Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/07/2026 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 May 7, 2026 10:03 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 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Soundview Sunsets, LLC#8097 4- 8 Jane Weiland #8100 8 - 15 Veradeana Properties, LLC#8099 15 - 30 Peter Stein and Allison Kronick Stein #8053 31 - 35 Gaillard CS Revoc Trust, c/o Christopher Gaillard #8101 35 - 38 Mattituck Plaza, LLC#8098 39- 51 Narrow River Properties, LLC#8102SE 51 - 60 Pristine Projects, LLC#8096 60- 74 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for May 7, 2026. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter on the agenda 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(SEAR)6 NYCRR Part 617.5 © including the following:Soundview Sunsets,Jane Weiland,Veradeana Properties, LLC, Gaillard CS Revocable Trust, Mattituck Plaza, LLC, Narrow River Properties, LLC and Pristine Projects, LLC 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. I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing on Caroline Schrank#8092SE. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting HEARING#8097—SOUNDVIEW SUNSETS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The first application before the Board this morning for public hearing is for Soundview Sunsets, LLC#8097.This is a request for variances from Article IV,Section 280- 18 and the Building Inspector's November 5, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions to a single-family dwelling (per Building Permit #50152 for interior alterations with amendment to include additional work) at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, located at 20210 Soundview Ave. in Southold. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Good morning. These two variances are kind of straightforward and very basic construction, being renovated. They're putting an expanded second story on top of the garage. There was already a second floor there but it wasn't tall enough so we kind of raised it four, five feet. The side yard setback that's mentioned here we find is the difference between a 15-foot required setback and a survey that was done recently about two or three years ago that showed it at 14 feet 10%. We used the existing foundation that matched the original C of 0 that was issued for the house and in the package, I don't know if you noticed it was actually an original survey from Van Tuyl when the foundation was built at 15 feet. My personal opinion is that this might be a survey error but it is more efficient just to come here then to have the property surveyed in its entirety. On the front yard the setback we're looking for a variance of about 5 feet, we have a 4-foot projected deck that goes towards the road, is kind of unique cause the property and the house is built square to each other but the road Soundview Ave. is no an angle so if the deck is 30 feet wide the first 15 feet does not require a variance,the second 15 feet to the distance to the actual street does. Very straightforward and very simple (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, how did you get before us? I mean the work is already done. NICK MAZZAFERRO : This work actually started two years ago and halfway through the job well to get the project started the first thing we did was file a building permit, had conversations with the Building Department, they wanted to get the job going because they were worried about the house was in duress at the time, the basement was flooded.The first time I saw the house it had six inches of water in it and they were worried about the new owners continued deterioration and would be very detrimental to the house. When we filed for the permit with the expanded garage, I worked with the Building Department, they eliminated it from the original drawings and they said you can renovate the house and stop the deterioration but you'd have to come back if you decide to do the second floor of the garage. So, we took the building permit, we started work on the project the original owners of the house had a lot of financial problems and basically the project collapsed. Nancy came and purchased the job but 4 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting it sat for a whole bunch of months. When she purchased the job, it had already been started, they made some basic changes to it and they decided to go for the second floor of the garage but the contractor was active. So, to be cost efficient and just to make sense to get the house buttoned up basically they continued the job so yes, it's already built but it was an engineering decision about preserving the property and then we knew we filed this as soon as they took possession, we did file it right away but we didn't want the house to deteriorate any further and they also wanted to get the job completed so that's how it got to this Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, cause typically you come here to get the variance then you get the amendment,then you do the building. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) application or a regular, it should be an "as built". CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : "As built" yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim is it an "as built" application? BOARD ASSISTANT : The N.O.D. wasn't written as an "as built". CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wasn't but it is. NICK MAZZAFERRO : We filed for a modified permit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea but the structure is built. NICK MAZZAFERRO : But we had a permit already okay and we filed for a modified permit and that's how we got I don't know what category it would fall in whether it would be it is built MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's built without variance relief. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Yes, it is built there's no question about it. I didn't know what the process cause it had a permit to start with whether it would be a modified permit MEMBER PLANAMENTO : With limitations not to build the second floor. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Not with the expansion of the second floor. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right it didn't include the second floor. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Right it was shown but it was like marked out on the plan. It was bubbled and marked not in permit. It was a confusing situation; we didn't know what to call it basically. The variances is for so basic and straightforward. I'll be honest with you, if I was sitting here asking for like a ten percent overage on coverage or a height or a like a setback this is three feet May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting you know it would be different as far as progressing goes, we're looking for an inch and half here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The existing I think side yard setback remains, it's really just about the cantilevered balcony. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the balcony that's the change. It's a pretty small balcony too it's not it's only 4 feet wide, it's what 22.9 feet long. NICK MAZZAFERRO : It gives a good (inaudible) out of the building for you know for egress. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea parachutes out up there okay. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :The application noted that the lot coverage is 29.9% and was granted by a previous application. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Wasn't it 27.4? Either way it's already done C of 0 it's part of the package whatever it was. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It says 29.9 but there's no the decision if that was the ZBA decision granting that coverage was not included I just wanted to understand when it was granted and what the nature of the NICK MAZZAFERRO : I got it from Donna, all the information, all the previous ones. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :There were a couple of old ones but not for maybe someone else can NICK MAZZAFERRO :A C of 0 was issued for the deck,the pool and the tennis court.That totaled up to 27.4 or 29 whichever it is. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : 29.9 NICK MAllAFERRO : But the C of 0 was issued for that and I think the prior decision (inaudible) is in the application. Do you guys have it on file? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I didn't have the numbers of the decision, the decision number was not included at least not in my packet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don't have it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I ask(inaudible)cause when I from my site inspection there's I wanted to ask the question, what's going on between the swimming pool and the tennis court? The area was graded and it seemed to be leveled with some kind of fill, so if there is an intention to do something with that space but nothing is noted on the survey of the plans. May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting NICK MAZZAFERRO : I think it was basic landscaping, I think the owners had the landscaper there. It's got two steps,there was a hill an inclined hill,the wanted the yard more level so the pool and the deck stays and you're going to have a level area that's been set up for drainage, proper drainage and it's going to be grassed and sodded right and then you have another step and the tennis court is going to be restored. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So there's no structure going in that space? NICK MAZZAFERRO : No, no, no the tennis court is going back based on the C of 0 and those two tiers are there just to make it a more leveled surface for kids to run around over there. It's going (inaudible) is a drainage it's baseline drainage, there's going to be landscaping on top of it. A lot of clay up in there so in order to have a landscaping bed they wanted to set up some kind of they actually put a drain in,they set up a base coat and they pitched it to a drain system that would get the water away. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think the application also indicated that when the renovations the additions would connect to an existing wastewater system, what is the nature of(inaudible). NICK MAZZAFERRO : I checked that out two years ago, it's a septic tank, a pre-cast concrete septic tank (inaudible). It was installed I guess in the eighties; I think. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : No advanced IA system? NICK MAZZAFERRO : No, the one that was the number of bedrooms was kept the same, total bedrooms in the house plus the system was capable of doing the four bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? Is there anybody on Zoom Donna? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8100—JANE WEILAND CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jane Weiland #8100. This is a request for variances from Article III, Section 280-15,Article XXII, Section 280-116A (1) and the Building Inspector's January 14,2026 AMENDED January 27, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the permitted rear yard, 2) less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 6485 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. KRISTA JONES : Krista Jones on behalf of the applicant on behalf of the homeowner. We're looking for a side yard relief for the pool location. There isn't enough space in the back yard, we also are we have 60-foot clearance from the top of the bluff approved by the Trustees. Board of approval for side yard relief from you guys. We meet the 15 feet setback is required (inaudible) side yard to the adjacent easement that runs alongside the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have the updated survey that shows what the Trustees approved. KRISTA JONES : Yes,they needed the trees added to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And also, I think the pump equipment was moved? KRISTA JONES : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :To avoid disturbing the roots of a rather large tree. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I didn't see a section view of the pool so my question is, is there a deep end? May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting KRISTA JONES : Yes, there is, it's going to be on this end so you have the patio, you have the steps here into the pool and then the deep end goes (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I was at the Trustees public hearing and I don't think(inaudible)came up but it seems as though to minimize disturbance it would be preferable to have the deep end landward of the bluff not close to the bluff. KRISTA JONES : What is the disturbance specifically? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : You're digging a hole deeper at the end so that is potentially more destabilizing than a shallower hole. KRISTA JONES : So,you want the deep end flipped or do you want MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm asking if it could be. KRISTA JONES : We can take a look at that. I think you know yea we can take a look at that; I think that what's going to happen is, we're going to end up maybe even flipping the patio or doing some sort of modification to the masonry in order to adjust that programming because of if you can see here the patio is next to the shallow end where the steps will be. That is something that we would have to take into consideration as well how it would affect the surrounding masonry if we were to flip the deep end. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually if you were to flip it that would give you an extra 12 feet farther from the bluff,from your 62 you'd be to 74 almost 75 feet. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If the patio went on the other end. MEMBER LEHNERT :The patio is not counted. , MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, but it's pushing the pool back 12 feet. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea, if you swap the pool (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rotating it, like that then yes the setback from the pool which was approved at 62 feet by the Trustees but it's always better to get as far away from the bluff. MEMBER LEHNERT :You disturb more land in my opinion doing that because the way you have to set the machine up to pull the deep end you have to do it seaward not landward as they're proposing now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's true, it's heavy equipment. MEMBER LEHNERT : It would be on the wrong side of the equation to protect the bluff. May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting JANE WEILAND : Jane Weiland, it's also what the pool construction expert said that the heavy equipment was an issue closer to the bluff. MEMBER LEHNERT : Cause you're using a long arm and would be pulling it in the wrong direction and then the spoils would be in the wrong direction, the machine would be in the wrong direction. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : In the same spirit, I think you probably realize we're required to ask for the minimum variance; what drives the need for a pool that's 40 feet long as opposed to 38 or 36 or 32? It could just be a shorter pool that would reduce the variance and still be you know a very nice amenity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't actually reduce the variance but it does provide a greater bluff setback, it's still in the side yard. The variance that we have it's not lot coverage, the variance is strictly it's location in the side yard so the variance is the same. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : There's stipulation too, it's less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : R'ight in terms of the side yard it's the same but the setback is improved. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes the setback. KRISTA JONES : So, your question about can it be a smaller pool MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Shorter, it's not the width that's the issue it's the length that creates the bluff setback. KRISTA JONES : We can also look at that, I mean if that's something that would be in the way of us getting the variance. We do have the bluff setback approved-from the Trustees as well so MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Well the bluff setback is represented in both Chapter 275 and Chapter 280 both Boards have jurisdiction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe you want to confer with your clients and see if they can live with a slightly smaller you know shorter pool, 36 feet maybe instead of 40. KRISTA JONES : Is there something that we can make a conditional approval of the variance, is that something that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you would have to do is amend your application, you need to just tell us what size and then you would have to submit a survey showing that size. What we'll ILO May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting do is stamp what we've approved so if they're amenable to reducing it slightly to push it a little bit farther away from the bluff I mean both Boards you know look at slightly different things. The side yard is not the issue for us, we see that you've added trees and so on, I think your location is good it's the flattest most open part with the least interference. It's just a matter of legally we are required by law to ask for the minimum variance possible should an approval be available,forthcoming so that's what we're doing. We're simply saying, is that it or is the client willing to kind of make the pool shorter? EDWARD WEILAND : My name is Edward Weiland, spouse of Jane, I guess we're talking a 2-foot issue from 62 feet from the bluff versus 64-feet. Other than just for recreation this is for our health in terms of swimming and things like that and doing laps and things like that. I'm not really sure quite frankly that the change of 2-feet from 62-feet to 64-feet from the bluff is going to change anything in terms of the dynamics or the maintenance of the bluff. We are going to have plenty of plantings, we have Zoysia grass there, from the bluff we have a 10-foot setback with plantings. I'm not really sure there's going to be any adverse effect at all from changing from 38 to 40, it makes a little bit difference for us in terms of our use of the pool. I would just hope that the Board can make that determination and understand that there's really not going to be any change to the environment one way or the other from 62-feet from the bluff or 64- feet from the bluff. That's what I'd like to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just wanted to talk about any prior relief granted, examples; do you have examples of people that have received variance relief for pools in the side yard in the immediate area Nassau Point Rd.? KRISTA JONES :This is a wider lot than what is typically in the neighboring properties.There are pools in the front of the yards in nearby neighboring addresses so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Front yard is a permitted use for waterfront properties provided you meet the front yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The principle. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have examples? KRISTA JONES : Not on my hand right now, no I don't. EDWARD WEILAND : I'd just like to know what the definition of a front yard is, is that the water side, is that what we're talking about? la May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, the front yard in this instance refers to the distance between the road and where your house begins that's facing the road. EDWARD WEILAND : Okay, so the bayside would be the back yard technically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be the back yard, yes. EDWARD WEILAND : Our next door neighbors have two pools within 30-feet of the bluff that apparently of our prior two whatever new rules and regulations are and there's been no effect at all with regards to the bluff maintenance or the natural habitat. So, there's already pools similar size as ours which are closer to the bluff that are not causing any difficulties whatsoever. I'm not really sure there's going to be any there would be any issue with regards to environmental issues or how the bluff would be maintained. We of course would maintain it as best we can with plantings that are going to be put in and (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that part of what the Trustees looked at when they approved your proposed bluff setback of 62 something feet? EDWARD WEILAND : I don't know if looked at our neighbors, they had existing structures that are within 30-feet of the bluff.on both sides of us and it hasn't caused an issue so I'm not really sure not to make little of it but nit picking between 62-feet versus 64-feet is really not going to change anything other than our use of the pool which what we'd like to use it for. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would just ask I guess do you have credentials to support your conclusion about no impact to the environment of a 2 or 4 or 6-foot change in the length of the pool? EDWARD WEILAND : Do I have any I'm sorry. MEMBER STEINBUGLER:Any credentials or data, I understand that neighboring pools are closer but it is not known to me under the circumstances to which they were approved and whether it might have been under an alternative version of the.town code. I can't say with what's before me that those are relevant precedence but you have made the case that there would be no environmental detriment to having the pool remain at 40 feet in length versus let's say 2 or 4- feet shorter. EDWARD WEILAND :That is correct. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm asking on what basis you draw that conclusion? EDWARD WEILAND : I've been living there for fifteen years, we know our neighbors, they've had no issues at all with the bluff or maintenance of the bluff with pools being 30-feet from the :1Z May 7,2026 Regular Meeting bluff. We're going to be at 62-feet. Do I have any laboratory data to substantiate that, no but I have fifteen years of experience living on the property and speaking with our neighbors about these types of issues. JANE WEILAND : I have lived there twenty six years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I'll just bring up the fact that we granted relief on this property 36-feet from the top of the bluff for an addition in 2020. EDWARD WEILAND : And knock on wood, the job was completed in 2022 and there has been no issues with the bluff and we had an expansive addition to the property which was approved previously and we have a C of 0 for them.There has been massive construction at that site 36- feet from the bluff without any issues to this point. So, if you're looking for data that's your data. