Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/2026 Meryl Kramer,Chairperson Town Hall Annex Umberto Fasolinoft 54375 Route 25 Frank Buonaiuto ��, PO Box 1179 Clay Coffey Southold,NY 11971 Anne Surchin,Historic Preservation Fax(631)765-6641 Commission Liaison ! Telephone:(631)765-1892 Reynolds duPont,Jr.,Fishers Island Liaison + www.southoldtownny.gov TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES THURSDAY,MAY 7,2026 at 4:OOPM TOWN HALL ANNEX BASEMENT MEETING ROOM AND VIA ZOOM BASED WEBINAR Members Present: Meryl Kramer,Chairperson;Anne Surchin;Clay Coffey;Town Planner Mara Cerezo;Town Planner Brian Cummings, and Elizabeth Cantrell,Secretary were present. Karen Hoeg, Esq.was in attendance to meet the Committee members and discuss her interest in joining the committee. Introduction• All applicants will give a presentation consisting of drawings,exterior materials samples and other information required by the Planning Department to the Committee. The Committee will ask questions and make suggestions as part of a general discussion with each applicant. Final recommendations from the ARC will be presented to the Planning Board in the ARC Meeting Minutes,and be made part of the Planning file for that application. The Planning Board will consider these recommendations,together with all comments from other agencies,and provide the applicant with a comprehensive written list of its requested revisions. New Site Plan Afication: HAMPTONS OYSTER COMPANY BUILDING SCTM#: 1000-117:7-32 This agricultural site plan is for the proposed construction of a 1,120sq.ft. equipment storage building for aquaculture operations (no basement) on 0.25 acres in the MlI (Marine II) Zoning District. Property owner Joseph Finora and Town Planner Brian Cummings presented the proposed site plan and design drawings for the Committee's review. Following the presentation,the Committee members discussed the project with the applicant and have the following comments. • The structure is representative of the business and an aesthetic contribution to the Town and waterfront. • The Committee recommends the building not be proposed with white wall siding and a black roof,rather neutral colors such as gray would be more suited for this site. • The Committee recommended alternative materials such as natural wood boards,T-111 panels, or Hardi siding that are more in keeping with the surrounding buildings. Page 1of5 • The Committee noticed that the roof appears too shallow for proper drainage and recommends a minimum of 3:12 slope,as per roof shingle manufacturer's installation instructions. • The windows should be a consistent proportion and glass lites should be consistent between doors and windows. • Consider relocating the dormer to be asymmetrical with garage door on both sides of the building. • The Committee felt the two garage doors may look more appropriate if there were no windows in them. • The Committee recommends the color of the corner boards should match the siding. Amended Site Plan p lication: HANDY PANTRY MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SCTM#1000-114.-12-3.1 This amended site plan application proposes the construction of a two-story, 10-unit multifamily building on the previously undeveloped rear portion of a 2.11-acre parcel containing an existing±9,600 sq.ft.commercial multi-tenant building in the Hamlet Business (HB) Zoning District in Mattituck. Chairperson Meryl Kramer recused herself from the review of this application. Town Planner Mara Cerezo presented the proposed site plan and design drawings for the Committee's review. Following the presentation, the Committee members discussed the project with the applicant and have the following comments. • This project represents one of the first multifamily residential buildings on the North Fork / Mattituck in a considerable period of time.As such,it has the potential to set a precedent for the character and quality of future development in our community. As currently presented, the building reads as a generic apartment complex rather than a thoughtfully designed piece of residential architecture. If this is intended to serve market rate and workforce housing, that purpose makes design quality more important, not less. The residents of this building deserve homes that are aspirational in their design, that engender pride of place, and that support a positive home life through architectural intention. The current drawings do not achieve this. The building should not be read as repurposed college apartments. It is recommended that the applicant engage a design review of the entire project before returning to the Committee. The issues identified below are interconnected and suggest the need for a comprehensive design revision rather than piecemeal corrections. • If there is to be an integrated solar panel system,how would that affect the current project plan. • The 2025 NYSECC raises the question of solar readiness for new commercial and multifamily buildings. This should be a direct question to the applicant: is solar energy planned for this project? If so,how does the panel layout integrate with the roof design? If not,why not? For a new-construction multifamily building in 2026,solar readiness should be an expectation,not an afterthought.The roof design should accommodate solar from the outset rather than treating it as a retrofit. • It is recommended that there be egress and/or windows in every room in the basement area for both sunlight and emergency situations. Page 2of5 • Along the front of the building,what is the utility of the front porches and balconies? • The balconies as drawn raise several concerns: the second-floor balconies do not align with the first-floor porches or window openings below them, and at the rear entry there is a 15-foot protruding balcony/entry portico with no apparent public access or clear programmatic purpose. If balconies are even appropriate, solid parapet guardrails are recommended to provide residents with a greater sense of enclosure and privacy. • Submit more detail for the stone flint,columns,and balusters. • Beyond detail, the open balustrade-style handrails shown are not appropriate for this building type. The Committee recommends that the applicant explore solid parapet-style guardrails instead. Parapet guards would provide more privacy for the residents and resolve many of the disparate architectural elements by reducing visual clutter on the facade. • It appears all of the exterior materials proposed is to be a type of plastic/fiberglass. It is recommended that the material be more environmentally conscientious