Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/04/2026 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 June 4, 2026 10:05 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 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Kimberly and Steven Bruni #8103 3 - 18 Kimberly and Steven Bruni #8104 3 - 18 Blue Marlin Realty, LLC#8105 19- 24 Louis Hug Irrevocable Trust/Thomas Hug#8106 24- 27 Scott Kaufman #8108 27 -40 Angela Levas#8109 40—44 Decision for Peter Stein and Allison Kronick Stein #8053 45—46 Decision for Pristine Projects, LLC#8096 46-47 Nicole and Stephen O'Grady#8123 47 -49 615 Pike Street, LLC#8035SE 49 - 56 Veradeanna Properties LLC#8099 56- 65 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for public hearing for June 4, 2026. Please all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first matter on the agenda this morning is the State Environmental Review. 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: Kimberly and Steven Bruni, Blue Marlin Realty, LLC, Louis Hug Irrevocable Trust, Scott Kaufman, Angela Levas and Nicole and Stephen O'Grady, so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye.We have two draft decisions but in orderto have them continue with the hearings on a relatively timely schedule I'm going to make a motion to just simply delay those, we don't have to table them, we're just going to discuss those I guess they have to read them over lunch or whatever and then we'll come back and deliberate after. HEARING#8103 &#8104 KIMBERLY and STEVEN BRUNI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first applications before the Board, I'm going to open them up at the same time are for Kimberly and Steven Bruni#8103,this is a request for a reversal of the Building Inspector's October 27, 2026 Notice of Disapproval pursuant to Article II Section 280- 10 which states, a nonconforming lot (SCTM No. 1000-68-3-8.3) shall merge with an adjacent conforming or nonconforming lot (SCTM No. 1000-68-3-8.4) which has been 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 for a common course of fifty feet or more in distance. Nonconforming lots shall June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting, merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements located at 970 Salt Marsh Lane in Peconic. ANTHONY PASCA : Thank you, for a point of order can we incorporate the two the second hearing is also ours and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly, let me open them at the same time. The second application with the same applicant and the same property is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SUM No. 1000-68-3-8.3 which has merged with 8.4 based on the Building Inspector's October 27, 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 and that nonconforming lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements again, located at 970 Salt Marsh Lane in Peconic. ANTHONY PASCA : Thank you very much, Anthony Pasca (inaudible) we're here for Kimberly and Steven Bruni who are also here. Kim, I think would like to address the Board but I'm going to go first cause I think we have a decent amount to cover on the facts and the law and but she does want to address the Board. Most of what I'm going to talk about is the appeal but at the end of it I will address the waiver of merger issues too. The underlying facts are for both applications really, it's to understand the theoretical origination of the merger and the waiver of merger to understand how we got to where we were. Earlier this week we submitted the Memo and the reason I wanted to do this was because there is a sequence and a history to this property and it's important to go from beginning to end to understand what happened and what laws were in effect when certain things happened. It took us a lot of time to figure out. To be completely honest, when we first got this after the Notice of Disapproval came out, we were hired to take a look at it and it really did take us a decent amount of time to try to piece through the history to try and figure out what happened before we came to the conclusion that the waiver the merger itself really should not have been deemed a merger and that's what I'm going to go through first. What we're looking at today is basically a retroactive decision made in 2025 that the properties merged sometime between 1983 and 1987. The sequence in what happened, we kind of laid out the actual documentation in the memo with exhibits and all that but I'm just going to go through it kind of briefly to try to point out a few things. The first key period of time is 1971, that was when the Planning Board approved the subdivision for the property that Nelson Axien owned so the original owner of the three lots in question was Nelson Axien. He went through a legal subdivision in 1971, the lots were roughly (inaudible) square feet each (inaudible) conforming to the zoning code that existed at the time just under conforming to the current zoning code R40. So, when Nelson Axien we provided a copy of the Planning Board map it has lot 1, 2 and 3, we are lot 2.The 970 Salt Marsh Lane is the middle lot June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting on the subdivision map. Each of the lots had a bungalow on it so each one Nelson was essentially subdividing three bungalows into three building lots, three residential lots. One of the lots was on the theoretical property line but it was moved as part of the subdivision to make sure that each lot had one bungalow on it. As of 1971 there were three legal conforming lots. At some point after 1971 there was up-zoning to the 40,000 minimum requirement but then we flash forward to when the lots started getting separated and (inaudible). The fist lot that went out was the Poshtrager lot which was lot 3 and that went out I think it was '78 or '77, 1978 tax lot 8.2. So, if you're keeping track by subdivision lot, it's lot 3 and if you're keeping track by tax lot 8.2 was the first one to be carved out and separate (inaudible). Nelson Axien died in 1983 so that was the sort of next event and his wife Elaine Axien inherited and became the owner of the two lots that Nelson still owned at the time. As on 1983 Elaine Axien owns both subdivision lots one and two, tax lot 8.3 and 8.4. In 1987 the next key date, that's when Elaine Axien conveys out subdivision lot one, tax lot 8.4 to Dr. Mohammed. As of 1987 that's when there's a full a complete separation of ownership of the three parcels and they were never held in common ownership again. For purposes of keeping track of the title side of it, the deeded side 1987 is the key date for purposes of complete separation single and separate ownership of the lots. A couple of things that I wanted to point out about 1987 is that there was different zoning code in effect in 1987,then the zoning code that was adopted in 1995 and we'll get to that in a little bit but it's critical because 1995 was the first law that expressly included the new merger law and we're going to talk a little bit about that it had a look back to 1983 but we're in this we're in the exact zone where the 1995 law was adopted with a lookback that took us back to a point and time before there was a complete separation of ownership. It's important for that and we have provided a copy of the law that existed at the time in the 1980's when Elaine Axien finished the separation of the lots and there was no merger law in it, it was a different form of a single and separate provision, kind of confusing I've read it a thousand times I'm not quite sure what it means but it was a single a separate law without any specification of the conditions of merger in effect as of 1987.The next important reason for the 1987 split is that the following year was the year that the Building Department first focused on Elaine Axien's remaining lot.We have provided that file the entirety of the Building Department file from 1988 for your records. There's a bunch of interesting things in there. The most interesting thing that we found was that it's clear that the Building Department was aware of the ownership issue because there is a copy of the subdivision map in the file and it looks like the Building Inspector's handwriting but there's certainly labels put on it that said that Potshrager lot was sold'to Potshrager that's lot three and there's a note on lot one which said, sold to Dr. Mohammed on blank date 1987. So, the Building Department in 1988 was clearly aware of the split of ownership, the Building Department was applying the pre 1995 law that existed at the time and we have two Building Inspectors who gave out approvals for Elaine Axien's remaining lot. The first Building Inspector was Howard Fisher, he gave out a building June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting permit on June 2, 1988 allowing expansion of the bungalow and some (inaudible) from inspections that were made by I don't want to botch his the pronunciation of his name so I'm just going to spell it but the Building Inspector who did the inspections and issued the C.O. was Vincent Wieczorek if anybody knows how to pronounce it tell me and I'll try to pronounce it correctly but I'm going to call him Vincent W. Vincent W. issues the C.O. for the property on September 13, 1988 deeming the new Elaine Axien home legal. That's sort of a key moment in time for us when we get to the legal arguments as to a lot of things flow from that point. We had a building permit, we had construction based on that building permit, we had a C.O. As far as we can tell, we did some research there was no challenge to that C.O. not with a sixty-day appeal brought to this Board, any legal challenge that we could find and that's also going to be important for some vesting legal rules that apply when dealing with stuff like this. So, September 1988 a key moment in time, we have the legal C.O. that was never challenged. Something that we discovered when we found this file, this Building Department file that may have I don't want to speculate as to what the Building Department in 2025 was looking at but we almost stumbled upon this (inaudible) of the property was different in the file. Axien's lot two (inaudible-lost connection) was 880 Salt Marsh Lane building permit application and this was all issued under 880 Salt Marsh Lane. I don't know if that means that the numbers were changed sometime between '88 and 2020 1 don't know but I know that the address listed was 880 which today refers to the (inaudible- lost connection). Next key moment in time was 1995 and reason being, that is when the Town of Southold first adopted the robust merger law that has led to a lot of things since then happening. We provided a copy of the entire file from the 1995 local law because it has some context in it that might help explain what was going on before 1995. As I mentioned, there was a single and separate law in effect from 1983 to 1995. What's clear from the 1995 legislative jacket let's call it that said, it was viewed at that time that the existing law was not clear about anything.There were notations in that file about how the Building Department, Planning Department, Planning Board and Zoning Board were all applying the rules of lot recognition and merger differently and so it was time to create a clear standard for everybody.The then Town Attorney, Laurie Dowd referred to this as a black hole in the code. She said, we're trying to fill a black hole in the code by creating these two new laws; one was the lot recognition law I know this Board has dealt before and the other was the merger law which you've also dealt with before. Since then,.1 mean I think it's probably fair to say that these laws have kind of vexed not just the homeowners who have been caught up in it but also this Board to some extent in terms of exceptions and waivers and the Town Board trying to modify the code, we've had additions to the exceptions, clarifications to the waiver law over the years. I think it's been one of those vexing issues and it's not just Southold, it's everything that has merger laws. (inaudible)You even have building inspectors who (inaudible) in different towns and different villages and it's been one of those areas of law that there's a lot of litigation but for purposes of today the key is that, 1995 was the first time that there was June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting an expressed merger law on the books in Southold. The strange thing about it I think is that it had this look back period to 1983 which is part of the reason why we're here today is that has been carried forward since 1995 to the present and was the portion of the law that I assume the Building Department here looked at when they made a finding of merger with respect to the Bruni's case. The 2025 Notice of Disapproval doesn't say much other than, here's the law, it says if it's been held in common ownership since 1983 it's merged. There was no specific finding in there with what date they considered but I have to assume it was meant to be '83 to '87 period because that's the only period it's the only causable period of time when the Building Department could have found that this merged cause that's the period of time referenced in the merger law and '87 was clearly the period of time when they were in separate ownership. We have to assume that'83 to '87 was what the Building Department found to be the merger. The reason I brought all those other things up is what happened after 1987 was the building permit C.O. and the new merger law that was put into place. We have a 2025 decision based on a 1995 law that was based on a look back to 1983 which then leaves us to the legal arguments which we've also laid out in the memo but I just want to run through each rule because there's basically five different rules.They all interplay with each other, each one alone would be a ground for you to reverse the finding of merger but they all work together and kind of cover different nuances of what we're dealing with. So, rule number one that we sited is this rule of consistency among building inspector decisions. It's a common law rule it's not a statutory rule but it's a common law rule where the courts have found that if one building inspector makes a decision another building inspector years later can't just say I looked back and I second guess you, different opinion. The legal case that we sited in the (inaudible) Kennedy V Zoning Board case, 1994 and it was based facts there was one the C.O. was issued in'79 based on a 1965 code that existed at the time and then ten years later a building inspector comes in and says, I think you were wrong the nonconforming use I think you needed a permit and therefore I found that it was illegal. The Appellate Division said no, you can't do that (inaudible) one building inspector cannot (inaudible) of another building inspector. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Anthony, that case was in your Memo it's not (inaudible) correct? ANTHONY PASCA : It was in the Memo. All it is, is a memo. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I didn't get through all the memo that's why (inaudible). ANTHONY PASCA :That's why I'm running through each rule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) time to do due diligence, the memo was submitted so soon to this hearing that there's no way that this Board could have possibly (inaudible-lost connection). 7 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PASCA : (inaudible-lost connection) call it post-merger (inaudible).The 1988 version of the code found there to be no merger. Our position is that the building inspector thirty-seven years later couldn't look back and make a different finding than what those building inspectors Fisher and Vincent W. made a finding of back in 1988. Rule number two applies is the rule of vested rights. What we've laid out is a rule that when someone and this is Elaine Axien the person who obtained the vested rights, when Elaine Axien applied to the Building Department in 1988 for a building permit,she then got a building permit. It was a reasonable building permit at the time, she vested her rights by completing construction under the building permit and then got the C.O. a few months later. That creates under the law vested right for her to go forward and once you have a vested right there are a lot of limitations on what the town Building Department or Zoning Board or Planning Board can all do with respect to someone who has obtained vested rights. That's what we're dealing with (inaudible) case law on vested rights. It basically said, as long as the building inspector makes a reasonable decision, you rely on it, you complete construction based on that reasonable decision, you've obtained a vested right that cannot be impaired by later action of the town or at least not later action of the town without some version of a condemnation which would then undo the vested right. That's the rule number two. Rule number three it's kind of corollary to rule number one which was a rule that came down about ten years ago from the Board of Appeals and it's a decision called (inaudible) management. I'm going to tell you a little bit about (inaudible) management because it was my it came out of the Village of East Hampton appeal. What happened in the Village of East Hampton was that in 1989 and 1993 there were two early C.O.'s issued to this property in East Hampton.Ten years later in 2003 the and those appeals weren't challenged so (inaudible) key facts in the case. In (inaudible) a new building inspector comes in and issues a new decision. My clients who were neighbors to the property timely filed an appeal from the 2003 decision. We had an appeal from the Zoning Board at the time. The Zoning Board based upon rules that you probably heard of before said, we can't be stopped from considering the legality of this property. It's interesting that this 1989 and the '93 C.O. but we have a right to look at everything related to this property.The ZBA sided with our clients and said,we find that this use is illegal and basically undid the 1989 and 1993 C.O.'s by finding that those uses were illegal. The owner then brought a law suit. We won in Supreme Court for the neighbors, we won on the Appellate Division on behalf of the neighbors and we were surprised when the Court of Appeal took the case cause it was an uninteresting case at that point, why are they taking this case?They took the case to set this rule that came out of the management decision which was that when a C.O. is issued and not appealed within the statutory time period for an appeal which is 60 days it becomes a final decision at that point and it cannotjust be aggregated years later by a second look at it when there's a new building inspector, new Board or anything. The Court of Appeals (inaudible) management case that the parts of the use that were protected by the '89 and '93 C.O. were locked in. You can't touch anything new that's 8 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting determined after that that's fair game but with respect to those two old C.O.'s those uses cannot be touched. There's a quote that we included in the memo it's an important quote for purposes of the Bruni's here, it says, any other result would come I'm paraphrasing it says, any other result would be unfair to both who would rely on the C.O., lenders and new purchasers. That's what leads people to take a look, they hire attorneys like us when they buy properties and say what's the status of the property and we say it's got a C.O. and that was never challenged.They have a right to rely on that C.O.going forward so that's the rule number three. Rule number four that we've dealt with in the brief is a rule relating to merger specifically.That is that there is no clear merger law, the courts will not allow the town to simply find a merger just because properties are held in common ownership. We've cited a half a dozen cases on this Court of Appeal and they all stand for the same thing which is, merger is one of those things