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just wondering, do you want to have examples for the file, should the applicant provide some for the side yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can close it subject to receipt. If you want the office will help you with Laserfiche, I don't is it up and running or is it still MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, it's not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the problem, people just don't have access to our files the way we did because of that cyber-attack and our Laserfiche is still down.That is typical, it would address character of the neighborhood. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Honestly, they could put the pool in the front yard. I mean it's not the ideal location as we all know but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They could but there would be more disturbance and it's built MEMBER LEHNERT :There would be more cut and fill CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : They're starting to go up the slope there's a sloping up, it's more costly and it may require a retaining wall,there's far more land disturbance and you're gaining very little. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a couple of examples, prior relief I think it would be beneficial. 13 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it can be found within reason yea I,don't mind but it's also something that you can Google Earth and you can see very well where the pools are located on either side and they are there legally. MEMBER LEHNERT : We also know this area pretty well. MEMBER STEINBUGLER: But they're not in side yards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a bluff setback it's in a conforming rear yard but it is a bluff setback that was at odds so we are looking at the bluff setback as comparable, we are not looking at its location as comparable just cause now we're looking at a side yard location. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, Nick was asking for side yard locations in the neighborhood right, the examples of side yard locations in the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well look, why don't we do this,we'll close it subject to receipt,give you a week to figure it out, staff will help if they can and if you can't find anything just tell us. Call the office and say, I couldn't find anything. If you can find some swimming pools in side yards along that road and I don't mean anywhere in town. This addresses character of the neighborhood so we need to be in the same neighborhood. Sometimes people make the mistake of looking at prior decisions you know nonconforming locations for pools and they're all over the place,they're not relevant to the subject application. We only need to see if there's anything there may be,there may not be we don't know but we have a request for you to look and see if you can find it. KRISTA JONES : Absolutely CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody, anybody on Zoom Donna? Why don't I do this, why don't we just adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks and then we can close it right or do you want to close it subject to receipt? MEMBER LEHNERT : Subject to receipt. CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Alright, we will close it subject to receipt. What that basically means is that the clock of sixty-two days by which time we must render a decision starts as soon as we receive the information from you.You'll either tell us here's what I got or I couldn't find anything. I'd like to do it within a week, there's no point in prolonging this the property owner probably wants to get this built so you know.Alright, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of prior locations for pools in side yards in the subject neighborhood. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second :14 May 7, 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 #8099—VERADEANNA PROPERTIES, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Veradeanna Properties, LLC#8099.This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II, Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM No. 1000-59-6-23 which has merged with SCTM No. 1000-59- 6-22 based on the Building Inspector's November 21, 2025 Notice of Disapproval which states that a nonconforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot held in common ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983. An adjacent lot is one which abuts with the parcel in common course of fifty (50) feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lots shall merge until the total size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements located at 9425 & 9555 Soundview Ave. in Southold New York. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everyone, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant Veradeanna Properties. I'm joined with Margaret Anne Neimetz who is the owner of the property together with her husband. These two lots were created by deed back in 1948 and basically, they have never been single and separate. Both of the lots were always in like ownership in 1957 they were conveyed out of the original owner to the Striefer family and they by way of a single deed and then the first conveyance out of the family since the adoption of the merger law was to my clients in May of 2021. The merger law as I think you know my understanding of it is really intended to target vacant land and substandard vacant parcels that end up sharing common ownership and to promote you know compliance with zoning with minimal lot requirements in our code. The code exempts parcels from merger if they're improved with 850-sq. ft. of residential structure. Here we have two parcels, lot 22 is improved with single family residence that has a C.O. since 1972 and lot 23 is also improved and it has been improved with two cottages that have been in existence since you know the creations of at least 1950 and they both benefit from Pre-Certificates of Occupancy that were issued right May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting before my client purchased the property. I know what you're thinking okay,the primary criteria here that we have to overcome is, that there was not a conveyance outside of the family since the merger was effectuated. I'm going to ask the Board to hear this story, there's very little precedence and even harder to find under today's circumstances with no Laserfiche but for you pushing past that first criteria but it has happened. You may recall not too long ago there was the Smyth case which was a situation where the Board looked passed an extra family conveyance and reviewed the history of the property and the history of the lots surrounding it and granted a waiver of merger based on a unique set of circumstances. With that in mind I'm asking you to consider what is a pretty unique history of these properties and the fact that they have always been treated as separate parcels even though they have always had like ownership. When my client purchased the property, she went to the Building Department cause she wanted to rent the cottages and the history of these parcels is that they have always, always, always these cottages I should say, they've always been rented from the beginning of time. When she went to the Building Department Mike said look,you have to establish that we can grandfather in this use that they did. So, believe it or not and we have documentation that we've submitted with our Memorandum of Law, Margaret Ann went around knocking on doors and went around the neighborhood and actually was able to trace back to Jean Rourke who provided her with an affidavit and it's a lovely story of how she and her family summered out here and rented those cottages from 1951 to 1958 and Jean even met her husband who she's now married to for nearly seventy years right on the water there outside of the cottage. She submitted that information to the Building Department and was granted rental permits in 2021 and again in 2023 so the Building Department has recognized the historic use of this property; for four years she was granted rental permits and then when she went back to renew Mike said no you can't renew you have to waiver of merger so here, we are. It can be disputed based on the evidence that we've submitted that this property these cottages and these parcels have always historically been used separately. We even got a more recent affidavit from a neighbor Kathleen Rice that verifies the very distinct and historic use of the cottage parcel as a separate rental property.That property as you know it has a separate tax parcel, it has a separate access, all of the improvements on the property there's nothing shared, there's no amenities that are shared between�the properties so as to the balancing criteria I think we can pretty easily check those off here based on the facts. You also have an improved parcel; this isn't vacant land. I understand that we don't have an 850 sq. ft. dwelling here but for that, if we add these altogether you pretty much have that. It is almost like a technical here okay that this is merged because you know if they had joined these things in any point in time even with some type of whatever a little carport or whatever they wouldn't have merged. I'm just asking you to really consider that despite the fact that and we're stipulating okay this was conveyed out of the family we can't argue that point. This is a very unique situation of an improved parcel that has an incredible history as these little rental cottages and my client bought the property with the 1. May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting intention of keeping that going. Obviously, it's a financial hardship for them, they have all this property thinking that they were going to be able to enjoy you know renting these out and having that as they have been for seventy-five years and they did, they were able to do it for four years. There was no worry here's your rental permit there's no problem and all of sudden you can't do that anymore. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well Martin why,why all of a sudden why did Mike change his mind? MARTIN FINNEGAN : They had acknowledged (inaudible) they may have merged at the onset but so obviously nobody understands this stupid law okay, we all hate it but it is what it is but when having conversations and it was like well,you're going to need to grandfather this in they just went on their way. I mean it was kind of dropped and move on to this historic search okay and I think I don't Mike changed his mind. MEMBER PLANAMENTO ': Martin if it's discovered that it's one lot, why can't you rent the cottages?You could still obtain a rental permit for them, it pre-exists. MARTIN FINNEGAN : They have Pre C.O.'s. I don't disagree with you Nick but we're now being told that we have to waive the merger because then MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He's thinking it's a merger until the merger is determined or not determined how could you use the cottages when they're not on their own lot is I think what he's saying. I mean if I'm interpreting what you're saying. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right so, initially it was all you have to do is grandfather it and then four years later it was okay you're going to have to deal with this waiver of merger and here we are. Look, when I.first looked at this, I looked the same way you did, oops I told Margaret Ann this is going to be a challenge cause the code says what the code says. However, I do feel that this is not the typical situation of a vacant parcel and it's not a situation where they actually were using that as you know really a second access to the main parcel, the improved parcel this is completely different. I mean if you've seen it the driveway is way over here and everybody access it it's always been a separate and distinct parcel. So, it's caught up in a law that wasn't adopted until 1995 after this use has been active for fifty years. I'm just asking you to consider the history here. If we look at you know and the fact that for four years the Building Department acknowledged this I mean and she was able to use it and now she can't rent them out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a question, let's theoretically discuss unmerger okay? Now you have a lot without a principle use on it, you have two cottages and no principal dwelling. :171 May 7,2026 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : They have C.O.'s, they're legally existing. I mean if it was a vacant parcel, I don't need to have a principle dwelling to create the lot or recreate the lot they recognize it. We're just seeking recognition and then the use will be what it is. It reverts back to what we thought we had which was you know a grandfathered use of the two cottages we have C.O.'s for them and we have rental permits. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think associated with a primary residence is one lot. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, no I mean they are C.O'd as seasonal cottages. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you look at the chronological history as I've seen it and I don't know what may have been or the house is prior to the house it seems that the house was built around 1960 so the cottages pre-date it so the property owner was using the cottages themselves whether they rented the second one, whether you know whatever the cottages were there they then built the primary residence and then the cottages were subservient to that house. While there's the thought of the two lots and again, I can't speak to how the cottages got there (inaudible) built without seeing the building file you're now (inaudible) with a situation. If the lot is actually recognized as being a single and separate, you're going to have a nonconforming use in a residential zone. So, while you've got the C of 0 the C of 0 1 think has to do with the fact that they're subservient to the house. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well look, the end game here for my client is to get a rental permit okay. I understand what you're saying technically but you know if Mike is saying you got away with the merger so I can give you that's why we're here, I'm just following the direction. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You recognize that it's one lot? You recognize that it's one lot, you got a single-family residence with a nonconforming use of the two cottages which are C. of O'd so therefore you would quality for a rental permit it's now one lot. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't disagree with you. If you want to overturn the Disapproval, I guess you can do that. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : You want two rental permits? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, no, no one for each cottage, the house is not being rented it's just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no but typically on one lot as you know if you have an ADU we'll call the cottage, accessory dwelling it doesn't matter you rent one thing. Now, you want to rent both cottages. May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : And that was what was previously approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I get that but what we're trying to do is sort out how it is that the Building Department acknowledged that it's always been rented and fine and now it's not fine. The argument is probably with the Building Department to be honest. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it has to do with the fact that there's two property cards and that there's you know the survey is showing two separate lots with different tax map numbers. If it was one lot I mean I can't speak for Mike'but there are many nonconformities, there are many other properties where there's multiple cottages on one lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Breezy Shores being one of them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then there's the properties down in Cutchogue off of East Creek so you have multiple historic cottages and here the question is and Mike is just dumbfounded by it is a principle use because it's its own lot or is it subservient to the house as one lot? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's subservient to the house. I think that's the way it's always been. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think that's what the transfer also shows, you got the C of O's from the seller but you didn't get individual deeds when the property transferred. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's always been one deed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and you sort of even said,you perceive it while they were used independently it was always owned and treated as one. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It was always been like ownership,yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would argue here it's one lot with three structures on it, two seasonal cottages and a primary residence. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's always two lots, it's always been used separately, that's what I'm saying, it's always been a distinct use.Yes, it was for the benefit of the owner of the house right they owned both and they rented them out. It was never a situation where you know it was used as a subservient parcel to the it wasn't an amenity that the family used it was rented out to MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : My name is Margaret Ann Neimetz. I just wanted to say something, those there were two parcels right from the start according to my research. In 1947 Arthur (inaudible) bought those two lots. He built those two cottages on that and they were used I think for summer rentals right from the start because (inaudible).Then he sold that lot and the 1 . May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting one on the side (inaudible). Eleanor Schrifer then in the late sixties built the house that is now at 9425 and then that became their principal residence but those cottages have always been separate. It has everything like their own septic everything so those cottages were used separately all the time. Then in '51 they were rented out separately, it was never used as an annex in any way to the house is my understanding. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I touched on the balancing factors to be considered for waiver of merger and they're covered in the Memorandum of Law but I think it's pretty clear that there would be you know this is a parcel in size, it's comparable if you live on Kenney's Rd. if you look around there it's certainly can check that off as comparable in size. We have over a dozen letters in support from neighbors for the waiver of merger for the application which to me establishes that there's no perceivable adverse impacts to the surrounding community if you were to grant the waiver of merger. I mean we're here because we're filing instructions from the Building Department. I think that if we have to, we created the lots the waiver of merger gets waived and we go back to Mike I mean that's what he said, go get a variance and you get your rental permits. I mean that's why we are here. I understand that you know but it is a pre-existing nonconforming use I mean it predated our zoning code and he's acknowledged that but he wants it to be on the one lot I guess is what we come back to. That's why we're here and I understand the code but I'm asking you to consider the entire history here and what you see and what you've heard and consider pushing back the fact that there was the conveyance out to my client because nobody ever imagined that this was going to be an issue because for seventy-five years the use was recognized even the first four years of my clients (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm just very confused bythis application and maybe it is the definition of single and separate but in your Memorandum of Law under part A it says these parcels have never been single and separate and two sentences later it says, the lot has always been separate and continues to be a distinct parcel. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Single and separate is a legal term of terms of title okay but the use has always been separate.That really is going to the criteria that you know it has not been used as a subservient parcel or you know the driveway and this isn't leading to the main house. In situations like that when you come in and they had right (inaudible)the swing set is over there and like that kind of thing and they really did use it as one parcel. That's all I'm trying to say that you know the use has been separate and distinct since creation essentially of this lot. The title has not been single and separate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's look at the consequences of an unmerger. What is to prevent anybody from simply knocking down the cottages, putting up a great big house on it, a new IA system which is not going to set back far enough from the pond to avoid environmental impacts zt3 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting because it's all one single source aquifer and it's all running underground, I know the area very well I live there. What's to prevent that? I mean once they are unmerged technically, they are separate building lots. MARTIN FINNEGAN : There's nothing to prevent that from happening I guess Leslie but that's what the intent of every waiver of merger is to create a buildable lot a recognized lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just asking. MARTIN FINNEGAN :That's certainly not my client's intent okay.They just are trying to restore the exact use that they bought the property for. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They bought it why did they buy with two deeds as two separate parcels? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you come up and explain. MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : Margaret Ann Neimetz. We wanted to; we were told we were not allowed to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who told you that? MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : Well, the broker we were very we knew nothing at all at the time and unfortunately we were not given all the information. We were told that those cottages were rentable and the only reason I considered that lot was because that would be an added incomes so that we can cover our expenses. We asked they said no you cannot so we were forced to buy it as one lot because I think that now with my understanding it was the way it was.To your question about the buildability of that lot, the flood zone goes practically right up onto the road. Honestly my main objective in this is simply to get my rental permit back. I was told that if I proved it was grandfathered in it was okay. To me grandfathered meant permanent. I absolutely have no idea why when I went back it was refused and I was told that, oh I told you it was temporary, I'm sorry I was never told that at all. Then this big open up and the only way I can ever get that rental permit back was to go through this process. It is not my intention to build on that, it is practically unbuildable that property. I just want to use those cottages. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, that was going to be a question that I was going to ask, can you build a conforming house on this lot? It sounds like you're saying no you cannot build a conforming house on the lot if it's discovered to be single and separate. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think there's limitations there. 21 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : Also it would be very difficult the way it is to even have a different septic tank. To move it back it's just those are at angles that go from one to another, it's really not possible it's very difficult I don't know who would spend the money to build on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The flood zone is a big issue and setback from naturally regulated feature (inaudible) and so on and so forth. Even the principal dwelling would be difficult to build today,that's there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I'm.thinking about in New Suffolk just opposite sort of I guess it's the corner of First and Orchard there's like a cottage colony that came before us where there's three or four bungalows, seasonal bungalows with a primary residence on it and they all have rental permits for seasonal use. MEMBER LEHNERT : Cottage Cove. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :So what would stop Mike if this is one lot from issuing a rental permit, that makes no sense. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Is it zoned residential there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's all residential zoning. MEMBER LEHNERT : We actually denied them heat. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a seasonal cottage use it for summer rentals. I guess for me,what is it that you're necessarily asking then because if you just wanted the rental permit for the cottages and you think that you cannot build a house or you would be very restricted if and when you had a separate lot to build a house but you don't want to do, if your end goal is to just to have the rental permits issued on the cottages as recognized in the past are you fine with one lot? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Mike is telling us we have to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think they're fine but Mike has now changed his tune and decided first we'll give them rental permits and now we won't. MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) single and separate lot to (inaudible) we'll do it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would (inaudible) the other way, I mean as I know Mike if it was a single and separate lot so you don't qualify for the rental permits cause there's no primary residence. MEMBER LEHNERT : Legally how can he do that if he issued them already? May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : If we read it in the file it says, denied because this I think was the application for the 2025 permits, the lots have merged. In my mind there's a possibility that it was there was a question in his mind in 2021 and 2023 if the merger had taken affect and perhaps by 2025 he had confirmed the merger had taken effect. I say this as a possibility I do not know. MEMBER LEHNERT : And if the merger took effect it would be an accessory cottage. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With Pre-C.O.'s MEMBER LEHNERT : With Pre-C.O.'s MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean the end game is rental permits right? I don't think that's why we're here we need to have the merger waived MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) if we denied it, it's one lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bottom line is we need to talk to the Chief Building Inspector. The only way we're going to get clarity from his point of view is to get his point of view so that's one thing. However, I do want to see if there's anybody on Zoom or in the audience who wants to address this or if the Board Members at this point have any other questions. MAUREEN O'CONNELL : My name is Maureen O'Connell and I live across the street from my new neighbors (inaudible). They have done a beautiful job of renovating. I've been there with my late husband and I bought the property at 2855 Kenney's Rd. in 2002. My main concern is the beautiful wild life. If they did divide the property and built a house on it, would it affect the geese and the fish and the Great Pond and the beauty and the integrity of the North Fork?That is my concern. As far as rentals go, they always seem to have nice people there, there was an issue with one of the renters across the street with a stockade fence where they found hypodermic needles so there's some CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That wasn't their property that was on the other site. MAUREEN O'CONNELL :They found they put up a stockade fence up in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to address the Board. MAUREEN O'CONNELL : I'm sorry,they put up a stockade fence but prior to that everybody has been very nice whoever they rent it to. As I stated you divide the property Mr. Best owned it before he kept the land beautiful. My only concern is that they would build a home there. Who's to say if they divided the property, would they be able to (inaudible). 7-3 May 7,2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not without a lot of difficulty but it would still be considered a legal residential lot, yea. MAUREEN O'CONNELL : Okay, that's all I wanted.to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : I want to say something about the hypodermic needles, I just want to tell you that the neighbor (inaudible) was our he had access to go through, those were not hypodermic needles it was some progesterone use of vials he called the police. In consequence we put a fence so he was not disturbed and we had our privacy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you put up that stockade fence? MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : He had half of it done and I did the other half but even the police said that he had no right to accuse us because he had no proof. His was right on the road I just want to clarify that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ms. Neimetz I'm sorry since you're up, Ms. O'Connell said something, I'm confused because I thought that you purchased the property from the Treifers MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Who are the Bests? She said the Bests owned the property. MAUREEN O'CONNELL : I think it was Mr. Best, Carol Best's father who was there for a very long time. MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : No MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's in a trust on the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So he was a tenant? MARTIN FINNEGAN : A trustee of the trust. MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : No,she was one of the daughters in the family and it was in a trust. Perhaps she's referring to that but (inaudible). LYNN NORMANDIA : Lynn Normandia,first I'm here because I have two different addresses for Kim so I sent it my letter to both of them and I wanted to make sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it. 241 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting LYNN NORMANDIA : Good cause a neighbor also sent them, she called a different address so I wanted to make sure hers was in but that's her business. As I understand it code 280-11 there are three tests for a property to be unmerged, the last being environmental impacts physical or whatever and these two cottages as lovely as they are, are almost abutting the lake. I understand there's no way to put the IA septics in but without them and they're summer rentals so that's when our lake is at its worst biologically is when effluent is going into our lake. I consider that an environmental impact that deserved to be considered when this testing is over. Otherwise,you have my letter,that's fine, I'm glad you brought up the Laserfiche because I've been trying and trying and I thought it was optimum why I couldn't get through on but it's the Laserfiche that's just not working. According to my letter, besides the septic we do have a beautiful view and it would be a pity to lose that.They're adorable cottages and they've always been rented as we see them too but we are looking at today and how badly the lake is being polluted by so many things and those septic systems are just not going to help haven't helped and now it worse and worse. So, please consider that and if they can only put it those septics it would be at least resolve that problem. The other problem of future owners and what they might do with that property we all know it's an unbuildable lot. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : I just want to say that thank you and we one, never want to build anything over there, two, like I said a lot of people around the lake have got the same kind of septic system those are only used for three months.We just have no intention of doing anything because that is a really beautiful property, it was built in'47 and it's got cinder block and there's so strong it's not going to go anywhere. I just want to say that we want to keep them the way it is because they're really part of that Southold community and we want to look out for them and make sure that they don't get destroyed or anything like that is all I want to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a question if I might please,would you be would you want to unmerge these two lots if in fact the rental permits have been renewed? MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : Look, I just want something permanent, I don't want to go through this again and again: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : Yes, so my real concern is the rental permits and I'm only here because Mike Verity told me the only way I can get to rent those cottages if I was to prove to him that they were rented before'57. By a miracle I got him that. I have absolutely no idea why, absolutely no idea why suddenly I was told, oh that was only temporary I want you to go and unmerge the lots. Those were his words to me, I'm sorry I have nothing in writing but those May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting were his words to me. To your answer, yes if you I can just rent those properties, I would be happy. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Any other questions? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I wanted to I think-you made the point that if the Board could look past the transfer of the parcels outside the family the project the application would meet all the other criteria for permitting a merger and I want to go back to the notion that if they are unmerged the lot with the cottages could become a building for a single a new single-family home although that may not be the intent of the current owner, properties change hands and that we can't ignore that possibility. The third test is, whether the unmerging will cause an adverse environmental impact. A quick calculation says that if the cottages are rented for let's say generously four months a year, they're unconditioned so it's hard to imagine being rented for more than that and they're occupied each by two people that's sixteen people months of nitrogen generation. If a house were to be built and occupied by a family of six, parents and four children or a family of four with an ADU even with an IA system the environmental impact would be worse than two cottages rented for four months. I don't in my mind can't rationalize this application and what could be done with the property, it doesn't pass the test of no adverse environmental impact but I want to give you the opportunity to respond. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think we're doing a lot of speculating here about what could be, I think any let's say somebody buys it in twenty years and wants to build a house there, it's certainly not the intent of my clients do that. I do think that the IA system would mitigate any potential environmental impact, that's why we have them and I was suspect that by the time that happens that that technology would be even better than it is today. I don't believe that there's an immediate environmental impact beyond what has been in existence for seventy-five years from the use of those cottages for the continued seasonal rental of them.That's all we're here asking for. I can't speak to what might happen down the road Margaret, I don't know how to quantify that okay. I certainly am not qualified to sit here and testify as to what the potential of this would be. I don't think that physically we're asking for status quo so physical impacts, none. I think the environmental impacts are just speculative at this point, we're just asking to maintain the status quo. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would point out that although we can't predict the future, an unmerged lot would have a new owner that has as of right the ability to build a home. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right, comparable in size, it is nearly a half-acre parcel and I think there would be plenty of room to site a sanitary system up by the road that would be well away from the water body and would mitigate any potential impacts. 2 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That's where we disagree. An IA system only reduces approximately seventy-five percent of the nitrogen. My point perhaps I made poorly is the increased occupation of a house year-round by a family of say five or six people or four people plus an ADU even with the mitigation of nitrogen removal by an IA system would exceed the seasonal occupancy of the two cottages. My point is that there is nothing that this Board or the Building Department could do about it. It would open the door to that and that would be an as of right use. There is no way to prevent that. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, look the reason that the merger law in part was put into effect was to reduce density, to reduce septic systems and so on but it is what it is. I want you, you made reference to the Smyth application. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, I have a copy of that if you want it. This is right on the Main Rd. in Cutchogue. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : With the barn, Smyth. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'm not suggesting that the background (inaudible) but it's a situation where there was a unique history of the creation of the lots and everything and the Board (inaudible) was ten years after the conveyance. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't understand the correlation cause that was three lots. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'm not suggesting the history is identical, all I'm saying is, the only precedent that I can hand up to you today for when you went passed the extra family conveyance okay, that's it. You can't say you never did it before, that's all. I'm not going to sit here and argue that you know what happened to the Conswella's is what happened here okay but you like to ask for precedent then here it is. I'll hand this to Liz and that's all I have to say about it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Martin,the only thing I would add cause I'm still so confused with what Mike is or is not doing or why we are here CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's why we need to talk to the Building Department and find out. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Research Cottage Court because that's the exact same situation and this is a much larger property than Cottage Court, that's like a tenth of an acre. 2-71 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are not going to know until we speak with the Building Department to find out what changed between the issuance of a rental permit and a discovery that the only way to do that would be to put to unmerge them. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea, I mean they have Pre C. O.'s they issued C.O.'s I have MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I almost feel like Mike wants clarity on whether it's merged or not merged and either way MARTIIN FINNEGAN : I mean we're not (inaudible) of the town code (inaudible) I can't argue that and I'm not so do you want to adjourn this do you want to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we should adjourn this to the Special Meeting and let us talk to Mike and then we'll have a better idea where we need to go with this. I doubt that we'll need any more public hearing unless information is introduced that I want you to be able to respond to. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Obviously we would like to know what is if it's going to be part of the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely, let's just do that. Let's look at this further and see what in the world is going on. I mean we're familiar with the history of the property sort of you know enough,we've been there,we've seen it we know it's been rented and we know what the client wants and the client only wants it because she wants the rental permits. She's happy to leave it as one lot and rent her cottages, correct? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,so let's find out what's going on from Mike's point of view and then we'll take it from there. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Fair enough. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that make sense to everybody? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes . MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed but just procedurally you said you don't feet there should be another hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I said I don't know until we speak to him. 7-81 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin wants the right to respond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then in theory what might happen is we give Martin some sort of a Kim or Julie would be in touch with Martin and then we make a determination whether we need an additional hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're just adjourning to the Special Meeting without any determination about whether we're closing or whether we're adjourning to another hearing. We don't know that until we speak to him, you will be informed of what the conversation was about you know MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think the concern is, with the outcome of that if he says, eh alright I'll give them rental permits it can't be we're coming back every two years to have this conversation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no it needs to be resolved. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I needs to be something that is you know a permanent resolution. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :"That's something that obviously if Mike was amenable or you'd have to get something in writing and put it in the file, that's it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Won't it have another tax map number assigned to it? (inaudible) Suffolk County tax map number. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Suffolk County is so far behind on those tax maps. MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) legal fiction that only exists in Southold Town okay. Nassau County and everybody else in the world these are two separate lots okay. All it does is impact buildability nothing else, not title, not the tax status of it nothing it only upstairs it's not buildable anymore that's it. It's a separate parcel MEMBER PLANAMENTO :This is where it's definitely speculation of projection, if it's discovered or in conversation where Mike says,you know,we'll issue the rental permit because it's merged to your point, what' to stop him I mean I don't think he would do it two years from now when he goes to renew the rental permit but that's what you're saying that you'd like to MARTIN FINNEGAN : That's why we're here, (inaudible) merger then give them the waiver of merger and we're just going to resume doing what we were doing. May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : And if it's unmerged he can just as well come back and say it needs a primary use. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, which is the weird part. MARTIN FINNEGAN :To Margaret's point that's great so we'll build a house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we need to chew on this a bit and find out exactly MARTIN FINNEGAN : I understand this is about this conventional application and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What evidence does he have to say it was merged? If you have two tax maps where what research did, he do to say they're merged? MARTIN FINNEGAN : We can't dispute that they're in like title. I mean under the code both parcels Veradeana Properties owns both. So, we can't dispute that and look if I can there was clearly some bad advice given and but it would have still have been cause it would have been prior to '21 it would have been in like title July 1, of'83. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else that wants to address the application either on Zoom or in the audience? I make a motion to adjourn this application to the Special Meeting on May 211t MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 301 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting HEARING#8053— PETER STEIN and ALLISON KRONICK STEIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Peter Stein and Allison Kronick Stein #8053. This was reopened from the public hearing on January 22, 2026. It's been a while so I'll just read the Legal Notice into the record. Request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A (1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 20, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and reconstruct a new single-family dwelling at, 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, 2) less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff. Wait a minute wasn't there, there should also be a Notice of Disapproval for a pool in the side yard. What am I missing here? I must have an old one. MEMBER LEHNERT: Location of dwelling puts the existing accessory swimming pool partially in the side yard. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The description on the Agenda is correct. So, it's a side yard pool and just bluff, no more side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so it's pool in the side yard and bluff setback. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning again everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. in Mattituck for the applicants. Yes, we are back and as you may recall we had been requesting side yard relief with our initial application because that's what the Trustees had approved and my clients felt that they shouldn't deviate from what the Trustees had approved, neighbors had some issues with the side yard,they didn't really have any concern with the bluff setback relief requested. We did go back and revise the plans as you know and eliminated the side yard, we pushed the house over but in doing so it created or triggered the need for relief for the existing pool which has been there and is C.O.'d and everything. One other little side conversation I guess was,there are some pool mechanicals on the pool that are kind of straddling the property line to the property to the east and they're all going to be relocated, there's a notation of that on the plans. Right now, essentially it boils down to when the house shifted there was a slight increase of just a foot of the bluff setback relief needed but we just kind of shifted over and there is a deck a deck that's going to be removed actually so the area of disturbance of construction is essentially largely within the pivoted footprint and that's where you know we stayed.The Trustees did review this again and did administratively approve the amendment to this location on their March 20th or March 18th meeting, the (inaudible) is dated March 20th. I assume you have that and if not, I can hand up a copy of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have that? I think we do. 3 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Just to remind the Board, you're familiar with the location here this is nobody can even see it you know there's two vacant parcels its way up off of the North Rd. and there's kind of staggering of the house to the east so all of the construction is compliant with the pier line requirements well within the house to the east is substantially closer to the bluff. The bluff kind of meanders here so at its closest point we're at the 61 feet, it actually is much further most of the house lays much further from the bluff. I'm happy to answer any questions I thinkthat it's pretty straightforward in terms of we've addressed a lot of the criteria previously I don't want to beat the dead horse here but we would suggest that, the neighbor by the way they're not here to opposed. We have been in constant communication with them, they were very happy about the movement obviously the elimination of the side yard. They had asked, you may recall I think Pat had asked that my clients deal with the bluff revetment it was kind of a break out and that is under way, it is in the DEC right now, I've shared the plans with Pat.The DEC is actually the neighbor to the east is actually the neighbor to the east is actually granted access for the DEC to use their stairs to get down there an inspect so all that is in the works. As soon as we get the green light from the DEC that's going to be submitted to the Trustees as well. We have done, my clients have done everything that they can do to be good neighbors here, compliant as possible there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are now looking at I don't think any of us had a problem at all with the pool in the side yard, we just wanted to legalize it for you. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's just a technical because of the shifting of the house. I know there was a concern about the mechanicals so I just wanted to make that clear for the record that that's been (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Since this is now a new house that's being constructed right, even though the Trustees have looked at this I mean why can't it be conforming? I mean you got a pretty good sized lot here other than what it does to the swimming pool which is a no brainer I mean why can't you just push it back and make it conforming? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think that number one cause as I said, even though it is moving over the we're staying essentially within the footprint the area of existing (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but you don't have to do that, you don't have to stay within the MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think there's also the topography of this lot is such that it would be worse to move Dav addressed that previously, he's supposed to be here, I don't know where he is. The location was I mean essentially, you're talking about pushing the house down the hill, you go up a hill to get to the property. That just wouldn't work. I think that right now and May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it would work, they just don't want to do it. The architect decides said he didn't feel he wanted to do it; he'd like it where it was but there's no way you cannot physically not do this. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think the what would be required in terms of excavation and disturbance of the property would be far greater than what we're talking about here. We also have a situation where we you know this is entirely within the character, you granted bluff setback relief to other properties up here even more significant bluff setback relief for construction projects, one at 32 one at 35 so you know I don't think at 61 feet here that which actually goes up to 75 feet is you know substantial relief. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : (inaudible) bluff setback variances for new construction as opposed to an addition or alteration? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think they were renovations of houses. I think you know my clients have made an effort here to become conforming as to the side yard and you know I think that this is just the way this is. I mean this is the house where the house has always been in this location. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : But to Leslie's point, it doesn't have to be and I will in the prior public hearing I think four out of five members of the Board asked if the house could be brought Landward given that it's not using the existing foundation so it's not constrained to its current footprint. Multiple times we asked if it could be brought forward and in fact the architect did reply at one point yes it could be brought forward 35 feet. It seems like it's possible and it might be more expensive but maybe 35 feet isn't the right number but it seems entirely feasible to bring it more landward. Look, I can't answer that so I think what was proposed here was with the understanding that you know we're staying as I said,within the existing area of disturbance on the property and that seems to be what the Trustees have been pushing for initially when they didn't even want us to move it all,they wanted us to stay in the existing footprint.They're okay with shifting it over for the side yard compliance and staying in that area and again,that's what I think was driving the siting of the house. It's also the topography of the I mean yea, I mean it's a waterfront parcel I mean having a house down on the road you know is not ideal right. I mean I understand that maybe it could be shifted a little bit, I don't know for sure exactly how to respond to that so if you need answer for that I'm going to have to adjourn this and get you some more feedback on it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'd also like to I don't know I don't mean this question to be rude but what evidence is there that the Trustees preferred the house in its current location? Their public hearing transcript does not reflect anything touching on that, their field notes do not reflect anything touching on that and one Trustee I spoke to indicated they would always prefer to have a structure moved further back from the bluff. I don't I can't find anything in the record 331 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting to support your statement that the Trustees prefer it in its current location compared to bringing it more landward. MARTIN FINNEGAN : When I had the original field inspection with the Trustees I don't know what it is now,two years ago that was what I took away, leave it here don't move it.That's me personally having all five of them on the property walking around and talking. That didn't bear out in the minutes of the hearing, it is what it is but, in my experience, I think they would always prefer not to have you know more construction on the bluff. I think that's what I understood it to be. That's it, I did not attend the hearing as you did and I'm not disputing your recollection. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have the transcript here but MEMBER ACAMPORA : Can they just renovate the house, why does it have to be demolished? If that's where they want it, alternative thinking if you can't have it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : We're going to be in the same boat Pat because if they knock down two walls it's deemed a demo and we're here anyway for relief. It doesn't really help. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to change definitions. Rob, anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience want to address this? Anybody on Zoom? Okay, what do you want to do,just close? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Can I just adjourn it for two weeks and I can talk to Dav? I honestly thought he was going to be here and he could have addressed that better than I can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that's what you want. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't want to close it and have a situation where I have to come back and ask you to reopen it so I just rather just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so why don't we just adjourn it to the Special Meeting and then we close you know if you want to submit stuff between now and then. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In writing so there's no testimony, there's no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no I mean it would just be stuff in writing that you would 341 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea, that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on May 215t MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye . MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#8101- GAILLARD CS REVOC TRUST c/o CHRISTOPHER GAILLARD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Gaillard CS Revocable Trust c/o Christopher Gaillard #8101. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 21, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing seasonal dwelling and convert the cottage into a year-round single-family dwelling at, 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 556 Bell Hill Avenue on Fishers Island. SAM FITZGERALD : Good morning, the main mission for this project is to correct a couple of functional safety and building code issues that have existed in the house since the early 1970's. Just real briefly, the structure here was built in 1914 as a one-story carriage house that served a larger estate. At some point a second story was added for servants' quarters. Access to the second floor was only from an exterior stair. Later the first-floor garage was converted to living space so now it's a two-story dwelling but still with access to the second floor from an exterior stair. Finally in the early seventies a small addition was added to the house that housed a spiral stair and so for the first time the house had interior access to the second-floor from the first floor and at some point, before this addition was put on heat was added to the house. So, we don't know when but it was certainly there before the 1970's. The spiral staircase has been a problem since the beginning, it's willfully non code compliant it's too steep, it's too narrow a 35 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting very low head height. What we'd like to do is we'd like to remove that spiral stair and in its place would like to increase the footprint enough to allow us to have a comfortable code compliant stair to the second floor.The circulation in the house is already set up to have a stair in that same corner so we'd like to have our new stair to be in that same location. The plan is pretty simple,we want to take that 1970's addition and we want to extrude it out about 11 feet Or'so to accommodate our new stair. The existing house is or falls mostly within the required front yard. Our addition is set way back from the front of the house however it will encroach into the front yard by about 16 sq. ft. The other aspect of this project is a pergola structure on the other side of the house.The old garage space that's in the main part of the house that's the closest to the road,that's now a large sort of living/dining area. It's the only sort of quote, public living space in the house, this is one large room. Directly off of that is a patio on the southside that's been there forever and this patio is the only outdoor living space that's directly adjacent or off the interior living space. So, the-patio is in the right location for the house for the flow and circulation the patio is in the right location. The problem is that in the summer in the afternoons that side of the house just gets really baked by the sun, that patio gets baked and it's pretty uncomfortable to be out there on some afternoons in the summer. I would like to add a lightweight pergola structure over the patio that will give us the shade that we need to solve our sun problem. The pergola will also I think it was a sense of enclosure which the patio needs. The house and the patio are fairly well exposed from the public road so I think that the pergola will also give the patio sort a feeling of a more privacy which I think that the neighbors would appreciate as much as the occupants of the house. The patio is actually almost completely within the required front yard so anything that build on top of it would require variance.We looked at options that or solutions that wouldn't require a variance and so there's things like a retractable awning that's the full width of the house on that side or there's you know freestanding umbrellas or other movable shade systems. Looking at this, I mean those are all you know what we call sort of back yard solutions those are fine for the back yard but not for the front yard, not for this location so we need more of a front yard solution for the sun. What is a front yard solution? I think it's something that's elegant,that's attractive that's going to enhance the architectural character of the house that's going to generally be a compliment to the house and to the neighborhood and I believe that the pergola does just that. I'll be happy to take any questions you have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob we'll start down there. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything? 36, May 7, 2026 Regular_Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A few questions, one, I just sort of a comment in my packet I didn't have a survey I have a site plan where the dimensions are hard to read. Was there a survey offered? SAM FITZGERALD : I believe we did have a survey that was included with the packet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have a site plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The site plan is taken off of a survey and stamped by a licensed design professional. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right,stamped by the engineer,the numbers are difficult to read but I was just curious if anyone else has a survey. SAM FITZGERALD : We did have a survey that was MEMBER PLANAMENTO: I was just sort of askingthe other Board Members.The other question I just wanted to make sure that we're talking about the same thing, because the pergola is attached to the house the setback in fact is the 9.25 feet and not the 12 feet where the house stops? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea,that's right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually I do have a third one, I have a note there was a comment about the garage, there's an accessory garage structure and it said something about a residential use, is it an accessory garage? I didn't have the benefit of a site inspection, what is the garage structure being used for? SAM FITZGERALD :There is a separate detached accessory that's on the same site and it's being used for a garage, there's no dwelling or no apartment it's just a garage space. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have a question,the patio is on the south side will a pergola provide sufficient shade? In summertime it seems like there'd be a lot of exposure east and west. SAM FITZGERALD : Right so. I think what we're trying to do is trying to find the marriage between the most function of sunshade while also coming up with an attractive architectural solution. We can design the actual pergola structure itself the roof portion to provide shade. Thankfully the sun is high in the summertime so we're getting we're not getting a lot of sun coming up on the side. The trick here will be to make sure that we design the actual sort of pergola roof structure to be able to give us the shade that we need. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : But the pergola is open other than the semi horizontal beams, the space between the horizontal beams is open? 37 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD : Right, so I think what would happen is that right so, it's going to be an opened roof structure. What will happen is that most likely within those beams in between them will be some lightweight fins that we put in there that would do a fair bit of the heavy lifting for the sun shade. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else? Is there anybody in the audience, on Zoom? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, thank you Sam. Motion to recess for lunch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second 38 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING #8098—MATTITUCK PLAZA, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mattituck Plaza, LLC #8098. This is a request for a Use Variance under Article XI Section 280-48A (2) d and the Building Inspector's July 11, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct additions and alterations to an existing storefront at 1) buildings containing a drive-through or drive-up window are prohibited located at 10095 Main Rd. in Mattituck. BILL GOGGINS : Good afternoon Members of the Board and Chairperson. Our application is a use variance to install a handicap prescription delivery access window for handicap people who have been issued a handicap parking permit by the Town of Southold. So, it's kind of a narrow application.The location is the same,general location where the Planning Board had previously allowed a bank drive-thru window.The structure and window still remain although the window that we're asking for is 20 feet further to the east. Any safety issues (inaudible) past the pedestrian circulation curving, stripping or signing has already been addressed by the Planning Board for the approval for the previous bank drive-thru. It's already an (inaudible) condition that's safe. Both handicap delivery system window is a consistent use within the character of the neighborhood, it is consistent with the American with Disabilities Act which is a landmark bill of rights (inaudible) we're aware about (inaudible) discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Any medication deemed by the ADA as a major life activity meaning it's essential for people that (inaudible). Again, the location is unique in that it's already been approved and (inaudible) as a bank drive-thru area for over thirty years. The benefit to handicap people who are wheelchair bound as well as others recovering from surgeries is pretty important.The drive thru used by a pharmacy also complies with the ADA as it reduces exposure by elderly people that (inaudible) threatening viruses providing for the health, safety and welfare of those who are (inaudible) in our community especially those with compromised immunity systems caused 39 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting by AIDS, virus, cancer treatments, auto-immune deficiencies. Access to pharmacies especially those with a compromised immune system meet the requirements for the ADA.The applicant's drive-thru is a preexisting structure previously used by Capital One Bank, now we seek use by Walgreens to dispense medication for those in need. Banking and healthcare essential to the community and both meet the ADA criteria unlike fast food restaurant drive throughs which are not a major activity and is completely different than what we're asking for here and if you have any questions, I can answer any. CHAIRPERPERSON WEISMAN : I presume you got a copy of the Planning Board's comments? BILL GOGGINS : I did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to address them? BILL GOGGINS : Sure, the Planning Board said that the approval will weaken the town code's prohibition of drive up facilities, it won't at all.There's a lot of cases out there that say fast food drive thru windows can be prohibited in use by towns and municipalities. They (inaudible) health, safety (inaudible) concerns which are great, in fact I was approached about six years ago by a fast-food conglomerate to try to seek approval for a drive thru and I rejected it because I knew the law was against us so I wasn't going to take the case where I knew that I wouldn't be able to succeed. So, that's their concern, it's not really a concern because there are cases actually a McDonalds case where the court said you know the need for a late-night hamburger is not an essential need for somebody that is handicapped. There's a definite difference between access for handicapped people and for the general public. They also claimed that curbside pickup exists and that's more desirable, I would argue the opposite, curbside pickup if you pull up and I know this pretty well cause I've represented a woman named Janice Choo, Buzz Chew is a car dealership in Southampton a lifetime resident here in Southold, his wife was in a snowmobile accident and she's paralyzed from thoracic two downward and I know what she has to go through