t really have any basement storage, all the storage in the house is quite small and used for stuff like clothes. So, to put the like I guess it’s deck furniture but that’s because it’s going to be this larger storage room to be able to have that wet area sequestered with all of the other wet elements of the project. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It’s a pretty large garage to have only one overhead door, what sort of vehicle is contemplated to be driven through that garage door? ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : They have a one car that lives on the island so they wanted a place to keep that for the winter and just have sheltered parking for. Then in the summer season there may be occasionally other cars on site but really, they have the primary car that lives in the garage. So, just one car and then several bikes, bikes are the main code of transportation around the island. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : What sort of car is it that lives on the island? ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : I believe it’s an SUV but the door is large enough to fit a standard sized car. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Well, it’s actually kind of tight so the door would actually not permit a full sized pick up truck to go through without the mirrors being folded. I looked at the photographs and saw a full sized pick up and a Volvo station wagon. ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : That would be the contractor’s vehicle. I mean we’d be happy to increase the size of the garage door, that’s not an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what we’re trying to do is establish the use of the garage. A half bath is permitted as of right in an accessory garage. Then you’ve got all these exteriors you’ve got all these various rooms and they’re all storage rooms of one kind or another at least that’s what they’re labeled. One is for garbage, one is for beach storage and then miscellaneous storage, they’re all accessed from the exterior of the garage according to these plans. ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : The exterior storage is as a way when they’re leaving the garage or like driving down the driveway to quick grab say the beach storage say the foldable beach chairs and the garbage storage again, having a place that isn’t like sitting in the front yard that they can keep the garbage bins before taking them down to the curb. Whereas the other side again, is (inaudible) off season storage so like the big kind of furniture stuff that won’t fit in a garage with a car and all the bikes as well as the locked room for the tool storage for like heavy power tools. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Do you know what kind of electrical service is contemplated for the garage? ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : I am not sure, we want enough that in the future they could have an EV charger for a potential electric car but nothing is (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, what is really before us is simply a front yard location and when you have a very heavily sloped rear yard it’s not a good place to build a garage, maybe a house can be built into a hill but a garage is a little more challenging. You have three front yards, no wonder it’s going to be in the front yard. It’s huge I mean it’s 43 foot 5 and ¾ inches by 23 foot 9 inches, it’s a big building. ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : We are conforming to this (inaudible) to the main house and we also are still beneath our allowable buildable area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the lot coverage is conforming. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Do you have examples of similar relief granted in the neighborhood for garages in the front yard? ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : I do not have any on hand. (inaudible) the builder that we work with has done a couple of these before. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, I wasn’t really thinking about it but since Margaret brought the conversation up, in what’s labeled the powder room there’s a floor drain, so I mean it’s plausible that it could be also a potential shower where somebody could ultimately use this more as a guest house. There’s a proposed outdoor shower I don’t want to suggest you have to reconfigure the bathroom but I don’t know how that should be addressed. ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : The outdoor shower is there because the clients really like their main outdoor shower but it’s right next to their primary suite so it’s not very private for guests to use and their kids so they wanted to place all of the other decks that are facing the ocean are not private at all so they wanted something at the back of the property that guests can feel comfortable using and again their children. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But wouldn’t it make sense for like a floor drain to be either in the middle of the garden storage or the garage instead of the powder room? ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : I mean we’d be happy to relocate if it MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Does that scream shower to anybody or am I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it did. What we don’t want is to have a situation where it’s easy to put in an indoor shower because then that’s not legal, a half bath is fine, toilet and sink that’s it. As soon as you get to putting in a shower or tub or anything like that then it’s creeping up to being a habitable kind of situation. So, perhaps relocating that drain and I haven’t got the plan it’s easy to I mean that just begs, shower. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I mean the strange thing is I’m thinking of other applications where we actually had applicants build partition walls or something because it (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, you just break through that wall and it becomes a shower. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) so I don’t know I don’t want to redesign the project. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Is there a plan for heating? ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this sheet rocked? ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : Sheet rocked, a mix of ply and sheet rock. Ply on the walls, we’re considering some shelving storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would it be fair to say that you slightly amend the design that we have in front of us to avoid any possibility of converting that half bath to a space with a shower in it? ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s just a matter of moving a few walls around (inaudible) square footage. Is that alright with everybody? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Would you repeat, I’m sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to suggest that we possibly adjourn this to the next meeting to give you a little bit of time to submit an amended floor plan for that garage that redesigns the bathroom to remove any potential conversion of anything in that garage to a shower you know in relationship to the half bath so that it’s just clearly a half bath that’s it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could you just relocate I mean close it subject to cause they could use like the side entry area. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s an easy thing to fix. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Toilet room, sink and toilet and then just make the off-season gardening storage one big space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t think we’re going to have any questions, we could close it subject to receipt but we could also just adjourn it to the Special Meeting with the idea that you’d have that to us by then and we’ll just close it then and if we get it soon enough we might even also have a decision made just a matter of flexibility of things however you want to do it. MEMBER LEHNERT : We don’t need another hearing for a bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I don’t think so. You want to just close subject to receipt? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are you fine with relocating the bathroom or making it more conforming? ABBY BOEDIGHEIMER : Yes A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Are you then going to enlarge the garage door as well, so maybe adjourning it for those things can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it’s wiser and more flexible if we just adjourn it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That gives us the option. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, that’s what I’m saying. So, take into consideration they’re minor things that should not really impact anything much and what’s before us is a front yard location but we do have to look at potential for improvements that are not within the purview of what the code allows. I would just adjourn it and wait for the amended design and then we’ll close it as soon as we get it. If we get in two weeks that’s fine, we’re done. If it takes you a little bit longer then we’ll just you know adjourn it again until we get what you’re going to submit to us. Does that make sense Board? So, I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the th Special Meeting on April 16, is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING # 8092SE – CAROLINE SCHRANK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Caroline Schrank #8092SE. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is owner of the subject property requesting authorization to construct and establish an accessory apartment in a proposed (not built) accessory structure at 1865 Westphalia Rd. in Mattituck. JOHN CUNNIFFE : Good morning, my name is John Cunniffe I’m the architect for Caroline Schrank I’m representing that and Caroline is here today. My office is at Stony Brook, New York. We are here for an approval for a moderate-income family dwelling unit. Ms. Schrank and myself are grateful that we have a partnership with the Long Island Housing Partnership so it will allow for this as she has received a promissory grant money in fact some of this has been reimbursed already for my services, I’m very grateful for that. We did come to you all for the special exception under Article III Section 280-13B (13) with a proposed structure for the accessory apartment. We (inaudible) zoning compliance at 749 sq. ft. carefully planned (inaudible). The structure is also planned to be (inaudible) just in case hovering six inches below the height limitation for the associated setback of 15 feet from rear and side. We are holding on 16 foot on the side and we are holding 38 foot off the rear. With respect to the actual structure and position on the property in the rear yard we’re applying all the regulations. There was also a requirement for one car parking which is being provided on site, we’re actually planning for two to be realistic about it in case there’s two that need to park there. The impact of this relative to I’ll just go through I know there are about five points that I’d like to kind of just cruise through those. Being in the back of the house and being on Westphalia where there are a numerous other accessory structure in and around the sides probably a little bit smaller, one to the east there’s one across the street that I was associated with a small detached garage. The nature of this isn’t something as a form that’s out of character for the neighborhood by any means. We did hold this to the back and in the rear and within obviously height zoning and all that other good stuff so I think that we’re in pretty good shape there. You know what, I was looking at another way to propose this, it wasn’t something that I mean I came because we are as of right to be able to do this as a detached structure but it may come to the Board as a question as to whether or not that it could be attached to the house. I was pretty opposed to ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting it, even in my thinking about I just wanted to approach it to the Board that I actually thought about it for a second cause it is based on out of respect for the question. This south facing to the rear of the existing house which is I don’t think I’m not sure if it’s history but it is certainly the late 1800’s early 1900’s home. To take away from (inaudible) like and access to the rear yard with an accessory structure for this purpose I think would be a huge detriment to the function of the house itself. I also think there would then be an opportunity to build on top of it when then adds massing and also closer to the east the house just to the east. I’m trying to check a box there that I didn’t feel that this is appropriate to be added to that so as an accessory structure which this replaces an accessory structure about half its size in the rear yard, I felt that we’re checking the box (inaudible). Obviously, we’re I’m going to yield to the Board I mean we’re here on a special exception so I’m going to yield to you to declare whether this is something that’s substantial cause we’re not asking for any variances related to it. We’re trying to and I believe we are holding in the boundaries of acceptable zoning. I don’t know if this is a first of this nature in this district but I’ll go ahead and leave that to you all, I’ll yield on that. With respect to the environment again, accessory structures in this environment are not something that you know are off base relative to coverage. By way of coverage on the site we are I didn’t even (inaudible) with a calculation it’s so well clear considering we were moving an accessory structure, gazebo, a shed we’re nowhere near or approaching any issue with respect to lot coverage. Obviously, from Health Department standpoint the ADU triggers the requirement for an onsite wastewater treatment system which I have designed. We have not made a formal submission to Suffolk County yet although I have reviewed it with them. With respect to the system design and some of the complexities of bringing on the main house as well as the dwelling into one unit and of course the positioning of that relative to the wells in the are which are basically all four properties around us and I have to base on. The Fuji (inaudible) 7 and Suffolk County requirements they’re requiring the actual unit to be 75 feet from a well which is contained unit and then 100 feet based on the distance of the septic the leaching pool to other wells. With my sketch notes from the county, we are in good shape we just haven’t made the submission yet. We are also no moving by requirement of the Health Department we are moving off of the existing well water or our property irrigation and supplementing with available right in the street water meter, public water to the main dwelling. I’m sure there’s some administrative things associated with the arrangement between the town and their requirements to have an accessory dwelling, I was hoping to hear what those are. I’m sure Ms. Schrank will she I’m sure she’s reviewed all this and would if she needs to speak to it, I would encourage her to just comply with the standards that you already have in terms of the terms and conditions for having accessory dwelling. So, with that, we did go over the design of the building and I’ll take questions on that and the siting of the building on the property and any other questions that you all might have. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok, well let’s start out with the fact that your plans indicate the ADU 749 sq. ft. of livable floor area, the Building Department has indicated that the livable floor area is actually less at 683 sq. ft. is what they say. It is conforming to the code in either case but there is a difference in those two documents. All of the verification of property ownership and so on have been submitted. JOHN CUNNIFFE : I’m taking the gross square footage from the exterior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, the livable is defined a little differently in the code than gross floor area. In any case, the thing that I want to point out is, right now the current code on these ADU’s basically says you may create it in an existing accessory structure. Now, I want to let you st know that on April 21 at my and the rest of the Board Members request the Town Board is going to hold a public hearing to amend that. When we removed the requirement for a three- year C.O. you know to have a C.O. on an existing accessory structure, we removed that, we should have caught that we should also have said, in an accessory structure not existing because the whole purpose of this is to allow modulars, tiny homes, other small structures to be put on a lot under certain circumstances in certain zone districts. So, I’m going to adjourn this because I don’t want to be stuck with saying it’s not existing, you’re proposing to bring a new structure on the property. If we get rid of the word existing, we can grant it. That’s going st to held on April 21. So, what we’re doing with all of these that are before us you’re not the only one that’s proposing an accessory apartment is we’re adjourning them so that property owners don’t get stuck in the middle of this code change and we want to be allowed to have more authority to basically say, if you’re bringing in something or you’re building something new MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Or expanding an existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you can expand on a dwelling up to twenty five percent of the foundation as of right but that’s not an accessory structure which you already addressed. It’s fine what you’re proposing it’s just not legally aloud now cause it’s not existing. Come and ask anything you want, come to the mic and state your name. JOHN CUNNIFFE : I did come to understand that this subject was made public, I actually read some document about it on the internet related to exact news and we actually pursued this, I was not under the factual knowledge that the code hadn’t changed per say but I was under the impression that it had that it was brought to light to (inaudible) by you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Tell us your name for the record. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CAROLINE SCHRANK : Caroline Schrank. I spoke at a town hearing about eight months ago and they granted me a special exception because of the LIHP grant, it was in the newspaper and it was JOHN CUNNIFFE : What newspaper was it? CAROLINE SCHRANK : Suffolk Times, every newspaper there was (inaudible) that this was done. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : What council person? CAROLINE SCHRANK : It was the town JOHN CUNNIFFE : It was a female I recall. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It was a Town Board meeting? CAROLINE SCHRANK : Yes MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Not a Planning Board. CAROLINE SCHRANK : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Town Board doesn’t have the authority to grant anything like that. They have you know you can talk to them about anything you want at any of their meetings it’s open to the public. CAROLINE SCHRANK : I was granted and it was in the court in the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was probably your grant of the money that the county gave you. CAROLINE SCHRANK : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, there is no you’ll have to show me who granted that. CAROLINE SCHRANK : You can Google my name in the Suffolk Times, you’ll see the article. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : You’d have to provide to the Board the minutes or the transcripts. CAROLINE SCHRANK : I thought you guys talk to each other. JOHN CUNNIFFE : We’ll figure it out and we’re grateful that (inaudible). CAROLINE SCHRANK : I’m on a deadline for this grant because I was supposed to build something within six months and it’s already ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember, did you appear before us? MEMBER LEHNERT : No there was another similar case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was similar who had a grant. Look, it doesn’t make sense for the town to support this, help people get grant money all that kind of thing and then have an outdated code that is standing in the way of allowing it. Our Board said, whoops, this is not a this has to be fixed cause we’re the ones that would deal with the code all the time the Town Board does not. We brought it to their attention, they agreed and the hearing is set for April st 21 and I have every confidence that this would be a done deal but we didn’t want to delay you so we said no, let’s have the hearing, the hearing was scheduled let’s go through the hearing st and we’ll just adjourn it to after that 21 so that then we can take action that comports with the code change. Now that code change has to be sent up to Albany right, and filed before it becomes law. We’re handling all of these proposed ADU’s this way because that way we can be much more flexible in approving what people are looking to accomplish. So, I am sorry for the delay but the delay is going to benefit you. Does that make any sense to you? CAROLINE SCHRANK : No it doesn’t because can you Google my name and JOHN CUNNIFFE : It’s not like something we can address here this is a legal hearing so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you have a letter or something from the Town Board Member that gave you an exemption (inaudible) JOHN CUNNIFFE : Adjourning this to April if that’s in fact the case I would ask the Board to you know and there is something that’s positive and moving that can be done legally let’s see if we can dig that up and maybe at the next adjourned hearing in April where this is going to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don’t we do this, typically I don’t like to get a bottleneck but why don’t we just adjourn this to May the May Regular meeting. BOARD ASSISTANT : Is that enough time? st A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Yea because the hearing will be the 21 and then send it to BOARD ASSISTANT : It takes about 3-6 weeks, put it on for May and MEMBER LEHNERT : You might have to leave it open just because of the Albany CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can’t really this does not become law until Albany JOHN CUNNIFFE : I understand, I got it. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can’t be a priory we have to wait till we get it back from them. What do you want to do Board? Do you want to just adjourn to June? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It’s up to the applicant or the applicant’s agent. JOHN CUNNIFFE : I think it makes perfect sense to adjourn. I wouldn’t mind though, I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want us to try May and then adjourn it again to June if we still don’t have the document? JOHN CUNNIFFE : Yea, I mean let’s try for May and let’s see. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Meanwhile you can be working with the Health Department. JOHN CUNNIFFE : Yea that’s going to go quick, we already have a grant, they’ll crank it out in no time. I already did a meet with them so I already met the engineer. I’ve taken note, I’ve never been here before, there were lots of incredibly intuitive questions about the architecture and the planning of the building and I don’t know if anyone has any questions now about the remaining aspect of the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it’s not typical that you have an accessory structure on a foundation with a basement. MEMBER LEHNERT : That was my question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s usually a dwelling. Let’s talk about that. JOHN CUNNIFFE : Yea, that’s great I can address that actually. It’s presented in our bids as an add alternate. I wanted to take into consideration to bring the electric first of all it’s 749 and then a livable of less than that inside paint-to-paint walls; an electric panel, heating and air conditioning unit incoming watermain and any other plumbing utilities that didn’t need to be in a crawl space or would have full access. I also thought it was a benefit and actually we haven’t decided budgetarily whether it can happen or not. In fact, I validate verified that the egress walkout well that’s to the east whether or not that would actually have any impact on our 15% that would qualify or it didn’t because it’s code egress. There is no access from the inside the building which by NYS code we cannot have any finished aspect of that basement later on by building code. It really was a lot to do because we do have some cathedral ceilings trying to get some light and air in this little space. I was hoping that the basement itself could have some utility function as well a nice place for someone who did have a very small apartment to actually have storage for their living wares. Let’s say there’s a divorced person or someone that needs to be in a situation here or you know a young person trying to start out at twenty-five hundred dollars a month out here. As an architect and who has worked with other architects out on the ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting east end and north and south fork housing for interns is almost impossible it’s difficult to get people out here actually as a workforce. I saw all of that, it’s absolutely not necessary and probably be bagged and budgetary conversation on this project but that was the intent in thinking with respect to planning it that’s wholeheartedly. We would still want a crawl space. That’s why I asked if there were any questions about the design, I’m glad we can get this out there. Again, the siding is you know natural wood board and batten, we’re going to (inaudible) gray, we’re not painting it, we’re not doing hardy plank, we’re not doing any kind of (inaudible) materials, it’s basic asphalt roofing and (inaudible) and keeping the living spaces to the south and bedrooms and private stuff facing the (inaudible). That’s what I got. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, here’s another question then, you have a 27 foot 6 inch rear yard setback to the deck, it’s an attached deck? JOHN CUNNIFFE : It is, is that not permissible? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The actual required rear yard setback is 35 feet, if it was a patio MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Isn’t that for the residence not for an accessory structure? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, that’s my question, does it if it’s got a full basement and it’s a new structure how are we defining it. If it’s an accessory to the principal use then it doesn’t need that big a setback we ask questions I’m just saying that we looked at it and those are the questions that came to mind. I don’t have an answer I’m just JOHN CUNNIFFE : Actually I in the bids we actually have a because of the nature of the low income aspect and the assistance that this is actually going to provide the homeowner let alone I had brought up to the homeowner that maybe that wants a patio instead because it would be then longer lasting, it would be zero maintenance so (inaudible) instead of a wood deck. Maybe if we are going to go to May, I want to please the Board with respect to the design and I want to make this as easy as possible with respect to filing an application for the accessory particularly we have been working real hard with the Long Island Housing Partnership with carefully articulated letters. This has taken Caroline a long time to while she applied for all of it a little time to get under way, we had a surveyor that had cancer, we waited three, four months to (inaudible) the surveyor with a deposit finally relinquished, there’s been a lot to get to this point. I don’t want something as simple as a wood deck to get in the way of an application. It would please you to drop this down as a masonry patio I’d like to make the amendment, I’d like to know when that could happen within the process of this approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean if it’s conforming I don’t care if it’s wood or a patio. JOHN CUNNIFFE : It is conforming, I was uncertain whether or not ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was brining that up because structures typically require 35 foot rear yard setback and a deck is considered a structure. It’s elevated above grade you know (inaudible). JOHN CUNNIFFE : (inaudible) by 15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, if it’s considered well that’s what I’m saying cause it was appearing to look more like a little bit more like a dwelling a second dwelling than an accessory. However, let’s assume it to be an accessory which is what you’re applying for the Special Exception for we got get rid of that term existing because this does not exist now and then we’ll consider it to be an accessory structure and it doesn’t matter whether you have an attached deck or a patio because that would be a conforming accessory setback. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the thing that Leslie is pointing out our Chairperson is also the fact that you’re coming to us first for the Special Exception versus the Building Department for a permit so they may catch something that JOHN CUNNIFFE : We did do a little zoning review with them before MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That’s what I was going to say it’s best to sit down with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They did do the floor area so they looked at it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To check the deck and other issues. I think you’ll find in my opinion whether it has a basement or not, crawl space, a deck it’s an accessory end of story. So, you just meet the accessory setbacks not the primary. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would think so, I’m just bringing it up to be sure. JOHN CUNNIFFE : No, I did the due diligence with the Building Department particularly on the setback of the walkout stairwell to the unfinished basement. So, we had it in front of them although I didn’t bring to light that level of questioning so I’ll take the time to do that again, no problem there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have another question, when we went out to do a site inspection you have on this survey here, shed to be removed but I didn’t see the shed. Was it removed already? JOHN CUNNIFFE : It very well may be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s on the survey. JOHN CUNNIFFE : Yea the survey is recent so ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It’s the far rear left side. JOHN CUNNIFFE : Yea, it’s like tucked away a bunch kind of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I probably just didn’t see it, I didn’t go back far enough. JOHN CUNNIFFE : On the photographs it’s there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I don’t have any other questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may I sort of two different things, Joe I don’t know if you want to speak if you want to say something you might ask the same questions I want to ask so maybe you go first. CAROLINE SCHRANK : Here’s the article from the Suffolk Times, ADU changes green light by Southold Town (inaudible). The Southold Town Board unanimously approved an amendment to the Town Zoning Code regarding accessory apartments, ADU’s during its regular meeting th May 13. Notable changes in the new law include an extended minimum rental permit duration the elimination of a three-year minimum prerequisite to hold a Certificate of Occupancy for an accessory structure and an added stipulation that the rental permits are (inaudible) transferable (inaudible) any future owners would have to reapply for the permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, that is what I was referring to when I said, we went before the Board and asked them to remove the three-year, previously existing structures had to have a Certificate of Occupancy for a minimum of three years. We went to the Town Board and said, please remove that requirement. If you want to bring something new onto your property you know or if you built it a year ago you know what’s the difference so. Originally what the code allowed we were trying to leverage more housing units out of what was already built, that was the idea in 2010 when the accessory apartment in an accessory structure code was adopted. Then putting it inside your house was allowed as of right. We used to previously see them for people who wanted to build them in their houses okay, that became as of right. This code allowed us to say okay, you have a barn, you got a garage you want to convert it to an apartment, okay. There was a stipulation, it had to have been there for three-years. We went to the Town Board and said, that’s getting in the way of supporting this whole idea of creating more options for housing especially for affordable housing. They removed that and that’s what I was referring to earlier. You’re right, I was at the hearing too cause I was the one of the people proposing to remove that three-year requirement. We should have at the time caught the fact that the code continued to say, in an existing accessory structure. It would have been ideal had we done that and that would have been removed and the way would have been cleared to do brand new stuff, bring new things on. Right now, it still says, in an existing structure, the three- year time is gone for the C.O. So, we’re trying to get rid of that so that we can allow people like ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting you to do what you want to do which is to bring a new building onto your property that will be a detached accessory structure with an apartment in it. Does that make sense? CARONLINE SCHRANK : So they made this decision at the hearing but they didn’t read what it said CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no, they made the decision that was proposed to them, they agreed with it and they A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Two different laws, three-year C.O., that was done, the existing structure is in the works. CAROLINE SCHRANK : So you said even though they said that that was approved here it wasn’t (inaudible)? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Ms. Schrank, the funny thing is in your situation you have an existing structure in the rear yard, if you were converting that existing structure into the proposed ADU you would be fine cause it exists. Since you’re proposing a new structure, the law doesn’t allow the new build, it only recognizes existing structures. CAROLINE SCHRANK : Fifty percent of the value of that house can be put into make the existing structure up to code I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s a demo that’s a different code. I mean that’s a totally separate that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a matter of semantics which is really unfortunate but as the Chairperson is explaining, there’s a public hearing to resolve the languaging of how the code was altered that you participated in. CAROLINE SCHRANK : I mean my point is I’m going to lose this grant because MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When does it expire? CAROLINE SCHRANK : It was a six month grant, I got it two years ago and it was a six month grant, they’ve already extended it a year and a half. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but was is the new expiration? CAROLINE SCHRANK : They’re making an exception but JOHN CUNNIFFE : (inaudible) write a letter about this. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think if you explained what is going on with the Town of Southold it’s easily collaborated by anyone on the Town Board or the Town Attorney’s Office I would expect that you can save your grant. CAROLINE SCHRANK : That’s my concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sure that Gwynn Schroeder and Andrea Sullivan they’re certainly going to support and everything they can do the town will support you in every way possible to make sure your grant is maintained. JOHN CUNNIFFE : The good news is they’ve already (inaudible) a couple of bucks so they’re kind of locked in to their commitment (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, my question while you’re here, in your application indicated that you’ll accept a tenant from the affordable housing list. It’s your right to place somebody there, you don’t have to take the next person in the list but have you identified a resident? JOHN CUNNIFFE : Not until this is done. CARONLINE SCHRANK : (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Whose the first that will be living in the unit? CAROLINE SCHRANK : She’s on the list of residents, do you want her name? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : You confirmed it with the Community Housing Department? CAROLINE SCHRANK : Yes (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can ask them for a letter confirming your arrangement. They usually do that; I mean it’s like the Building Department confirms the livable floor area to see if it’s conforming or if it needs a variance which we have the right to do also if it’s a little under or it’s a little over. Then Gwynn and Andrea and I guess they’re calling it Community Housing and Development. CAROLINE SCHRANK : She was trying to move in sooner that’s why I’m a little stressed cause she is low income and she’s someone I know and she has a disable sister that’s going to live there and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So she’s anxious about it. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CAROLINE SCHRANK : She’s anxious about it, her landlord is one of the builders who is giving us a bid and he’s like I can get this done as fast as you know assume there’s a couple of moving parts with people MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would just footnote also and mention the disability, you’re proposing a two bedroom unit that’s of course conforming to the square footage but with one bathroom. CAROLINE SCHRANK : That’s all that’s allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Julie, is it legally responsible and this totally a legal question, to expedite this as much as we could let’s assume that they by resolution let’s assume on April st 21 the Board approves this change by resolution cause I don’t think that it’s that complicated they’re probably going to have the hearing, close it and then vote on it that’s my expectation anyway. Assuming that happens is it not possible then to make a determination even though Albany hasn’t codified it yet they filed it to approve subject to A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : There was a recent one that you didn’t CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was one of Martin’s, I think that was GFA. MEMBER LEHNERT : We did a lot of GFA like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was GFA but that’s I think it’s trickier. MEMBER LEHNERT : That was GFA, they had approved the GFA changed but it hadn’t gone through Albany yet so we just tabled a bunch of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I’m just trying to see if we can do everything that we can do to help you out with speeding this up so I’m asking a legal question. We can’t do what the law doesn’t allow us to but if the law MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well what’s the benefit, let’s say we actually approved it subject to and it didn’t happen so how does that help the applicant? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How will it not be I mean if the wait I’m talking about the Town Board approved it MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Who knows. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no I’m not I’m talking about after that hearing. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I think Nick is saying, you’re not guaranteed the Town Board is going to approve it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I’m not, I’m saying after they Town Board assuming I’m talking about after the Town Board holds its hearing and makes it’s decision okay. Let’s assume they vote to approve this change right, the only thing that delays it then is Albany, they have to send it there to get it filed for it to become state law. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I don’t recommend it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I’m just saying because A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Sure it would be nice to do that but you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Albany doesn’t have the authority to deny it do they? They just have to file it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then say it’s at best one month. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don’t want you to get into any legal (inaudible). I’m trying to be sympathetic. MEMBER LEHNERT : If we (inaudible) by May our Town Board will have acted, one way or the other. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, we’ll know what they’re doing. JOHN CUNNIFFE : With respect to this we’ll call it a scheme and a good and well natured one, I’m again I’m a hundred percent sure that the Long Island Housing Partnership would not allow the grant would go to something that’s not legally approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you got a point there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The applicant puts a deposit down and (inaudible) it just makes for a big mess. Let’s see what Joe has to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got all the answers Joe? CARONLINE SCHRANK : Thank you, thank you for all your kindness. JOE FISCHETTI : Joe Fischetti, professional engineer, I am here to represent the Gia and John Heeg who are neighbors, Gia is my daughter. Section 13 K(1) the section of that code says, the ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting granting of the special exception will not adverse the privacy and use and enjoyment of the adjoining parcel. They have a single-family house and parking areas directly in their bag yard right now, viewing that back yard and we would like to request the Board to ask the applicant to provide a six-foot screened fence on that side of that house. As part of the code further down it says that but I want to make sure that this Board has that as part of the approval. It’s Section 13K and then it goes to 6. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Joe, you’re going to appreciate this, here’s one of my notes from the site inspection, consider planting evergreen screening JOE FISCHETTI : No, I don’t want evergreen screening (inaudible) how close it is, those could be I’m requesting a screened privacy fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Solid wood fence or vinyl fence or something like that? MEMBER LEHNERT : You don’t have a problem with the project you just want a fence. JOE FISCHETTI : That’s my problem, the neighbor doesn’t I mean normally when I have a client who comes to this Board I tell my clients, go to the neighbors talk to them, it didn’t happen. I only got the notice of this hearing from the architect. Anyway, that’s the one I have something else to speak of too. This basement, my understanding is that this basement is going to be for storage is that correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what the architect said, utilities and storage. JOE FISCHETTI : Okay, it seems to me to have a stairway to go down for storage is excessive. I think a bilco door, did you ever try and carry boxes down those stairs and try to make that turn, you can’t make the turn but a bilco door it’s a direct access to it. I would recommend that a bilco door. Also, I have a problem with the way the statement, it says, proposed basement egress walkout stairwell; egress is only if people are down there. This is for storage you don’t need an egress you just need access to the basement. I don’t want a stairway cause that stairway in the future can be used by anyone to live down there, possibility. This Board has to think about that, you’re hidden in that back it’s the house behind the house all the way in the back so you can very easily rent this house to a second family and you have stairway going down it. If you have a bilco door, there’s no way that’s going to happen. I’m just going to let this Board understand what you have there, you have the ability in the future to rent that out and have people go down there, you can’t do that with a bilco door and if you have the question of access for the family you put an egress window in it if you have to but no stairways, you really can’t put stairway down there that’s a problem for the future. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you Joe. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting JOE FISCHETTI : Can we get an answer from this Board on that stairway? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The architect could possibly address that. JOHN CUNNIFFE : I have no problem with the bilco door. Actually the reason why the stair entered into the picture and it was my apprehension before I got to the Building Department the 15 foot setback I assume that it was going to (inaudible) to that and I could have slid the building another three feet closer to Craig’s to the west, east sorry and I know a bilco door with this height I’m going to end up being 6 feet from the building from the edge of it and I didn’t understand that and the reason why it’s actually labeled egress was my review with the Building Department they said, you can have this as long as it’s egress and it would not require setback. So, I did receive upon submission of this as a so that’s why the wording is the way it is cause of my meeting with the Building Department my naivety of the codes that I would have a setback issue. I’m happy to put the bilco door, I’m premise to do that, it would approach closer to the western property that’s the eastern property sorry, western but I have no problem in fact the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s cheaper. JOHN CUNNIFFE : It’s cheaper a hundred percent and we do have two bids back now, the numbers are and in that bid we have the basement is an add alternate and we did look at those numbers for construction of stairwell and the actual excavation and the additional concrete and then with respect to the magnitude of the project and what we have is a balance to make up after the grant it’s highly likely that we wouldn’t even have the finished basement unfinished basement. It really is not intended for that I mean I don’t want to put a water heater in an attic, I don’t like to put you know I don’t want to put an electric panel where in the house when we’re so tight and all those and then a water main and all that other stuff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, cost alone may determine let’s put it this way, if cost allows you to put in a basement with utilities unfinished, a bilco door is fine. If it winds up a crawl space you don’t have to worry about any of it and that may be just between you and your client and the money. JOHN CUNNIFFE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much it’s going to cost you if it’s affordable. What about a fence? JOHN CUNNIFFE : Zero issue with it, we will put up a privacy fence and I understand why he wants it to be solid, there’s going to be some headlights, someone’s gotta go to work shinning lights through into the back yard. It’s a very thoughtful critic and we don’t have a problem of doing that at all. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, sounds good to me. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you show those changes before the next hearing? JOHN CUNNIFFE : Oh absolutely, we’ll probably make the determination on the basement and the crawl space and if we do the crawl space (inaudible) we already have it planned (inaudible) awning window that pops out on the reverse side to get into the basement. Put the water main in there I didn’t want it to be that inaccessible so if shut off needed to occur so I debating whether I’m going to put that water main on the living space just in case there’s an issue (inaudible). That would have to come into the crawl space on 18, 24 inches below grade and come into the conditioned space I gotta figure that out but that’s why they pay the big bucks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom? Anybody else in the audience, no. JOHN CUNNIFFE : This is adjourned to when? th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re going to adjourn this to May 7. JOHN CUNNIFFE : May I ask the Board, when will meeting minutes of this meeting be available that I can transcribe so give to the Long Island Housing Authority? Do you have a name there that you feel would be supportive of the fact that we’re kind of going through some motions here? I’d appreciate to address that person. I’m going to probably handle this for Caroline if she will permit me to, I haven’t asked her yet. th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sounds like she’ll probably agree. We’re adjourning to May 7. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the transcript should be available in about two weeks. JOHN CUNNIFFE : You seem familiar with the folks at the Long Island Housing. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am cause I was on the Affordable Advisory Housing Commission when the first cottages in Mattituck were built. JOHN CUNNIFFE : So, one of our (inaudible) representatives we just I was trying to update him the other day just as a matter so that consciousness of this all to let him know that we were going to be here (inaudible) he’s no longer with them. So, if there is someone in particularly, I want to make sure that Ms. Schrank feels (inaudible) that she has her own sort of things lined up to help someone which I think is endearing but there are the mechanics the pragmatics of the grant obviously vital to have this happening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. JOHN CUNNIFFE : Is there one name out there that is particular to you that I might be best to reach out to or? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really, I can’t. JOHN CUNNIFFE : I understand. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Maybe Andrea or Gwynn may have a suggestion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I would contact our people that you know, Andrea and Gwynn and see what they have to say, how they can help. I don’t think it’s appropriate to recommend. JOHN CUNNIFFE : That’s fine, I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re certainly going to try and do everything we can to make that happen but our hands our tied like yours are with deadlines and laws and th JOHN CUNNIFFE : So, May 7 am I required to make any notifications to anyone? th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s adjourned to May 7. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : One little nit, I know it’s just an FYI it’s not a question, I don’t think it’s important for the record but, Mr. Cunniffe there’s a question the agent representative transactional disclosure form, it asks you if you have an relationship to town employees and you didn’t answer yes or no. So, maybe you just want to fill that form out, check that box. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I’m going to make a motion to adjourn for lunch. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I make a motion to reconvene from lunch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING # 8093 – SAMID HUSSAIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Samid Hussain #8093. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s December 1, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an “as built” hot tub and a sauna accessory to a single-family dwelling at 1) both hot tub and sauna are located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1415 North Parish Drive (adj. to Southold Bay) in Southold. PAT MOORE : I have Samid with me, I forced him out of work meetings, I said, no come just in case any questions come up. This really should be a pretty straightforward request. You can see that the reason it’s a side yard is because of the, the house has an “L” and the “L” on the east side, right hand side makes pretty much everything that’s in that area a side yard. So, it’s a technical variance but the reality is that this is the rear yard of the property. The location of the hot tub it’s a prefab hot tub and a prefab sauna, the tub is on top of the stone patio, the sauna ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting is just to the side of it. I apologize you guys it took some effort to get in there, hopefully you were able to get in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Twice and the answer is, no. PAT MOORE : He actually had to have the caretaker open the door on the left-hand side because there’s a gate on the right hand side it’s like a pull like a typical gate just opens up so you’d walk to the right could get in but (inaudible). SAMID HUSSAIN : Actually looking at the house to the left that’s the (inaudible). PAT MOORE : We had it propped open. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now PAT MOORE : Yes, when we hear you were having problems so you’re welcome to go there, let me know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Three times? PAT MOORE : You can go again if you tell me and we’ll make sure it’s open. Anyway, what you would have seen have you been there is nothing fancy just typical prefab hot tub and the sauna, I sent pictures of both those structures as part of my application. If you have any particular questions, obviously we did not want to push these structures towards the water. What you see on the survey is the water vault so that’s why it’s pushed back towards the house, there’s that little rectangle that says vault. That’s actually where all the water underground water connections are. This was the logical location for these structures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need Trustees for this? I think you might. PAT MOORE : Yea we’re within 100 feet, I’m just looking at CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m looking at the pool setback is yea PAT MOORE : Yea we had 78 for the pool, it’s close. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the application said, Trustees following PAT MOORE : Yea because of the it might call the retaining walls because of the sand, we have a bulkhead then we have sand then we have the wood tie walls so typically I would put in the application to the Trustees and let them tell me, hopefully it might be administrative since it’s pretty far away from the water. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat, can you tell us how this was discovered and why you are here? What prompted the application? PAT MOORE : I was reviewing the plan for some for a building permit for the house and I was asking about these structures, I said oh, you need a variance. He didn’t believe me and I was like, no you need a variance and I had to draw a line of where the back why it was considered the side yards so when we discovered that, we put in the application for the variance. The hot tub as I said is prefab, it was already there and the sauna was it’s again it got delivered and it needs to be permanently installed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you for assuring that. The other question I wanted to ask is, you were cited for the hot tub and the sauna but not for the and your survey it says proposed shower, outdoor shower but the shower is not in the location where it is. Do you need an updated Notice of Disapproval or anything cause the shower is there? PAT MOORE : The shower is that it’s part of the structure MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Of the sauna that’s what I’m wondering. PAT MOOORE : The sauna it’s like a spout, it’s a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well, it’s something that juts out to the side so where you got like the 8 x 8 sauna and then you got a setback of like 11.8 feet indicated it’s like that 2 foot area, it’s on the side. PAT MOORE : Is it on the back? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, it’s on the side. PAT MOORE : Let me get the survey. So, when I say back so here’s the sauna it’s showing as CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a little square on the survey. PAT MOORE : Is it on the landward side facing MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, it’s on the neighbor’s side. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It’s on the waterside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a pipe really with a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It’s a structure. PAT MOORE : I took a picture of it. It’s funny because ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : As Nick pointed out, it’s not located where the survey is showing it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, but the setback is wrong because it says 11.8 and I’d say that’s twenty inches so it’s really like 10.5 or 10.6 it’s detail. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All the Building Department cares about is that it’s not a conforming yard, they’re not concerned about the setbacks particularly. I mean with new construction we might be concerned about a setback and try to get it as far away from the neighbor as possible but that’s not the case here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, the only thing I would think that we have to just whatever decision we have we should just include the shower cause it’s PAT MOORE : Yea, please thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if the Board has any questions, it is LWRP consistent we do have that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Should we read that into the record? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did, I read it in. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have a question relative to the hot tub, it probably requires emptying from time to time for cleaning and the shower creates wastewater, what are the plans for handling the discharges from the shower and the hot tub? PAT MOORE : Come on up and put it on the record because you know what’s there. SAMID HUSSAIN : First I just want to say it’s such an honor to be part of this community, thank you. Just to answer your question, the hot tub they just put chemicals in it they never empty it and that’s how it stays clean. It’s never emptied that’s what I was told and that’s the process. For the shower, it is low water shower and we don’t have any soaps or anything there so it’s just to rinse for like a it’s cold-water kind of thing so it’s just for like you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To get the saltwater off. SAMID HUSSAIN : Exactly to get the saltwater instead of doing it inside the house. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Even swimming pools that many people thing that they don’t get emptied, do get emptied. You might need to empty your hot tub for winterization, you might need to empty it in the event of a repair being needed, there needs to be I think a plan for handling the water when it is emptied. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting SAMID HUSSAIN : (inaudible) first of all did not winterize because we kept it like at seventy-five degrees the temperature and this is like (inaudible) hot tub and they said that you don’t have to empty it, it’s kind of filtrations it’s also saltwater hot tub and then they just put some chemicals in it and that’s what keeps it going. If you have to remove it or do something major or repair as you mentioned then obviously you have to empty and then they have a process, the pool company also services the hot tub. They come and they have these things, containers and with the pump out the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob, any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no other questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any more Margaret. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I’m sorry, I will go back to the shower. I understand that it’s just for rinsing off that’s the intention but the property may change hands, I guess there’s nothing to prevent someone from using cleaners or soaps, there’s no full proof way to say, yes, I make an error and do that. It really seems like there needs to be some provisions for handling the wastewater. PAT MOORE : So, let me just address that because I’ve had issues with the Health Department on that specifically. Generally, the Health if you start pumping grade water into a dry well or a system the Health Department want to get in the picture. They will tell you if you’re not using a lot of water, you just let it dissipate like old-fashion just let it seep around. Now, if you want us to put around the I don’t think it would an astronomical difficulty here is there’s a little stepping platform, we could put some stone under it to keep it in place and just let it naturally dissipate. SAMID HUSSAIN : Apologies, I should have said that, they did put stones. ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think there were stones when I was visiting, I think the picture shows just wood planks that I recall. SAMID HUSSAIN : There are stones. PAT MOORE : I see some stones kind of around the outside of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? Okay, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. We’ll have a decision in like two weeks’ time. HEARING # 8048 BRAVEPORTER, LLC/JOE IAVARONE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this final application was adjourned from December so, do I need to read the notice into the record again? It’s sort of the same thing we were looking at. PAT MOORE : The only difference was that the seasonal cottage the cottage rather than a full dwelling is going to remain seasonal cottage. That was the only CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then let me read it into the record. Braveporter, LLC/Joe Iavarone #8048 adjourned from December 4, 2025. This is a request for a Reversal of the Building Inspector’s June 16, 2025 Notice of Disapproval or in the alternative a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123A and the Building Inspector’s June 16, 2025 Amended October 6, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize the “as built” demolition (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruction of an existing single-family dwelling and to legalize the “as built” demolition (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruction of an ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting existing season cottage converted to year round use at 1) cottage is a nonconforming building containing a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use, 2) the dwelling is less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) the dwelling is less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1425 Bay Ave. (adj. to Marion Lake) in East Marion. PAT MOORE : That’s $6,500 of application fees on this one, it just irks me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It didn’t irk you, you didn’t pay for it. PAT MOORE : My poor client. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, let’s get that straight cause if you’re paying for your clients now let me tell you I’m coming to you next time. PAT MOORE : I put myself in their shoes. I don’t want to rehash everything that we did the first time cause it was a very I think pretty complete hearing. I have Kate Samuels by Zoom so if there are any issues that dealing with the structure, she can address those. I just want to emphasize from the last hearing some of the points which were this property has two addresses, there are two separate dwellings with separate entrance, excuse me separate deed accesses, we have the main house and then we have the cottage. I gave you pictures; you’ve seen from being over there, they’re clearly there, they are not a demolition they are in place. My client bought them and got permits that he needed to get permits, he first put in a building permit for the window replacements, got the building permit for the window replacements. As part of the window replacements, the siding, the roof was restored so it’s in perfectly new condition. His goal here was to maintain what had been there for the last more than fifty years. The hope was that we could continue the use of the cottage as a year-round cottage, that’s how it was used in the past whether or not it had adequate heating. It certainly wouldn’t be code requirements but if he had and he’s agreed that if we don’t if the Board wants to keep it as a seasonal cottage, he’ll keep it as a seasonal cottage. The Building Department and I stand corrected, I didn’t think that they would allow that. They will allow it to remain as a seasonal cottage so that’s why we had the Notice of Disapproval to confirm that if he doesn’t put in a heating system, he can have air conditioning but not the heat, it can remain the way it is. Again, the reasons some of these applications were doubled and their filing fee and why we’re here with a demolition is because the Building Department even though they were participating throughout the whole process when there is the need for structural remediation to meet state building code, all of a sudden now they’re calling these repairs demolition and that’s where we found ourselves. You had me double check to see that maybe the two structures would be exempt from merger last time; I sent a letter and they would have been had the cottage met ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting the 850 sq. ft. It is 700 sq. ft. so it wouldn’t meet the definition of exemption from merger even though in all other respects they were two separate lots, prior deeds had it as parcel one and parcel two. They’ve been and had a PreC.O. so it was recognized that it was built prior to zoning. There may be down the line when he recovers from the financial from all of this, we did discuss the possibility that to return these two structures to their own lots and that way at that point the cottage could be its own get a you know a year-round occupancy criteria. It would eliminate considered the nonconformity of two dwellings on one property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, would they have to add an addition to bring it up to the minimum dwelling size for a minimum dwelling? PAT MOORE : Maybe it depends I’ve analyzed that if I had to come back if I had to start the subdivision depending on how you write this decision because now we have one lot with setbacks, when we split it into two, we have two we have different even though some of the setbacks are going to be identical there will be one or two setbacks will be different because you’ll have a different partition line. So, the Building Department might make us get a variance for the existing house because of its placement. I guess ultimately the variance for the to reestablish this as single-family dwelling it could be through a variance, the Board can certainly say you don’t need to add 150 sq. ft. to make it an 850 sq. ft., if anything he wants to keep it just like it is but it’s you know cost effective but you know we’ll broach that subject when the time comes and be up to the Board if we should expand it or not expand it. Again, the Building Department would have to be consulted on that, I don’t know how they would interpret it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What makes it more confusing too is, there’s no definition of seasonal cottage in the code. So, it can remain as a seasonal cottage even though we don’t know what that is. We know what it is but the code apparently doesn’t know what that is. PAT MOORE : It’s funny because the property card did refer to no I take that back, the PreC.O. had it as a seasonal cottage on the PreC.O. with the house and the seasonal cottage, people were living there year round so that didn’t really stop anybody from living there. We try and make it better these days but if we’re forced to down size it, we the fact is that everything is there, we want to keep everything the same way and you know we’ll entertain any questions you might have but I think you’re very familiar with the property and what we’ve gone through and now we just want to finish this so that he can continue. It’s been a two-year process not your fault just that’s how long it takes for this. Any questions, any issues? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see, Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we’ve been through this quite (inaudible). PAT MOORE : Yea, I know the first hearing was very thorough (inaudible) long, I raised the legal points that I wanted to raise so that record is still there and hopefully we can move on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, hopefully the zoning code update will also clarify you know in a little bit better way some of these issues that arose, not just with this application but with some others also. PAT MOORE : Oh, constantly and I’m hoping that the Building Department will address this demolition issue because that is really the impact of that is much greater than I think was anticipated when it was the definition was put in the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The cost of construction today you replace a couple of windows and that’s half the value of an old cottage. PAT MOORE : Exactly, but remember that when the code demolition it’s as if you have a vacant piece of property and you’re asking for the variances for everything that’s there and worse you’re calling it “as built” and now you’re charging fees that are doubled everything so I’m you know I’m a taxpayer but I don’t think that’s fair. MEMBER LEHNERT : It also throws you into a different category in NYS Building Code. PAT MOORE : Oh, absolutely yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we’re also trying to get rid of this thing that is driving both of us crazy for a while which is that they when you have a second dwelling on a piece of property they’re calling it a nonconforming building with a nonconforming use and the only reason it’s nonconforming use cause there’s more than one of them. It is a conforming use because it’s a resident (inaudible). PAT MOORE : Don’t admit to it on the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not wrong it absolutely. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : In certain situations maybe but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What’s not consistent but that’s because I’m on the Zoning Update Committee all these things are very pressing right now and Pat’s been very proactive for years on all of this stuff so you know ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Article 78’s are not a win for anybody and that’s you know that’s unfortunately for a lot of reasons (inaudible) the goal in this. Again, it doesn’t benefit anybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anymore questions on this? Is there anybody on Zoom? Kim did you want to say something? BOARD ASSISTANT : I just I think the language of the legal notice I left in certain language that I should have taken out. The converted to year-round. PAT MOORE : Yea, I noticed that’s funny I pulled up the notice I got and it had seasonal in it so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to get rid of this one that’s in the legal notice, it says converted to year round. PAT MOORE : Right, the one that was published and we sent letters on had the description correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any more questions or comments on anything from anybody? PAT MOORE : Of course we don’t need (inaudible) after I pulled you in. I don’t know if there’s anything that you can do when you’re writing this that you keep it in back of your mind that if a subdivision were done you know how to keep these as legal setbacks but I just don’t know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t think we can. I don’t blame you for asking but nothing we do here precludes you from any future action. If you want to change your mind and do something else, we’ll see you again if it’s needed. PAT MOORE : Or whatever the rules are at the time cause we don’t even know what the rules are going to be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s true, motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, May 7, 2026 so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on March 19, 2026 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to adjourn the public hearing for #8042, 1460 The Strand, LLC/Demetrios and Vasilla Zioza, Members to May 7, 2026 at 1:20 PM, so moved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye ?? April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to adjourn the public hearing for #8035SE, 615 Pike St. to May 7, 2026 at 11:00 AM, so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one-year extension for #7751 Charles and Kavita Vansant 1288 Smith Road in Peconic to expire April 20, 2027 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Is there anything else the Board wants to talk about? Motion to close the meeting. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye i April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape-recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature / & �� Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :April 13, 2026