where has harsh effects on people like the Bruni's and Elain Axien before them (inaudible) against her. Because zoning codes are construed strictly in favor of the land owner and against the town, we're not going to allow mergers to be found unless there's a clear merger code, clear conditions that support when a merger would happen. Why is that important to us, because of the 1995 law and that's part of the reason we filed that entire (inaudible) for what happened in '95 cause everybody admitted at that time the existing law was not clear; being applied differently by different Boards. It was a black hole in our code,that was the exact words that Laurie Dowd used, we need some clarity now. That was the first time that there is an appearance of a merger law, a true merger law in the code of the Town of Southold.The other part of that rule is, (lost connection—inaudible) have any effect on it.That's the Segway I guess to the final rule that we cited which has to do with retroactive application of laws. We have the strange law the merger law that was adopted in '85 has this look back to 1983 and our property is sort of the poster child of what could go wrong when you do something like that because as of 1983 to '87 when there was a common ownership there was no merger law or no clear merger law. Then 1995 comes along with a look back to then, by that time the properties had already been separated. What the case law says is that, for a law to have a retroactive application it cannot impair vested property rights. When I said earlier that a lot of these rules work together part of the reason, we discussed vested property right rule is that notwithstanding the '95 laws look back to '83 once Elain Axien claimed vested rights in 1988 that law could not have legally have a retroactive effect on her period. So,there might be other circumstances where you know the retroactive look back is fine because there was no intervening application to a building inspector, no intervening vested rights that were obtained but in Elaine Axien's case she obtained vested rights in 1987 therefore the 1995 law could not legally have a retroactive look back(inaudible).Those are the five rules,they all work together, they all separately would justify a reversal of the building inspector's decision. I understand why he might not have felt comfortable applying legal rules like that,you guys have an attorney to talk to, you have the ability that he doesn't have to look at all these facts and all these rules June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting but I think you have an obligation to apply the law that New York says you have to apply.That's why we laid out these five rules and are asking you to apply them correctly and undo the finding of merger. I do before Kim says a few words, I do want to just briefly address the waiver of merger. It's also a code that's vexed me a little bit in the past because of the way it's worded, personally I think it should be a little more flexible in terms of its application but it has these rigid statements where I'm going to be honest and I don't know how this exactly fits to this but I want to go through the standards to point out a couple of things. The waiver of merger law 280-11 has certain requirements in it and we don't fit neatly in any box but we also don't fit we only go outside of this box so when subsection A says, I'm going to just read it,the lot proposed to be recognized has not been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the time the merger was affected. What I find confusing about that for purposes of Bruni's property is,when was the merger affecting in this case?The lots were transferred the last time is was transferred out of separate ownership was in '87 there was no merger (inaudible) in '87 there was no merger code in '87. In '95 when the merger code was adopted that could have been the time when the quote, unquote merger was affected where it has this look back period to'83.So was '95 the time it was affected or was it'83 the time that was affected or was 2025 the time it was affected cause that's the first time the building inspector made any such determination.That's something that you're going to have to grapple with. I don't know the answer to it, I think there's an argument that you can find me literally comply with that code because at no point in time after 1995 where the lots separated it had already been separated before that. As far as the balancing test, they all with one exception I'll talk about number two but one and three, three factors you gotta look at; one and three clearly way in favor of the Bruni's. Number one says, the proposed waiver would recognize the lot that is comparable in size through the majority of the improved lots in the neighborhood. The lot is ninety six percent conforming so we're not looking to create a postage stamp lot in the middle of a 40,000 sq.ft.we're in a thirty- six something we're ninety six percent conforming to the code. Number three, (lost connection- inaudible) the lots been in existence since 1971. It's had a bungalow on it since 1971, 1 don't think there's any argument that it could be deemed to create an adverse impact. The only question again to me it's a vexing question, it says, the lot proposed to be recognized is vacant and historically been treated and maintained as a separate residential lot. It's not vacant it has a bungalow on it. The flip side to this waiver of merger is the exception to merger provisions which we've dealt with before. Exception to merger provision says, an improved lot doesn't merge so long you have an 850 square foot house on it. Ours is just under 850 sq. ft. so we fall in some strange no man's land between the exception which we would have we wouldn't even be here if we had a few more square feet added to this bungalow we would have just fallen under an as of right exception for the waiver of merger provision you're supposed to be vacant in order to qualify for a waiver of merger. I think you could interpret the word vacant as being anything less than the 850 sq.ft.for the requirement. I think that's probably what was intended t June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting by this but it's obviously it's a vague situation and it's kind of a no man's land. I'm going to ask you to grapple with that a little bit if you even get there, you don't have to get there if you find there was no merger. I'll answer questions if you have any but if you could hear from Mrs. Bruni first and then let me know if you have any questions. KIM BRUNI : My remarks will be pretty brief. My name is Kimberly Bruni and my husband is here as well. If you don't mind, I'm just going to read what I have prepared. Good morning, members of the Board my name is Kimberly Bruni and I am here today with my husband Steven Bruni as the owners of 970 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic, New York. We appear before you to respectfully appeal the determination that our property has been merged with the lot to our west and to ask this Board to recognize what the public record clearly shows that these are two separate and distinct parcels. I want to be clear about one foundational fact. We do not own the lot to our west it belongs to a separate owner entirely. We have never held common ownership (inaudible) parcels not at the time we purchased our property nearly eight years ago, not at any point during our ownership and not today. I want to be candid with this Board of how we learned of this merger claim. We found out when we applied for a building permit. There was no prior notice, no letter, no determination that we were ever asked to respond to. We purchased this property in good faith. We have maintained it, paid our taxes and planned our future around it. Our closing attorney ordered the title search, the title came up clear and we closed on the property. The first indication that the town considered it merged with our neighbor's lot came at the moment that we submitted plans to the Building Department. This is deeply troubling to us. This is our dream, the home we have been working toward and planning for years. We chose Southold because of its beauty, its community and the promise of building something lasting here. To have a dream halted by a merger determination is devastating. One, we were never informed of that contradicts the public record and that ignores the fact of separate ownership is something I urge this Board to correct. In closing, I respectfully ask this Board to reverse the merger determination and recognize that our property stands as a separate lot.Thank you for your time and consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. ANTHONY PASCA : (inaudible) procedural (inaudible) I want to mention, when we filed the two applications the appeal and the waiver of merger there was a third application that we wanted to pursue which was a variance application. It seemed sort of logical to us that a lot that's already 6,000 sq.ft.where ninety six percent of the size of a conforming lot might make a viable variance application to have the Board approve it that way since it wasn't a postage stamp lot. We were told at the time by staff that we're not allowed to pursue the variance application until the Board has ruled on the waiver of merger. We withdrew it without prejudice, I don't necessarily agree with that procedure but we were told that that's somebody made that 11, June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting decision, I don't know who so we're abiding by it but I do want to say for the record that that is looming out there and there's no other choice CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We cannot address (lost connection — inaudible) what those nonconformities would be so it was really mature and we could not act on it so it made more why would we want you to pay for something we couldn't do anything about? ANTHONY PASCA : Well, I guess the way we were looking at it was, if the determination is upheld that the application couldn't proceed because the lot had merged for zoning purposes a variance should be a relief mechanism for that.We can argue that I don't know we don't have to argue I just wanted for the record because someone out there might be questioning apply for a variance we did but we were told we would have to wait. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the variance would to come with an application for a subdivision. ANTHONY PASCA : I'm going to agree to disagree for now, we'll have that I don't know I hope we don't have to have that argument for another day because I really do feel strongly having the opportunity to look through these file and the'95 law and all of this that I don't think there was a basis to uphold the merger in this case but hopefully we don't have to have that argument but I did want to point that out. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Further about the Notice of Disapproval not having anything about bulk schedule in it and I don't believe that you were told that you can't do it, it was more you were told that these would be your options and as Leslie said the Chairperson said, the variance application there's nothing in there to bring forward as a variance application because nothing in the Notice of Disapproval has anything about that. ANTHONY PASCA : Let's shelve that, procedurally I just wanted to put on the record that we would have applied, we were told to wait, we're waiting and what A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : What would you have applied for a variance for what? ANTHONY PASCA : A variance to recognize a 36,000 sq. ft. lot, that's what we're applying for which again I don't want to argue CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's recognized they just merged. I mean the lots historically you have established that these lots were subdivided legally into three lots right. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I'm not trying to interrupt you and cut you short however this has gone on quite some time, and we have a hundred and sixty pages to review,you may have to(inaudible). :,2 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PASCA : That's fair but merger is a zoning rule it's not a title rule so as far as the Suffolk County record is concerned these two properties are separate lots and they have been since 1987. The Mohammed family that got it in '87 1 believe still owns it, some intra transfers they own lot 8.4, the Bruni's own lot 8.3 so when we talk about the idea of merger it's a (inaudible) of zoning that for zoning purposes you can't get a building permit on a lot that's deemed merged for zoning purposes. It's not merged for title purposes so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood ANTHONY PASCA : I think it's a complicated, my clients asked those questions too and it's hard to explain. I've been dealing with it for thirty years and it's still hard for me to understand.There is some subtle distinction there between zoning merger vs title merger and how you deal with something if we don't know (inaudible). How it would make a subdivision application for a lot we don't know which is why if the primary relief is just recognize that it's (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the application? Let me see if the Board has any questions at this time, Nick anything from you? Rob? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this time. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I have one or two, thank you for the summary very thoughtful and well prepared. The 1971 subdivision there is a map with notated that the Planning (inaudible) in '71 and it showed the house straddling lot one and two which is tax map 8.3 and 8.41 should have said it the other way, 8.4 and 8.3; 1 think in the memo that you provided if not in the application there was a copy of the 1977 tax map so that would have been six years after the subdivision was approved bythe Planning Board and it shows the three parcels originally owned by the Axiens as a single lot and I wondered if there was some explanation for that. ANTHONY PASCA : I'm not actually familiar with which tax map you're saying? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea, I'm sorry I was flipping earlier trying to find it and I suspect I saw it on my computer yesterday as I was flipping through the memo which I confess I did not have time to entirely digest. ANTHONY PASCA : I'm not familiar with what you're describing. If that's true and I don't know if that's true but I can say sometimes the tax maps are generated by RPTS, Real Property Tax Service Agency,they have no title purpose,they have no zoning purpose theyjust have a taxing authority purpose. If that were true, I mean as of 1977 pre Potshrager sale it was all owned by Nelson Axien but certainly in 1977 or'78 was when he conveyed the lotto the Potshragers. 131 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I guess, let me rephrase I'm not familiar with real estate laws at all so my question is to put it a different way, when the Planning Board approved the subdivision in 1971 were there any steps the applicants needed to take to make that subdivision official? Did it need to be registered with the county or registered with some other entity in order to effectuate it? ANTHONY PASCA : You're sort of bringing up sort of another issue that hasn't just vexed me for years but in the 1970's before that Southold was all over the map in terms of set offs and minor subdivisions. When you have to do a major subdivision five lots or more, they follow the rules of filing maps in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office but (lost connection —inaudible) relatively in 1983 things settled down in the town. Before 1983 the town was all over the map in terms of how they handled (lost connection — inaudible) by building inspectors. (lost connection — in audible). In the Planning Board that we found there's nothing other than notations, there's no. (lost connection — inaudible) resolution I got one it's just a lot line modification there's conditions all over the place. Filed deeds, file this, file this in the county all these things and then report back to us and then it'll be deemed final. In 1971 that little swiggle on the map saying Planning Board approved date that's it,that's all we got.Things were done differently in the seventies. I mean I can't explain it other than that I know that to be true because I have found case Zoning Board approved minor subdivisions from'the seventies. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : One other question and again it's you know I don't I am not familiar with the laws related to merger that were on the books between 1983 and 1995, you describe them as being in 1995 described as a black hole and everybody agreed they were messy. I do know that the current law speaks to whether lots are developed with a dwelling, a dwelling over 850 sq. ft., at the time when this merger may have taken effect which would have been approximately July 1, 1983 when the two lots were both held by Elaine Axien, to your knowledge did the law on the books specify that the structures needed to be dwellings? ANTHONY PASCA : (lost connection — inaudible) classify different kinds of lots, one of which is a lot (inaudible)and the second column in the bulk schedule,that's it,that's all it says. It doesn't say anything about(lost connection—inaudible)anything about improved lot cause it didn't tell people for the first time how to deal with it. I can't put myself in Tom Fisher's shoes of Vincent W.'s shoes and say how did they interpret that code but I can tell that there are building inspectors on the east end who without any reference to 850 sq. ft. or this or anything about improved lots will not find a merger if there's a dwelling on each lot. The code could just say they merged if there's a dwelling on each lot, there are building inspectors who as a policy won't find a merger cause it's more nonconforming to have two dwellings on one lot than to have a 36,000 sq. ft. lot in a 40,000 sq. ft. district. So,there are building inspectors that just by June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting policy would never have found a merger, I imagine that's what they probably did at the time but I don't know for sure. MEMBER STEINBUGLER: Right, I guess what I was getting at though was the difference between a dwelling which I think is a year round structure and a bungalow. It sounds like as of 1971 if I'm following the story correctly there were bungalows on each lot or one straddling which was then moved to the western lot and there would have been a seasonal bungalow on each. Did the code make any distinction? ANTHONY PASCA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe they just preferred structures, dwellings I don't think at the time were defined based on square footage. It would have ANTHONY PASCA : I never heard of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was very vague. ANTHONY PASCA:Things were done differently back then, I mean that's true back in '71 I mean that was but it was clear the Nelson Axien's intent he had a bungalow colony I think that's what they would refer to those as, three bungalows on one bigger lot on a two and a half acre lot. He wanted to take each one and put it on a separate lot so that it can then become that's a more traditional single-family residence. When he did it it was fully conforming because I think the area was like 14,000 at the time or something in that neighborhood so he had 36,000 sq. ft. lot in the 14,000 sq. ft. district when he did it. Later it became the 40 that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, we've spend a very long time on this, there are many other people patiently waiting in the audience and we do have to read a hundred and sixty pages. Plus, we will also want to have a copy of the transcript to review your complex and interesting narrative. Unless there is anything else from the Board, we're going to have