in driving her vehicle and trying to get access to medication. She says the problem is that you pull up, a person has to run out,give the medication and she might have to give a credit card or cash,the person has to run back in, process the payment and run back out. That's four times an employee of the pharmacy has to cross over a lane of traffic to get to a parked vehicle and back.So,they have to do those four times and that exposes that person, it's a safety issue.A drive-up window is you just pull up,the window is right there,all the exchanges are right next to you so you're not worried about a car passing between you,you're not worried about hitting somebody in that area. Again, this drive-thru was already approved for banking purposes so all this safety issues are there.That's the other problem I had with them.She talked about well not she but the Planning Board talked about vehicle stacking, pedestrian circulation, curbing and hours of operation.Vehicle stacking means, how many cars are backed up and I've 401 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting got some photographs which I'll show you in a moment that the (inaudible)that is there about ten cars lengths at least which is more or equal to other existing drive throughs for banks.Then she I mean the Planning person made a comment I keep saying she so I'm thinking about Heather, it would be a proliferation of drive-up facilities she claims and this is like (inaudible) the sky is falling, it can't happen the law is completely against it. I think that was kind of a red herring cause there are so many cases in the United States that deny drive up access for restaurants. That's really basically it. I want to think what else they add, complained about. Hours of operation, that could be limited that's not a big deal but everything else that was brought up I've addressed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to address the use variance standards? BILL GOGGINS : Sure CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Financial hardship, uniqueness of the property and so on. BILL GOGGINS : The property is unique because it's probably the only large commercial area in Mattituck. There's only one there, there won't be any more, as we pretty much know other applications have been made to put in a similar commercial area and they don't exist. This already has again, a previous drive-thru window area that had been used for probably over thirty years. It's also consistent with the neighborhood, you have about three hundred feet away you have Chase Bank with two drive throughs, about four hundred feet away you have a drive-thru at Dime Bank, a drive-thru and an ATM and then probably fifteen hundred feet down the road you have Capital One who has two drive throughs. To give you an idea of how close these are, I've got photographs. The first photo is, Dime Community Bank at the corner of Bay Ave. and Main Rd. is (inaudible) close to the site where we are seeking our handicap accessibility window that's the first photo. The second photo is the drive up there's two drive up areas at Dime Community.The third photo is Chase Bank and the fourth photo is their drive- up windows, lanes. The fifth photograph is Capital One Bank which has two drive throughs at that bank. Now, Capital One I think was approved I think in 2018, Chase was approved in 2010 and I think Dime has been there since 1970 without incident.The sixth photo is a photo facing east but where the existing drive-thru is at the site and just past that canopy on the left would be where the window proposed window is. The next photograph is photograph facing west which shows the breadth and distance of what's there and how it was designed originally with the approval of the Planning Board. The next photograph is standing at the site in that area where we want the window to be installed and that building in distance is the Dime Bank right there. The next photograph is in the distance Chase Bank which is again, a photo taken from the location of where we want the site to be. So,we've got three drive-thru banks that have six drive-thru windows altogether and they serve the whole community. Now, if community is 41 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting 23,905 people is the population of our town. I went to the U.S. census to check it out and I mean I can give the document to the clerk and also (inaudible) calculation. Anybody want copies of it? So, 23,905 people in our town, I wanted to find out if this was granted how many people would be able to access this handicap prescription delivery window? We went to the town and in the year 2025, 401 permanent handicap parking permits were issued.That is, I did the calculation. 1.6% of the population of Southold Town that's it. Temporary permits were issued same year, 119 which is less than half of one percent of the population of the town. If we add the two numbers together it's 520 handicap parking permits were issued for the year 2025. That percentage is just above two percent of the whole population. If your concern is traffic that shouldn't be an issue, we're talking about two percent of the population when you have people driving to banks all day long, nonstop subject to everybody in the community. So, based upon that what we're asking for is really de minimus and it's geared specifically towards handicap people that need access. I have a copy for the clerks. I'm handing the clerk a printout by the Town Clerk's Office regarding the issuance of the temporary permits for 2025 then also a printout from the Town of Southold Clerk's Office showing all the permanent handicap permits that were issued. Also, (inaudible) but relevant but something to as on the side, Riverhead Town Code does permit drive-thru windows for pharmacies and banks but nothing else. They don't approve fast food restaurants and I think recently there was some issue regarding that and they're sticking with windows for pharmacies for banks. Shelter Island I couldn't tell at all from their code it just really doesn't mention it. East Hampton and Southampton they permit everything which I think is crazy. One other concern that was brought up by the Planning Board which I forgot to mention, they claim that-emissions from the cars idling can be a concern, (inaudible)for the environment and that really doesn't apply here. We have like these auto stop technology with cars where when you stop your car it automatically turns off and if you move it again it turns on, that's to prevent emissions. Also, in that area between the intersection between Factory Ave. and Sigsbee and Route 25 from that point to Love Lane, at peak hours there are a lot of there's a lot of traffic and a lot of cars idling in that area. If that's a concern it already exists and again, the less than two percent of the population that would be using this it would be clearly de minimums impact upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. My question is, how does not having this or having this damage the impact of the community? How does it impact upon the safety of our citizens, how does it impact safety, health and welfare? We're a community where we help other. We have organizations like C.A.S.T.and Catholic charities, Maureen's Haven, North Fork Parish Outreach, the Town Animal Shelter. St. Vincent's (inaudible) Human Resource Center for senior citizens why wouldn't we accommodate disabled people with their medications? It just seems inconsistent with how our town is. Everyone in town has a driver's license to access drive-up restaurant windows but, in this situation, the only it'll be the people that are issued handicapped permits. It's a (inaudible) and it's something that should be noted and what we're 4Z May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting talking about the quality of life for people who are handicapped. I was speaking to Marty Kozmynka who is in a wheelchair, he wanted to be here today to talk about the problems that he has on a daily basis accessing different areas but also prescription drugs. I'm going to leave them with you know in the Bible is says, to whom much is given much is expected, that's in Luke 12:48. We all have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate especially if it hardly impacts the rest of the community. What it means is for us all having compassion for others and for those less fortunate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bill, I've got two question,first of all I'm very familiar with Americans with Disabilities Act having participated in writing part of it in Washington. The whole purpose there is not to provide exclusive access for people with disabilities but equal access, inclusive access okay. How do you propose to monitor these hang tags and how is an employee who is presumably handing out the drugs at the window going to turn away somebody else who pulls up and says I want my prescriptions? BILL GOGGINS : Then they're going to have to say, no you have to leave. It's like speeding, you know we're all not supposed to speed in our cars but you know we have to have a police officer watching once and a while. Not everyone complies to the zoning law, let's see they build apartments without approval, they put up decks and all that kind of stuff, how do you stop it, you don't until somebody complains or they go to sell their house and they don't have a C.O. and they have to come to you for help. It's with any law and I agree with you, we're not asking to get special treatment we're asking that the handicap people can access to go to the pharmacy just like anybody else with the ability to walk on two legs and walk in and get what they need.There should be conditions obviously if you're going to grant this,the condition that you have to have a handicap permit and you can only pick up pharmaceutical products, no shopping, no oh I want some candy bars, it's gotta be very strict because the whole reason why we're doing this is so that we're helping people that are in need not everybody or somebody that wants to beat the system that's not it. This is one of those applications that you know initially I thought, why are you doing this?Then, as I got into it I realized we're helping a really small part of the society and it doesn't hurt anybody. (inaudible) increase in income that Walgreens could get is de minimus, if you're talking about four hundred people, five hundred people. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree and that's the next question. The use variance standards have to do with financial hardship which means that you grant a use variance if in fact the applicant can prove that they cannot meet a reasonable rate of return or profit given what they are allowed to do without the use variance and you've just indicated that in fact it's de minimus income so it has nothing to do with financial hardship for the applicant. 43 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting BILL GOGGINS : That's just one of the elements of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it is I mean and you know. BILL GOGGINS : I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to ask these questions. BILL GOGGINS : Oh I know and thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Bill, does playing off of what Leslie was asking, you said something that kind of confuses me, I don't buy prescription drugs regularly so I don't know how to process this but typically I go to the pharmacist, I leave my script and I come back at a later point or the doctor in advance sends it in. How does this work with somebody who is driving up to a window, are these only for pick up or are they actually leaving the script? What is involved cause you mentioned (inaudible) a person has to walk back and forth four times whereas is someone is picking up a script it would be one delivery out the window with a point of sale credit card reader and they're done. So, it's not the same picture as you just described, further explain. BILL GOGGINS : It will only be for pick up I mean every single script I've ever gotten was phoned in by a doctor I've never gotten I mean that's old school when you get a script from a doctor and you carry it to the pharmacy nobody does that anymore. It depends on how they have it set up but it's also not just the person if the person doesn't (inaudible) credit card reader that's fine but for the person who is paying cash they gotta go back in and get change and wants to leave a big tip who knows. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it wouldn't be the same thing if somebody drove through that wasn't entitled to the space cause they don't have a handicap sticker they might turn them away so you tell people you have to pay with a credit card and (inaudible) cash wouldn't you turn that person away too? BILL GOGGINS : Well it's legal (inaudible) you can't deny a person paying cash. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For that service? I'm not saying that they can't go into the store and pay cash,just for the on site like the designated parking pick up. I've never done it at McDonalds I think we're talking about this or someone was mentioning McDonalds, you order in advance the way you to on Starbucks, it's prepaid and you just grab it and go. BILL GOGGINS : I don't think pharmacies are there yet but I don't know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would seem that the same service can be offered curbside. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : CVS has that service with the app that you pay on line. 44 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting BILL GOGGINS : (Inaudible) huge companies Walgreens is pretty big too but obviously MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would think that CVS and Walgreens are competitors. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I'm just curious about the legal tender part because with COVID everything became cashless. BILL GOGGINS : Yea but COVID's over. Well, there was a medical reason for it, that was talking about health, safety and welfare (inaudible). A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : It's still cashless in many places. BILL GOGGINS : Thank you. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I had a question, I guess it (inaudible) about Nick's point about the curbside pickup, yes someone paying cash might cause an employee to make two round trips but with credit card readers, with Zelle, Venmo, Paypal, a check prepared in advance knowing what the cost of the prescription is, it seems there's lots of ways around that issue without a drive-up window. BILL GOGGINS : My experience with drive-up window in Florida, I know they have them down there is that when you pull up and they say what do you want and you say prescription for Goggins and they open up the draw you put the credit card in the draw, they close the draw they get the prescription they run the credit card, they put in the draw they stick it out so there's no human contact,there's no breathe there's nothing going on that could spread a virus or anything else so it's also a health issue on that side of things. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's pretty much what they do at the bank. When you go pull up it's the exact same process. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think I'll just go to I think where Leslie was going with her question about the standards for a use variance, I'm sure you know there are four plus two additional considerations that the Board must look at and it doesn't and we need to if we meet all four standards and it doesn't seem that this application meets the standard relative to reasonable return. BILL GOGGINS : Well,we don't have to meet all the standards just most of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it's pretty much like a special exception, you check all the boxes and you get it and if you don't you don't. It's not like a variance where there's negotiable wiggle room of what percentage of relief are you looking at and so on. That's-a balancing test and in that instance not every one of those standards needs to have the same weight.Whereas 45 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting with the use variance and the special exception each of those standards typically have to be approvable, arguably in favor of the application. BILL GOGGINS : I've got no proof that it impacts them negatively. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Bill,there's an existing drive-thru that was approved for a bank, North Fork Bank, will that structure remain? It seems to me and correct me if I'm wrong that that will be demolished and removed but a window will be placed where the I guess the original drive- thru window was. BILL GOGGINS : A window and awning. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : With an awning. The question that I would have, it seems that the existing tenancy of that shopping center is being impacted and I don't know the specifics of the relocations, what the terms are of any pending leases or whatever but it seems that there's a lot of movement going on internally to the building to accommodate the placement of Walgreens. Why wouldn't you just use the existing drive-thru window for Walgreens and reconfigure the square footage to meet Walgreens or Starbucks or whoever tenants' needs are. BILL GOGGINS : We can do that absolutely we just have to reconfigure Starbucks cause that cuts right through it. That's what they do all the time because brick and mortar you know is kind of dying and a lot of retail is turning into restaurants and medical so they're doing all kinds of stuff to try to you know keep services for the town,at that location if they can cause you know the internet of purchases the competition is really tough and that's why you have a lot of shopping centers remaining empty. They do their best to keep it so they can maintain what they have there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you talked to any of the other tenants like Renee's they might have to move. BILL GOGGINS : Oh, absolutely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It says proposed, that's why I'm puzzled. BILL GOGGINS : Renee would have to move and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're okay with that? BILL GOGGINS : Yes, they (inaudible) approached Renee's I don't think they've approached Starbucks and Starbucks was demanding to use that drive-thru window and we said, no the code prohibits it and we're not doing it and they were going to pull out and then they chose not to. 46 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Sorry, the data on the number of people with temporary and more permanent disability handicap stickers for placards is helpful but and you mention one or two cases you're aware of where people have expressed difficulty obtaining their prescriptions but I'm wondering if you have data more broad data on how folks who have disabilities how they are obtaining their prescriptions now and how many of them have difficulty because it seems to me for those of us who have an ongoing prescription it's filled through the mail so this would tend to be a one off you know the occasional one off prescription. It seems like it's not it wouldn't be that frequent of an occurrence. BILL GOGGINS : Well, it wouldn't especially when a lot of these temporary the 119 1 think it was therefore you break an ankle, a hip, a knee and it's temporary six months,they're issued by the town (inaudible) so for those people it's just temporary and the people who do have the permanent permits you know we don't know how often they go to the pharmacy. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I guess my you don't have data, I presume you don't have data on how they are (inaudible) prescriptions. BILL GOGGINS : I can try to figure it out. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm not requiring it but it just in many years of living here myself I've never heard of this as an issue (inaudible) more acquainted with more people but it's never come up as an issue. BILL GOGGINS : When I do personal injury stuff and I had a client who lost his leg below the knee we litigated it (inaudible) wife was in snowmobile accident, she lost her feeling below G2 and but another guy lost fingers and use of their legs for whatever reason and so I'm aware of it but maybe more so than others going to have to deal with it occasionally. I appreciate your attention on this matter, thank you for listening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Absolutely, let me see if there's anybody in the audience who wants to address the application. PAT MOORE : I listened very attentively because I honestly had to pull up the code, I couldn't believe that we distinctly allow a bank to have a drive thru but we will not allow a pharmacy to have a drive thru, I guess I didn't even realize that the prohibition of a drive thru was anything other than a fast food restaurant because the drive thru prohibition got put in because of drive thru restaurants not I don't think anybody else was thinking of any other purpose for the drive thru. It seemed to me that it was a big distinguishing feature here is, while Walgreens does have retail sales,their primary purpose was or should be and like any of the pharmacies it's the prescriptions. The sale of merchandise, Walgreens like CVS has large areas of other merchandise that sold but if you went to Barts Drug Store on Love Lane or it used to Barts, Love 47 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting Lane you will have small pharmacies. I think it's really so important to distinguish the prohibition (inaudible) very finely tailored to the retail aspect which of course you don't want to have people driving thru and buying you can buy cigarettes but I wouldn't but you know whatever floaties for their kids through a drive thru but a pharmacy to me is just like Bill said, life you know health, welfare. Certainly when I go personally to CVS and I go to the window to buy something because I'm sick or one of my kids or grandchildren are sick, I would kind of really don't like the fact that there's so much hands transmission because I think to myself, everybody has gone there to buy their drugs, they're sick and now I've gotta touch the pen to pay for my whatever and it's just like this maybe it's the COVID era mentality but to me it seems like this should have been very finely tailored to distinguish pharmaceuticals which is why this is being requested from mercantile in general which was what the code says. It's generically in there under I think sorry I had it open it was retail stores and based on the retail stores that might appear in business office and other districts I really had to look for this prohibition. I couldn't believe it and it's there so I can appreciate the I guess the Building Inspector's denial because it's not very finely written in the code but I think it's a stretch to call it a use variance particularly when the request is for an existing drive thru, a bank that had an existing drive thru use. It was not a problem for the bank and let me tell you there's probably a lot more people going to the bank than they are going for pharmaceuticals and it's not a problem in the past. Bill, I hope you well, but I think honestly this should be much more tailored to the request and make it clear and really pharmacies should have drive throughs. I think it would be extremely beneficial for you know under the appropriate site plan rules so obviously they have to have room but here it's not even an issue you have an existing drive thru. We made a big major case out of something that to me seems common sense.