Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/06/2026 PH TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Annex (Lower Level) &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York August 6, 2026 10:13 A.M. Board Members: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN—Chairperson (Zoom) PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member MARGARET STEINBUGLER—Member(Vice Chair) JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Senior Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Susan Dunning#8114 3-4 Decision for Johannes DeBruijn #8130 4 Glen and Angela Pressler#8115 5 - 16 David and Helen Leis#8117 16- 21 Andrew Shannon and Katherine O'Brien #8118 22 - 26 Miriam Foster and Grayson Murphy#8119 26- 32 David and Mary DeSetta/Desetta D. Revocable Trust#8121 32 - 37 Yingzhen Li #8122 37 -46 James Clous#8124 46- 52 Kimberly and Steven Bruni #8103 &#8104 53 - 69 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Good morning everyone, we're going to get started with today's meeting.To head off please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. The first item on our agenda is a Resolution regarding environmental quality reviews. I make 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 c including the following: Glen and Angela Pressler #8115, David and Helen Leis #8117, Andrew Shannon and Katherine O'Brien #8118, Miriam Foster and Grayson Murphy#8119, David and Mary DeSetta/DeSetta D. Revocable Trust#8121 and James Clouse#8124, so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye. We have two items, two applications for deliberation. I will give highlights of these two. The first is No. 8114, Susan Dunning, at 925 Stephensons Rd. in Orient. This is a nonconforming parcel in the R40 district. The applicant seeks to enclose an approximately 39 sq. ft. covered entryway to enable a small kitchen expansion to create a pantry. The existing side yard setback is 7.5 feet which was granted under a previous ZBA application.The new setback will be 5.9 feet.The location is adjacent to a 25-foot wide right of way to the Sound and is well screened with evergreens. During site inspection the Board did observe that the pool house on the property had potentially had some construction that was not in line with the pool house plans submitted at the time it was built. The Building Inspector subsequently performed an inspection and found a few things that need addressing. I will make a motion to grant the variance here as applied for subject to the conditions that the dwelling shall remained unconditioned habitable space, which it currently is and the code violations found in the August 41h inspection will be remedied prior to a building permit being issued. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me Margaret, I have a question. Unconditioned habitable space or non-habitable? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We're talking about the house which is conditioned it's seasonal so perhaps it should say unheated habitable. 3 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting HEARING#8115—GLEN and ANGELA PRESSLER VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The first public hearing matter we have is Glen and Angela Pressler #8115. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 20, 2026 REVISED April 28, 2026, REVISED July 1, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish a single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 425 Lake Drive, Southold, NY(adj.to Great Pond)SCTM# 1000-59- 5-21. Before we get started I just for the record want to indicate that the front yard setback as noted is 25.2 feet where a minimum of 35 feet is required by the code, so a 9.8-foot reduction in front yard setback. PAT MOORE : I have with me Mr. and Mrs. Pressler, the owners of the property and I also have Bret Kiel who is the design professional on this project. If there are any questions I have them here to address any issue that you may have. I supplied to the Board now that the town's website is available, I did a search of variances in this immediate area using the tax map number 59-5 which is Lake Drive. It did bring in West Drive because it's within that small area so I included it as well. Many of these variances are front yard and side yard setbacks and they go back since the seventies through the most current one being in 2020. The one that's most recent, it was a front yard setback of 15-feet, 11 3/8 inches. The area of Lake Drive is a very well-established older neighborhood. The lots range in the smaller size as comparable to my client's property and then some of the other lots are larger because in some cases, they have the wetland pockets in the front yard and the houses are pushed back closer to the water so there is a whole range of homes on this block. If you were to look at this existing house, this existing house was built prior to zoning, the setbacks were established at that time and similar homes as you look to the west are comparable homes with comparable setbacks. My client started this project for the hopes of doing an addition, renovation that's how the plan was originally prepared and then through further investigation the existing house would need substantial structural alterations to meet current codes. That is the framing and the insulation obviously it was tend to be under the code compliant with older homes so once we got into the renovation of this existing house it was clear that it would probably midway through the construction be deemed a demolition so we might as well treat it as a demolition right from the beginning. My client again, just like the original plan which was maintaining the existing house with an addition, the addition being a garage with living space above it connected. The new plan as a demolition reconstruction under the definition is taking the existing house and putting it right in the same spot. Putting the house directly in the same location does result in maintaining the setback, the front yard setback which is the 25 feet or the it's an L-shape and that is the currently the bedroom area of the house. They want to retain that setback as the parcel extends towards the east, northeast the parcel is wider so the front yard setback at that August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting location does conform so it is more than 35 feet. We also constrained by the pond in the back so there was a very strong effort to keep the existing setbacks that they have. The topography of the property as you saw from your inspection,the pond is much lower and then the property it's not a bluff but it does slope up slightly to a 10-foot elevation where the existing house is. That is the same are where the new construction will take place.There is some again,extension of the deck to cover the first-floor area because the house is currently elevated and the deck is elevated,the doorways of the back of the house need to have some form of whether it's stoops or walkways that's where I think Bret did a good job trying to keep everything within the 20% lot coverage. Our original plan was exceeding the 20% but the current plan keeps the house and all activity less than 20%. Just so you have the numbers, I believe the total lot coverage is he included the Bilco door because this plan is also for the DEC he included impervious Bilco doors and stuff but those things are not part of the lot coverage, it does amount to 19.54% so well under the 20%.That was with a great deal of effort on design and essentially changing the front which originally was going to be a porch to give some front character but the choice of the owner was, listen the deck to a home is much more important here than the front porch so we changed the front to a stoop entrance and that was the major design change to the front. I did respond to the LWRP report that came in, I did it by email. In the report it does say that if we can keep the lot coverage to no more than 20%that it would be considered more consistent which she must have had the original plan when it was reviewed. We have brought the project into consistency by reducing the lot coverage to the 20%. I'd be happy to address any other issues you have. In my written submission I do point out that Lake Drive has it's a relatively narrow because it's an off street from Kenney's Rd. so there is a lot of land, grass and land that is between the actual town right of way town road, the right of way is 50-feet but the town road portion is much narrower. Visually, it doesn't look to be 25 now which is what the replacement house would be. It is also the portion that is required in the front yard setback is a one-story so again, the volumes are retained, the character of the house is retained only the second-floor over the new garage will have the two-story portion. It works well for a family that has kids and family that comes to visit, their purpose is while they're in the house this is going to be their permanent home is to segregate the heating, air-conditioning so that you can isolate it when you don't have family and guests and then provide the HVAC that's necessary. So, the design is a well thought out given the retirement use of the house. Any questions that you have? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I did want to ask the status of the Trustees application? PAT MOORE : Depending on the day, right now they want to see Zoning Board come before the Trustees. We had originally gone to the Trustees for a dock on Great Pond. My client is a very avid freshwater fisherman, it's his passion. He bought the property right on the pond and then the Trustees ultimately said, no we don't want to have any docks on the pond and then changed August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting the code so that you can't have docks on the pond so he's forced to do what he's doing now which is push the boat into the pond.We don't think that's environmental but that's a different argument, different day and has nothing to do with this Board. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Is the application to the Trustees submitted? PAT MOORE : What we did is, when we were there for the dock application I pointed out the fact that there was going to be a plan to do additions and alterations to the house and obviously the can't MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A site inspection? PAT MOORE : Yes during a site inspection, exactly. They obviously can't give a formal determination but they felt it was reasonable as long as we didn't encroach further into the wetlands and that has been the design here. We hope that the Board will have continue to have a positive reaction to this plan. As I said, the addition and any expansion of the deck is on the northeast portion of the property which has the greater setback to the pond..We will go there as soon as the Board gives us their determination. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER:Another question I had which came up when I did the site inspection but I'd like to ask it so the Board hears the answer, how is the space over the garage I think the garage is the northside I'm sorry I should say the northside.The new bedrooms over the garage there's attic storage I think on the other side how is that accessed. PAT MOORE : It's a direct access, are you talking about oh let me have Bret because I understand your question but I don't have the answer. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We had the conversation on site. BRET KEIL : Bret Keil, the access is actually is a pull down stairs over the basement stairs to the crawl space cause it's only a 5 foot 11 crawl space under the house and we can't ensure that it's going to be dry or not damp so the owners want a place they can store stuff that's going to stay dry, clothes, Christmas stuff and not have to go down and have mold issues. PAT MOORE : I think you're talking about the attic over the main floor, she's asking the connection between the second-floor over the garage? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : No. BRET KEIL : The access is a pull down set of stairs. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I just wanted the Board to get that. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Keil while you're there, can you tell us a little bit about the foundation that you propose to maintain? BRET KEIL : We want to remove the foundation, there is no footing so according to state code, we need a minimum of a 20-inch wide footing and depending on the soil conditions this will probably be a 2-foot wide footing all the way around. There is no footing so the walls are all concrete block and the only (inaudible) like an inch and a half of insulation so in the winter it's colder inside the house than it is outside, it's a frigerator and by the state code with all the new energy codes and all that we can't comply. Also, to build a house without a footing in a foundation a proper foundation we can't anchor the house down to the foundation. To underpin the foundation takes is more evasive to the wetlands because you have to have all the equipment on the waterside pulling the dirt back because you have to do different sections at a time so you have to work from the outside of the foundation plus inside the foundation so it's actually trying to make it safer, they can work everything dig everything from the road and store all the dirt on the front of the house so not going to worry about runoff. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So with a new foundation, why couldn't you comply to a front yard setback? BRET KEIL : We could but the house gets so small that we lose the front office area, bedroom I think it was an office in the front we'd lose that and like I said the existing MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But alternatively you are adding a second-floor so you have more than enough space you don't have a lot coverage issue. BRET KEIL : We don't have a lot coverage issue now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO:Agreed but if you lost if you had a compliant front yard setback you're suggesting that you would lose the square footage of living space you do have alternatives in that you could use the second-floor. BRET KEIL : No not when you get older and he's using it as an office so now he's got go up and down a set of stairs to get to a place to make an office, he only has one bedroom and this front room is like a little office area so when you get older I mean we're all getting older, going up and down stairs becomes an issue. This is the only place in the house that we can have it and it's not it's in the exact same footprint as the existing one now we didn't encroach further. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, but the difference is,you just discussed it's a demolition,you're starting from a clean slate of land so the question is, why can't you comply? August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting BRET KEIL : Because I can't get any of the setbacks, if I go to the right to the left or anywhere I can't put an office. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You also have garage space, I'm just asking questions. BRET KEIL:That garage space is barely a two-car garage in the garage space. We have the stairs over the car because the (inaudible)is so small we have a good-sized lot but the buildable lot from the wetlands to the road is cuts out drastically the amount of work space you have for building. I think you know it's like Pat said, the front of the house the road is 25-feet if that. When you look at the house, it looks like the house is 35-feet, it's easily 40-feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a narrow road. BRET KEIL : It's a narrow road and the way it winds that's what cuts out people's front yards. The big thing is, just to be able to as you get older have an office a place to do work without having to go up and down a set of stairs cause its jut MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But there is space I'm just again, being devil's advocate here, you're asking for a two-car garage where you don't presently have a garage, one could reconfigure the space to make it conform. BRET KEIL : Well, they want to move out here and they have two vehicles plus they have boat, kayaks and stuff to store so it's I mean PAT MOORE : It's important the character of the neighborhood that's why I gave you all of the variances MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) site inspection well I know all of the different homes that have received variances I can't speak about the other members but I think they recognize also. PAT MOORE : We've made every effort to in kind and place replacement so not expanding the 25-foot setback trying to maintain the existing conditions it would that's why you're sitting here as a Board. BRET KEIL : Yea I mean the biggest thing they worry that as they progress in age they're not going to be able to climb up and down the stairs that's why the kids are going to be up there and they want to keep it all the living area on the first floor and anything they need and all they have is basically a bedroom and a little office. So, if we take that off the front, we lose the garage now one car sits out in the winter so now we're on the Sound with salt air blowing on your car all winter long. Part don't last as long as they do but anyway.what I mean it will be a rust bucket in the front yard August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if you would call it a benefit but you have two Board Members that live in the general area. BRET KEIL : Like even your air-conditioning units they rust real quick and stuff like that so everything is dependent on what to make it survive. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Nick, did you have any other questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not at this time. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT: I share Nick's concern about the blank slate,there's a way to design around it. My other question is,the two-car garage you're saying it's a two-car garage and you want to store cars in there and there's a set of stairs so it's really not a two-car garage. BRET KEIL : Right, we can pull a car under it, under the stairs with a pitch cause it's going as the stairs go down we can pull a car under it so it's a very tight two-car garage.The doors you know are not over wide it's just enough to get two small cars in there basically and maybe a mower. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm kind of with Nick, there's more options here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I guess the question I would still ask and I'm thinking about a neighboring property like three doors over one of the examples that Pat provided when I just looked through the packet this Spiller house which was application 7383, they had a relief for a front yard setback,they added a screened in porch to the second-story. The interesting thing there, it was an existing house and not a demolition. PAT MOORE : I would tend to disagree with that, when it was so the original house got a variance in '77,they then added a second-story before the demolition definition so they ended up adding to the house and then in 2020 they were further enclosing it but the amount of work that they were doing in 2020 did not trigger a demolition it was an expansion of the like (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was like a basement I remember the application, again, I live right around the corner that wasn't a demolition.I would argue. PAT MOORE : No, no it wasn't I did include pictures so you could see what the house looked like before the work was being done. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would argue the house is pretty similar to what was originally built. They enclosed the basement level for lack of a better word. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : They enclosed the basement, I don't think they would have been allowed to do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They did, yeah down I don't want to call it a third floor, there was a basement level an exposed cellar, it did have a bedroom down there previously. PAT MOORE : Oh the pictures don't show it,they only show the pile, like the back of the house maybe? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, it's on the front. PAT MOORE : I don't see it, I'm looking at the pictures. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) the balcony is on the second-floor you can't see that it's enclosed below the basement level. BRET KEIL : It' what they call a basement? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't remember the application a hundred percent but my point is, that this was really additions and alterations and not new construction so I stand by my comment. I think Rob also shared the same thing relative to a front yard setback,you're starting with a blank slate and that's BRET KEIL : Well, if we don't get the front and we can take that square footage and we put it somewhere else we now come into another front yard setback or another side yard setback issue because the lot is MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Potentially and it's not my place to design the house.We talked about the garage that you have a stairwell so while you can sort of shoehorn a car under it maybe you can also place an office there. It's a conversation it's public hearing. BRET KEIL : Right, that's why I'm discussing also the issue if the reason we left it there was because we found out that it was part of the neighborhood that front of the house and it really hasn't changed the look of the neighborhood because we did not encroach on the road so this way here by leaving it where it was we were able to get the office and we were able to get the one bedroom downstairs, nice bedroom and the living area and then the two bedrooms above the garage but we didn't change the look of the neighborhood by encroaching on the road. PAT MOORE : If you want us to go adjourn this to go back to double check the numbers we will. I don't want to get a denial that puts them coming back here for a side yard variance because that's what is they're forced to do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know if they would need a side yard variance. n August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting . PAT MOORE : No right now they don't. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, even if you adjusted things. This is just as I said, it's a public hearing it's a question because it's in theory a blank slate. It's a vacant lot once the house is demolished and why can't one conform to the best of their ability? PAT MOORE : We tried very hard, I think there was an effort to preserve the look of the original house build in kind and place within the same foundation that had been previously there so you have the hole and everything still in place. You start flipping things around now you're potentially dealing with a different footprint. BRET KEIL : Definitely on the waterside there's a big MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One thing I would say that is in your favor, because it is a waterfront lot we don't want to encroach (inaudible) maintaining that I can understand that request. BRET KEIL : Right, I mean this house has been there since the mid-fifties and it's part of the landscape being this close to the road so I mean going forward does really change the look of the road I mean the look from the road.There's a tree in the front yard there,there's(inaudible) you don't even see half the house in the front and like I said because of the bend in the road it look like you're forty feet off the road. PAT MOORE : We're trying to keep the driveways everything in the same place. MEMBER STEINBUGLER : Nick and Rob, are you any further questions? Pat, do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, I think we're covered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a question. IA system, they're going to need a new IA system, I don't see where are you putting that IA system? BRET KEIL : In the front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Obviously it has to be. PAT MOORE You should have Sheet 2 of the plans that were sent over, we're using the engineer's plan for this project. It should be its Eric Hannen. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It's there. PAT MOORE : I know, I just want to make sure that she has it. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, the illustration shows 103 feet from the flagged wetlands and then the other thing that we didn't talk about but it goes hand in hand with,the existing well is being abandoned from what I understand. PAT MOORE : We have public water, yeah. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought you're hooking up to public water. PAT MOORE : Yes, we are. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You have it or you have to hook up? BRET KEIL : We have to hook up. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, you're abandoning your well which is sort of where the garage expansion is and you're hooking up to public water. PAT MOORE : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see, I'm looking cause LWRP also made reference to the fact that there was no information on the IA system. PAT MOORE :There were two,the original did not have the sanitary design cause the engineer had not gotten it done yet but then we submitted it maybe a month after, as soon as we had the engineer's plan it was submitted. You should have it, if not I know we CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The office file has it so don't worry about it. PAT MOORE : Definitely and the Board Members here have it so I don't know why you don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll look further maybe I SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Sheet 2 of 5 Leslie, Island Wide Engineering. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I got it,thank you. PAT MOORE : Trustees may tell us to move the dry wells we're not sure, that's the only thing I see here that might change but that's not usually your concern. We have to meet the drainage code so no matter what it will meet the drainage code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as they don't require further because it's a demo, further setback from the pond which then completely changes your front yard setback. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that becomes a Trustee issue. i3l August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yea but we're back here again so unfortunately the bounce back and forth until the town VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie, did you have any other questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, that was it. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to ask a question or raise a point on this application? Please come forward and state your name. MR. PRESSLER : My name is Glen Pressler I'm the owner of the home with my wife Angela.With regards to water,the old well has already been abandoned and we are on public water. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Is there any other member of the audience who would like to speak on this application? Do we have anyone on Zoom? PAT MOORE : Why don't we ask for a very short adjournment, we'll look at this, there may be a way. I just don't know what the setbacks would be if we essentially flip the house so the garage is on the south and the main house is on the northeast. I think that may be something MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) increase the front yard setback? PAT MOORE : That might increase it or eliminate the variance I don't know until the numbers are done I can't tell if we're going to conform or not, it's very close. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The interesting thing that you just stated that if you maybe flip the plan it might remove the entire,you'd have the same exact design just in reverse and may your pointing out remove the need for any variance relief? PAT MOORE : Potentially. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We need a date, the Board also I think needs to digest all the prior decisions you provided,thank you for these they're quite a few. Do you have a date in mind for our next? PAT MOORE : When would the next slot be available? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We're putting applications now into October, Liz is that right? SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : January, can you be ready in two weeks for the Special? PAT MOORE : How much detail do you need? 141 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Design plans. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was looking at the survey, maybe if you just flip the house and then just withdraw the application. MEMBER LEHNERT We've got construction drawings here, we don't need construction drawings. PAT MOORE : You just need the site plan. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A site plan. PAT MOORE : Okay, I think he can accomplish that, let's see what he can do. MEMBER LEHNERT : It will either work or decrease the nonconformity. PAT MOORE : Yes VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : So I make a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on August 20tn PAT MOORE : So it'll open for purposes of any VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We're not closing. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : There's not going to be any comments at the Special that's what we're saying. Put in whatever you want in writing with the site plan. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There doesn't seem to be any opposition, I mean this is an opportunity that you know PAT MOORE : We'll call the engineer because for sanitary location stuff like that that I worry about that MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But with public water in that (inaudible) your water line right there but hopefully you can flip and (inaudible). PAT MOORE : Hopefully we don't have neighbors that have wells that are still operational. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But still at the very least we're going to substantially reduce the request from 25 feet to maybe 30 feet. BRET KEIL: Like Pat said,as long as our septic system doesn't interfere with the 150 foot setback from neighbor's well we're fine. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Okay, we'll go back and tweak it. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting on August 20th. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING#8117- DAVID and HELEN LEIS VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The next application before the Board is for David and Helen Leis #8117. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's February 7, 2025 REVISED March 6, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an inground swimming pool, hot tub and generator accessory to an existing single-family dwelling at 1.) pool, hot tub and generator located in other than the code required rear yard located at 990 Grand Ave. (adj. to Long Creek) in Mattituck, NY SUM No. 1000-107-8-44.1. 1 think for the record we have entered what the variance request is so please. DAVID LEIS : Good morning Board, my name is David Leis, my wife Helen is here, we are the owners of said property co listed as 990 and 1150 Grand Ave. With me is Jason Peters of North Fork Pools who will be building the pool and can answer any detailed construction questions. As Margaret stated we're asking for relief under Section 280-15 to place an inground swimming pool in what the Building Department had determined is a side yard rather than the required rear yard. This yard designation is the only relief we're looking for, we're not asking for any setback relief, lot coverage relief or (inaudible) relief. Very quickly, what we're proposing a 13 by 53-foot inground pool, lap pool, no deep ends slightly less than 700 square feet total and the afore mentioned (inaudible) square foot hot tub. We are also requesting an additional 350 JL August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting feet of new hard scaped patio around the pool. This will be approximately 850 total sq. ft. but there's an existing fountain which I believe many of you saw on the property which dates we believe back a long time does no longer holds water; it is approximately 450 sq.ft. itself and we will be removing that and replacing with new patio. Pool equipment will be in sound deadening enclosure. All the pool patio, shower water will be directed to a new 4 foot by 8-foot drywell with code enforced fencing throughout. So, some quick highlights, we believe there is no undesirable change to the neighborhood character. There is no neighbor on the side of the property where we're proposing to put the pool, both of our adjoining neighbors are on the northside. The southern side terminates at the corner of Long Creek and Grand Ave. so there are no adjoining neighbors to that direction and the pool will sit more than 50 feet from the southern delineation of the property line so no setbacks required. Waterfront pools are common along the creek. As many of you have observed there is a cattycornered pool that Jason actually constructed approximately five years ago. Similar setup, they also have the adjoining corner across the creek in a very similar location, slightly larger pool, slightly larger patio than we're requesting. We have gone through multiple options and explorations around where this pool could be located. We believe given the unique shape of the property which is very narrow it was one of the first on the area but very narrow and long in nature,there's really not much setback in the front yard or the back yard particularly since it's on the creek so we're running along that tidal wetland. We do have on the northside of the property one of the advanced nitrogen reducing IA septic system that we had installed also approximately six years ago replacing two cesspools that were very close to the creek and so it takes that are out of play from placement. With the Trustees and the DEC we're also navigating the setback from the creek and the wetland. We have gotten approval from the Trustees already for the placement at the 60-foot setback, we have gotten in principle place approval from the DEC in a similar manner. They have asked us to only have the pool itself at the 60-foot and they'd like every other structure including the hot tub at the 75-foot so that's the one thing that we're finalizing with them but they've given us conditional approval as long as we move the hot tub for that so that's where we're in front of you today. The lot coverage is after the proposal at about 14% so well under the 20%. We're meeting the setbacks and so forth. LWRP report proposed action is consistent with policies and we're also working with the DEC and the Trustees to add additional remediation including a new non-turf buffer along the waterfront, better drainage not that there's any drainage problem now but even better than preexisting conditions. So, in closing, irregular waterfront parcel not really a technical back yard that.has any ability to be used given the angular location on Grand Ave. and the orientation of the house and so respectfully requesting a variance for that location from the Board.Jason and I and Helen are here to answer any questions. 