to adjourn this of course, we will come back with questions I'm sure so what we'll have to do is look at the next available date for a public hearing and adjourn to that date. What are we looking at on the calendar, what's the next date? November, okay? ANTHONY PASCA :That's not fair I mean we've been waiting six months for this date CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, we need to be able to hear thirty r applications a months instead of fifteen which is double what we used to hear five years ago because of the enormous pressure for development in the Town of Southold which didn't always exist as I'm sure you will remember. ANTHONY PASCA: I'm not blaming you. June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We take people on a first come first serve basis which is fair.You get your application in, we look to see how many are scheduled, we put you on as soon as we can reasonably do so and we can't do any better than that. We've tried again and again to figure out how to do that and unless we hold two public hearings a month you know which is next to impossible cause we have to read all the applications, go out and inspect every single property you know, have the public hearings and write decisions within sixty-two days. We have been attempting certainly I have for the last five years how to figure out how we can deal with the number of applications we get now.The Building Department is delayed too. I do apologize for the fact that you will have to wait but this is no different than any other application that has come before us especially when we have no ability really to ask questions of you today because we only got your memorandum like two days ago. ANTHONY PASCA : What if I'm going to make a suggestion, what if cause there's nobody here in opposition so this isn't where we have a major public controversy and thirty people who want to talk about it, if you have questions can they be up in writing and create a written comment period and I'll answer them in writing? I mean I don't to wait until November this becomes literally a year process from filing to completion if that's what happens and I'm not critical of the fact that you have a huge volume of work I'll blame the Town Board for that for creating that situation. These are also people need to move along with their lives one way or another.We've held off on variance application in order to get through this part of the process. This takes a year just for a hearing something not right about that. So, could we agree, digest the memo, put your questions in writing and I will answer them, I promise that and then you can close the hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I-don't think it's fair to the public to have correspondence I mean we operate with transparency and the way in which we ask questions is before the public so that anyone interested has an opportunity to both hear them and respond to them. ANTHONY PASCA : Nobody is here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't matter somebody might come back and ANTHONY PASCA : I think it does matter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry I don't think that's not the process that's fair to all applications. We have to be consistent in the way in which we hold we do applications. If we do this for you, I can just see a number of other attorneys asking for exactly the same thing in order to make sure their client doesn't have to delay any longer than possible. I can sympathize personally but the law June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PASCA : I sympathize but if this is the situation the town as a whole is violating (inaudible).The town law says the Zoning Board must (inaudible) reasonable time (inaudible) a year is not a reasonable amount. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not going to be a year. ANTHONY PASCA : If the excuse not excuse but the town's excuse for it taking a year. We filed this in November or December and by the time we get a decision it's going to be if we have to come back in November we're looking at December, that's a year to have a public hearing on the Zoning Board application on a (inaudible) that's a long time. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : But we're having a public hearing today. ANTHONY PASCA : I know but you're saying we have to come back in November. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because we didn't have your memorandum in time (inaudible) to respond to it. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Why don't we kind of like a waiting list, if somebody pulls their application off would you be able to honor them coming in sooner? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would be happy to do that, I don't anticipate anybody is going to withdraw their application but certainly that's fair enough but you know. You know what, there's another possible answer to this. If we have time to read your memorandum and the Board does not have questions, we could adjourn it to the Special Meeting give us two weeks to read it and if that's not enough time we can adjourn it to the next public hearing date and then I don't mean the application I don't mean for a hearing I mean we would adjourn it so that the Board has time to close it. If in fact we do have questions we are going to have to adjourn it to another public hearing date. ANTHONY PASCA : So you'll let me know after the Special Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whether we're going to adjourn further. At least we will make the effort to do that because you have been extremely clear about in your presentation about the memo. However, we haven't had a chance to ask you questions about it. It Will go on in November if the Board isn't able to close it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's adjourned now to the Special and at that point we make a determination whether we close it that day or if we need an additional hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To November. ANTHONY PASCA : I think that's a fair compromise. June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean at least that way we would have read what you know maybe by them ANTHONY PASCA : You may not have questions in which case it's not fair to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While it's still open Mr. Pasca, I just want to correct the statement, you said it's a year long process the application and I'm confused about the dates maybe staff I was just going to say you submitted it on February 4th. I mean I don't think three months wait time ANTHONY PASCA : We submitted it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe to the Building Department not us. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible)this Board I think we're moving efficiently the date is right here. ANTHONY PASCA : We were asked to refile for a certain reason but we originally filed in December. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : With the Zoning Board? ANTHONY PASCA : There was confusion let me tell you one more time, I filed it we were asked to provide surveys to properties we didn't own. We went back and forth with staff MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you had an incomplete file? It's not our fault. ANTHONY PASCA : No, no I didn't think I don't want to argue but I put this in December and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We made a decision,okay,stop we have to get on. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on June 181h and we'll take it from there. I did not ask if there was anybody on Zoom but I'm assuming Donna would have let us know. So, the motion is to adjourn to the Special Meeting on June 18th is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : I have a hand up but it went up after you closed it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's adjourned so this document of 160 page memorandum is part of our public record and the public has the right to FOIL that information to have a look at it. They've got at least at a minimum two weeks you know in order to do that and they can submit their written comments. HEARING#8105—BLUE MARLIN REALTY, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Blue Marlin Realty, LLC #8105. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207A(1)(C) and the Building Inspector's December 8, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and construct a new single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 35 feet, 3) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 square feet in area located at 450 Blue Marlin Drive (adj.to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport but I believe that's Southold. I think they made a mistake. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants. I will try to be as brief as I can,this is a little less complex than Tony's application. As Leslie alluded to,we are here for two variances,side yard relief and a GFA variance to permit a second-story addition to the applicant's home. This lot like most of the lots in the Southold (inaudible) subdivision is a narrow lot which has preexisting nonconforming side yard setbacks. The project as I indicated contemplates for the demolition of the existing one-story home as well as the decks and sunroom that lay in the flood zone. This has been sort of an evolving design where my clients initially presented it to the Building Department and it was pointed out that those seaward structures then existed the deck and the sunroom actually were within the flood zone. It's kind of odd,the neighboring property is there's some kind of little sloping down here so they went back and decided to remove that, they made this effort to come into conformity as much as possible and that included a consultation with the Trustees;the decision to even move it slightly forward by about seven feet. I did submit an updated site plan that shows that and the Trustees have indicated a willingness to approve the application at the last meeting at the 75-foot setback.The DEC is already approved. We have the slight landward shift but the proposed footprint is pretty much within the existing nonconforming setbacks of 14.2 1 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting feet on one side of the combined setback of 28.8 feet. As for the GFA, this property is entirely within allowable lot coverage only 14.1%,we're looking to add the second-floor addition which is about 1,755 sq. ft. which takes us about 400 sq. ft. over the allowable GFA. As the Board is aware I know you've had other applications for relief in this community. Most of the bayside lots on Blue Marlin Drive are two story homes that are comparable in size to what is proposed here. The proposed construction is completely within the allowable sky plane too. Essentially, we're of the position that the and I think this has been acknowledged by the Board that the prevailing development pattern within Southold Shores is two story homes on the waterfront side there are many two-story houses throughout.The narrow width necessitates the side yard relief. In 2022 the house just next door was granted side yard relief at 10 foot and 25.9 feet which is greater relief than we're seeking here today.With respect to the GFA,we would submit that the granting of relief to allow the second story would have no undesirable would not result in an undesirable thing to a neighborhood and the renovation will be entirely in character with many of the surrounding homes. I know that there was a letter in opposition that was just submitted by a neighbor suggesting that what was proposed is a me mansion, I think we can agree that that's absurd. There were letters of support by two other neighbors, the neighbor that's (inaudible) actually be most impacted by the side yard and another neighbor across the street who felt that what was proposed was entirely in character with the neighborhood. I would suggest to you that what is proposed will have no adverse impacts and is in character (inaudible) see that for yourself and I think that the Board's prior determinations have acknowledged the character of the neighborhood being houses just like the one that is proposed. Unfortunately, we do need variance relief because for the proposed renovations within the existing nonconforming footprint triggers that relief and the (inaudible) to the GFA regulations as well. I would submit that what is proposed is not of great magnitude, it is not substantial. Again, as I noted the applicant had removed the rear deck, removed other improvements so we're seeking 5% side yard, 19% combined side yard which is somewhat less than what was granted to the neighbor at 26%respectively.The house was also moved forward in further compliance with what the Trustees were seeking. We need 11% relief for the GFA and in another determination of GFA relief on the block, 12% relief was granted with a finding that that was not mathematically substantial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you submit the number and the MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, it's in my memo both decisions I referenced to, 8022 in 2025 and I should note that in that determination there was a GFA granted variance granted of 399 sq. ft. which is essentially exactly we're at 400 sq. ft. so exactly what we're looking for here. As to adverse impacts,we would submit that there is no perceivable adverse impact for the granting of variance relief here to permit the construction of a two-story home that is consistent with many other homes in the neighborhood. We have a consistent LWRP determination which 7-01 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting really noted that the removal of seaward improvements the installation of sanitary system are all net positive environmental factors for stemming from the project here. With that I'm happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First let's enter into the record what exactly variance relief is being requested. The GFA is at 3,975 sq. ft. which is 400 sq. ft. over the maximum allowed of 3,574.5 sq. ft., the single side yard setback is at 14 foot 2 inches, the code requires 15 feet and a combined side yard setback of 28 foot 8 inches where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. Martin this is a demolition, you are not building on the foundation of the existing dwelling. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Therefore you can create something that has a conforming footprint. Why would you be requiring or designing a house or having your clients propose a house that is within a footprint that no longer exists once the demolition takes place, you're not using that foundation? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right now there is a that is correct but the house next door was a demolition as well and that was granted the same exact or greater relief than we're seeking here today. The intent of the design was just to stay within the footprint. There has been side yard relief granted all over the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then a renovation would have allowed that rather than a demolition.This is literally taking the whole thing down and starting. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the house next door was actually there were adding a second story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They were adding a second story to on top of an existing nonconforming MARTIN FINNEGAN : It was deemed demo. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Because of the scale of the work but they're not demolishing well it goes back to the definition. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea but deemed demolition is very different than you know, it's a blank slate. MARTIN FINNEGAN :You know look, I think the intent was to maintain as much as the footprint and to reconstruct in a similar manner. Yes, there is a reconstruction and I guess they're you know we were looking at it as this is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, this is June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting the space the family requires for their needs and that's how it was designed to accommodate sufficient space within you know what has been there since the original house was constructed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well,greater consideration is given obviously to those that are being renovated in lace and in kind and possibly enlarged and so on, there's much less impact but when you begin with what is then deemed to be an empty lot because there's no structure left on it then the Board has to ask the question, why do you need variance relief when you could chose to build a house that conforms to the code? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well, this is a very narrow lot as you know a hundred feet or so. That's why relief has been granted to many other homes there just because of that preexisting nonconforming lot width. Having absolute conformity here I think would create a house that probably is not (inaudible) with many of the homes on the block here because they would be extremely (inaudible) so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A 65 foot wide house is not narrow. Without a doubt you can conform. Likewise regarding GFA it's an attached garage. Was there a consideration like the neighbor to build an accessory garage? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I have not discussed that with my clients but I can. I think again, it was just staying within the footprint. I mean they were originally going to be within that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) chose to move the house to accommodate the Trustees. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right, this is literally MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (talking over each other— inaudible) that you can build a completely conforming house (inaudible) GFA and setbacks. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea, it's only ten inches the side yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That side yard setback can be conforming that's for sure. Yea, it's a ten-inch difference that's just a no brainer. MEMBER LEHNERT:The argument about staying within the footprint,there is no footprint, it's an empty lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have an idea, just so we can figure all the way around, would you like us to adjourn to the Special Meeting so that you can discuss this with your client? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that make sense to everybody? June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There may be forthcoming an amended application. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, let me talk to my clients and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to be fair, you know just to give you an opportunity to digest this and let them know what the Board's thinking is. Does that make sense to everybody? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience who wants to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom, Donna? MEMBER STEINBUGLER :Just a clarification I think Nick mentioned it earlier but, there's a pool shown in the drawings I'm assuming it's not part of this application. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Very good, then a question of I think the lot coverage is fine because it wasn't cited on the Disapproval but I could not reproduce it given the information in front of me, I always check the math. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It was noted on the site plan. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's on the site plan, maybe I missed it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's there, it's at 14.1%. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I saw the number in the application but I didn't see what the square footage of the house that would allow me to double check. You know the footprint of the proposed house. I'm just asking that while we're here MARTIN FINNEGAN : We're well within lot coverage. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So staff, I heard Martin say at the introduction that there was a letter of opposition, I don't remember ever seeing it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It's in the packet, it's the people across the street. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I just got it yesterday. 231 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did we get something yesterday in opposition? We were given two letters of support yesterday. Maybe that letter that you're discussing would you give Kim a copy? OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : Kim has it already, it's in the file Nick. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, we have it. The letters of support came yesterday, not the letter of opposition. We have that in our file. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : Martin got his letter yesterday because his paralegal asked for any letters that we received and I sent them over and that was one that was in opposition, that's what he's referring to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on June 18th, 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 HEARING#8106—LOUIS HUG IRREVOCABLE TRUST/THOMAS HUG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Louis Hug Irrevocable Trust/Thomas Hug#8106. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-13A(6)(D) and the Building Inspector's February 13, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an accessory apartment within a single-family dwelling at 1) more than the allowable 25% of the habitable space of the entire residence located at 2100 Pike St. in Mattituck. Let me just quickly enter into the record that the accessory apartment in square footage is 35% of the square footage of the single-family dwelling where the code now allows 241 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting a maximum of 25% of the habitable space of the entire residence. The apartment is proposed at 523 sq. ft. is that correct? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, take it away. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board, Anthony Portillo AMP Architecture, Go Knicks! I want to start by just explaining the situation and then we'll get into'the math and how we got where we are with the design.Thomas Hug who grew up in Mattituck with two other brothers, mom and dad grew up in this house. The brothers are out, he's basically in charge of the residence with his mom trying to make it suitable for her older age. She has some health problems, the dad has passed as well so it's just her and she does need assistance, nursing assistance and Thomas her older son is in charge of kind of handling that part.She is the primary owner of the home. They've been there since 1998, she's not looking to go into a home, she's not looking to you know leave her premises so we're trying to make it work for her. One thing I want to talk about is the architecture of the building first. It's a split level, there's an existing deck in the rear which we've utilized for the elevator to enter that portion of the building.That portion of the building is where we put the apartment for her. It really was hard to make it any smaller cause on a split level how do you give space to the other two levels?That's kind of how the square footage got calculated. The other thing that I'd like the Board to notice is, there's the foyer area which is where you enter the building and getting to the larger apartment unit and that's 53 sq. ft. so that was put into the accessory apartment which I would argue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean the primary entry through the foyer? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would argue,that shouldn't be included.'So that's not really, we're only 99 sq. ft. over you know but the Building Department wanted us to include that in our calculation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We didn't get a statement from Mike Verity. I know this isn't an accessory dwelling unit but shouldn't we have gotten CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No because I don't even think that's the problem they don't look at we discover variances generally you know when we're looking at it ourselves because they don't we still retain original jurisdiction over these and they come straight to us for the application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just bringing,it up because of the square footage of the common entry while (inaudible) necessarily habitable living space. June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : percentage of apartment to dwelling. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would like to bring up thank you Nick, for the closets as well to preface that with the Board. There's a coat closet when you walk in or when you get into the entrance of the (inaudible). So, my accessory apartment so that's like 10 sq. ft. The split level is really what sort of created this area and it only made sense the deck is level with the door back there. Why would you put an elevator in the front? It just made sense that the elevator goes in the back, she comes out on the deck and she comes into the home. It's her own private entry. MEMBER LEHNERT : You're basically using what's there. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's it and then we're creating we're basically (inaudible) putting a duplex on the other side. We have plenty of parking, there's four spots. We really meet all the requirements and like I said really to me it's like 75 sq.ft.that we're really over. (lost connection —inaudible). I did try to find something that the Board in the past has given relief on something like this but I haven't been able to find anything. It's a special consideration in a sense that it's not if it was let's say a normal two-story home then I could have carved out the proper square footage. In this case it's not really possible, either way I went if I did the lower level or if I did the mezzanine level it just would have been in sane. I would have to cut the floor joists it just didn't make sense. So, I think the thing that makes the most sense and it considers the common space and the closets I think the relief is very minimal and for someone that's been in the town for thirty years and is just looking at (inaudible) space in her house is basically what we're here for. If you have any questions (inaudible) is here he can answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you've done a very skillful job basically on you know carving out a very manageable space. I see that you have a.wheelchair radius in the bathroom assuming that mobility is an issue thus the ramp I mean the elevator and the chairlift. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was excited when I saw it cause I mean looking at a 1960's, 170's split plan it's kind of hard to achieve what you achieved and I thought it was a brilliant (inaudible) reuse of the existing structure. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I appreciate that. On top of that I think the apartment it gives MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A two story home. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It gives a small family they're right by the school a nice rental to supplement her cost to live in the home. So, to me (inaudible). MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I would like to ask, who would occupy the main house, the duplex? 7-61 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Currently the mom does and one of Us brothers but the brother is no longer in the residence and the mom's health problems have just gotten worse. She's currently in a home but she wants to come back to this home. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : To be in the new accessory apartment? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who would be in the other? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It would be a rental to supplement the cost. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is legal in a dwelling. ANTHONY PORTILLO : As long as she's in one of the units. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As opposed to like an accessory structure, they can rent it to whoever they want to. Any questions from the Board? Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Anybody on Zoom Donna? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8108—SCOTT KAUFMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Scott Kaufman #8108. This is a request for a Reversal of the Building Inspector's September 24, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to amend the construction of the accessory structure for personal, conditioned use as an art workshop and studio and antique storage with Z June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting a half bath at 1)the proposed intent as designed does not constitute a permitted accessory use located at 2050 Dignans Rd. in Cutchogue. STEPHEN KIELY : I echo my predecessor's comment about going Go Nicks so I just wanted to get that fully into the record. On a serious note, I just want say good morning to madam Chair and to the rest of the Board. As you're aware my name is Stephen Kiely and I represent the applicants in this proceeding.The subject property is located at 2050 Dignans Rd. in Cutchogue. It is a 7.4-acre improved parcel with a dwelling,swimming pool,tennis court,three small sheds, a dock and a two-story 3,365 sq. ft. barn with a 1,866 sq. ft. footprint. The property is located in the R80 zoning district and fully complies with all zoning dimensional regulations.The subject barn was built in accordance with a duly issued building permit and the permit history is as follows. On September 2022 a building permit for the barn was issued by the town. In June of 2023 construction started. While construction was underway surveys, septic designs and the application for a septic system at the barn were prepared and submitted to Suffolk County Department of Health Services. On January 27, 2025 Suffolk County Department of Health Services issued a permit for a well and a septic system for the barn. On or about February 2025 revised plans and the subject Health Department permit were submitted to the Building Department to amend the building permit for the barn. The plan that was submitted with the amended building permit application included the bathroom as shown on the second floor. On February 11, 2025 the amended permit was issued, permit #48634 to include the well, septic and the bathroom on the second floor. Now fast forward to March 14t" there was a final inspection done for I'm not sure if it was the final, final but there was inspection done by the Building Department in connection with the amended permit and the issue came up as to the placement of the bath on the second floor. The Building Inspector said that a bath on the second floor was not allowed and would require a variance. He also suggested calling this space an art studio rather than storage space. It was reiterated many times to him and also it should be noted that Nancy Dwyer was also in attendance and Nancy Dwyer was the one that issued the permit that was subsequently overruled by John the Building Inspector. It was reiterated on site many times thereover,this was not an art studio. Neither one of my clients are an artist. The space was purely for antique storage on the second floor along with an area to go through my client is a yacht designer and he has and has been his whole life you know so he has hundreds and hundreds of yacht designs and he wanted a place to catalog them and go through them. So, that's the purpose of the second floor and on the first floor it's for sailboat storage and a gardening area because that's what they do and that's what they intended to use the space for. On May 22, 2025 a new Notice of Disapproval came out of nowhere and that's why we're here today and it states that the proposed construction amendment on this conforming lot is not permitted pursuant to the conditions listed within Article XXIII Section 280-13C for the reason being, the proposed intent as designed does not constitute a permitted accessory use. a June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting That's what the Notice of Disapproval said. Now, we're here today based on that and again, I just want to reiterate that this barn is to be used exclusively as conditioned storage and a garden house not as the subject Notice of Disapproval states as an art workshop or studio.The structure will provide conditioned storage as I stated earlier for yacht design plans and a substantial collection of antiques. Further the structure will serve as a garden house to be used in connection with the substantial existing garden on the property. I don't know if you were able to see it when you conducted your site visit but it's clearly shown on the subject survey. Pursuant to Section 280-13C (4) a garden house and storage building is allowed as of right as an accessory use to a dwelling so long as it's incidental to the residential use and not operated for gain.The proposed use meets both of those requirements.The sole reason we're here today is over this bathroom. The building inspector again, effectively overruled the plans examiner and stated that, if the proposed bathroom was located on the first floor we would not have to come before you. The mere fact that it's located on the second floor is why we're here and he said you gotta come here for a variance but a variance from what? My clients will never I think his reasoning is that at some point it can be converted into an accessory apartment. My clients will never make such a conversion and even if they did it would be prohibited by the Department of Health approval which explicitly states, no bedrooms. However, my clients will spend most of their time on the second floor of the subject barn thus for senior convenience they prefer the second-floor location. If there was no bathroom within the barn the applicants would have to walk approximately three hundred and fifty-five feet to the dwelling which I think is unreasonable. There's no prohibition in the code preventing a storage building or a garden house from having a bathroom. I coned the code, it's not in there and even if there (inaudible) is that pursuant to 280-8E if the use is silent in the code, it is deemed prohibited. If taken to its illogical conclusion then a dwelling would not be able to have a bathroom because the code is silent as to allowing or permitting a bathroom in a dwelling. Look at the definition of a dwelling unit, silent as to a bathroom or restaurant or a hotel. Further,the use as a storage building/garden house which is allowed as of right, a bathroom so the use is that,we're allowed to have that use, a bathroom is a mere accommodation to a permitted use not a use in and of itself.Again, I'm not quite sure what relief we're seeking exactly other than pursuant to Section 280-146A and appeal from a Building Inspector's determination that a bathroom can be located on the first floor but not the second or in the alternative an interpretation that the code does not prohibit a bathroom on the second floor of a storage building/garden house. Irregardless of all that it should be noted that the adjoining neighbor to be most impacted if any if you can even say that there would be any negative impact to a neighbor would be to the northeast/east of the house or barn rather and they fully support this application. The LWRP deems it consistent and lastly since the subject bath was permitted pursuant to a duly issued amended building permit, I would respectfully request that the application fee for a building without the benefit of a building permit be refunded. Obviously, we would have to submit the application June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting fee but it shouldn't be doubled when we built it in accordance with plans that were approved and a building permit issued to build it. At this point I just want to know if you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, you just stated again and in your application you indicated that the owner/applicant would be spending a lot of time in that building on the second floor, it's a split zone it's conditioned space it's heating and cooling what are they going to be doing in a storage building for prolonged periods of time? STEPEHN KIELY : I mentioned this earlier but I'll flush it out. So again, he is a yacht designer by trade and he has many plans and he wants an area to store those plans and also go through them, catalog them and then also his wife inherited a tremendous amount of antiques and they want an area to store those antiques but also go through them and see which ones they'd like to sell, which ones they'd like to keep and things like that. That's the intended use of that second story and again, it's just a matter of convenience to have the bathroom on the second floor. It's a half bath, it's not a full bath and that's again the use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, let's see if the Board has any questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes actually I have a couple. Stephen let's start with sort of Nick Planamento here by the way Stephen, good afternoon. I'm not quite sure what you're discussing as far as how the inspectors made determinations about bathroom locations and in my mind's eye it's also a little unclear how many bathrooms one is permitted in an accessory structure. At the first floor there's an area on the plan that's I don't have the plan open but it shows like a utility sink. STEPHEN KIELY : Right, correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In my understanding of from when I inspected the building and the doors were open there so it's not like I was opening closets or anything, the utility sink is not where it's proposed but it's on a different wall and then there is clearly a plywood a sheet of plywood that's just like laying on the floor that looks like it covers that could be either for a placement of a future toilet or something. Tell me what's going on with that half bath. STEPHEN KIELY : Okay, as I mentioned earlier according to the building inspector, during the inspection said, you can have a bathroom on the first floor so while they had the contractors in there they put it in thinking that cause he said I would not even be have to come in front of you if we just kept the half bath on the first floor. The initial construction of it but they would completely remove that if they're allowed to have it on the second floor. They would like to have a slop sink down there because as you can see 30 June 4,2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry, is the waste line underneath that plywood sheathing? STEPHEN KIELY : I'm not sure how far they got but whatever it is, it will be removed, if we're fortunate enough to get the bath on the second floor. We would like a slop sink somewhere down there because as you can see the gardening room is there and I don't know if you garden but it can get messy. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but there's a slop sink in the gardening room also. STEPHEN KIELY : Oh, you're right absolutely. So, then yea we would remove that completely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the proposed utility sink you're willing to remove and cap up whatever plumbing so there's only one half bath? STEPHEN KIELY : Correct, that would be completely removed if we can have it on the second floor, we wouldn't need it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The question I have about the second floor half bath, because of the way the knee walls are designed within the structure, when you're physically in the bathroom and it's kind of like an unusual bathroom because it has the barn door sort of portal entry where the handwash sink is at the opposite end of the room from the toilet commode there's a very small narrow closet. On the plan it shows a very deep closet but by memory when you open that closet door it was just you know very shallow. There's a void where it would appear that one could easily add a shower, it's all walled in with like barn door siding so you know I didn't see any way to open it but tell me what's going on with the knee wall there and by the toilet. STEPHEN KIELY : I'm not an architect and I agree with you,the design is a little wacky but again, we would covenant and restrict it or again whatever you need to satiate any concerns that or block it off or change the design to ensure that it wouldn't be used for anything else. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sort of the other questions that I have that relate to ultimately the use of the overall building, are there any limitations on the lot to limit it from further subdivision? STEPHEN KIELY : I don't believe so, no. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, part of the thought is and I don't think it's the spirit of what the applicant wants but from the construction the feel which I think you can appreciate it, it sort of feels more like a home than a storage barn. It's beautiful. STEPHEN KIELY : Oh it is listen, I'm not going to dispute that and it's the Amish you gotta blame them for their handiwork. If that's something that someone wants to do in the future, they 311 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting would have to go through the subdivision process and whatever but that's again, not the intent at all. He has a beautiful property, he likes his peace and quiet and you know he just wants to be able to enjoy his later years and be able to you know cause again, he's sort of a big deal in the yachting community. I'm not a yachter,you look Nick like you could be one but I'm not one and you know so he just wants an area to cause I guess (inaudible).Again, if we can just go back to the fact that the code doesn't limit it,the code does not say anything about a bathroom. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I don't understand the half bath thing. I also don't necessarily agree with the half bath design,you can easily place a half bath in one of you know sort of knee wall areas cause there is ceiling height but I'm not the designer on the project so I don't want to get caught in the weeds. What I do want to also address is, the second-floor storage space, you called it repeatedly storage space yet what I would argue is you contradicted yourself by saying the applicant is a yacht designer, he wants to take time to review his files I forget the exact wordage that you used STEPHEN KIELY : Cataloged MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Cataloged, those all sound like office uses. STEPHEN KIELY : No, no, no, no, again, he has his own office but these plans are quite large so he has to you know organize them and catalog them. The major use and primary use is the antique storage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I saw racks on the first floor where things were clearly stored,there's even a storage room that was open. The second-floor it's kind of everything is curated and placed more in a lifestyle sort of fashion than a storage. STEPHEN KIELY : Again, I didn't design it and I'm just saying what the use is and what he's going to do with it and I think conditioned storage is allowed.They want to store their stuff and you know if they spend some time in there who's to say they can't going through their antiques, going through the plans. What could be done in the future you know we can't predict it but all I know is that the Department of Health says it can't be a bedroom or anything like that. The town has code prohibiting that use unless we get approval so if it was designed to maybe seek an accessory apartment in the future that could be in his right but that's not what he wants to do at all. Right now those are the sole uses and we're just hoping cause again, I could just say alright forget it, we'll put the bathroom downstairs and go on our merry way. We're here today just to have the bathroom on the second floor forgoing the one on the first and just cause again, you know senior convenience. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I don't know that there's anything that is very clear about the location of a bathroom in an accessory structure whether it's a first floor or a second floor. 1 321 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting think the greater concern was that it appeared to the Building Department to be an artist studio. You're indicating that you never applied for that. Nevertheless, I suspect that that's what they interpreted the design layout and potential uses. STEPHEN KIELY : No he, I'm sorry to cut you off, he said that that's what he told us to apply for that. He said if you just called it an artist studio and you can be like it was never what he interpreted it to be was he thought that would be an easier way for us to get what we wanted. Again, I don't know where any of this is coming from other than pure policy that's made up by the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's nothing in the Notice of Disapproval indicating any discussion of the location of a half bath that's as of right. STEPHEN KIELY : That's the only reason why we're here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no, according to them it's the construction of the accessory structure for personal conditioned use as an art workshop and studio and antique storage with half bath. I mean they didn't say anything about the location of the bathroom they just said they're determining that this use is a conditioned art workshop and antique storage with half bath. STEPHEN KIELY : I just wanted to I have to reiterate this, a building permit application for this building as it's currently situated with the bath half bath on the second floor was approved by the plans examiner, issued a building permit and the building inspector with the plans and it was built to the plans he comes in and he decides that oh, it was cause he was shocked as to how nice it was. I don't think my client should be punished because it's a nice structure. I'm telling you as an officer of the court, in the Building Department and I think maybe some of your employees were there, he said point blank the only reason why you would have to go to the ZBA is if you wanted the half bath on the second floor. If you put it on the first floor you do not have to go. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a new one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then why didn't you question the Notice of Disapproval? STEPHEN KIELY : I did question it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you should have went back and asked for a revised Notice of Disapproval. 331 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting STEPHEN KIELY : No, no, no, no, no because they kept saying, I fought this tooth and nail cause I thought it was outrages that Notice of Disapproval. Then when I submitted it to you guys, I was like I don't even know what I'm asking for because we're not asking for an art studio. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : A question, I see the building permits and I heard what you've described as this strange series of events for the Building Department perhaps made a suggestion the permit be applied for as an artist studio but, I don't think we have a copy of the building permit application in our packet. Should we see what that says? A copy of the application to the Building Department. We have the permit but we don't have the paperwork that led to the permit being issued. STEPHEN KIELY : The plans is what controls and the half bath were in the plans and we submitted the Department of Health approval along with it so it was clear as day there was a bathroom in there. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I only ask because sometimes our applications include not just the building permit but the actual paperwork that the Building Department reviewed to issue the permit I don't that was included. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have anything like that? MEMBER LEHNERT : As long as we're staring at the same plan they approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A permit was issued for this barn. BOARD ASSISTANT : It says storage barn. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but we don't know if that application included the bathroom and where it was and then it was amended.That's what sparked the Notice of Disapproval the amendment. STEPHEN KIELY : It's permit#48634 the amended one with the bath. MEMBER LEHNERT : So what we need to see is the plans for that permit that was approved to see if they match what we're looking at. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Stephen, can you get MEMBER PLANAMENTO :that would be forthe amendment not forthe original building permit. STEPHEN KIELY : No, no, no the original building permit didn't have the bathroom it was the amended one that had the bathroom. June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So where was the bathroom on the original building permit? STEPHEN KIELY : No, not on the original there was no bathroom.The reason why we MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did the original building permit include any utility sinks in the structure or plumbing? STEPHEN KIELY : Again, I'm just here about this bath and we submit it was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right so what prompted you to then get the Suffolk County Board of Health approval for the sanitary? STEPHEN KIELY : Because we were building a barn and he was like, hmmm it would be nice to have a bathroom here because I would have to walk 355 feet to my house to use the bathroom and if my wife is going through her antiques or using the garden MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that's on the amendment then so as an afterthought STEPHEN KIELY : Correct, yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) as a raw basically unconditioned space it was then described to add plumbing the heating and the bathroom? STEPHEN KIELY : Correct, we add the well approved and then also the septic. So again, as you just stated it was OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN :This was from Laserfiche for 48364 the building permit and this is the first floor and this is the second floor. STEPHEN KIELY : See how it says powder room on the second floor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So wait Stephen, clarify if that's the original floor plan as submitted with the original application where it was just a barn with no plumbing, no heating as you said STEPHEN KIELY : Oh no, no, no, no it was conditioned. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the original application forthe barn was for conditioned space but no plumbing? STEPHEN KIELY : Correct and then the second one MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then why would that room be labeled powder room if there was no proposed STEPHEN KIELY : No cause these are the new plans, these are for the amendment. 35, 1 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Donna just said that those are the original from Laserfiche. STEPHEN KIELY : These are the plans in connection with the amended building permit application. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : Usually they stamp them saying amended. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Donna, to kind of expedite things cause we were asking Stephen to get the original plans and building permit for us, can you go back to the original plan OFFICE ASSISTATN WESTERMANN : I pulled up Laser and this is hold on, it said amendment in the corner and it looked like, there SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We don't want the amendment we want the original. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : They don't have the original one in here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's not on town Laserfiche? OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : I don't see it here in this particular 48364, 1 don't see it. STEPHEN KIELY : Nick, respectfully what is the relevance to the previous one? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To understand what was approved so that we can understand what the change was. STEPHEN KIELY : Again, ultimately it was approved cause all we hear is we're talking about a bathroom on the second floor and you can see that it was approved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Yea but that's not what the Notice of Disapproval is talking about and that's what we're trying to understand. STEPHEN KIELY : Your frustration is my frustration, I was arguing with the Building Department till I was blue in the face. I did not understand this Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well obviously they issued a building permit and the barn was built, it was apparently built with a proposed set of plans that did not include a half bath or was is called a workshop, it was a barn okay. It was conditioned storage, right? STEPHEN KIELY : Correct CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then when they went out to look at it they clearly said, wait a minute June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting STEPHEN KIELY : No, no, no, no, no, no, no you're missing a step. Before we came out to do that, we submitted the amended plans that's showed the powder room and we got a building permit for that powder room on the second floor. It wasn't till late in the game where John decided that hey wait a minute, this is very nice and decided that he was going to require us to come see you if we wanted the bathroom on the half on the second story which was already approved by Nancy. MEMBER LEHNERT : Where is the updated building permit?That's what I'm not seeing. STEPHEN KIELY : It's again #48634 if she can pull it up. MEMBER LEHNERT : That's the original one. STEPEHN KIELY : No, no, no, no, no, no OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN :This here is from August 14,2022 and it is this is in for 48364 so this to me if I can read their files correctly looks like the original, it says ground floor plan. Then the next page says second floor and post details, I don't know what that is referring to. Again, it's the same date, August 14, 2022. MEMBER LEHNERT : The application is dated April 7, 2022. STEPHEN KIELEY : The original, yeah. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : I don't know these plans are different. Then here is the amendment,this is what the amendment is talking about and these are dated January of 2025. MEMBER LEHNERT : So there would be an amended building permit which we don't have. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They can't get it because STEPHEN KIELY : No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no they issued the building permit in connection with those plans. We had an amended building permit MEMBER PLANAMENTO : With the original plans. STEPHEN KIELY : Yes you're looking at them Nick, they're on the screen. Just to get it straight, they issued a building permit for a barn, they built the barn they were building the barn and they're like hey wait a minute let's redesign it a little bit here and there and add a bathroom. While they were constructing it,they went and got Health Department approval and then came back to the Building Department and said Hey, we want to just tweak it here and there and add a half bath. Here are the new plans, here's the Department of Health approval and then they subsequently issued the permit. We went ahead and built out the bathroom, built out 7 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting everything pursuant to those plans and then when John came for an inspection when it was finished, he was like, wait a minute this is really nice and you could probably turn upstairs into an accessory apartment.That's where this all came from and then he said MEMBER LEHNERT : What was the date of the amended permit? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Where is the amended permit, it's not in our package. MEMBER LEHNERT :There's gotta be an amended permit floating around somewhere. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : There is an amended permit, look at the screen. STEPHEN KIELY : As you can see in the building permit it says nothing about an art studio. MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay Stephen, sorry but we don't have that in our packets so that's where the confusion is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright let's just all get a copy.So, it wasn't really until the inspection took place after the building was constructed with a valid building permit, with a bathroom on the second floor right,that it was determined that this is not a permitted use. It is an art studio and storage. STEPHEN KIELY : No, no, no he said that again, he's the one that said just call it an art studio and we're like no we don't want to call it an art studio cause it's not it's just storage and a garden house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then why did the Notice of Disapproval if you said no indicate it was an art studio and antique storage? STEPHEN KIELY : That was a fiction made up by the Building Department. No paperwork anywhere that we submitted CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They decided what it was. MEMBER LEHNERT : We're missing a piece of this puzzle which is that permit. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That permit and the application for it because I'm sure we all trust Steve to represent his understanding of the process but we don't know what that application says. STEPHEN KIELY : No, no, no, no, no but we have what the building permit says. The building permit says, construct accessory storage barn at existing single-family dwelling.That must have been what I applied for; I didn't apply for it but what the people applied for because that's what June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting it was issued for. The renewed building permit, construct accessory storage barn at existing single-family and it says February 10, 2025 amend permit for layout and structure changes as applied for with Suffolk County Health Department approval.So,this and it refers to these plans that show the bath so we did everything right. It wasn't until the eleventh hour that the building inspector said this is a little too nice, what? MEMBER LEHNERT : Steve I think the confusions (inaudible) and we don't have a copy of that in our packet, we were never starring at it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : What's on the screen we don't have and we can't read it from where we sit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think look, I think the history has been laid out, the issues have been articulated and we can easily get a copy of that, Donna can print them for us. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the applicant is seeking a reversal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes because he's saying the use is not accurate. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but then how would we reverse it so that it is an accurate use? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Based upon the testimony, what's in our file, the design of the drawings and personal inspection we have the right to say, this Notice of Disapproval that says amend the construction of the accessory structure okay, for personal conditioned use as an art workshop and studio antique storage with half bath. It was originally an accessory barn,storage building. They're saying now this Notice says that it is also for personal conditioned use as an art workshop. The applicant is arguing that it is not an art workshop. It may close to an office and you know people can have more than one office. An office use per say is not approved in an accessory structure. STEPHEN KIELY : He has no intention to do that, there's not going to be a computer in there, it's going to be one big table that he lay out his plans on it and just look and admire them and catalog. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The property owner, is he available? STEPHEN KIELY : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, okay. I don't see is there anybody in the audience? No, they're waiting for their turn. Is there anybody else on Zoom? No hands, alright what do you want to do? Do you want to close this or all that's missing is that permit, it's up to us to,grapple with it. 391 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting I don't think any more testimony is going to get us anywhere else so unless you have any other comments Stephen to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. STEPHEN KIELY : No I concur with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, is there a second on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye HEARING#8109—ANGELA LEVAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Angela Levas #8109. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A (1) and the Building Inspector's December 31, 2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" in-ground swimming pool at 1) less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 5335 The Long Way (adj. to Long Island Sound) in East Marion. FRED WEBER : Fred Weber I just have to get out of here before the Nicks game. I'm Fred Weber I'm an architect I worked on a house for Angela Levas but I didn't have anything really to do with this pool. It was a project done quite a while ago. Basically, we're requesting that the Zoning Board approval of an existing 18 x 36 in-ground swimming pool and a regular brick patio that was all constructed in 1986. As a background for the swimming pool the Building Department#15231 was obtained for the in-ground swimming pool dated September 4, 1986.. While the permitting sketch obtained in the Building Department shows a 100-foot setback north to the bluff in other words in this direction, that particular sketch does not also satisfy the bluff which cuts back radically into the site. I think that sketch it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got it, it's a wrap around bluff. 40 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting FRED WEBER : Yeah, exactly right so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One of the best views, it's spectacular. FRED WEBER : Basically what they approved was really a nonconforming location. Then a C.O. was never obtained, the pool was also reoriented on the site and the relocation was either done by the pool company or the previous owner which was a future deceased father-in-law if that makes sense. Anyway, the constructed pool has a setback of 105.7 feet to the northeast corner of the bluff but only 59.6 at the northwest corner. In its current location causes no effect on the bluff or shoreline below. Removing or relocating the pool could have a potential negative impact on the bluff requiring disturbance with earth moving equipment and fill. The existing pool plan reviewed by the Southold Trustees at their April 15, 2026 public hearing and was given approval for the pool in its current location with a stipulation we provide a ten-foot vegetated non turf buffer along the bluff line. All other aspects of the house, garage and decks and everything all have C.O.'s and are beyond the 100-foot setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you know we've all inspected the property whether you knew we were there or not we were that's our job. I don't have any questions; I can see this is pretty straightforward as far as I'm concerned. Anything from the Board, questions? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I just want to ask I mean the application makes the point that there's been no detriment to the bluff. Is there any evidence that you can produce that indicate that there's been no erosion of the bluff since the pool was built? I'm just looking for substantiation of that FRED WEBER : I mean all of(inaudible) ANGELA LEVAS : My name is Angela Levas .I'm the current owner of the house ate 5335 The Long Way. This morning I went to the albums in the attic and pulled out some old pictures and trying to see which one better showed that the bluff hasn't changed at all. If anything, I think it has more vegetation now than it did you know years ago.This is the bluff back then. FRED WEBER : Also the bluff (inaudible) northwest even (inaudible) it's more of a falling off (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's more like a gulley, exactly. ANGELA LEVAS : It hasn't changed, it really I can promise you I've been there for thirty-five years it really hasn't changed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an unusual bluff actually. 41 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the strange (inaudible) comment and I think that the placement of the pool I was at first when I read the application I want to say that I'm kind of shocked that the Trustees even you know supported this it wasn't until you're physically on site that you're oh this makes so much more sense.Just because I can't even imagine somebody putting a pool parallel to the coastline or to the house because of that sort of gulley. ANGELA LEVAS : It was better to place it farther away from the sandy MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Just a clarification there, I don't see how that is accurate. I'm looking at a sketch that I think we all have that shows the original proposed pool location is approximately I'll say seventy to eighty percent within the bluff setback but twenty to thirty percent outside the bluff setback. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For the original pool. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : For the original pool and as constructed the pool is one hundred percent in the bluff setback. It has no conforming it doesn't have a square inch of conforming space. I don't see how (inaudible). ANGELA LEVAS : The old permit? MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I'm just looking at this ANGELA LEVAS : Right now it's 105 MEMBER STEINBUGLER : This is what was provided in our packet and here is the pool as originally planned and here's the 100 foot bluff setback. You can see that a good portion of the pool is landward of the setback not all but a lot, I would guess twenty-eight,twenty-five maybe thirty percent.The pool as constructed is entirely within the 100-foot bluff setback.There is no portion of it that is compliant at least ANGELA LEVAS : That is not of the original you mean, the original.The current pool location is MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Is here. FRED WEBER : I mean this sketch here shows this is the bluff and the see the 100-foot setback is shown to the house. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : It (inaudible) from a single point. This sketch which I think was provided as part of the application very clearly shows the nearest point of the bluff 100-foot setback from that point and the existing pool as built is entirely seaward of that setback. It seems to me the application was a little misleading in trying to lead the Board to think that the as built configuration is preferred. I personally don't see how that is accurate. 42 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting FRED WEBER : Well I guess I was really looking at this sketch here which shows that the bluff line I don't know if I should be standing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can picking everything up there so it doesn't matter. FRED WEBER : The bluff setback is shown as 100-feet to the base of the house here so maybe there's some confusion about that but it's clearly in this sketch it's clearly all the entire pool in this sketch it's all this is the one that was approved by the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Am I right here that the closest point is 59 foot 6 inches and the farthest point is 105? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the existing pool not the proposed pool from 1986. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The existing pool, that's the one before us. FRED WEBER :That's correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret's comments are about the proposed pool back in 1986. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's kind of not relevant now because what we have is a pool that you know that is there, it's "as built" and it has a primarily conforming setback. There is part of it that has a nonconforming setback but that's because the bluff doesn't go like that it goes like this.With Trustees approval and with a non turf buffer in place to protect erosion over the side of the bluff even though it would be inconsistent with the LWRP it can be made consistent with that buffer and the fact that it is mostly conforming to the setback of a bluff that is not consistent. MEMBER STEIN BUGLER : I don't see how we can look at this sketch and conclude that it's mostly CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, look at the distance to here. MEMBER STEINBUGLER :They have to I think you need to take the worst case the distance from the nearest point of the bluff and that's here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, exactly. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : and then arc traced 100-feet from that point completely includes the pool. I'm not arguing if I realize we have an "as built" pool, the point I'm trying to make is that to me the application was misleading and I wouldn't want whatever decision we make to inaccurately convey the physical situation. It appears to me that there's no area of that pool that is compliant. 4.3 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The bottom line is, what's before us is for a 59.6 foot setback for an "as built" pool that has been approved by the Trustees with a buffer,a buffer to protect erosion. That's what we have. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's what's there. ANGELA LEVAS : I'm just trying to legalize it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course, understand that it's been sitting there for a long time and you know it's much better to have everything legal on the property obviously. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do we have dry wells? FRED WEBER : Yes, there is a dry well right there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For pool de-watering and FRED WEBER : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The pump equipment is obviously in. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We saw the pool equipment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from the Board? Nobody in the audience or on Zoom? I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion to recess for lunch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye 441 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. Good afternoon, everyone, I think what we're going to do is we delayed this it shouldn't take us long, we have two drafts that we tabled for later that we can take a look at. The first one is for Peter Stein and Allison Kronick Stein#8053. This application was amended and we heard their hearing, we reopened it, closed it. This is a property off the North Rd. up on the Sound. Pat, would you like to say a few things about this. MEMBER ACAMPORA : We went back and forth with the application with regards to their application as there was a problem with the bluff setback which we felt needed to be fixed and because (inaudible) actually knocking down the house, it was a demo if they could move it so finally they came back with a plan that I think is about the best we're going to get.The neighbors to the east and the west had some objections with regard to the side yard setback. The other one had an objection that the pool equipment was on their property.That has all been resolved so there's no longer a side yard setback and that we have now a bluff setback that while it's nonconforming is probably the best that we can get, it's a 70-foot setback than what the code requires 100-foot setback. So, with that all done, I do have some conditions that I'd like to present, the septic system on the property needs to be approved by the Suffolk County Health Department and that the applicant shall submit to the Board of Appeals two copies of correctly dated and sealed architectural plans as submitted with the amended application approved herein prior to obtaining a building permit. The pool mechanical systems shall be located to eliminate the infringement on the neighboring parcel and shall be compliant with the bulk schedule setbacks or house in a sound deadening enclosure. Bluff stabilization shall be 45 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting undertaken one is the NYS DEC permits and a Southold Town building permit have been obtained and shall be completed within twelve months of this decision. I make a motion to grant the relief as amended as shown on the site plan and last received May 19, 2026. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any discussion on this? There was some confusion about dates on you know the plans and surveys and thus the requirement that an accurately dated signed and sealed set of plans be submitted so that we can stamp the correct information. Anything else from the Board? Okay we have a motion and 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, the motion carries. We have one more draft, Pristine Properties, LLC#8096.You want to do this Pat or do you want somebody else to do it?This was not easy to track. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Do you want to introduce what this is about? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This was originally a determination that a developed and an undeveloped lot had been merged and the waiver of merger was denied on this property.There was an application for that because the applicant simply did not in any way qualify for a waiver of merger, it had been sold outside of the original owner's family and so on. MEMER PLANAMENTO :They even acknowledged it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and they knew that. The next step was to come back for a subdivision, a lot line change to create two lots and there was considerable discussion by neighbors and so on about adverse environmental impacts that cutting down existing trees would contribute to even greater flooding on the subject lot which already exists with evidence submitted to verify. This is not supported by the Planning Board which would have to confirm the lot line variance, subdivision and this therefore is variances are incredibly large. Lot 1 and 2 would be seventy-five and seventy-seven percent relief, twenty-five and thirty-three percent relief with forty-nine percent relief for depth. A lot area as I said of seventy-five and seventy- a June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting seven so applying the balancing test in this instance the Board's concluded that this is a denial as applied for. Any discussion? I make a motion to deny as applied for, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, the motion carries. HEARING#8123—NICOLE and STEPHEN O'GRADY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now let's get to the next application before the Board is for Nicole and Stephen O'Grady#8123.This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 13, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalized an "as built" shed accessory to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) located in an area other than the code required rear yard located at 315 Old Salt Rd. in Mattituck. ELIGIO LOPEZ : Hello, Eligio Lopez on behalf of the clients. The clients bought the house last year and they inherited this little issue but we're planning to just make it right. I feel like in the back the one side the house is located on the corner so where the shed is at this point is hidden from everybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're here to try and legalize this "as built" shed that's been there for a very long time. It can be in a front yard cause it's waterfront but it does not meet principle front yard setback. That would be 35 feet, I think the shed is 16 feet 9 inches. ELIGIO LOPEZ : It's 10 x 16. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The setbacks is 16 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One shed or two sheds? 471 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was one of my questions, it looks like the original shed ELIGIO LOPEZ : (inaudible) was the survey but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's still there, we inspected the property. ELIGIO LOPEZ : It's still there it's just I move it from one spot to the other. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you move it to where it is there in that picture right near the other shed? ELIGIO LOPEZ : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's facing Sailor's Needle Rd.the second shed. So, that's where I was going to ask what the setback was cause it's calling 16.9 but that's for (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) not the Rubbermaid one. ELIGIO LOPEZ: I didn't think that I thought that was like storage shed but like storage (inaudible) per say so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's labeled vinyl shed. ELIGIO LOPEZ : We can remove it if that's an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea,that's going to have to be removed. You can put it on the other side ELIGIO LOPEZ : I can get rid of it. (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would say that if they're going to move it anywhere they'd have to move it over here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't want to get into the details of what the setbacks are, you said you will remove it? ELIGIO LOPEZ : Yea, (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Why don't we just get rid of it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very good. We've all been out to the property and you really can't see that shed at all. We were surprised to see that you know storage 48. June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting ELIGIO LOPEZ : It was on the back CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of the house? ELIGIO LOPEZ : No, on the back of the actual shed. I moved it to the other side cause it didn't meet the setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you're okay if we say remove it? ELIGIO LOPEZ : We'll remove it and I can send you pictures if need be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO Just to point out the location you know they don't have what traditionally can be called a rear yard where they can place a conforming shed anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very small that rear yard. It's extremely well screened by mature vegetation so it has absolutely no visual impact on anybody, the neighbors can't even see it. Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Anybody on Zoom? 