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else in the audience? JAIMIE WILSBERG : I'm Jaimie Wilsberg, my business Mattituck Plumbing across the street and we don't have any problem with it. As far as the emissions (inaudible) about a stop light on Factory Ave. it's backed up to Handy Pantry the cars are running out there all day especially on the weekends. I don't see emissions as relevant, I'm for this and by the way I give McDonalds a drive thru. MARY EISENSTEIN : Mary Eisenstein Mattituck and just as an FYI, Starbucks has a drive thru in Riverhead and you should see the snaking line there or vehicle stacking if you will. I would like you to considerthese things,cumulative impact,community character,traffic and safety.When you look at Mattituck and that area particularly the shopping center when you enter the shopping center to the right to the east is the most congested area of Starbucks,the stores and you have to be very careful when you come in on that first entrance. Across the street is the bank and then down to the east across the street is the wild west where there are not curb cuts 481 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting and that's the Clambake, used to be Four Doors Down and the Taco place. The cumulative impact has to do with the amount of traffic in an area of Mattituck that is so congested and not to take away from the significance of being handicapped, we have a permanent handicap sticker but to monitor I mean we have a sign code and we have a lighting code and those aren't being monitored. I have doubts about, how you're going to be monitoring people coming in through to that driveway. The other reason for cumulative impact in that area is the fact that there are seven applications,on the Main Rd. presently so you're looking at one application for a drive thru right here, you cannot separate that out from the rest of the activity that goes on in that area. Community character,community character has to do also with what a community looks like, feels like and there's an aspect of density that comes in to this application because between cumulative impact and community character I dare say and I know this is subjective but I dare say CVS maybe coming down the pike if that variance or that this application is awarded. The issue of the fact that our code says drive throughs, it's a very slippery slope to begin the process of saying, this can be excluded for these reasons to justify. The other areas to consider are traffic and safety. Again,from Factory to Love Lane you are looking at the most congested place in Mattituck and we're not even talking about the rest of the applications that are going to be coming through here.At what point and I understand the sensitivity that's being made for someone that's handicapped however, at what point do you look at the greater common good and what community character means and what cumulative impact means on any individual application that comes before this Board or the Planning Board? I would really like you to consider what it means to live from Factory Ave.to Love Lane to have access to any of those stores or places in that area. The other thing to consider with the handicap stickers and the data there is you know at this moment maybe it's a 119 or 409 but when you look at the population and the demographics that could easily change as well as CVS coming through and asking for the same thing. I thank you for listening to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anybody else in the audience?Any other questions from the Board? Is there anybody on Zoom, Donna?Anything else from the Board, what do you want to do? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Question of the Board, there's the existing bank drive thru, is that permissible to be transferred to a different use? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I would think the use was abandoned. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh it's abandoned. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's no bank and it's been abandoned for many, many years. We would have to legally look at whether or not the once you have a commercial use which a bank is, if it's been abandoned for more than two years then the original approval is extinguished the Certificate of Occupancy is extinguished and that's a good point that we will have to kind 49 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting of investigate further to see whether or not it's still a legally existing use or if it would if it's now really being proposed as an adaptive use of a piece of infrastructure which is different. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That also ties into my thought relative to the site plan because the site plan the traffic flow is for an .existing structure while this is four spaces forward, I don't know how that impacts people that are then leaving immediately from the proposed take out window existing in front of the employee parking to get out to Main Rd. So, I mean there's a couple of different pieces of the puzzle that one the code doesn't allow it and I think the possibility of an extinguishment wouldn't even allow the transfer of the use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to take a look at that. BILL GOGGINS : One of(inaudible) one way corridor there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No oftentimes I'll go to Starbucks and drive thru to leave but that's not exactly the easiest exit spot either and what I'm thinking if the window is further up as you propose it at the end of the structure, I don't necessarily know how that impacts traffic you know in whatever capacity. BILL GOGGINS : If you're leaving the window then there's nobody in front of you presumably cause you MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you have the employee parking there,there's the freight delivery area, I mean in my mind's eye I originally thought the smart thing would be to just to retrofit the existing one for your tenants use but I don't even know if that's a possibility. BILL GOGGINS : Everything is a possibility. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Okay, I think we have what we need. We'll have to look at the (inaudible) legal thing about the preexisting window as part of this. Having said that, do we want to adjourn it in order to see what the answer to that is or do we want to just close it anyway? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : A request to reuse is not before us, right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it's not. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So, do we need to adjourn to get that answer? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's true,they're not going to reuse that,they're going to put in a new canopy and a new window so in a sense MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'd be curious to hear the outcome but yea. May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know you're right, we should find that out, out of just learn it for learning purposes but it doesn't impact what's being proposed particularly because that's not what they're proposing. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It would be a whole other application I think. CHAIRPPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye,thank you Bill. HEARING#8102SE— NARROW RIVER PROPERTIES, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Narrow River Properties, LLC#8102SE. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner of the subject property requesting authorization to construct and establish an accessory apartment in an accessory structure on a residential lot without a principal single-family dwelling located at 28410 Main St. in Orient. PAT MOORE : The house is being built at the same time, so with a single-family not without a single-family. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says without a principal single-family dwelling. PAT MOORE : It doesn't make sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not a preexisting single-family dwelling. PAT MOORE : Now you're allowed to build them new. May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The legal notice was at the time the Notice of Disapproval was issued. By the way, we do have the filing back from Albany so the code change on the ADU's to be new has been approved. PAT MOORE :Yes, my client has an application the plan is, he lives in Cutchogue, he's relocating to this property. It's a new house with the garage and his mother is going to be (inaudible)she's living in the apartment that's been proposed. It's all going to be built at the same time.We have a Health Department application pending for the house but it got a little bit detoured because of the agricultural structures. When you in to the Health Department with your agricultural structures and the house they treat it kind of like a quasi-commercial. I don't know if you've ever seen that but they don't treat agricultural structures under the residential code,they treat it they don't really treat it as a commercial they do it hybrid. So, it's in the process of getting Health Department approval right now. In any case, the entire this apartment is going to be built at the time the house is being built it's all being done at the same time. That's where we are. Do you have any particular questions about the apartment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's got a conforming 687 sq.ft. as proposed the livable floor area. It certainly has three on-site parking spaces (inaudible). PAT MOORE : Yes, this is going to be Jeremy is going to have a farm here, has the farm going already, the Latham Farm is running the agricultural the plants that are that have been there since Tenedios owned the property. He's been there for a long time. I can address the points made by Land Preservation if you'd like. So,the site plan it's a pretty picture unfortunately and when it was drawn up the landscape architect that did it for the house showed some grading. The grading does not extend beyond the reserved area but I do note the comments and we'll make sure that there's no grading or drainage anything impacting the agricultural portion of the land. So, that is clearly it's theoretical because you don't really know what your elevations are going to be until you're actually out in the field and grading around the property but we'll make sure that there's no elevation change, grading change at the reserved line beyond the where the AG line meets. Also, there is the primary entrance of the residence is from Narrow River Rd. that is the one and only primary entrance for the house. There is an access from the Main Rd. which is a dirt road and its utility easement. When this was first developed as a farm with the developments rights sale the utilities were already running onto the property and they were running from the Main Rd.so not knowing the utilities that would be available on Narrow River Rd. unfortunately they thought ahead and allowed for the utilities to run underground and connect to the residence from the utilities there's a run on the property and the reserve the development rights area. But we cannot use it as an entrance. This clearly is a farm; it's going to be run as a farm and the farmer is going to live in the house so there will be connections between the two properties, dirt roads like most of the farms that operate out here.The road May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting can't be formalized I want to say without land preservation so if you make any improvements to the dirt road that connects from the house to the AG area then you'd have to tell the Land Preservation they have the right to review it so for now let's consider it a dirt road unless Land Preservation tells us otherwise.We're still with Land Preservation because he's a startup farmer and there were some uses there that are existing but may not meet (inaudible) with Land Preservation covenants so we're still tailoring the AG uses on the AG property but that really has nothing to do with you it's just how this site plan has been initially drawn up. So, the two comments, certainly we're not going to put any draining, grading on the reserve area excuse me I keep saying it the wrong way, on the development rights area and we're not going to which would result in topographic alterations in drainage impacts and the driveway has to remain as a farm road so and our primary entrance being from Narrow River which is how it's always been planned. That's all I can think of that are the important points from Land Preservation. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have a question regards the proximity and this is less about the ADU and more about the plans for the development rights sold land and I realize that's not what's before us but I had the opportunity to view the property from the neighboring one of the neighboring properties to the west where there is a pond a freshwater pond and the site map I believe (inaudible)a survey performed in 2018 as being the source of the wetlands delineation and if I look carefully at the site plan with my ruler and I look at the what the key, it appears that the 2018 survey would place the edge of the pond approximately 90 feet from the proposed paddock fencing. PAT MOORE : Okay, that has nothing to do with this application. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I understand but where I am going is that in doing on my site inspection I observed that the edge of the wetlands the freshwater pond is only about six feet from the existing deer fencing and the existing deer fencing is I think inside the property line which let me to conclude that the pond is probably quite close to the proposed fencing. So, where I'm going with this is that it would seem to me there might need to be Trustee review and approval of if fences are in their jurisdiction for any landscaping or worked done within 50 feet of that freshwater wetlands. PAT MOORE : To be determined, I guess is the answer. So,this property was delineated I want to say in '23 is the last delineation and it was based on a wetland not just the pond but the wetland flagging or wetland delineation which goes more in some areas around the pond and then angles back Narrow River Rd. There's a couple of MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm talking about a pond on the neighbor's property so 53 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I'm trying to think of which one, oh it's over MEBMER STEINBUGLER : It's on the PAT MOORE : So, Main Rd. is here and you've got North oh thank you oh that's the one I was looking at. So, that's the one that shows was delineated in '23 MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I don't think that's the one that I'm talking about. The other one on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a Nathan Taft Corwin survey. PAT MOORE : I see it, it's over here. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's the Woychuck one. So, you see a pond over here on the left-hand side. PAT MOORE : Yea I see it and there's some MEMBER STEINBUGLER : There's an arc up (inaudible). PAT MOORE :There's a small area where the fence encroaches in that arc I think is what you're pointing out where the MEMBER STEINBUGLER : What I'm saying is that if you look at the distance from the edge of the wetland to the deer fence it looks like it's just under 100 feet right because that arc of 100 feet separation PAT MOORE : Sorry I don't have my glasses but l MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The arc of the 100 foot separation slightly intersects and goes a little bit beyond where the deer fence is so it would lead you to believe that the deer fence is perhaps 90ish feet from the pond from the wetland. However, I personally walked the property that neighboring property and observed that the wetland is a mere 5 or 6 feet from the deer fence, the existing deer fence. So, I believe that wetland delineation and I can't blame the surveyor, he didn't survey that property, right? He surveyed the property the subject property. PAT MOORE : He's not allowed on the other but MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That delineation is I'm certain is incorrect and so I want to flag that if there needs to be some sort of setback of work performed on the subject property from the freshwater wetland, this is not an accurate depiction of distance. PAT MOORE : Okay, thank you. 541 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If impacts and construction and whether or not Trustees need to get involved, likely they won't need to be involved here but I don't really know. PAT MOORE : Well,there's an exception in the wetland ordinance for existing agricultural uses. This property has been an existing agricultural use since the development rights were sold so it goes way back when, it's an active farm. I don't know where paddocks are ultimately going to end up because but I'll dooly not it, I thank you for that comment. I don't think I looked at it very carefully if this is conceptual paddocks not actual. If the Trustees are needed, I'm sure we'll you know we'll go there if we have to go there. Although, I'm pretty comfortable that when it comes to agricultural uses that's usually an exempt for existing agricultural not if you're clearing trees to start a new agricultural operation but if you have an existing agricultural operation then it's exempt if I remember off the top of my head correctly.There is a whole list, under 275 there's an exceptions list and it's listed in there. I think one of them is, horticultural activities or agricultural activities for existing I don't want to say preexisting but existing agricultural uses. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea, actually gardening is one that you do have to have a 50 foot setback. PAT MOORE : Yes, if you're personally gardening,yes.The funny thing is, actually the DEC does not they allow you to cause I had a farmer that wanted to encroach into wetlands and the DEC regulations do not prohibit encroaching into a wetland area for agricultural purposes. There's a certain amount of recognition that you know farming has certain priorities, exceptions. Right now that paddock is being shown kind of inside what is already an existing probably the deer fence right, probably still there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes, that was my reference point when I was admiring the distance between the deer fence and the edge of the pond and determining (inaudible) more than five or six. PAT MOORE : Yea it's a triangle there for sure. I know we are because it's a mixture of freshwater and tidal I know that we're also at the DEC just to make sure that everything is okay as far as having all the permits confirmed. Everything has been purposely kept at least 100 feet from the edge of wetlands that were noted back in '24. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Right and this drawing references a 2018 survey which (inaudible). PAT MOORE : You know what, I bet the 2018 may have been when the neighbor maybe the neighbor had wetlands delineated for their house do we know? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : A very similar location is noted to be from a 2001 survey. May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : For the same property? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The Nathan Corwin survey of the subject property references Suffolk Environmental Consulting delineation of wetlands from January 25, 2001. PAT MOORE : Right, but then there's another one. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Then there's the more (inaudible) one. I did have another question, the short environmental assessment form answers yes to the question of would the proposed action physically alter or encroach into any existing wetland or waterbody, so it seems to identify that there will be encroachment into a waterbody PAT MOORE : That's my mistake, my eyes probably MEMBER STEINBUGLER : The lease that was included for the rental is a month to month lease and I think the code requires a minimum of one year and no more than two years. PAT MOORE : Okay, I mean in can it's mom so MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea it's a technical PAT MOORE : I can give you a lease, I got it from the clients so I'll have that revised so we're not kicking mom out. She's actually in the agricultural business, she's a horse whisperer as described by her son so she's going to work with animals on the farm. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think this will be my last question, the EAF also indicates, there will be no connection to existing public or private water supply so what is the water source? PAT MOORE : Well we need new sanitary system. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Source of the water. PAT MOORE : Oh, source of the water,there's no public water here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They'd have to dig a well. PAT MOORE : They'd have to dig a well so I don't know that did I answer was it to an existing I don't think there is an existing yet because it would be irrigation. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So the water source is going to be a new well? PAT MOORE : Again, I'm assuming A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I think there's also irrigation pits over there that already provides water comes up around (inaudible). 6 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Some of the ponds are MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I was asking for the dwelling. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Oh, I'm sorry. PAT MOORE : I personally don't know if there is a well (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just wanted to bring out in my packet I didn't have evidence of familial status, birth certificates, marriage certificates all that sort of stuff. PAT MOORE : I mean it was his statement, it's his mother but I thought he was going to be here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand I'm just saying applications typically have those things provided. PAT MOORE : What would you like I mean MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's not what I would like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We always ask for it. PAT MOORE : Would an affidavit be sufficient? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN No, we always get birth certificates. PAT MOORE : I've never had to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Always, have we ever not. PAT MOORE : Really? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If someone (inaudible) proof of residency or electrical bills to show that you're living in the house, then you show familial relationship by a birth certificate, the marriage certificate whatever other documents.Typically,you would show which again it's not applicable I suppose, your driving license with the address. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because this is new construction it's different but PAT MOORE : What proof he can give me that his mother is his mother. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Birth certificates. .57 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yes, birth certificates. PAT MOORE :Those are not so easy to find but yes I can look for it, his birth certificate with his mother's name on it. I guess I've had clients here that were able to testify that that's my mother or MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, so that we might close the hearing, always. Maybe Betsy put it together and (inaudible). PAT MOORE : Possibly, I'll get that, anything else I missed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from.anybody?Just close subject to receipt? PAT MOORE : My list is a lease for the year rather than month to month. I just made a not it's nothing that you need but a note regarding the paddock and where it's hitting the wetlands but that's just for our to keep in the back of our mind and birth certificate with mother and son's name. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry you're saying after the approval you get a building permit, the house is constructed you get a C of 0 but they don't move in. Now you got this ADU PAT MOORE : But you can't have an ADU without a principal structure so the whole basis of the application of an ADU would be problematic so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no, no, I'm saying if the building permit is issued (inaudible, talking over each other) PAT MOORE : But they're not I don't think they'll issue a building permit until I have a house building permit in place. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I'm talking about too, I'm just saying everything is built but they chose not to move in they stay in Cutchogue, they get.transferred to London I don't know whatever now there's the ADU. PAT MOORE :Yea but that's no different than and that's one of our problems with the accessory apartment law is that when the property sells (inaudible) that has to be fixed but I don't think we have an issue here because we're going to be the ADU is an accessory use, it's part of the garage that's also an accessory use so the way the Building Department does it is, you get a separate building permit, a building permit for the house MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and you mentioned the projection which was(inaudible,talking over each other) but if they sell it they're selling something where they got this approvement that is not a 5,31 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : They can't be occupied, I have clients that wanted to buy houses that had accessory apartment approvals and they explained their purpose of buying the house whether it's an investment property whatever and I said, you can't buy this house. It's created and in the real estate world you know you're creating obstacles to the marketability of a house. I really caution clients when they're putting in ADU's I said, you know hey, keep in mind that when you sell it, you're going to limit the ability of somebody to buy it unless they're willing to either live there it can be a second home but you're not going to be able to buy an investment property MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're not renting. PAT MOORE : Exactly, so you can't buy it as an investment and not live there for purposes of rental. It's going to be it's gotta be associated with somebody living in the main house or in the accessory. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a little (inaudible) this is so you know we're just exploring what's what. We can't the code is a work in progress, we're looking at ways of removing some obstacles.We understand it's cumbersome and we have to try and do better and I think we will but we haven't gotten there yet so right now we have to look at what's there and we can only assume in good faith that the owner of the property intends to'build a house that he intends to live in and his mother is going to live in the apartment. PAT MOORE . That's the plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Beyond that it then becomes an issue of if the code changes where there's code enforcement or whatever let's PAT MOORE : Hopefully we'll clean up the code to make ADU's a more less cumbersome process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what we're working on. Is there anybody else who wants to address the application? PAT MOORE : Is my client I know he's traveling picking up his daughter so I don't think he's not on right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's no hand up. Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date subject to I'm sorry subject to receipt rather of the birth certificate and an annual lease. So, we'll close it subject to receipt of those two items. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. Is there anyone here for The Strand application #8042? We're going to adjourn this in a resolution at the end? HEARING#8096— PRISTINE PROPERTIES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Pristine Properties #8096.This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's November 18, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to subdivide two (2) merged lots at 1) proposed parcel No. 1 (63-1-4) at less than the code required lot size of 40,000 sq. ft., 2) proposed parcel No. 1 (63-1-4) having less than the permitted lot width of 150 linear feet, 3) proposed parcel No. 1 having less than the permitted lot depth of 175 linear feet, 4) proposed Lot 2 (63-1-5) at less than the code required lot size of 40,000 sq. ft., 5) proposed parcel 2 having less than the code required lot width of 150 feet, 6) proposed parcel 2 having less than the code required lot depth of 175 feet located at 205 & 155 Sunnyside Rd. in Southold, good afternoon. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : George Georgiades, good afternoon ZBA Board Members,thank you for having me today and allowing me to address you. I am here today on an appeal arising from a Notice of Disapproval that was issued by the Southold Building Department on November 18, 2025 denying the applicant's building permit application for the construction of a one family home on a subject parcel identified as tax map 1000-63-1-5. Now the Building Department determined in its Disapproval that the subject parcel had allegedly merged with the adjoining parcel pursuant to town code 280-10 and further concluded that the parcel was subject to dimensional requirements of town code 280-18 which included minimum requirements of 40,000 sq.ft. lot area, 150 feet of lot width and 175 feet of lot depth.The applicant respectfully contends that the determination improperly applies a coverage subdivision bulk requirement on a newly formed lot rather than looking at it retroactively to a lawful pre-existing lot of record that was established decades prior to the enactment of the present zoning provisions. The question is, is a new subdivision actually necessary? I would like to go through a series of facts May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting before this Board so that that can be addressed. Now the subject parcel which I'll refer to as tax lot number 5, it corresponded to an original subdivision map that was submitted by Daniel R. Grattan back in November of 1947 and that tax lot 5 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to make sure that it's speaking about the same parcel because wasn't this lot subject to a waiver of merger application that was denied? GEORGE GEORGIADIS : The waiver of merger application that was previously brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals we did not seek a waiver of merger application at all but rather an area variance application is what was filed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) 7943. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it in our record. GEORGE GEORGIADIS :Well,we never had a hearing on an actual merger issue,what happened was the previous agent or representative for the applicant filed a area variance application that was procedurally miscategorized as a waiver of merger application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Was a determination made? GEORGE GEORGIADIS : By whom? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : By this Board. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : A determination was simply made that a waiver of merger would not be did not apply as I acknowledged the technicality of the merger not the legality but the technicality of the merger and given this statute which states that a waiver of merger it only applied when there's no transfer to an unrelated person. So, how you go from a merger determination and then say in an appeal, well then, you're requesting a waiver of the merger no if a person if an entity in this case the chief zoning officer makes a determination that two properties are merged and a person appeals that, it does not mean that the person is asking for quote, unquote a code waiver of merger because waiver of merger under the town code is exclusive for people where there's no transfer to an unrelated person.You can appeal a merger determination and request that a lot be recognized that's single and separate. So,that's where in response to your question that application was procedurally miscategorized. I'm not seeking a waiver of merger here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was a proposal for a waiver of merger and this Board denied it because it was conveyed through Zoumas and others outside two lots adjacent to.each other owned by the same named individual okay, sold was conveyed outside of family title and the 61 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting lots were subsequently merged by force of law. That merger request which I believe was possibly was that Pat MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 2024 A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : The 2024 was Zoumas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, Pat Moore represented the applicant. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : The 2003 Zoumas that historical contacts, Zoumas did have an application before the Board for a waiver of merger that he withdrew because at the time there was some Supreme Court action on adverse possible adverse possession. What ended up happening, historically on that case was the adverse possession claim was abandoned, the waiver of merger was withdrawn and there was no decision rendered there. Now, what I'm saying is that I'm here before you today appealing a separate application to the Chief Zoning Officer MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're calling it an appeal and that's where I'm losing track of maybe what's going on because this is a request for a subdivision. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Request for the subdivision under the guidance of the Planning Board well according to the Planning Board and the Chief Zoning Officer but I should have the opportunity to address I'm appealing the in my application I'm appealing the denial itself and the denial itself is a bulk size requirement denial I mean requirement that's based on the merger. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY: Okay, so in 2024 Pristine Projects that was a waiver of merger denial. I mean it was am I right, yeah it was a waiver of merger denial. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Which prompted you to come for a subdivision which you don't meet the current schedule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's clarify this, you are GEORGE GEORGIADIS : If you give just a moment to get that paperwork so that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay A.T.A. MCGIVNEY: I'm just going to make a generic statement thought that the Planning Board, the Chief Zoning Officer,the Zoning Board they cannot guide you give you any advice so if you're relying on that that's to your detriment because you (inaudible)to retain counsel if you wanted advice on how to proceed. So, that's just very generic. 62 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to read into the record what's actually before us at the moment just so that we get this clear. The lots were merged by force of law, the applicant did not meet the standards for un merger. The alternative then is to recreate or create however you want to look at it,two lots through a subdivision,there's one lot right now it's merged.The proposal in front of us is to subdivide it into two lots, subdivide merged lot. The existing lot is lot 19,157 sq. ft., lot 4 is proposed at 10,109 sq. ft. that's the one that's developed with an existing single-family dwelling. Lot 5 is proposed at 9,148 sq. ft. with a proposed single-family dwelling alright. Now, the variances okay, in order to approve the subdivision, we would have to approve variances for two substandard lots and here's where they are substandard. Lot No. 4,the proposed width is 112.84 feet, the code requires a minimum width of 150 alright. On lot 4 the depth is proposed at 90 feet,the code requires a minimum of 175 feet.Also, on the same lot, lot 4 the lot area is 10,109 sq.ft.,the code requires in that zone district 40,000 sq. ft.that's for one lot. Lot 5 as proposed would have a width of 101 where the code requires a minimum of 150, it would have a depth of 90 where the code requires 175 foot minimum. It would have a lot area of 9,048 sq.ft.,the code requires a minimum of 40,000 sq.ft.We also have comments from the Planning Board. What we are looking for and here is MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Six variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see, one,two,three,four,five, six variances which all of which would have to be granted based on the variance standards of community character substantiality, environmental impacts all of those variance standards would have to apply to each of those two lots. We would have to approve all of those variances in order for us to approve the subdivision. If that were done you would then have to go to the Planning Board that would then have to also approve the subdivision, they get the final word on subdivision okay, they have to bless the lot line change. Is everybody clear on what's before us now and where we're going with this? GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Respectfully I just want to say that I put in my application that I wish to appeal the disapproval that was issued on November 18, 2025. It was processed as a request for a subdivision and if you look at the actual application for building permit it was an application to build a new one-family dwelling. Now, on the bottom of that application there's a bunch of language that talks about the different options if need be whether it's a subdivision, resub division, a lot line modification it identifies the lot as a nonconforming lot that it meets all of the GFA requirements, average front setback how it's been recognized historically. My issue is that I'm here before you today I never had an opportunity to address the core issue which is, it's being treated as a merged lot,you're stating that we already'ruled on that,we had a waiver of merger hearing, we didn't actually have a full hearing because if you recall and you look back at the transcripts the representative, she made the assertion that she was filing an 63 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting area variance and she actually used an application that said, area variance. The Chief Zoning Officer when he wrote the denial, he wrote the denial as a merger determination and based on that the Zoning Board said Well, then you're appealing the merger determination hence a waiver of merger. My question to you is this so that I can understand it because I don't believe it's something that's exclusive to an attorney. I think I read as well as any other attorney and I am not one. In the waiver of merger code that's specific code only speaks about a lot that has not been transferred to an outside party and I get that part. So, a waiver of merger should not be applied to anybody that doesn't fit the criteria, we certainly don't fit that criterion because the two parcels have been identified over time independently, they're treated independently by the town and by all authorities.They have independent chain of title,they have separate tax designations, separate deeds. This specific lot, lot number five even has its own Certificate of Occupancy and when we contacted New York State the Department of State to ask, what is the role of a Certificate of Occupancy for vacant land since by design that document is for structures and they relayed that municipalities historically have used it for vacant land to establish permitted uses, confirm zoning compliance and evidence property status. None of these issues had been brought before the Board cause we didn't have the opportunity to do that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Can I ask a quick question? When you started this most recent exposition, I think you said and please tell me if I'm correct but I think you said that the waiver of merger process does not apply to this to parcel 5, is that what you were establishing? GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Yes, I was establishing that waiver of merger,doesn't apply to this specific lot simply because the Chief Zoning Officer makes a determination that it's merged as a technicality of law. I side with the Chief Zoning Officer that he doesn't have the discretion o look at a legality and a technicality. He simply going to address (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Am I mistaken, there's a thirty day period to appeal a decision, this decision was rendered well over a year ago so any appeal should have been made within thirty days of the date of the decision was rendered. What's before us specifically is about a subdivision, we should just focus on the subdivision and not talk about (inaudible) the application. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Additionally, in your'application you acknowledge that the properties were merged. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : I acknowledge the technicality that there was a law in 1983 1 can't deny that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The person the individual the place where that determination is made is with the Chief Zoning Code Official,that's the Building Department. It is their say so we 64 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting don't determine that,they do.You have the right if they determine that that's merged to come to us and ask for a waiver of merger which is what happened. Now,there are specific standards by which you qualify for the waiver or you don't.That decision was rendered, we have it in our file and you had thirty days to appeal our decision to a higher court. You could have filed an Article 78, started litigation and the court would have decided to uphold our decision or overturn our decision. Let's just get to what's here now okay, let's try and be productive and figure out what we can or can't do with this property. You are now applying to create two lots, one is developed with a house, the other is a wooded property, correct?They are adjacent to each other, correct? GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and I read into the record that you would then be creating two nonconforming lot sizes, lot width, lot depth, lot area okay? In' order to grant the subdivision, we would then have to justify all those variances, right? Then if we did that you would go to the Planning Board and you would require their approval. Now, I also have a letter in which I'm sure you read the Planning Board's comments. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : I read them, I don't agree with them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know, indicating that they do not support this application. The likelihood is, if we did approve everything, they would not approve it based upon what they just said. I'm not(inaudible)guarantee that,you still have the right to a public hearing.You also said in your letter that you reserve the right to apply for an overturning of the Notice of Disapproval. Now,the bottom line is,you don't have to reserve your right,your rights are intact always as is any other property owner. The only time we don't hear something again is if it's res judicata, meaning it's the exact same thing that we already decided. If it's different,we have different standards for overturning a Notice of Disapproval, right than we have for area variances or waiver of merger. Every one of them it's a different kind of decision that the Board has the authority to determine,to render but there are different standards in each one of them. Your application you filled out the area variance standards, right for a subdivision and that is why we're here and if you would like to address any of those variances, if you want to talk about community character. Now what you need to do is address the standards for area variance. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : The other relief that you would seek you would have to file a different application. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : It's the same application that's an area variance. The ZBA type of appeals well, you have an area variance, you have use variance that doesn't apply, you have a general special exception, that doesn't apply, you have a special exception/bed and breakfast, May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting that doesn't apply, you have a special exception for accessory apartment, that doesn't apply. So, it all falls under the application for area variance. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Which is what we're here for. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That's what Leslie just described and she read the variances out, the six variances that would need to be granted. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Okay, and we'll address that and I will so that I'm clear in my understanding just so I'm clear, hearing the history of the lot how it's treated, how it's recognized that's all not going to be addressed because according to the Zoning Board of Appeals that has been addressed in the past. Am I correct in what you're saying? MEMBER LEHNERT : That's part of the history. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Right but the only-issue with that is, the history was never presented, we never got the chance to present it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was presented, you were heard, there was a hearing and the bottom line is, now you may misunderstand what it is what we did here but we heard a request for a waiver of merger. That was denied because the standards were not met to grant it so we move on to here's another option you have which is to apply for a subdivision.That one failed, this are different standards, these are based on area variance standards not whether it was sold out of you know ownership with a chain of title and all that other stuff. That's what we're here for today. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : I'll address the area variances, I'll just note that it's difficult for me just to try to understand that the I understand the Board is saying we heard the previous application.That previous application the agent vehemently took the position that it was not a waiver of merger application, it was an area variance. You sited the Notice of Disapproval and said, well, it's a waiver and I said Well, what waiver we obviously don't qualify for the waiver how can we qualify if the transfer is made to an unrelated person? I get what you're saying CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could have just been that when that waiver determination was made and instead of applying for a waiver of merger that you didn't qualify for you could have applied for the subdivision which is exactly what we're doing right now. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Okay, so we'll address the subdivision, yes ma'am, thank you. Talking about the subdivision, so the lot itself which again, we have to say is recognized it is recognized independently I mean these are factual statements. It's recognized independently for taxation, zoning, for conveyance purposes May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You've mentioned that but let me say let me inform you about something. When this merger law went into effect and it's a pretty unique law among municipalities the same thing is true for every single property that merged;they all got separate tax map numbers, they all continued to have separate property you know property taxes; it's true of every single application that's come before this Board. Could the town have done a betterjob of letting people know that they up zoned and that this happened, maybe but there's tons of people in this town that figured it out and they checkerboarded it. In other words, there's a husband and wife let's say, they own two lots next to each other, one was in the husband's name one was in the wife's name, boom they don't merger, they're not in the same name. MEMBER LEHNERT : There was a two year grace period to get that done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, there was a two year grace period, many people took the opportunity to do that. Then the problem was, okay, one spouse dies now they're in the other inherits okay, now they're in one name again; we changed the code cause that was unfair. If you had checkerboarded it all this time and it was merger by death that became an exemption. We are now done talking about the merger cause it's really not relevant to what's in front of us. You're asking for one lot to be subdivided into two lots, one is already built, one part has the house on it, the other part is wooded with a proposed house on it. I already went through the various variances for each of those lot sizes and width and depth that would be required in order to approve it. So, if you'd like the opportunity to address any of those area variance standards based upon the reasons that are in the application,we would welcome hearing them. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Okay,thank you.The area variances that are requested they don't they have zero undesirable effect on the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed home which is a 26 X 40 home would allow for 85%of the existing open space to remain on the vacant on what is now the vacant lot. The home was designed both in size and character to fit into the neighborhood with what preexists there which is by the way there are three homes that are developed. One is a developed on a 67 X 85 lot size. One is developed on a let's see here 65 x 85 and the neighboring property is at least on the frontage, 111 x 90 deep. This lot which is 101 on frontage width and 90 deep is larger than the two other lots and comparable to the adjoining lot that has not only a home but also an accessory area with a garage. The proposed construction here is a very simple home that fits all the requirements of GFA, setbacks, side yards etc. There is no other feasible alternative. You know strict compliance under this rule we render the parcel useless and unbuildable. The variance is not substantial. Lot number seven,tax lot number seven is you know significantly smaller, it was 67 X 85 and in 1971 there's precedent at the Zoning Board of Appeals granted permission to subdivide that 7. May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting lot which had merged with the adjoining lots. That lot was allowed to be subdivided with the improved home on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do you have a ZBA number? GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Yes, I do give me one second. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Was that the one that was I think the subdivision was granted because the I might have messed that up but there was a bankruptcy and the original owner was forced to rebuy and then resub divide. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Yes that's correct actually what you're saying, your memory is correct. So, it was Appeal No. 1463 before the Zoning Board and it looks like it's dated September of 1971, 1 think it was September 9th was the application date and September 301h of'71 was the determination that the variance would be granted and it's cited that the existence of an additional lot without existing home would not change the character of the district and that the area had been continuously occupied by dwellings originally built and sold on undersized lots.The granting of the variance would continue the character of the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to any of the adjoining properties. I take that same position with what's proposed to be built now. It's a very modest home by today's building standards. (inaudible) take a ride around Southold and see these massive structures that have been built over the past five years, this is not one of them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have examples and I know you just mentioned a 1971 example however, 1971 was you know well over fifty years ago,the code has changed multiple times since then. Do you have examples of recent recently approved subdivision lots, I'm not talking about a house but lots that are CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : subdivided MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry I just not just subdivided but recently subdivided lots that do not meet the current code schedule of the R40 zoning district? In other words,that are less, smaller than 40,000 sq.ft.within the last five years let's say. I think that would be instrumental and then if you could also explain what relief those lots received. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Okay, let's took a look at (inaudible) if you just give me one moment. Lot 1000-135-2-17 let's see what address that corresponds to. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Does that have a decision though, is that what he's looking for is a decision for that lot? 681 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting GEORGE GEORGIADIS : That's a lot that's currently under construction. Let's see what that lot size was, 134.92 on the frontage, 97.36 on the rear and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, I have a thought you obviously have done a lot of research and you have a lot of information, I think there's some people patiently waiting back there to be heard. Why don't we do this, we will give you ample time to gather all the comparable smaller lots that this Board you know provided relief for and so on. I'll leave it open so that you have time to put all your paperwork together and you can present it to us with any prior ZBA decisions you think are relevant. You can't just be fumbling around looking last minute, it's stressful for you and it's not efficient. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Right and I apologize for you know my avenue, my projected course of avenue was very different than where I am now so I get it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, we're clear now. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : I'm clear and no problem, good idea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so let's see if anyone else in the audience wants to address the application or are you just exhausted at staring into space? JOELLA RADICH : My name is Joella. Radich and I live on the lot adjacent to the one in question (inaudible). My issue is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The developed or undeveloped one? JOELLA RADICH : Both, my property borders both properties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You back up to this? JOELLA RADICH : Yes, the railroad tracks to the (inaudible) that includes both those lots. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : So you're to the west. JOELLA RADICH : Yea, I'm not on Sunnyside I'm on Greenfields. My concerns with granting variances and the environmental impacts that lot, the undeveloped lot has an issue with water drainage and flash flooding. I really don't know where all the water comes from, I think it's just mostly Travelers St., the railroad tracks and Hortons Lane. During storm it's like heavy rain all the water gets funneled down between the railroad tracks and Sunnyside Rd. It cuts across that lot where their proposed driveway is and onto my lot and my next-door neighbor's lot. Since there's nothing in the plans that said (inaudible) I'm concerned about impacts to my property and surrounding properties. I have photos that illustrate I don't have multiple copies but so you May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting can pass them around.This was from a storm several years ago.The undeveloped lot was over here (inaudible) to my lot MEBMER STEINBUGLER : So it's coming from this is east and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you maybe stand there and just hold them up so everybody can see them,just over there? JOELLE RADICH : The next few photos is the extent of the flooding talking about it's not substantial.This is my property and the next-door neighbor's property this water going through the vacant lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the subject lot, the undeveloped lot? JOELLE RADICH : Yes,from the subject lot.The last photo, I just took this today,you can see the erosion all the debris that washes it's right this is a regular occurring issue. My concern is, since this (inaudible) this needs to be addressed and fixed before any construction is done on that site. Yes, you can keep the photos. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else wanting to address the application? ROBIN KLOTZ: My name is Robin Klotz,Joelle is my sister and I'm very familiar with the property myself and you see there that's there's a flash flooding that goes on and if there is to be any kind of construction that's going to be close there, I fear that it's going to back up to the neighbor's properties and I think that would be devastating to a lot,the flooding in basements. I just wanted to add that as a consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anybody else? TIMOTHY STARON : Timothy Staron, I'm actually,adjacent to the house that's being proposed. Not only flooding, everything else it is a high-water table so we definitely get I get water into my basement. I had to make sure that I put like (inaudible) down to make sure that and have my dehumidifier running all the time because of the high-water (inaudible). My other thing is, the proximity of how close the building proposed is being proposed as close to my house as it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry Mr. Staron to interrupt you,do you live in the subject house the property adjacent and to the north of the subject? TIMOTHY STARON : (inaudible) to lot 5. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, in theory I don't quite know what the ownership is cause there's a whole dispute but I thought it was resolved but that lot is affiliated with your house? May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting TIMOTHY STARON : Right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. TIMOTHY STARON : So, I mean we're not in Queens, we're not up the island you know we don't go ahead and build (inaudible) houses as close as what they would need to do. I understand where the railroad tracks are, that's the reason for the proximity of the house that's proposed (inaudible). That's my one and only concern and that's what I wanted to go ahead and speak. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Were you involved in it when this first application came through? TIMOTHY STARON : Yes I came to the last hearing last year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's nobody on Zoom I don't think. Does the Board have any other questions at this time?We are going to allow him to submit whatever documentation he wants to. So, we can close this subject to receipt of whatever MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just wanted to share that the tax map number that and I'll call you George, I'm sorry I don't remember how to say your last name, George offered before when we sort of asked for public comment is for a home that's currently under construction, I've never seen the property myself but it's on the North Rd. at the corner of Clark St. just before Town Beach. Clark of course connects with Soundview Ave. it's on the southwest corner but it would be in my minds eye a lot that was created a long time ago, it's not a lot that recently received any variance relief for whatever the proposed house is based on my knowledge of current you know going back ten years on this Board nor the creation of the lot because all the lots there I think were created whether it was the 1950's or at some earlier time I don't know. The question I had asked you, if you can provide examples of newly created lots within the R40 zoning district and I don't want to say anywhere in town but I think fairly in at least the hamlet of Southold that would show a newly created lot, I don't care about the placement of the house, I don't want to get into the setbacks, or side yard or front yard setbacks etc. or GFA but just the creation of the lot that is substandard to the zone. I think that would be very instrumental. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because honestly construction is a whole other application. When you proposed to build something, you go and get a building permit, if you conform to the bulk schedule and all of that,they'll give you a permit. If you don't, they'll write this Notice of Disapproval and you'll be back here for variances to build a house that doesn't conform to those things. It's better to just take it one step at a time. We know that eventually the purpose of unmerging is to develop it as a residential lot otherwise of what use?You have greater equity in keeping them merged and keeping them one lot because it's a much bigger lot with a wooded area which is very desirable for a lot of people. So, you're not losing equity, it's a different kind of equity to be able to sell it as a separate lot and develop it with a house on it. Anything else 1 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting from anybody? So, I think you made it clear what we're looking for, I mean you get it now. Anything from anybody else? Alright, then I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of any written documentation the applicant wishes to produce and can we give you two weeks to do that in? GEORGE GEORGIADIS : That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fair enough? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : And if there's not going to be another hearing you won't have an opportunity to speak, everything submitted would have to be written. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're not going to have another hearing, we're just saying, give us all the documentation that supports your application in written form. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : I understand, not a hearing but I get what you're saying. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the way that you provided the tax map number, you give the tax map number and the lot you say this lot was created on March 3, 2021 and these are the facts around it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is the width lot, depth what we're looking for is comparable decisions by this Board that sets a precedent for us to say, well we did that over here before. Now, each application is actually looked at separately on the merits of their specific application. You know neighbors are different in every neighborhood and where their houses are and you know whether the topography is that's why we do site inspections and look at things before we have hearings so we can distinguish one from the other but precedent counts. So, when we ask for priors, we're basically saying, well if we allowed a lot of accessory garages in front yards in this neighborhood maybe it's part of the character of the neighborhood now and the one who wants to do one now has the benefit of those prior decisions. Does that make sense to everybody? If you can find anything that will support your argument, we're going to give you time to do that we'd like to have all that information in by our next meeting which is in two weeks, that gives you plenty of time. Laser fiche is a mess right now, we all know that and it's driving everybody crazy because no one can really access it. By some miracle our office used to be able to break through from time to time so if you need some assistance alright. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would be more in Planning. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Would the neighbors have access to the comments? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course, whatever he submits,the hearing is well then we should hold it open, adjourn with the potential closing in two weeks. If we close it subject to receipt it May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting means that they can still look at it but they can't comment. In fairness to concern to your neighbors I think the more let's say democratic small "d"to do this a more inclusive way would be to adjourn it so that you can call the office and say, have you gotten anything that we can look at. We'll put it up we file it but nobody has access to this stuff which is driving us crazy. You can always come in and look at our original folder that's in the office with his stuff in it. If you want to write something you'll have.the opportunity to but it's gotta be done within that two-week time frame cause at that next meeting in two weeks we're probably going to close this thing and render a decision. GEORGE GEORGIADIS : So, for myself I'm just going to continue down the path of written submittal and I can drop it off I guess in person (inaudible) electronically and it gets lost somewhere so I'll bring it in person so you guys can stamp it whatever and enters into the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Then anybody that wants to access it via FOIL has access? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly GEORGE GEORGIADIS : Okay, that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we get this you have a two week period, we will close this hearing then. Now depending on when we get what, we possibly could have a draft decision if we get stuff early enough but if we're going to give them the complete two weeks to look at it we likely will not because in fairness give them the full amount of time and then we will probably close it and then we will like a month from now we do deliberate on draft decisions at regular meetings where we have public hearings. We try to do most of them by the Special Meeting which is four in the afternoon upstairs usually just because we like to keep things moving as quickly as possible, we don't want to delay property owners longer than we have to then we get flooded with more of the same. That's likely how it will unfold, does that make sense to everybody? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on May 215Y with potential closing on May 21. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Nick, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye 731 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have resolutions, Resolution for the next Regular Meeting to be held Thursday,June 4, 2026 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. Resolution to approve the Minutes from Special Meeting held on April 16, 2026 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. Resolution to grant a second one-year extension to#7609 Bay Beach LLC at 1055 Bay Home Road in Southold, so moved to expire April 21, 2027. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye 4 May 7, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to adjourn without a date #8042, 1460 The Strand LLC in East Marion, 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. Motion to adjourn #8084 Joseph Romano 70 Arshomamoque. Nick and Margaret are recused so roll call, raise your hand.and say aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, okay the motion carries. I think that's it on the resolutions. Motion to close the meeting. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye 75 May 7, 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 : May 20, 2026 76