1,71 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER:Thanks,just to clarify a hundred percent,the DEC suggested location for the generator and the hot tub are as shown on I think on this plan, they are landward of DAVID LEIS : Landward, correct. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Okay, I think a question we have from our site inspection is,there's a stucco building that sits between the garage and the house, how is that used. DAVID LEIS : Correct, it is an accessory structure that has kind of common area in it and gym equipment. It's not attached to the primary dwelling structure. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yea we can see it's free standing. DAVID LEIS : It matches it was there originally I mean it's been there throughout the years. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I spoke with you briefly during my site inspection, I know just from the history of being involved with the Historical Society, the structure was used as an embroidery studio, I thought it was more of a sewing workshop back in the day, clearly it's not a commercial use but I think you had mentioned, you had learned yourself that it was an embroidery. DAVID LEIS : Correct, they made patches for war uniforms back in (inaudible) kind of cool, we have two of the patches. i VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yes, very interesting, Pat did you have�any questions? I MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions, it is a strange property shape and actually there is no other place to be putting the pool. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Nick did you have any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, I wanted to ask one question and I'm not quite sure like how it fits into what your application is cause it really isn't pertinent to the application other than the fact that I like things to be cleaned up that way in the future there are no questions. At some earlier point your lot was merged with what had been the rotary lot for the former (inaudible), in the middle of that site and I didn't go back that day as you know and something I kicked around in my head, there's a shed sitting on that location. Does that shed have a Certificate of Occupancy? I DAVID LEIS : It's less than 100 sq.ft. so we were told by the Building Department that we didn't need a C.O. for it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed but it needs to be in a compliant location. i August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting DAVID LEIS : We were told by the Building Department that that was a compliant location so I was not aware that there was any issue with it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, my question to that is, if that's considered a compliant location then your pool and all the other improvements should be compliant because these items are sited as not being compliant and I don't know how to skin this one with the Building Department but you know I'd like to see that there's not an issue with the shed in the future. I don't know if we should SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Nick, I have;a note here in the file that says because I had asked about it too, the Building Department is deeming it as being in the rear yard. DAVID LEIS : We originally tried to make the argument that this was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If that's the rear yard then your pool your fire pit, generator DAVID LEIS : We went back and forth numerous times and they told us for the pool no it's the side yard and you need a variance from this Board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You can understand (inaudible) DAVID LEIS : No I understand, we've been trying to work on this for eighteen months with basically MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm wondering if we should somehow include and we just had this with the application in Mattituck on Summit Drive where there's actually a shed that was previously included in an application that the applicant didn't realize it was included twenty years ago and they came specifically to legalize that shed today. Is there any way that maybe we can amend the application or discuss the shed in a positive way to include it so that there is never a question in the future? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : You mean put it in our decision? MEMBER LEHNERT : Put it in the decision. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Just additional information. DAVID LEIS : We'd appreciate that. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We can document it in additional information that there was testimony from the applicant that the Building Department deemed the shed to be in a compliant location. 2.9 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : In March I asked about it and they said it's small enough but they said they were okay with the location of the shed. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I did have one other question, I think you mentioned the fountain was being removed. I think somewhere in the documentation it says it's relocated,so is it being removed and off the property or moving it to another location? DAVID LEIS : The fountain itself is being removed again because of the unusual nature of the property and the noise from the street we were saying since there was a preexisting fountain we would run a water line to have just a little bubbling fountain from a white noise perspective as a you know we were encourage to include that in the application just while we were going through so it was seen but it's not the actual fountain itself because it doesn't work. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Nick anything else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Rob, did you have a question? MEMBER LEHNERT : It's relatively benign. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, the property and the side yard is extremely well screened from the road and adjacent properties but I did have one question here. The pool was not staked out, are any trees going to have to be removed in order to put these accessory structures in? DAVID LEIS : This has been one of the conversations that we've had with the Trustees and Zoning. We originally because within this eighteen month window the Trustees originally had a 50-foot setback and so the pool had been at 50-feet which was protecting us from the trees, they then pushed that to 60-feet and despite the fact that our conversations in preliminary approval were with the 50-foot setback they asked if we could push it to 60, they have determined that none of those trees that are existing there are indigenous despite having been there for a while and so we said, we will have to take out two of those trees in order to accomplish this and they said that is our preference. So, there will be trees that unfortunately need to be taken out, they will be replaced one for one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Is this site plan going to change with all those different things that you need to make it (inaudible). 7-o F August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting DAVID LEIS : I think it will cause this one looks to be this is the April one,that hot tub has moved here that's basically the I think the latest plan that was submitted has it in the right location. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You said that they wanted at 65 feet so if the pool is at 60 and it's 14 feet wide you're basically at that 75-foot for the hot tub. Then there was also a note Leslie in red about trees being removed and similar plantings. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : So what's the date on the most recent SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : My last date is February 18, 2026. DAVID LEIS : I have June 8, 2026. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We need that. DAVID LEIS : I apologize, my understanding was that it was submitted with (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret I'm going to make one other comment just as a reminder because there is a swimming pool and it discusses a dry well for dewatering,you'd be surprised who forgets that. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Very good, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this application? Is there anyone on Zoom? I will make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of the updated I think it's a survey which I think you said was dated June 8, 2026 just so we have the latest documentation and we'll close upon receipt of that. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye 21 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting HEARING#8118—ANDREW SHANNON and KATHERINE O'BRIEN VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The next application before the Board is for Andrew Shannon and Katherine O'Brien #8118. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207(1)(a) and the Building Inspector's March 26, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) greater than the maximum permitted lot coverage of 20%, 3) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 10,000 sq. ft. in area located at 1950 Equestrian Ave. on Fishers Island. For the record I'm just going to note that the front yard setback is 15 % feet where the code minimum is 35 feet. The lot coverage is 29.6% where a maximum of 20% is allowed and the gross floor area is 2,446 sq. ft. where a maximum of 2,100 sq. ft. is allowed. Who would like to address this application? SAM FITZGERALD : Hi, my name is Sam Fitzgerald appearing on behalf of the owners.Just a few key facts about the house and the property, the house was built in the 1880's, it was built very close to the road. I think we have an existing setback of 8.5 feet so obviously we're existing nonconforming in ourfront yard setback.We don't meet sky plane either on that front property line. The house had not been really altered at all until the 1970's when there was a one story flat roofed addition that was put onto the west side of-the house. Right next to that addition is a little "L" a part of the original house that extends out to the west and that's a one and a half story piece. Those two components together sort of makeup what we're calling the west wing of the house. Finally, in the early 1980's someone had literally plugged a drain pipe and created a pond in the back of the house. If you look at the Suffolk County GIS aerials 1978, no pond and in 1984, pond. So, this was just runoff that was collecting in the back yard and over the course of the next few decades it grew into the sizeable pond that we have today. The main issue of the project apart from doing a sort of a larger interior renovation was to add a second floor to this west wing. As part of this process, we asked the contractor to take a look at the condition of the existing structure and he found that the existing foundations were in very, very poor repair. There were vertical cracks in the 1970's addition. The original part of the house was a rubble foundation that's in bad shape too so it's his recommendation that we rebuild the west wing in its entirety from the foundation up still on that same footprint.As we started to look at and laying out the interior spaces of the west wing, we realized pretty quickly that if we were to bump out that footprint just a little bit that it would significantly improve the functionality of those spaces.That's our proposal, rebuild the west wing on the same footprint, add a second floor and then bump out that west wing just a little bit on two sides. I think that our total addition to the existing footprint there is 63 sq.ft. Also, we have a screened porch on the back side of the west wing, the manmade pond encroaches closely to that porch so we'd like to remove that porch and relocate it to the side of the newly rebuilt west wing which will put it 22 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting farther away from the pond's edge.The total area of this lot is 13,500 sq. ft., if we were to use that calculation or sorry that number for our zoning calculations the existing house would conform completely to zoning except for that front yard. If we were to add our proposed additions they would also conform to zoning to the same degree. As you know we have this pond so we have to use the buildable land area for our zoning calculations not total lot area. If we subtract the pond from the lot area, we get a buildable land area of 8,100 sq. ft. so that's the number that we use and once we do, we see that the house now does not conform to lot coverage and in GFA and obviously any new additions would not conform either. We don't feel that the relief we're seeking is substantial, we're asking for a 244 sq. ft. increase. in the gross floor area and 2.1% increase in lot coverage. As you know, the lot coverage and the GFA requirements in the code are there to help regulate the density scale and open space in a neighborhood. In this case if we're using the buildable land number for our zoning calculations, I don't think that's at all in keeping with the spirit or the intent of the lot coverage or the GFA code requirements. I mean if we are using the buildable land area here the implication is somehow that the pond or the open space of the pond somehow is relevant or is impactful to the development of a density of a neighborhood and that's just not true in this case. I mean the house and the neighborhood existed close to a hundred years before the pond was created. The density and the scale of the neighborhood were long established decades before the pond. Every house in the neighborhood except for one existed before the pond was created. I think just for the purposed of trying to evaluate this application I think a more accurate way to evaluate our proposal in relationship to the density in the neighborhood would be to use the total lot area for our zoning calculations and that's why I say that the relief is not substantial because if we did use that number then we would conform to lot coverage and gross floor area. Apart from that, there would be no negative impacts to the neighborhood of this project. I mean we're not changing the density or the scale, we're not no site lines are being obstructed, the building will be the same height. No one is going to notice that the west wing was bumped out a little bit on two sides. I think that it'll all be positive impacts actually, I mean we'll be farther away from the water, we're getting rid of that ugly 1970's addition and all of our new additions are going to be integrated seamlessly into the architecture of the original house. Thank you, I'd be happy to take questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Thank you, I am interested in this I'm sorry if I missed it-but the status of the Trustees application. SAM FITZGERALD : We had a Trustees hearing that was tentatively to be scheduled however the Trustees canceled their site visit out to Fisher Island this past month. Hopefully it's going to happen next month but it was unfortunate they had to cancel. I guess they were taking an open-air boat across and it was raining pretty hard so they had to cancel. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yea I understand there were weather considerations. Did you say that the Trustee public hearing was already held? SAM FITZGERALD : No, I'm sorry it was not. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It was a pre submission conference? SAM FITZGERALD : Yes we did. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sam, in your application packet you showed a house immediately to the east which was recently renovated using a variety of variances, have you given any consideration or done an analysis of how that property on a similar water body whether it's a pond,whether it's manmade or not how the impact you know any similarities between the two application I guess is what I'm asking for. SAM FITZGERALD : Right, right, right that the Kearny residence so you know involved there was the DEC and the Trustees and so we you know we were through both agencies we have been required to have no mow buffers there and some other mitigation. We fully expect that to be the case here has well. There hasn't been any more expansion of the pond thankfully, I think the pond now is stable.As I said we'll be doing whatever rigorous erosion controls that the DEC and the Trustees recommend. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While I appreciate that from an environmental standpoint I was getting more into the setbacks, the GFA, the lot coverage that sort of analysis. SAM FITZGERALD : Right, right, right, oh so you mean just how these two houses compare? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Possibly exactly from a GFA standpoint which I know is a recent code change but it impacts your application, other houses in the immediate area. SAM FITZGERALD : Right, right, right, so this house is and I did look at that, I did look at the other houses in the neighborhood and so this house is average in size for the neighborhood maybe a little bit smaller than average so obviously with this proposed work we're and there's not much change at all to the size of the house so it'll still be average in size. We did do an addition off the backside of the house to the east with the screen porch and I think that this they're probably comparable in size well actually I think that this house the Shannon property or the house is probably a little bit larger than that one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Visuallyjust walking by I would argue that the Shannon house is much larger at least it has a broader presence whereas the neighboring house is narrow but both share the same waterbody. I think you just mentioned that the neighboring house actually had the screened in porch on the waterside. 241 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD : Yea that's right, sorry the neighboring house has the screened porch it does have water views but it's not necessarily it's a very similar thing that we're doing with the Shannon's here where the screen porch is off to the side off the house not directly fronting onto the pond. There's definitely more frontage with this house than the one to the east certainly. I think that the house to the east is deeper and because of that I think there's a comparable GFA there although I think that this house is still larger. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did you do any sort of analysis of the GFA in that immediate area? We have a GFA calculation sort of guideline. SAM FITZGERALD : It wasn't formally done, I'm pretty familiar with all the houses in the area and we did an analysis I mean it wasn't like I said a formal one but we did look at aerial photographs and we have the GIS and we did look at the GFA in of sort of a loose way throughout the neighborhood and we just found yeah I mean there are some larger houses on the waterside across the road is the water and there are some larger houses there. We are well within average probably smaller than average of GFA for the neighborhood. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Nick, did you have anything else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, that's everything. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie, did you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this application? Is there anyone on Zoom Donna? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do we want to ask for any prior relief granted? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Certainly that's where we were going. Sam, you noted that you did kind of an informal I'll call it an eyeball assessment of the relative sizes of the houses in the neighborhood but I wonder if it would be possible to get some examples of something a little more prior relief of homes in the neighborhood seeking similar variances. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD : I think we can do that. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Nick anything else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, I think we can close it subject to receipt of examples of prior relief for both the lot coverage and for the GFA. That can be submitted prior to the Special Meeting. SAM FITZGERALD : We can certainly get that done. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yes, prior to the two weeks. I will make a motion to close this public hearing subject to receipt of examples of prior Zoning Board relief in the neighborhood for gross floor area and lot coverage, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING#8119—MIRIAM FOSTER and GRAYSON MURPHY VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The next application before us is for Miriam Foster and Grayson Murphy #8119. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 6, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 595 Youngs Rd. Orient, NY. The proposal here is a rear yard setback of 20 feet where the code required minimum rear yard setback is 35 feet. Who would like to speak to the application? JOAN CHAMBERS : This is a small house on a small piece of property and when you look at the survey I can't possibly understand why this piece of property and the one adjacent to it had the backyard setback, backyard property lines drawn at such angles but it created a problem when August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting we tried to fit this addition on. One of the reasons why the addition has to go out into the rear and it's too close to the property line is that the right of way to the south of the house is basically another street. Although this isn't technically a corner lot it acts as a corner lot. By putting the addition out into the side yard, the privacy of the deck that's off the bedroom and the addition itself is it's like putting it in the front yard with the neighbors driving, walking on that area. Moving it into the back yard keeps it as private as possible, hidden from the street as possible and it actually has another road Pete's Hill Rd. that's just across its rear yard property line that has a buffer between their property and the road itself which will be unlikely that anyone will ever build on it. By moving this addition towards the rear we're not actually encroaching on anyone else's property, we'd be encroaching much more if we moved it to the side so that's why a decision was made by the design professional to put the addition in the rear because it actually is you know a better spot than putting it off the side near the right of way or you know it's sort of a corner lot. Also, I did a little bit of research when I could get back on line and there was a variance No.. 4361 at the property 295 Youngs Rd. and they were granted a variance for a rear yard setback to the residence of 21 feet and this application is asking for 20 feet. So, there has been precedence set in the neighborhood. These are small houses on small lots as you know from going up Youngs Rd. and many of the houses are you know don't have full back yards but there had been one variance granted. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Joan, which house was that? JOAN CHAMBERS : 295 Youngs VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Could you repeat the number? JOAN CHAMBERS : 4361, I'd be happy to drop off copies if that would be helpful. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where in relationship on Youngs is that? Is the one that's up on the corner of the right of way on the southside? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I thought. From the site inspection I remember we were back there. I'm kind of happy that I figured out the dirt road, I kind of felt like I was trespassing. I wasn't on the Board at the time so I'm looking at the tax map, if you look at what you have in the packet which is highlighted for the separate property there's a sort of a C-shaped right of way. It's actually lot 12 on the tax map that we offered relief for their expansion. JOAN CHAMBERS : That right of way is a busy right of way, it isn't just a flagged lot to one property. 27 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was surprised there was large truck and stuff parked there. JOAN CHAMBERS : It's really it's not a corner lot it functions as a corner lot. The best location that the design professional came up with is the location it's in. As I said, it doesn't you know have an encroachment on the property behind it because of Pete's Hill Rd. which basically prevents any construction to be done between Peace Rd and this property. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : So, Pete's Hill Rd. I don't think I caught that on any of the plans. JOAN CHAMBERS : It includes the back of the property which would be the west side of the property. Pete's Hill Rd. comes up from the Main Rd. and it serves half a dozen properties. I mean it's a fairly well traveled road and between Pete's Hill Rd. and the rear yard property line of this property is I don't have the exact measurement, scaling it it's gotta be 20 feet, 15 or 20 feet so no one would be able to build between Pete's Hill Rd. and this back yard. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I had one question, adding a bedroom, is an IA system planned? JOAN CHAMBERS : As far as I know from the design professional this is a three bedroom house and it remains a three bedroom house. There's been on plan fora future septic system for a septic expansion. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Oh, I thought that a bedroom was added. Anyone else? JOAN CHAMBERS : Right now the house shows two bedrooms and a family room and so this addition would be the third bedroom but I believe and I can get that notation if you need it that the septic system is for a three bedroom house. It only had the two bedrooms. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We could ensure that it's approved by Suffolk County Department of Health and if they agree that it's three bedrooms they can JOAN CHAMBERS : The Building Department did not question it. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : When I did my site inspection I did run into a neighbor who reported that in a conversation that she had with the owner although the plans indicate that there's going to be a generator and gas tank included, the owner stated that a generator and gas tank is not included in the project so I just want to be clear as to whether a generator and gas tank are still part of the project. JOAN CHAMBERS :They were not applied for with the building permit application. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Rob, do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak.to this application? I think we do have someone on Zoom. ROBERT HUGHES : My name is Robert Hughes and my address is 1025 Pete's Hill Rd. in Orient. I am the owner of the land to the west which abuts the property which is the subject of this application. I appear before you to clarify and correct certain statements made in the application. As a preference or on the side, I have known the applicants since they first moved to Orient in 2011. 1 consider them to be my friends. In fact, I represented them when they purchased the subject premises. My focus is on paragraph three of the attachment number one which states in part that the owners have approached the land owner to the west who owns 2.61 acres and have entered into negotiations to purchase enough land to quote, unquote square off the rear of the owner's property. This is not true.The applicant has never spoken to me about purchasing (inaudible) land. I've had one five-minute phone call with Mr. Murphy in February of this year. He informed me that he and his wife were planning a 20-foot addition to the rear of the house which would require a variance. Initially I did not object to this proposal for two reasons; first, the addition was only 20-feet not to 31-feet it has morphed into and second, I was mistaken in thinking that the rear yard setback requirement was 50-feet so I would have been very surprised if a 20-foot addition did not require a variance for a 50-foot setback. At no time prior to during or after this phone call have the applicants ever discussed with me much less entered into quote, any negotiations to purchase land from me. It is true that I am in poor health or whether or not I am capable of entering into in concluding negotiations for a transfer of my land is my decision not theirs. I recognize that the applicants have every right to apply for this variance but I feel that the ZBA needs to have all of the facts concerning the alternatives which would eliminate or at least minimize the extent of the variance. Such alternatives include, reorienting the project on the land and the potential purchase of land. I am not opposed to the concept of a lot line change but I would have to say, I need to see an approval excuse me a proposal. Thank you for your time. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Thank you for your testimony. Would you like to August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting JOAN CHAMBERS : Mr. Hughes can you hear me? ROBERT HUGHES : I can. JOAN CHAMBERS : This is Joan Chambers and I prepared the application for the homeowners and I apologize if I misconstrued, the owners told me that it was a verbal thing. They told me that they had been talking to you about this and I shouldn't have included that without actually getting information from you and my apologies for that. ROBERT HUGHES : Well you say it was a verbal thing, I told you the sum total of my communications with them and they know where I live, I've let them use Pete's Hill Rd. to go down to the beach, to our private beach. Their kids have been sledding on my hill this last winter and I'm surprised that they gave you the impression that they had done more than just told me they were going to put on an addition to the point of negotiations. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Joan, I just want to remind you to address the Board and also Mr. Hughes so while we heard that I don't know how pertinent this is to the application. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding about a 20-foot addition versus a 20-foot setback but I think here we're looking at an application that's clearly about the rear yard setback of 20-feet where 35-feet is required. JOAN CHAMBERS : Correct VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : So, in light of this are you interested in adjourning or would you like us to I don't know if your clients would like to have any further discussions with Mr. Hughes in light of his testimony, I'm offering this option. JOAN CHAMBERS : I understand that, I'm trying to make a decision. Yes, let's adjourn let's not close the hearing until I can have a conference with them and see if we want to resubmit any further information. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Do you think that could take place before our Special Meeting in two weeks time? JOAN CHAMBERS : Yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret, I don't mean to (inaudible)for the applicant but I think it's somewhat of a very straightforward application, I don't know why we'd adjourn it. I mean if the applicant really wants to adjourn it, they can but I think we've had enough testimony and whatever goes on between neighbors if they chose to do a lot line alteration or modification that's their business, it wouldn't impact anything. If they're successful in negotiations perhaps 0 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting that would actually increase it but from a standpoint of today's hearing, I don't see why we wouldn't close it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I have to say, I would agree with Nick. The subject application is exactly what was submitted to us. What might potentially happen in the future is not relevant to this and by the time anything might happen it could be months and months and months away. I really think we should just make a determination on the merits of what is in front of us and not like what might become in front of us. We're looking at one variance, a rear yard setback of 20 instead of 35 on a very oddly shaped property. I would prefer to simply close and make a determination. MEMBER LEHNERT : I would agree with Leslie. JOAN CHAMBERS : I take your advice and let's close the hearing. ROBERT HUGHES : May I interject? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : First of all, it's not advice, it's just a comment to the Board. ROBERT HUGHES : My feeling is that there was this application includes extremely inaccurate information and I just wanted to make sure that the Board was aware of that and it is on the record that the application is flawed.Thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I wouldn't say that the application is flawed but there is a record now that you clarified something that was perhaps erroneously included. It doesn't change the application. ROBERT H.UGHES : Flawed perhaps maybe is the wrong term. I ask forgiveness, I will just say that it is not accurate,that's all. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Thank you Mr. Hughes for your testimony. I will make a motion to close this hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?_ MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 31 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING 3 8121—DAVID and MARY DESETTA/DESETTA D. REVOCABLE TRUST VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The next application before the Board is #8121 David and Mary DeSetta/DeSetta D. Revocable Trust. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 20, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" demolition (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruction of a single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the code required combined side yard setback of 35 feet located at 1775 Gull Pond Lane in Greenport, NY adjacent to Gull Pond. The request here is for a side yard setback of 10 and Y feet where the code requires a minimum of 15-feet and a combined side yard setback of 28.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35-feet. Would you like to address this application? DAVID DESETTA : Good morning to the Board, my name is David DeSetta and this is my wife Mary DeSetta.We're seeking relief where the code required for the minimum side yard setback of 15-feet to less than the code required combined side yard setback of 35-feet. I just want to address the Board and say that we never changed the original house, it's sitting on the same foundation, it's the same site that's been there originally. I understand that the house was never demolished, it's the original house that still sits there. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : You used the existing foundation? DAVID DESETTA : Yea, it's not that, the house was never demoed it's just it was just gutted on the inside,the original structure is still there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this was an application that puzzled me, maybe we can talk about the building permit that was issued. Mr. DeSetta, the building permit that was issued for the alteration of the existing structure.permit No. 51546, can you explain what that covered? DAVID DESETTA : That covered to demo the inside of the house, reconstruct the front covered porch. MEMBER LEHNERT : How are we here with a technical demolition? DAVID DESETTA : What's the question, I'm sorry? 32- August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : How did we end up with a technical demolition if there was a building permit for as you say the same thing? Did you guys call for an inspection and the inspector saw that there was more work than the original permit? DAVID DESETTA : Yes VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : What was the additional work that was not allowed by the original permit? DAVID DESETTA : I'm not sure what VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I understood Rob to ask if there was work performed at the time of the inspection that exceeded what the permit allowed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Liz I think you spoke with the Building Department. So, there was a building permit issued 51546 which whatever,that was for this went beyond it, there's notes here that it was a rough framing, plumbing inspection and at that time and this was from I'm reading it, Nancy I was going to say Nancy but there's also John so between the two inspectors, Nancy had first commented that it's a full gut renovation. I've not been in the building but when I was the house doing the site inspection you could see that it was the foundation that you were renovating off of but the interior whatever ceiling height there had been originally had been lifted.There's what they're calling a gut renovation. Back in January both Nancy and John determined that the scope of work was a demolition so it went far beyond even though they're using the exact footprint the interior work I guess they gutted everything, reframed I'll share this. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I saw this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was trying to look at the original building permit to understand what was going on here. I think it's just a matter of bureaucratic function maybe because now we're confronted with the actual plans of what's there.The existing footprint hasn't altered. DAVID DESETTA : Right VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Hasn't it come forward, landward of the original? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the "as built" front porch but that doesn't impact the relief that they're seeking, that's in a conforming location. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Isn't there also a discrepancy on the survey with regard to the survey says 11.2 feet and then the Building Department is saying it's 10.5 feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask that question. 3 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I actually looked at the building application in Laserfiche for your building permit and the survey you submitted for your building permit application is different from the survey you provided with your Zoning Board application and they have different side yard setbacks.They were performed by different surveyors; one was done by Mr.Woychuk and I think one was done by Mr. Wicks. Why would you provide different surveys? DAVID DESETTA : I wasn't aware of that. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think the one that came with our application is by Joshua Wicks and was dated April 2023, the one provided with the building permit application was by Woychuk and was dated December 13, 2024 and we don't have that but I examined it and found a number of differences between the two surveys. Perhaps the one that's relevant here is the side yard setback which was provided as being 10 and % feet on the survey that you provided to the Building Department. MARY DESETTA : Where is that located, what are you looking at? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I'm looking at the point of the house that is most close to your neighbor's property on the is that the north side of the south side? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's the south side. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It's just that one survey says 10 and % and the other one says 11.2 and that's what we're here for so it would be nice to know what the accurate number is. Without your input I would have guessed that the most accurate number is the most recent survey which says, 10.5. DAVID DESETTA : That one is the Wicks? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : That's the Woychuk and that's what was submitted with the building permit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret, I didn't see that survey, do you have a Woychuk survey? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I don't. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, that was the one from Laserfiche? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : That was the one from Laserfiche with the building permit building permit application. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I would say for the purpose of the hearing we should go with the greater amount that's still working off the existing foundation so maybe we can by a survey or by clarification. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yes, or by submission of the one that went with the building permit that seems to be the most recent and that's the one the Building Department used as the basis for the Notice of Disapproval. It just introduces an element of confusion to us. While I'm chatting, when I performed my site inspection, there was a kind of in the front of the house closest to the neighbor to the south, there was an exposed concrete what looked like a cap of a septic system but it might have been something else like a dry well with two trenches dug and leading to that, what's that? DAVID DESETTA : The septic system. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : That's the septic system? Okay, is an IA system planned or MARY DESETTA : It wasn't required. MEMBER LEHNERT : But with the demolition it might. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Another kind of technical question is, I think the application indicated that there were covenants and restrictions on the property but I don't think that they were included in the application. Are there C&R's? DAVID DESETTA : Not to my knowledge. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Maybe it's just a mistake in filling out the application form. Do you have an application in with the Trustees? Is that required here, cause there's construction within their setback from the water. DAVID DESETTA : I believe it's a little over a hundred. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The survey shows 87.2 so you would need Trustees. DAVID DESETTA : Okay MARY DESETTA : We were speaking to them when you were with me but (inaudible) follow through that she asked me to. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Another point of confusion relative to the surveys was, the one before us it showed a wood deck,the one provided with the building permit showed a concrete patio and my question is, is the concrete patio being removed or is it staying? 351 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting DAVID DESETTA : The wood deck was removed and there was concrete underneath. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : This is my curiosity, when I did my site inspection I noticed that the dumpster had in it dozens of plant pots, plastic plant pots labeled beach grass and I didn't see any beach grass planted on the property. I wonder where it went. MARY DESETTA : We're in the nursery business and I did a landscape design with beach grass up the block and I threw the pots in there. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Ah that explains it, thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret (inaudible) the audience and the applicant, you probably said this at the beginning I may have drifted but, the relief sought is for a side yard setback of 10.5 feet which exists and of course we're trying to iron out which survey to use where 15-feet is required and for a combined side yard setback of approximately 28.8-feet where 35-feet exists. Again, it's all existing. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yes, thank you. Nick did you have any other questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't, I was just very puzzled about the (inaudible)that's why we're here. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Rob, did you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No more questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I did have one, there's a large berm with evergreens planted along the side yard, is that on your property or the neighbors? DAVID DESETTA : My property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also, there's a long kind of a hose like structure that's running from looks like your gutters down along that berm and out, what is that? DAVID DESETTA : That's temporary,the new gutters will hook up I didn't want the water going into the basement,just to pull the water away temporarily. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright,thank you. 361 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this application? Is there anyone on Zoom, Donna? Okay, I make a motion to close this public hearing and reserve oh I'm sorry I will close this public hearing subject to receipt of the survey consistent with what was provided to the Building Department so that we have in our files the 10.5 feet that was noted by the Building Department. So closed subject to receipt of the latest survey. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING#8122—YINGZHEN LI VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :The next application before us is#8122 Yingzhen Li.This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article XXXVI Section 280- 207 and the Building Inspector's March 26, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) gross floor are exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 square feet in area located at 3705 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck NY. For the record,the front yard setback being requested is 32.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35-feet and gross floor area of 3,508 square feet where the code permits a maximum of 2,738 square feet so an overage of 770 square feet.Would you like to address this application? MICHAEL SUDANO : Good afternoon Members of the Board, my name is Michael Sudano I'm representing my client. Thank you for taking the time to hear our application this evening or afternoon. We're here today to request a front yard area variance and a gross floor area variance as stated to permit an addition to an existing single-family residence. While the application requests relief of the front yard setback and allow the gross floor area the purpose 37 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting of the project is to allow'a longtime Southold resident, a local business owner and his growing family to remain in a community that they have called home for many years. My client has invested in the community not only to his home but to his business and his commitment to Southold. As his family needs have changed over the years, they have simply outgrown the existing home and rather than relocating they're seeking a thoughtful and well-designed improvement that allows them to continue living here for many years to come. The property itself is legally existing,nonconforming lot with dimensional limitations that significantly restrict where additions can reasonably be located. We worked diligently together to design an addition that responds to those constraints while remaining compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. One of the most important aspects of this application is a request for additional gross floor area. The town code permits 2,738 square feet for this parcel while the proposed residence contains 3,508 square feet. We're requiring relief of 770 square feet. At first glance 770 square feet may seem like a substantial request however the additional area is not being used to create an oversized or extravagant residence. It is intended to provide a practical living space for the whole family, adequate sized bedrooms, functional living areas and a home that meets the needs of a modern family while allowing them to remain in the community that they have long been a part of. The scale, rooflines, architecture and overall character of the home remains consistent with the surrounding residences and the addition has been designed to fit in naturally with the neighborhood. The strongest evidence of compatibility is the response from surrounding property owners. The adjoining neighbors have reviewed the proposed and submitted letters stating that they do not object to the requested variances.Those who would be most directly affected by this project have expressed their support confirming the proposed improvements will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. For those reasons we respectfully ask the Board to approve this application and allow his family the opportunity to remain in their home and community that they proudly call home for many years.Thank you for this opportunity. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : You mention comments from the neighbors, do we have those? MICHAEL SUDANO : I believe I emailed them I don't know if they VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Did they come in late? MICHAEL SUDANO : I sent the original copies (inaudible). VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I usually make a note, I could have missed something. MICHAEL SUDANO : (inaudible) them with the (inaudible) cards. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Does anyone else remember getting letters of support? 