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 HEARING#8035SE—615 PIKE STREET, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 615 Pike St., LLC #8035SE. This was adjourned from May 7, 2025. This is a request for a Special Exception pursuant to Article X Section 280-45B(9)of the Southold Town Code and the Building Inspectors 49 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting May 7, 2022 it says in here Kim, amended do we have an amended date? I don't think we do. Anyway the N.O.D. but that wasn't amended to us with a new Notice of Disapproval. BOARD ASSISTANT : You didn't get a Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so I'm going to have to just strike that. Notice of Disapproval to construct a one-story commercial building with three retail/takeout units and basement storage located at 615 Pike St. in Mattituck. We finally did get Planning Board state your name for the record. ANTHONY PORTILLO :Anthony Portillo,AMP Architecture.The (inaudible) in our original design to Planning which was four units and they thought that we were it was too much for the site and they wanted a little more parking in the back so we actually brought it down to three units. We originally had four units,two were going to be for dry retail and then we were still going to come to the Zoning Board for the Special Exception for the two takeout units. We've brought it down to three units,one is the dry retail and then we're still requesting the two takeout units. If we had enough flow on the property, we decided let's put a one-bedroom apartment on the second floor. There were also some things with the Architectural Review Board so we made some changes to the elevations and I think everyone is pretty happy now with our proposed design. The Planning Board (inaudible) and then they (inaudible). We were adjourned a few times at this Board hearing but that was (inaudible) design. I think the (inaudible)for the record I think the comments from the Planning Board actually were really useful and I'm happier with the building myself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As well as apparently you reduced the building by 22% ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From 4,500 sq. ft. to 3,555 sq. ft. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, there's a little correction to that, not (inaudible) but just so the Board understands, for some reason they keep putting 3,555 sq. ft. but that's not the size of the building. The footprint of the building is 3,416; they're counting the overhangs in the front for some reason. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh really? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know why but just to be clear. It doesn't matter cause we actually have over what's required and again I think the building itself mass wise if better for the site and some of the design elements that we changed I thought really was good for Pike St. and June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting (inaudible) architecture. We have some modern (inaudible) in there that I think are really pretty. (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got twenty-two on site parking spaces. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That exceeds the actual minimum required. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct, we're over by two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do know that take outs generate a lot of usually quick traffic, in and out, drop off, pick up and stuff like that. One of the comments made by Planning which I believe this Board will up hold also is to condition the prohibition of on street parking in front of that area to make sure that safety is taken care of cause it's a very narrow street and that there is no interruption of the flow of traffic with parking in front of that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : What I handed to the Board just now is our parking our traffic study. I mean if you just turn to the summary, I think it's pretty clear that he did not see that there the large impact on this building in that area. I mean with that said, in my own opinion being a long- time person from Mattituck, I think you go to multiple stores when you go it's a Love Lane right, it's not like you're going here you're going there right so you might shop and go to get food so I don't think that it's so much which I do agree Leslie, in and out but I do also think that you might park on Love Lane,go there and head over to Pike St.to Good Food now to get something to eat, right?So, I hope that's the same sort of like this is being used but I think it's also adding parking(inaudible) area of Mattituck(inaudible). Not that whether you can have two occupants it's a one bedroom the plan is really to probably be a single person that you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as you have the parking. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just don't believe that parking I think that parking lot will be able to handle the loading in reality. Her calculation it does but I also think in reality it will handle that loading. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's supported by the uses in the Comprehensive Plan. It's much, much improved from the last time we saw it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don't know if so I actually worked with the original owner and that design which he basically forced me into CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Brody? June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea, but what he forced me into and what we have now I would say it's better than what he was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have to say I'm delighted that there's an apartment. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The owner owns Mint, he actually owns the adjacent property as well that's like I think he makes (inaudible) and I think he was thinking maybe we use one of the retail stores for Mint or some other kind of clothing kind of spin off of Mint. He was like whatever I don't really need (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a dry use, dry retail. ANTHONY PORTILLO :Yea, Mint is a clothes store. I mean he was thinking like he might use one of that's why he wanted the four so he can still have the three rentals but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Three rentals, he keeps the retail? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea, I think he wanted it I think he's just gonna probably you know rent it if he can but it's an option for him that he can use that retail. I don't know if you have any further questions for me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to read your submission. ANTHONY PORTILLO : For sure, I'm sorry we just got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what I'll just do is read it into the record the last sentence in this summary, we've already described what the proposed uses are now. Given the expected distribution of site generated traffic volumes and traffic observed on the roadways adjacent to the site and traffic control in place, the construction of the project is not anticipated to create any capacity of safety problems.The proposed site plan provides a total of twenty-two parking spaces based on town code. The (inaudible) parking generation manual the proposed site will have adequate parking. Rob, do you have any questions on this? Do we have the same set of plans that Planning has? ANTHONY PORTILLO : You should have the latest set is dated 5/7/26. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That's what we have. ANTHONY PORTILLO : The reason why we is that gambrel turned into a gable so it's the one that has the gable on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was that ARC? June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO :They didn't like my gambrel,they said it looks like a milk barn. I said there used to be a lot of gambrel potato barns you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There were. ANTHONY PORTILLO : You know, honestly I like the gable I actually think it ties in nicely with the adjacent house, I think it's going to be a very pretty building. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It looks very nice. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do not yet have approval from Planning Board, right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're waiting for us to grant the Special Exception and then they will proceed. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, and we have we've filed with the Health Department for the septic but again we need the Planning to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're all done with SEQRA and all of that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, ma'am, we're very close. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Margaret MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I do, I'm just quickly scanning the traffic study and the summary references given the expected distribution of site generated traffic and the volumes of traffic observed on the roadways adjacent to the site, etc.; the traffic generation (inaudible) I see, what I don't see is the volume of traffic at the site and so it's hard to tell if this is if these predicted trips are an increase of five percent, or fifty percent do you know what I mean? Relative to what's already there, if that information is available, I would be interested to see it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, so the increase of volume due to the site impacts at that area. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Yea, the baseline what would be fine would be the baseline traffic counts prior to the project being implemented. Then I would have a sense of whether an additional you know (inaudible) representing a fifty percent increase or a five percent increase. 5,31 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting That's the only way we can say whether it's significant or not to compare it to the existing. I have another question or two, maybe this is the difference between a commercial building having a residence up top, the plans call the building a one-story building, isn't it technically a two-story building or do you call it a one-story building because the commercial portion of it is only one- story. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No, I think I don't think that would be the case. I think it's considered a two-story. Stories are based on height not use. I will revise that I don't you know what it might have been is that it might have been a mistake on the revision because usually it was a one-story building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's exactly, I think it's mislabeled. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : This goes back to the original application, the environmental impact form that talk a little bit about the water demand, the liquid waste generation, solid waste generation, the air emissions, I'm pretty sure all that is going to be at the Planning Board level. When I reviewed the prior version of this application there were some discrepancies in that (inaudible). If you I don't know if you plan to update the EAF but if you do, it would be good to see that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think we've already updated it. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I don't think we've received it, we just ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can provide that. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : That would be great. I think all we have are the plans and the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the comments from Planning. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can provide yes I can provide them. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : I think that's it from me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright so we can close this subject to receipt of more information on traffic generation and the revised EAF. Does that make sense to everybody? ANTHONY PORTILLO : To be clear, I'll probably go back to my traffic engineer and I'll submit a revised report (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And as soon as we get it, the clock will start. Is that alright then? Is there anyone in the audience or on Zoom? 54 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting MARY EISENSTEIN : Mary Eisenstein, Mattituck. I am looking at the general standards governing the Special Exception and particularly, C. In 2015 Planning did a traffic study for Pike St. and Love Lane and the conclusion in 2015 if I may just read a portion of it. The public parking spaces in the Mattituck Hamlet center are currently oversubscribed by the existing buildings and businesses that must rely on them for employee and customer parking. That was before the building that now houses Vivian's Nails and Good Food. I'm not wanting to be subjective although I am bringing personal observation and interaction by going to Pike St. and Love Lane. There seems to be you can read the data about the traffic study but then what's the reality in the impact of the daily interaction in that area? Good Food and Vivian's Nails has parking in the back that met the code which is this is going to meet the parking code. As is stands right now there is not enough parking for just Vivian's Nails and Good Food. You can't park back there and plus they have the garbage disposal units that take up parking spaces back there. What I am raising is, about the specific two take outs alright,when you are on Pike St.-it is narrow and we're going to look at human behavior. Is everyone going to go to the back and park in those maybe twenty spots cause if two of them maybe taken up by the apartment upstairs? Even now, we a were there just two days ago and there was a white pickup truck parked on the north side and you had to maneuver to get passed. What I am asking the Board to consider is what that 2015 hamlet parking study the details of that and that was before Vivian's and Good Food and the general standards "C" that the safety, the health, the welfare, the comfort, the convenience or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location. I am asking the Board and I listened to Anthony very carefully, the difference between giving data and the actual experience of being and we're just going to talk about that area and human behavior. So, yes this has been reduced but it still has the two take out and the parking is oversubscribed even more than since 2015. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,thank you, anybody else want to address the application? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Just a couple of things. I appreciate that because and I think the Planning Board has the same response to the original design. I think coming back to the Planning Board reducing the size of the building,gaining more parking even the original design I met the parking requirements but the Board felt that they brought up the traffic study and the parking study that was done in 2015.To respond to that, let's try to have more parking back there than what's required. So that's one thing that we should consider. The other thing is, all delivery trucks we provided the delivery drop off area in the back. No delivery should be happening in the front of the building so there shouldn't be anyone parking in front and delivering anything and holding up Pike St. That's one other thing we did so that they could go back there and park and deliver what they need to so I just want to also put that on the record. I also I mean in my mind talking about reality is, obviously the summer months is when we're going to get the most traffic so nine, eight months out of the year I mean I don't think it is really that traffic study to me is a June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting little bias in that sense because as the people who live here year-round you know that that traffic isn't as heavy throughout those times of the year.Just want to put that out there. I did say before that I think people that visit Love Lane, they go to multiple places so they're driving one car, going to different places. I think at the end of the day if the Board sees that we made a concession in our original design the Planning Board based on the Planning basically indicating the same things that the parking seemed like it was just right and they wanted more parking so we did provide that and just want to make sure you understand that we made that effort. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anybody else in the audience, anyone on Zoom?Anymore comments or questions from the Board? Okay, hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of additional information on traffic generation and what was the other thing we wanted to get? It was the updated EAF. 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, the motion carries. HEARING#8099—VERADEANA PROPERTIES, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Veradeana Properties, LLC #8099. This was adjourned from May 21, 2026 so I don't really need to read the Notice of Disapproval again it's the same thing as previously was before us so I'd like to open that application. Martin if you'd like to MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. in Mattituck for the applicant. I think we had adjourned this to give the Board the opportunity as I understood it to question the Chief Building Inspector about his position on all of this. As you may recall we're here based on a Notice of Disapproval based on the merger of the lots. We were asked by the June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting Building Department to seek a waiver of merger. Our client's ultimate goal is just to get rental permits that were already issued for four years in a row and then were not renewed and that's why we're here.This is obviously an unusual application, unusual set of facts and circumstances but under those unusual facts and circumstances we felt that the waiver of merger was warranted. I don't know I was curious to hear what the Board has learned because I haven't been advised of that yet so that we could perhaps have the opportunity to respond. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I'll just start with we did meet with Mike, he had already reviewed the transcript so he was very familiar with the conversation that was had during the hearing. He said that he had, just paraphrasing, he had spoken to your client before she purchased it once in earlier years after she purchased it and recently and all three times it was the same thing that for whatever reason there might have been something issued that shouldn't have been he never indicated that you should come in for a waiver of merger to get your rental permits. That's paraphrasing but basically the gist of it is that he basically disputed everything that was called into question during the hearing. Then we got back to the Zoning again and what we're doing here and this is really a waiver of merger request not so much a did he, she say you can get rental permit type of an application so based on that his comments really were informative but really don't have merit to decide whether or not the waiver of merger. I shouldn't say merit, but they're not instrumental in determining whether or not they're going to grant the waiver of merger because the waiver of merger application according to the definition of the waiver of merger that's exactly the relief that you're seeking and regardless of whether it was based on somebody saying, well if you want to do this you should do that, you're still here on the same premise of you looking for a waiver of merger. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right cause that's what the Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Department says we have to get. I don't understand he can then say I never said for you to get a waiver of merger, his department issued a document A.T.A. MCGIVNEY :That's why I'm saying I'm paraphrasing because I don't want to quote him or misspeak but basically the crux of the conversation was, the way that it currently is now your client can't have the rental permits and that really what she was seeking when she came in before she purchased in the early years and as of late.There's kind of two different things, what you know what she was looking for before she purchased it and then now that she owns it if she wants to get rental permits CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is apparently already a rental permit for the house in place which we were not aware of. MARTIN FINNEGAN : For the house? June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, the house is being rented. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I'm going to allow my client to address this. MARGARET ANN NEMEITZ : Margaret Anne Nemeitz,so we bought this property in 2021 and we were looking for properties for a long time as Nicholas also knows. The reason we chose this is because we were told it would that we could rent this house.We were looking for something to balance as a source of income okay. It was a big surprise because we were told to rent when we bought the property. These cottages had a Certificate of Occupancy on them and we would be able to rent them. Fast forward I went to the Building Department and I was suddenly told I was not going to be able to rent those separately. I did obtain a rental permit for the house but we have not rented out and we don't want to rent that out, we only want to rent the cottages out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then why did you obtain a rental permit for the house? MARGARET ANN NEMEITZ : Because we had considered once and we decided against it, completely. We have never actually rented the house out; we would like it for our own house. Also, the kids my husband is retiring in June and a (inaudible) was to come there and live there which would make it very difficult for us to rent the house. We wanted only the cottages to be rented out. Amidst all this discussion I went and spoke to Mike Verity and he told me the only way I would be able to rent those cottages out separately was if I showed him that these rentals these cottages were rented out before 1957. It was a huge challenge but they got a neighbor down the road put me in touch with the people who actually rented those cottages. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you actually submitted that information at the prior hearing. MARGARET ANN NEMEITZ : And he told me that I would be able to rent those cottages out and they would be grandfathered in separately. So, I gave him all the information, the lady gave me an affidavit, I now have two affidavits because the neighbor down the road who has also has written an affidavit claimed that those cottages were rented out between'51 and'57. 1 obtained the rental permit for those cottages to be rented out separately based on those affidavits. I was given that rental permit for four years. I came back, suddenly out of the blue I was told I can no longer obtain that permit again. I had no idea why except he said, well I was told I should go before the Board and ask them to subdivision in which case then I would be free to rent those cottages out separately. I had to go through the whole process which has been financially a big burden and I didn't do this although I was asked to because I didn't know after my research where this would land but when the rental permit was taken away, I had no choice I had to do so here we are. All I'm asking for is to be able to rent those cottages out even if there was any validity in the fact that grandfathering those cottages and that have a C.O. If that has been June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting approved let be open or continue to be approved in allowing me to have a rental permit on those cottages. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Can I ask you, did you speak to the Building Inspector before you purchased the property about these issues, about renting them? MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : No, because I didn't know anything about it. I spoke to him before; I was simply asking if there was anything A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : When, you said before? MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : When I was looking at purchasing the house A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : So you did speak to him before you purchased. I just want to make sure that everything MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : (inaudible) because I had no idea about renting the problem with the rental cottages so I had no reason to ask him about the rental cottages. I simply called him to ask if everything was in order. I had look I was completely new to Southold; I had no idea about anything and I was just looking for information whether because I was buying something in a place that was completely new to me and I wanted some information. I didn't have any idea at the time before.This whole story came up after I bought the A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I know that the rental permits are issued at two years at a time and for whatever reason if a rental permit was issued it was issued in error and it shouldn't have been MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : Two years in a row? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : and you were made aware of that. MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : No A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : But regardless the issue with whether or not you can rent it is not in front of this Board. The Building Inspector, Code Enforcement those are the people that you get the rental permits from. This Board can only decide whether the property has merged. So, I know we kind of went down this whole rabbit hole of he said, she said because we want to know you want to know whether you can rent it but before this Board is MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : I totally agree with that. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : and that's the only thing they can decide on. sq June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : I totally agree with you and I'm here, I'm here exactly for that and then we you know we look to the (inaudible) and saw is there a reason for is there even the slightest reason for this to be able to subdivided. First of all, those two lots have always even today have two separate tax W.'s two separate addresses. Those cottages were there even before this they were built in '47 and the house was built in the 60's. They have been standing there way before the other house was built and is pretty much the same size of lots. According to town law yes,they should have been separated by the previous owners and they were warned so here we are. We bought them, we tried buying them separately, we were not able to, I'm sorry even then we didn't understand this is very particular A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Yea, sure. MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : law which we honestly did not understand about being one lot, the two lots. A.T.A. MCGINEY : Did you have representation when you purchased this property? MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : Yes A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Should your attorney have been doing the research with Mike rather than you calling or talking to him about whether everything is in order? It's a lot to try and MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : I know, I'm sorry I could had well the truth is, I could have had better representation that's all I can say. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : All I'm saying is it's not (inaudible) MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : It wasn't him. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : But that is not before this Board, the only thing I mean you're admitting the fact that they were merged and you wanted to buy them separately but you couldn't because it was one lot so the only thing this Board can determine is whether or not you qualify for waiving that merger. MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : I understand, I'm really confused. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : About (inaudible) rental? If you have one piece of property with multiple structures on it, you are allowed to rent one thing presuming there is a principle use which is the house okay, you can rent the house and that would be or you can stay in the house and you can rent one of those cottages. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I can interject cause I said something at an earlier meeting and I'm confused about this but I had suggested I believe Margaret or the applicant there are examples 601 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting in town where there are other homes, multiple cottages on it with rental permits. We're talking about waiver of merger which is one conversation and the rabbit hole is the other conversation which is the objective but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not saying that they don't exist, there are little cottage complexes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You said something just now I would argue could be potentially misleading,that's just my opinion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it's site specific and facts specific and all we deal with is the facts and the site in front of us in this application. I can't go back and say, but here, but there and over there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed but there are examples of people that have situations mirroring yours I would argue readily available that actually they rent them. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well, that takes us back to we were sent here to waive this merger cause that was what we were told was the impediment to renting not the fact that there is two of them, not the fact that you know there's a house there and I understand that obviously you can't rent everything. That rental permit was on the house acquired and not even used. This came up this morning in the earlier hearing about at what point do you not get to say you can't do it anymore. The issue around A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : That's why I'm saying I don't know if it was issued in MARTIN FINNEGAN : It just doesn't seem to be fair to turn around and say, oh by the way now go spend thousands of dollars on a process to A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Martin, I understand what you're saying but that again is not in front of this Board, this is not this Board's determination whether he was or wasn't right or whether it was or wasn't issued in error. MARGARET ANN NEMEITZ : I just want to say that it would be difficult to say that it was issued in error because I was asked to prove something, I have emails that,l sent back and forth. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Those would be helpful between the building inspector and you? MARTIN FINNEGAN : You know those are submissions of things, you no there's no response. MARGARET ANN NEMEITZ : Yes I was asked, okay I can give it to you. I just wanted to correct when you said it was given g June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I didn't say I said I don't know if it was submitted in (inaudible) and rental permits are only valid for two years anyway and the reason is, is because people have to come back and make sure that the houses are up to code and safe and all of those things. MARGARET ANN NEMEITZ : It was given for two years and then renewed after two years. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY :Then maybe it was because at the point, I don't know the answer to that all's I know is,there is a reason why you have to renew them and whether they were issued and you were lucky so to speak for that, that's one thing. I don't know the answer to that but at this moment you are not allowed to rent them, the properties have merged and that's why you're here is just to determine whether or not you can have a waiver of the merger. MARTIN FINNEGAN : What I think what Margaret is trying to say is that, yea we did go through a process at great effort(inaudible)grandfathering concept towards the fact that you could rent these things, they have been rented for eighty years okay. So, Margaret Ann went down that process and gave everything she needed and for four years it was enough and then all of a sudden well, they've merged. Look, they've merged these properties were never single and separate from the day they were born okay they've always been in like titles. We stipulated to that in our prior presentation and I understand under the code Section A is the criteria about external, extra family transfer. That happened okay, when Margaret Ann and her husband purchased these properties that happened but under the circumstances here, we're asking you to look past that and to look at the long history here of this property and the fact that these have always, always,always been separate parcels and they have no connections to one another in terms of overflow of uses, amenities whatever. The cottages are way down here with their own driveway and the house is way up here with its own driveway. I don't know what the vehicle is to get there okay, we thought this was the vehicle because that's what we were advised to do by the Disapproval by the Building Department. We didn't we thought we had it with the grandfathering and all the affidavits and all the effort to talk to the people that rented the place. I mean what are the chances that you find the lady alive that her family rented it in 1958 and she met her husband there and you know got married and it's pretty unbelievable. That's what happened here, there's a historic use here and we're asking the Board to respect that and to issue a determination that waives the merger that she can go on because I guess now from what you've learned Julie maybe Mike will take the position that you can have the rental permits because there was a rental permit issued on the other house that they don't want, they'll withdraw that or whatever they have to do. We need to find a way to just I get it I don't think this is the most conventional way to do it. I do believe there's a way that it could just be grandfathered and the use could have continued.We were told it can't.At what point do we say like come on this isn't harming anybody, it's a historic use and we're just hoping that the Board can find a way to grant relief so that they can continue? Other than that you're basically 621 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting rendering this property unusable, it's just and that's a shame because that is used as such I think you can see in the record for decades. I don't know if there's anything else to say, I'm happy to answer any other questions or Margaret Ann is as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm glad to I don't know if I need to recuse myself. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I know Margaret, she had come to see a house, she had called about a house prior to purchasing the existing house. I showed her one house I think the year before as a real estate agent. I showed her a rental, I had no business with her. I'm always recusing myself on everything. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY: No, it's because she said,you should know this Nicholas or something to that effect that was like MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : No, no, no. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I just wanted him to have the opportunity to (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would say just to A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I didn't think that he had anything. MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : No, please I haven't been in touch with Nicholas. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : If the record only reflected what you were saying, people might question whether or not that's all. ` MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add one thing and I don't know if Margaret's neighborhood (inaudible) or Leslie for that matter but I live off on Soundview Ave. on Hortons Lane,we're sort of neighbors maybe a quarter mile apart but I don't think that's sufficient for me to have any sort of vested interest in disrupting anything here. If anything, I repeat whether the Board appreciates it or not and Martin, I'm truly sorry about this situation. We're looking at a waiver I still think and there's examples of people I just and I think I said early on, I don't understand why the cottages would not qualify for a rental permit. It doesn't make sense to me as a real estate agent and as a resident and a Member of this Board. I can think of a handful of situations that mirror the applicants request not for this particular request but for the use of their property and I'm completely dumbfounded. It's just my own opinion. MARGARET ANN NEIMETZ : Is it possible that we can ask an appeal for the rental permit to be established or reestablished? 3 June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Talk to Mike. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would probably be more instructive since you spoke since now you know we talked with him. Rather than putting words in his mouth you know second hand from what we heard and how we heard it, I'm sure and he had lots and lots of notes in his file with dates and everything about this property and it would be much better now that we had this hearing if you went and spoke to him. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I've had, it's not like I've never had a conversation with him. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We said we would give people an opportunity to respond but all we can say is pretty much what Julie said which was that there were things in our prior hearing transcript that he had issues with that he did not believe reflected the accurate historic facts from his point of view. What his point of view is, is something you should find out directly because we couldn't get him to come here to testify so that is MARTIN FINNEGAN : I know Margaret has had a number of conversations with (inaudible) and he's been very encouraging to her like this is going to be fine, go ahead and you know go to the Zoning Board and here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He certainly must understand that as you've already realized that the standards for waiver of merger are simply not here and that you know even you tried to come up with a creative thing about we can subdivide the property and the merger law was for undeveloped properties to and we don't really and then I said okay if you unmerge it then you gotta another lot without a principle use well but it's almost, it's two cottages that add up to almost the size of a dwelling but that's MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's exempt, improved land. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's very creative, Martin but it is not. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Theicriteria speak to it I mean it's always vacant it was never vacant right so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However,this is rather one of the more complicated applications the Board has had to grapple with as you know fully well. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, what do you want to do at this point Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : Close it. June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom that wants to address the application? Anything else from anybody? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye _ MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have some resolutions. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, July 2, 2026 so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held May 21, 2026 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye June 4, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one-year extension of condition #2 of #8017 Beverly Papapietro (Dean Snow)42 Cedar Drive in Southold 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 Amend #8025 Deborah Pittorino to remove condition #4 located at 68530 Main Rd. in Greenport, 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 think that's it. Motion to close the meeting. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye June 4, 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. i I Signature : r/ Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :June 16, 2026 671