including types of materials that are forestry regenerative products. • The siding is called out as Versatex or PVC. PVC siding is a petroleum-derived product with a substantial environmental footprint in its manufacture. It is also not particularly dimensionally stable over the long term and is susceptible to warping under heat exposure, which will be a maintenance and aesthetic issue over the life of the building.Fiber cement(such as HardiePlank or HardieShingle), natural wood siding with proper detailing, or other non-petroleum-based cladding systems would all be more appropriate for this context and more durable over the building's lifespan. • What exterior colors are being proposed for the roof, siding,columns,etc. • The roof is quite tall (10-foot-high attic space),consider lowering the roof height. • The issue goes beyond height. The roofline as depicted lacks a clear compositional hierarchy. The roof should express the organization of the building and help break down its perceived mass. • The Committee is requesting a roof plan to include depictions of how this roof line actually works. • The roofline as depicted lacks a clear compositional hierarchy.It is not evident how the various ridge lines,gable ends,and slopes relate to one another or to the building's plan below.The roof should express the organization of the building and help break down its perceived mass. The applicant should present a roof plan and supporting sections that demonstrate a legible, intentional roof composition. • Does the structure meet the Town's Sky Plane requirements? This should be confirmed in the next submission. • How are the second-floor balconies being held up? • The balconies are currently shown in the plans and elevations as floating.If the applicant wishes to retain balconies at all, their location, size, detailing, and structural support need to be reconsidered as part of a coherent facade composition and structural design. • The second-floor balconies/windows do not align with the first-floor balconies/windows on any side of the building. • The second-floor balcony that protrudes out approximately 15 feet has no public access,what is the purpose of this balcony? • Try to lessen the building having a hotel-like aesthetic and more of a residential-like aesthetic. • The building's massing needs to be reconsidered in relationship to the surrounding residential context. The roof line alone is bigger than any of the adjacent properties. The applicant should explore breaking the building down into smaller perceived volumes through architectural Page 3 of 5 planning: stepping the plan, varying the roofline, differentiating materials and/or volumes across sections,or articulating the facade and roof to create multiple connected structures rather than one large monolithic building.The total enclosed area could remain the same while reading as contextually appropriate from the street and from neighboring properties. • On the floor plans,labeling each unit(unit 1,unit 2,etc.)would be useful for all involved. • Some of the second-floor unit's kitchens are poorly laid out and should be re-designed. • The issue is broader than individual kitchens. The unit plans throughout the building lack design clarity and do not reflect a thoughtful approach to residential livability. Room proportions, circulation patterns, natural light access, and the relationship between living, cooking, and sleeping areas all need to be reconsidered. There is a 2nd floor 1-bedroom apartment that appears to be as big if not bigger than other 2-bedroom apartments.While it may be the applicant's goal to blend market rate and workforce housing between the two floors,the implications of this layout should be studied. Wet room locations on the 2nd floor that are over dry locations should also be considered. It appears that two bathrooms on the 2nd floor are directly above bedrooms on the ground floor. Additionally, egress windows and natural light in the basement level should be reiterated.Every habitable space should have adequate daylight and code-compliant emergency egress. • A scaled rendering of the structure that depicts cars,people,sidewalks,etc.would be helpful to aid in depicting the scale of the building being proposed. • The current drawings do not adequately communicate the scale of the proposed building. As submitted, they are difficult even for a trained architect to evaluate in terms of contextual impact, and they will be effectively illegible to the general public and to Planning Board members who will be asked to approve this project. • The Committee recommends that the applicant consider creating and submitting a 3-D rendering when the plans are closer to being finalized to aid in both Town offices and the public having a better understanding of what is being proposed. • The rear elevation, which functions as the primary pedestrian entry, is poorly resolved. The portico is over-elongated and the composition lacks symmetry or any clear organizing logic.For a residential building, the entry is the single most important moment in the architectural experience. It is where residents arrive home. It needs to convey a sense of welcome, permanence, and care. The applicant should redesign the entry with an eye toward harmonic proportional relationships:a balanced composition,appropriately scaled columns,and a portico depth and width that relate to the building facade behind it. Symmetry and scale need to be considered here. • The current submission does not address HVAC integration.For a 10-unit multifamily building, the mechanical systems will have significant visual and spatial impacts. Condenser units, exhaust venting, plumbing vents, ductwork routing, and any rooftop equipment need to be shown on the site plan, elevations, and roof plan. How are these systems being screened from view? Where are condensers located relative to neighboring properties? This is not a detail to be deferred. It directly affects the building's appearance and its impact on adjacent residences. The Committee recommends that the applicant return with revised plans.Given the scope of the concerns outlined above,the applicant is encouraged to treat this as an opportunity for a meaningful design revision rather than a set of isolated corrections. This building will be a part of Mattituck's built environment for decades. It should be a flagship for the design team and designed accordingly. Page 4of5 This Committee would like the applicant to return with revised site plan depicting the recommendations noted above. Respectfully Submitted by, 4E ,atbeth"CantriellCA.R.C.Secretary Page 5 of 5