38 August 6; 2026 Regular Meeting MICHAEL SUDANO : I emailed them to Kim. MEMBER LEHNERT : If they went to Kim, Kim is not with us anymore. SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : There are six letters of support. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Liz do you have them in hand? If we have them, we're good. You noted that your client needs more space for their family, a bedroom and a bathroom are being added. I don't remember MICHAEL SUDANO : Upstairs we're adding a second story to it so we're going to put three bedrooms and two baths up there. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I don't remember seeing an IA system as part of the application. MICHAEL SUDANO : No, he has a pre-existing system, it's going to be a four bedroom it's a four bedroom system so we're not going to exceed the (inaudible) at this point to put in an IA. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It's a four bedroom system but not an IA? MICHAEL SUDANO : Right, it's a Boar of Health approved system. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : There is that concrete patio in the back. MICHAEL SUDANO : That's being removed, he has a deck back there and we're just going to he has an existing wood deck and we're going to remove that existing wood deck that's that bigger structure and we're just going to put steps and landings to grade. YINGZHEN LI Good afternoon, my name. is Yingzhen Chen I'm the owner of the property. It was a concrete porch, my insurance company require make us to put the wood railing yea. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Okay, but it's going to remain? MICHAEL SUDANO : No, we're getting rid of it. I'm thinking wood because it's high out of the ground. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It is. MICHAEL SUDANO : Normally(inaudible). VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : If I remember the plans correctly and I did just look, there is something called an attic over the garage, what's MICHAEL SUDANO : Right, it's like a bonus room above the garage for his playroom for his kids. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : How is it accessed? MICHAEL SUDANO :There is a staircase if you want I'll show you on the plans. So,you have two staircases going up. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : So,that's going to be finished space? MICHAEL SUDANO : Right, that's what we're proposing. This is the space here. Right now, believe it or not if you look at the first-floor plan, there's really not much entertainment space on there. You have a kitchen, a dinette and a living room so it's very tight. So that'll be more for him and his wife and the kids can go upstairs and make all the noise that they want. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Did you give any consideration to you know I know I think you said you put effort into trying to keep the variances to a minimum but the GFA variance 770 square feet is a pretty large proportional to what's permitted, it's a 28%variance.Are there any options to bring that more into compliance with the code? MICHAEL SUDANO : The problem is, the two car garage on the first floor is eating up a lot of that square footage so we're only adding a little over a thousand square feet up on the second- floor with the attic storage area. I mean the bonus room I should say. If I was to cut that back and try to stay under the GFA you'd probably lose at least a third of the upstairs. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Did you take a look at whether this Board has granted GFA variances for other homes in the neighborhood. MICHAEL SUDANO : I asked him when you guys were mentioning that, I asked them if he received any other variance requests. There was a house that was just build across the street within the last six years or so but that must have been prior to the GFA requirements. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It may be. MICHAEL SUDANO : That one is on a small lot and it's a lot larger house. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think if you ask your client whether he had variance requests.. MICHAEL SUDANO : He never received anything. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Right, he would only be notified if the construction immediately adjacent to his property. It's possible to look to cast a slightly wider net and look elsewhere in the neighborhood of Ole Jule Lane to see if other homes sought and received variance relief for gross floor area MICHAEL SUDANO : Right, that I didn't do. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : since the codes been in effect. MICHAEL SUDANO : I'd have to research that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I would add to that point there is, historically (inaudible) guidelines that we offer, so you might do an analysis of neighboring properties how this one fits in with those properties. I don't remember the distance but I think it's six houses in either direction. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think it was five. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Still helpful. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And five across the street on either side of the dwelling directly across from the subject dwelling. It was a total of twenty-one properties, that's a lot of properties,that's a lot to look at. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think it was like ten or eleven across the street and five on either side and that gets us to the twenty-one. So, what we're talking about is, prior to a zoning a minor zoning code change when we were presented with variance requests for gross floor area, we assessed relative to the neighborhood gross floor area by looking at the average and what if we look at the average over. The five houses on either side on the same side of the street as the applicants and the eleven across the street. It was a guideline; it's not absolutely required these days but it can be persuasive if it establishes that what is being requested here is in keeping with the neighborhood so it can be useful. What we would ask and we'll get with the resolution is that you do some research to see what other relief has been granted for gross floor area prior. MICHAEL SUDANO : I don't need to do eleven and five right, I don't have to do that? Just find somewhere in the general vicinity? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : The closest to the house the better, don't cherry pick. MICHAEL SUDANO : I'm going to have to look for big houses on small properties. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : You should be able to yea you can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I make a comment please? Based on the current definition of gross floor area, it is extremely difficult to gather together the information the sectional drawings to see if it's a double height ceiling, it's complicated. The Board therefore requested that we simply have the ability to grant variance relief now 28% is a large variance. I think what would be most appropriate at this point, just see because it's much easier to find if you can 41 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting look at the homes on the same side of the street, in either direction four five of them and don't just look for big houses on small lots. You include the small houses, the big houses, we're looking at character of the neighborhood. If there's mixed sizes, we need to know that. Then look across the street directly from the house the subject house and go you know to the right and the left of that and see what square footage that is. If you can give us comparable square footage, we can then look at what the square footage of what you're proposing is and I think we will have a much better size of the scale of what's being proposed. The Board determined it doesn't care if you have a two-story height on the interior but the way it's the bulk and mass of the exterior that concerns which makes it look like it's over scaled for the lot, that's what we're looking to avoid. So, I think there are other ways to think about the appropriateness of a proposed addition other than gross floor area. We want to see if it's going to fit within the character of the neighborhood. Right now, all that's before us is a 28% variance. You will not find other priors for 28% or greater variances for house size cause we didn't do that until the gross floor area was established. Board do you see what I'm getting at? MICHAEL SUDANO : So is there something like percentage that the Board would grant instead of the 28, 25 or something prior that I can reduce my house down to accommodate? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : If you found a prior in the neighborhood MICHAEL SUDANO : But I probably won't. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Then you can do a standard search, if there's nothing on Ole Jule Lane then Camp Mineola is sort of an extension, not a waterfront home but homes on Camp Mineola Rd. or Kraus Rd. or perhaps even New Suffolk Ave. the general area. MEMBER LEHNERT : Or just houses of similar square footage in the neighborhood. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's just helpful for us to make a determination of what is or is not appropriate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can take photographs as well of those dwellings and give us the tax map showing where those lots are. I mean we're trying to work with the fact that this is a piece of code that's in transition and we want to be fair to property owners but asking for a 28%variance is really substantial historicallyfor any kind of variance relief that this Board would typically grant. So, anything you can come up with that's creative that can help us justify that and as importantly or maybe more so anyway to reduce that percentage of variance relief is very helpful. You can maybe you want to talk to your property owners and see if they want to slightly amend their application to reduce that GFA? 42 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MICHAEL SUDANO : That was one of the things we were talking about was not finishing above the garage and just leaving it unfinished attic space and that would reduce a substantial amount from the gross floor area. I don't know what the percentage, let me see what that would be. That would knock it down to if I didn't include the area above the garage that would bring it down to 2,738 versus the 3,508. 1 don't know percentage wise what that would be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, one of the problems is, the Building Department calculates looks at it and decides what the gross floor area is and they also include spaces above garages that could become habitable. MICHALE SUDANO : I spoke to them about that and they're the ones that said I can keep it as unfinished and it wouldn't be included at least at that time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Probably in that case they would have a pull down stair from the garage so you wouldn't have access from the interior of the house. I would argue the applicant makes it kind of a compelling argument, I mean you have limited square footage, it would be nice for the kids to have a play space but we're trying to MICHAEL SUDANO : I'm not going to be able to put my second story, I'd rather give up the kids play space for him to have bedrooms. I mean we would be willing to do that, absolutely a hundred percent instead of trying to find a needle in a haystack. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you rather then amend your application? MICHAEL SUDANO : Yea VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It's sounding like you want to. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It sounds like you're going to redesign to come back to us,what I just want to put out there also is just a reminder that would seem to me unless I'm reading the documents wrong,the existing setback, the reduced front yard setback exists. MICHAEL SUDANO : It exists and we're taking it eliminating it.The front yard is irrelevant cause we're taking out that porch overhang that's there and measured to not the house, that's an overhang and that's gone. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) 36 and change, the other is of course the addition that you're proposing I just wanted to remind you and it sounds like you're amending it,this doesn't strike me as a demolition but you just heard the prior application that got a building permit to propose an alteration and they went way above and beyond that basically building a new house that it might bring you back here if it's found to be the case. 43 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MICHAEL SUDANO : He's not planning to touching really the first floor. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to remind you of that so stay out of that sphere. MICHAEL SUDANO : I understand. So, we're willing to get rid of the attic and (inaudible) the. required GFA. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the question, and you were doing some math before I was listening but I didn't write it down, what is the attic square footage? MICHAEL SUDANO : I submitted all of that, I believe it was unless Kim (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Here is says, 432. MICHAEL SUDANO : Yea, you have it there. The attic above the garage is 432 so we would MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, 770 minus 432. So, you're going to have 338 square feet over. MICHAEL SUDANO : Correct VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think you know not to design it here in real time but I think we should see if there's anyone in the audience that needs to address anyone on Zoom and then it looks like we're going to likely adjourn subject to receipt of further information. No one on the Board has further questions? Is there anyone in the audience or anyone on Zoom? I will make a motion to adjourn this public hearing subject to receipt of additional information which could be any of the following or perhaps all of the following: amended plans that would address the degree of nonconformance of the gross floor area, prior variance relief granted to other homes in the neighborhood for gross floor area and or an assessment of homes in the area and their apparent GFA cause you can't get the number but apparent GFA and size to establish that what's proposed whether this proposal or the amended proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood. With that motion, do I have a second? Oh, adjourn to a date. How long would you need?Two weeks' time is our meeting if you could provide it in two weeks, we could then potentially close the hearing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Margaret, if our meeting is on the 20th we should have it by the 10 which is next Friday so we have time to review this. MICHAEL SUDANO : Is there another time after that? MEMBER ACAMPORA : September MICHAEL SUDANO : I don't know how long it's going to take me to get this stuff. 44 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We are kind of backed up with applications. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If he's removing the attic space the playroom over the garage that's relatively simple I think.That doesn't impact the site plan, it doesn't impact anything other than calculation which while we might ask for examples of prior relief that's something that is (inaudible) but I don't know if we need to hear it. You don't think that you can get that by next Friday? MICHAEL SUDANO : I'll do my best. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I mean worst case if you can't get it to us by next Friday it's going to be held over. MICHAEL SUDANO : I just won't have supporting document of neighboring properties probably but I'll have the amended application and the plans. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not to oversimplify but if you just look at your tax map you can ask from the Town Assessor's Office the property cards and I think you're limited to five per day per person but hopefully you can get three people on the same day not to cause the Assessors extra work but you'll get all of your information that you just do a (inaudible) analysis of those zones just to keep it moving. If for whatever reason you're not done by next Friday we'll then it has to be the September date. MICHAEL SUDANO : Alright VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I need to remake my motion? I'll make a motion to close subject to sorry adjourn to the Special Meeting on August 20th and you will gather the information previously discussed of assessment to other homes in the neighborhood, prior variance relief and potentially an amended application and I think that's it. MICHAEL SUDANO : Where am I sending this to then? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 45 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING#8124—JAMES CLOUS VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The next application before us is #8124, James Clous. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXXVI Section 280-207 and the Building Inspector's March 16, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a new one-story single-family dwelling at 1) exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage of 20%, 2) gross floor area exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot containing up to 20,000 square feet in area located at 3805 Bay Shore Rd. in Greenport, NY (adj. to Shelter Island Sound). This application the GFA proposed is 2,833.7 square feet which exceeds the permitted amount of 2,578.1 square feet by 255.6 square feet and the lot coverage proposed is 22.5%which exceeds the code permitted maximum of 20%. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Anthony Portillo, good afternoon of AMP Architecture. Some small changes just to the letters to the Board that we submitted with the original application. I just provided the revised (inaudible). A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : The information is different than what we have? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's minor, I'll go over it and put it on the record, it's very minor and just a photo taken from the waterside it's sort of looking at kind of a massing of the different structures and the existing structures. Like I said, I'll go over the�revisions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It's not in our A.T.A. MCGIVNEY: No,this was just received right now. Even though he says it's minor revisions it's still information that you have to (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's the same letter with some one section of it they had some small changes which I will explain. Thank you Board for being here and listening. Just a real quick recap on how we got here today.The applicant the owner was working with a previous architect and in 2022 filed an application with the Trustees Board for a much larger house, brand new home over 4,000 square feet. At that time, it did not require a zoning variance he complied with all regulations.The Trustees Board there were a few things they didn't agree to, one really (inaudible) an IA system wasn't designed on the property. I think there was a mistake made by the architect at that time. He should have adjourned and changed the septic system to an IA 461 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting system, it seems that it would have worked out. Unfortunately, that didn't happen and went down this road. Mr. Clous hired AMP so I represent him, we were here a year and a half ago because we thought that that application was in 2022 that he should be able to use the code allowing basically to not having GFA or (inaudible) but the Board voted against that so we went back to the drawing board. What you have in front of you is our new design. I want to be I want to tell the Board just how we got to this. We did try to do a two-story design it just was very narrow to try to fit into this GFA and try not to go over the lot coverage. It was a very narrow design; it just didn't fit on the lot properly it just was (inaudible) to be honest. We said then why don't we go to this one-story ranch and that's what's being presented. I think it's a very modest home if you look at the floor plans, it's a three-bedroom home, three and a half bathrooms you know laundry and then basically a living area. It's not large in my opinion. We looked sort of the neighborhood; we did provide a map but I'll get there. If you look at a lot of the homes that have this size lot on this street on the waterside,they're larger than what we're proposing or very similar.There was granted ZBA File 7944 the neighboring lot for a GFA relief. That was provided to the Board and (inaudible). That relief for that property was 143 square feet on a much smaller lot. Basically, half the size of the lot that is in front of you today and we're not asking the GFA relief so we're actually asking for less than double its double the size. I think that's good representation of something there. There's also something I found in Mattituck which I know is not in that neighborhood but it was a pretty large relief and a lot coverage. It was just a very similar type of lot, I thought it was to reference 7959, 1685 Westview Drive in Mattituck. They received 437 1 believe relief on GFA, square footage over what was allowed. Again, going back to you know how we got here and this design and which created the lot coverage issue we went to a ranch home and getting this sort of modest sized home. We also provided to the Board a map that shows you fifteen properties on this street on both sides of the street and I think it's a good representation of the neighborhood. It shows you that these properties exceed the GFA square footage that we're asking. One of them happens to be the other case and one that did not receive variance obviously it was an existing home but it needed a variance at the time but is 3,584 square feet. We got fifteen homes in that neighborhood that exceed the GFA square footage that we're asking for. One other thing that I want to note that I think I mentioned this in the last year and I'm going to mention it here cause I think it's a probably more important here,there is a C.O.for an accessory use above the garage, 511 square feet. This is putting us over our GFA. The home itself is actually not over GFA. So, if this accessory use wasn't above the GFA and being required by the Building Department be calculated in our GFA which I want to talk about because it's interesting; we would actually not need a variance for GFA. We would still be here for lot coverage but we wouldn't be here for GFA. Obviously, the owner wants to keep the garage and keep the accessory use that's above it. He does have a C.O. for it and just another home that I worked on in Mattituck where we actually the home was existing and we went for an accessory use, 471 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting detached structure we did not have to count that GFA. We didn't (inaudible) so what I got from Amanda if you are adding to the house then the GFA of an accessory would get included to that calculation. However, when proposing an accessory building the GFA will not affect it as they already have size limitations, I guess speaking about the accessory apartment. I was just curious that if the home is existing and you add an accessory structure that is habitable, you're not counting that GFA which I thought was kind of strange that we have to count the GFA in this situation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I might have missed what you just said but I think Amanda was talking about non habitable space. They might calculate it as being habitable if it's habitable which would count against you. ANTHONY PORTILLO : This is in regards to an accessory apartment that we did in Mattituck MEMBER PLANAMENTO : An example? ANTHONY PORTILLO : An example, yes that's why I brought that accessory apartment. She also stated, there are talks that they may change the code that GFA does not affect accessory structures. I guess speaking about an accessory apartment that's not detached. What she's saying is that if it was attached the accessory apartment if we were filing on an existing home and the apartment was attached then you would count it towards the GFA. Since this apartment was detached'GFA was not counted towards at all, we didn't even provide a GFA calculation. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think I consulted the code on this and was persuaded that the accessory apartment should be included. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think the reasoning behind it is because if you read the GFA code a detached accessory structure it doesn't count towards GFA so it seemed like a detached accessory apartment doesn't count toward GFA. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :A detached accessory garage with no living space absolutely doesn't count but ANTHONY PORTILLO : What I got from the Building Department is that they're not counting accessory (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) at like I don't want to say (inaudible) but if you built the accessory structure first it doesn't count so now you're converting it to an apartment does count. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's not I mean I'm just letting you guys know, that's not 48 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In the application that you referenced it didn't count. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct, I (inaudible) we didn't even have to give a GFA calculation. On our application we didn't even have to provide a GFA calculation. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Was that, maybe you can provide the application but in that case was the accessory structure and all its volume already existing and there was just a conversion of the use of the interior space or adding? ANTHONY PORTILLO : We added as (inaudible). I have the address; I don't have the application (inaudible). The address is 2720 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck. I just found it interesting because in our situation it's almost like the inverse but now we have to count the space towards the GFA. That 511 square feet if removed we would have a compliant structure in the primary building. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the interesting thing is the application just before you they suggested to remove the square footage which solved their problem. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Cause it's attached. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's attached, exactly. So here I kind of wondered if you can do the same thing but that's ANTHONY PORTILLO : But honestly my argument is it shouldn't be.that right, it should be that it shouldn't be counted. lust like if I was to add it and the building was existing or I would ask the Board not to really to look at that that shouldn't really be counted towards the primary space where then we are under the GFA in that sense. I think it's more of a view, this is a detached structure it's not an attached structure if you're talking about the last structure. It's very clear attached goes towards GFA including the garage. I provided the Board with other GFA approvals. I also provided the Board a couple other approvals for lot coverage on the same street as my applicant and they were pretty large,approvals for 26.4 and 26%over lot coverage. I think what we're requesting is minor, I think both are really minor in nature and I think that there's examples on this street that are similar GFA and lot coverage. I don't think that what we're proposing is you know affecting the neighborhood in an adverse way. I think also the idea of the size the mass of the building you know for the neighbors across the street keeping them sort of with the water view it's kind of nice putting this tall structure up. If the Board has any questions that I can answer. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The Sigsbee application you mentioned the Sigsbee project is that included here? 4 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can provide it, I just have the email from Amanda when I did that project. Yes, I can provide that application. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Question, I know an IA system is now being included, is the garage apartment going to be attached to it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes, I just wanted to be clear it's not an apartment, it's just used. It's C.O'd actually I have the C.O. here, I'll read you what the C.O. says,there's no kitchen.They call it so what happened was, in 2002 for the pre-existing C.O. granted and that area is called entertaining it says room-entertainment above garage with bath no kitchen, family use, that's how they described that space and it's C.O.'d. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Can I just ask and you may have said it I don't know, on all the houses that you're showing were they built in the current codes? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would say, probably not. A.T.A. IVICGVINEY : They were built before the current code. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea and also to be clear on our calculations we didn't go and get every section so some of those have double height spaces, the GFA could even be higher than A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : The ones that you're showing. ANTHONY PORTILLO : If it was a story we basicallyjust said okay double the space you know. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : So they're estimates. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Yea and it's difficult for them to ANTHONY PORTILLO : I would say they're estimates from (inaudible) it's a technical estimates, a shot in the dark. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : To Julie's point, there are certain structures built before the GFA code went into effect that expired the passing of the GFA code cause they were so large. ANTHONY PORTILLO : If you look at the (inaudible)the neighbor we're not doubling (inaudible) and the lot is double the size. (inaudible) accessory space should be taken into consideration because the neighbor doesn't have an accessory space so they're fully their GFA approval is fully based on their house on that new house. It was a brand-new house, knock down similar to what we're doing. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : You have that example in it's our so August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO :That's correct that's the neighbor that was granted about and a half ago around I would imagine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The garage space, I'm just trying to understand the Pre C of 0, 1 read it, you repeated it, it says rooms above the garage with no bath, no kitchen family use. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's an open room with a bathroom. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's one room with a bathroom. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) says rooms, so I was curious. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Maybe cause they said the bathroom in the room, I don't know. MR. CLOUS : Hi,James Clous owner. Over the garage is a bedroom open to an open sitting area, it's got a couch in it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's one room. MR. CLOUS : It's one big room with a bathroom,full bath. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's one room with a bathroom, one open space with a bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anthony, what was the date of that C.O, on that accessory structure with habitable space? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a Pre C of 0. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It was 2002, it was MEMBER PLANAMENTO : June 121n ANTHONY PORTILLO : Pre-existing, yes June 12cn CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was the year? ANTHONY PORTILLO : 2002 VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Pat do you have any questions? Nick, anything else, any other questions? Rob, Leslie? Is there anyone in the audience? Donna do we have anyone on Zoom? I think you're going to get us the Mattituck example and perhaps a copy of Amanda's email so that we can understand and review it in the context of this application. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I have one question, this is a clean slate I mean you're taking down the existing house ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct just leaving the accessory building. MEMBER LEHNERT: leaving the accessory building.Why can't we do something that conforms? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I want to go back to the fact that this a three bedroom house, it's not very large, it's a ranch. It's very hard to think about what you're asking right, it's 240 square feet we'd have to get rid of a bedroom essentially. It's just really not practical for the use for the owner. Like I said, I think it's a modest request, I don't think we came here asking for something MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a nice piece of property (inaudible). ANTHONY PORTILLO : I think you know who's going to build a two-bedroom house? I want to say one thing too, (inaudible)letter it wasjust obvious I think the explanation of the neighboring lot basically what's the request there was 2% of the lot size so I just made that clear and what we're requesting is 1.9% of the lot size in the GFA actually less but very much so to what they received. That's what the change in the letters that I provided. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Okay, I will make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of additional information; one is the example you mentioned I think it was on Sigsbee in Mattituck with an accessory structure containing living space and the other being a copy of Amanda's email explaining the rational or why in some circumstances accessory structure living area was included and in others it wasn't. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye. Motion to recess for five minutes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING#8103 &8104—KIMBERLY and STEVEN BRUNI VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The next before us is #8103 Kimberly and Steven Bruni adjourned from June 18, 2026.This is a request for a Reversal of the Building Inspector's October 27, 2025 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 merge until the total size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements located at 970 Salt Marsh Lane in Peconic. I should probably also read in the other application Julie for the waiver of merger.This is a pair of related applications.The other application before us is#8104 Kimberly and Steven Bruni also adjourned from June 18, 2026. Request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM No. 1000-68-3-8.3 which has merged with SCTM No. 1000- August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting 68-3-8.4 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 located at 970 Salt Marsh Lane in Peconic, NY. Thank you for your patience. ANTHONY PASCA : Anthony Pasca, (inaudible) for the Bruni's. I have done my presentation last time and we adjourned so that you.can think about it and have us back if you wanted to ask questions so we are here to answer your questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I did want to bring a couple of items to light to get them in the record. There were two the application included two Certificates of Occupancy, one was 5090 dated April 19, 1973 for a private one-family dwelling and one was C.O. 10036 dated July 16, 1980 for an addition to an accessory building. I don't actually think your argument relies very heavily on those C. O's but I did want to enter into the record that an examination of the file in the Building Department's records indicates that these two C. O's were for the property to the west which I think is tax map No. 8.4.The very early one was to move the bungalow that at the time was on the property line and to put it more squarely on the westerly of the three parcels and the second C.O. was to addition it was 1980 was the second one for an addition to an accessory building. So,they put an addition on a garage, I don't think parcel 8.3 has a garage. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : What's she's saying is, the C.O. from 1973 and for 1980 are both for 8.4. 1 think you had indicated that you thought it was for 8.3 because it was a C.O. for a private dwelling but and I'm sure this was inadvertent but all the other C.O's that are included all have building reports on it except for this one and when you look at the plot diagram it's the property that's 8.4. ANTHONY PASCA : 1980 A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : No it was'73. ANTHONY PASCA : As you said, I was (inaudible) relying of the 1988 building permits you know but if I misspoke on (inaudible). VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :There's kind of a passing reference in the application that in addition to these two C.O's which we just mentioned there are the more important 1988 ones, we just wanted to be clear that these two are for the parcel to the west. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : And that it's not (inaudible) the 1973 is not for a private one family, it was the building permit was to relocate the existing dwelling. .541 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PASCA : That was part of the subdivision requirements. My understanding is what the subdivision (inaudible) cause the lines but is that the one that you're talking about? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY :Yea but when were those subdivision requirements that you're speaking of? ANTHONY PASCA : It was shown on the subdivision that when they drew the line down the middle of I think what was the house I'm just going on based on memory. They had to move the house off of the property line in order to finalize it.There really wasn't much of a record of that subdivision. I don't know why I mean I can't go back that far but that's the best that we could assume was that when the subdivision lines were drawn, they had to move one of the bungalows to make it work cause boom, boom, boom. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Well, however, I believe your testimony was that the'73 C.O. I mean that's for a dwelling and that does matter, you're saying that's for a dwelling; because at the time if you had a dwelling you could have a bungalow. Do you understand what I'm saying? ANTHONY PASCA : Not really. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Okay ANTHONY PASCA : None of my arguments relating to the merger are dependent on what happened before 1983 basically cause that's when things started. I'll accept the clarification and (inaudible)that I said incorrectly about the earlier C.O's more for background purposes on how you get to the 1980's just the key point for purposes of merger (inaudible). You disagree? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I think you do rely on them but anyway you can go ahead with your questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think you make a clear point that in 1988 when the Building Department when Elaine Axien applied for a building permit to put an addition on her summer cottage you make a point that there is a record in the Building Department file that makes it clear that they understood that the parcel to the west had been transferred to Dr. Mohamed and the parcel to the east had been transferred to a different owner. I wanted to establish that ownership and merger are two different constructs. This Board has had before it on several occasions' applications for waivers of merger or applications to overturn a Building Inspector's a Notice of Disapproval relative to a merger having taken place when the parcels are in fact owned by different individuals. We have found in some cases that parcels did merge pursuant to the 1995 merger law because they were in common ownership on July 1, 1983 be it that today owned by different individuals.What I'm trying to say is that the point about the Building Department being aware of the different ownership of the properties in 1988 at-the time of August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting Elain Axien's application for a building permit doesn't seem to me to bring any information to the table relative to whether the parcels had merged or not but ANTHONY PASCA : Then I'll explain why. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : That's what this is about, you get the opportunity to ANTHONY PASCA : The reason why, the critical fact is that if they had merged he could not have issued that building permit, I believe. I don't think that if and that's the same reason why today the Building Inspector doesn't want to issue a building permit to this property because the way the idea of merger doesn't have to do with title right, land title it has to do with zoning recognition of a lot. In the 1980's we only have that single and separate language right it wasn't the same merger law that got adopted in 1995. Tom Fisher and Vincent W. the two Building Inspectors who had granted the building permit for Elaine Axien only after she had already deeded out the other parcel, he should not have done that.That would have been an unlawful building permit, if the properties had merged it would not have been eligible for a building permit, that's our position. It's the same thing as it would be today, ineligible for a building permit had they been deemed merged. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I guess that's the conclusion, I'm not a hundred percent clear on it. Anyone else chime in but if the properties had merged it doesn't seem to me that it would preclude the putting an addition on an existing cottage, an existing dwelling. Even on a merged property people can make improvements. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : To an existing bungalow, how is the difference the distinction between the bungalow and what you're showing as the one family residence? The bungalow is under 850 sq. ft. could have it had a C.O. or at least it had it was recognized as being an existing summer bungalow. When she went to the Building Department and said that she wanted to make an .addition I don't believe they would have stopped her from doing that because the bungalow was already existing. Now when your client went to the Building Department it was for a complete demolition not for working on a house that already existed. ANTHONY PASCA : I disagree, I don't think A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I mean we're just trying to get to the bottom of ANTHONY PASCA : I disagree and I think that that is sort of highlighting a danger which is that all of us are going back to 1988, one, two different Building Inspectors and two, a different code. The code that existed back then did not have the merger law that we have today which certainly changed things because that's why we supplied the Board with the 1995 local law file because they were recognizing at that time that it was a black hole, the code Planning, Zoning August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting and Building were all treating these lot recognition mergers stuff differently so Laurie Dowd the then Town Attorney said,we need a clear code to put in place and they did.So,there's a danger for all the lots to go back in time and make assumptions A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Assumptions, right but you've made assumption too though. ANTHONY PASCA : But my client gets the benefit of the doubt whenever there's an ambiguity the zoning code the town does not get the benefit of the doubt my client gets the benefit of the doubt. I think that I'm allowed to make some assumptions. A.T.A MCGIVNEY : I don't. ANTHONY PASCA :You give them different advice but ultimately somebody will figure it out but I think that if there's an ambiguity in the code which is one of the five rules that we gave you there's no clear merger law you can't find merger on and two, applying something retroactively maybe you say your Board's done it there's a danger to applying something retroactively when somebody has had vested rights and if you're looking for a reason to just bend what the Building Inspector found in 2025 applying forty years earlier to a situation that happened when it was a different Building Inspector and a different code I just don't understand that. I don't understand why you would do that. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY: But that speaks to every person who ever went in front of the Board. I mean the Building Department in 1990's of 2000's they go to the Building Department and then they find out the properties have merged. That's the situation you're in so that ANTHONY PASCA : I wonder how many though. It's just a rhetorical question and I don't know if there's-one other example where in that period of time, we have a building after, after the separation plan. So, there was '83 —'87 when they were in common ownership but after that separation with the Building Department having a map saying we're clearly aware of who owns what we're going to give a building permit and a C.O. to one of the merged properties or at least what somebody later found to be a merged property without by the way without the other applicant there. If they're merged, how do you give a building permit to half the property without addressing the fact that they're eligibly merged? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Okay, because the same reason that you're assuming that the Planning Board or the Building Department wrote those names on the subdivision that that made the Building Department aware. We don't know who wrote that, I mean and quite frankly if you look at the writing I used to work for an attorney and it looks exactly like his writing and it clearly wasn't but the point being, there is no proof or anything that when they marked this sold and this one sold that came from the Building Department. And again, don't . 57 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PASCA : It's in their file, I mean you can't put the burden on us to say, we have (inaudible) A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) ANTHONY PASCA to a forty year old file? I mean, come on. There was nothing remarkable about that file other than that that map was in it and there were notations on it that showed so somebody had that in front of them at the time that they were issuing the C.O. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : No, someone had that in front of them at some particular time, you don't know what they had in front of them in front of the C.O. at the time of the C.O. ANTHONY PASCA : It's in the C.O. file. I mean is it our job to question a C.O. file that the Town of Southold maintains right? I foiled.for a C.O. file (inaudible) were given these documents. It's my job to question whether a map that's in that file was they were actually aware of it? I mean I'm assuming if the rolls were reversed you guys would be the first to say, it's in their file, your problem, I'm sorry. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Well, it's in the Building Department. ANTHONY PASCA : I think that's I think you're going out of your way to try to find an excuse. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : No,there really isn't, no that's not true because cause actually what they're actually trying to do is try to come up with a way to figure out what actually happened and whether it would be fair or not because quite frankly on the strict letter of the code, the properties have merged. I mean when you read the code language the properties have merged. ANTHONY PASCA : And that's why I provided you with five rules of law and every single one of them A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : But this is not, you've provided five rules of law with much case law. I can tell you, I've reviewed it and I can find case law to dispute it but this is not a court and you cannot present case law based rules based on case law to a Zoning Board. ANTHONY PASCA : Of course I can, that's your job. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : No, it's not my job. ANTHONY PASCA : It's not the Building Inspector's job to apply the law, it is absolutely the Zoning Board's job to apply the law of the State of New York. So, if you're going to tell me A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : If you're going to include case law August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PASCA : that a Zoning Board the official Zoning Board of the Town of Southold doesn't apply vested rights law, doesn't apply retroactivity rules, doesn't apply PA management. PA management was a decision that was issued against the Zoning Board of the Village of East Hampton because the Village of East Hampton went beyond the C.O. that had been previously issued, it reversed the Zoning Board's decision for not following that rule. So, you're going to tell me that the Zoning Board of the Town of Southold isn't bound by a New York law? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : No, what I'm saying I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is, they're quasi-judicial,they're not if you're going to present case law then you're expecting me to stand up and almost have an oral argument with you about it and I don't think that that's what this place is for, that's what I'm trying to say. So, I don't think that you should expect the Zoning Board to rely only on your case law proving points because there is opposite case law that would go against your cases. ANTHONY PASCA : I'm not going to accept that you're just saying that there's opposite case law. Ultimately, you get to advise the Board, I don't I can make a legal argument to the Board but the Town Attorney's Office gets to advise the Board, I accept that. At the end of the day, they'll make a decision as to what it is and then some other power gets to decide whether it was legal or not legal, right?That's how it works but you can't say that I'm not going to tell you I'm just going to say there's other cases out there that go against you. I've been very detailed in laying out these rules for a reason, I'm subjecting it to scrutiny. If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong and explain how I'm wrong. You can't just say A.T.A. MCGIVNEY: It's not my job to explain how you are wrong,you're the applicant,you come here and you present your information. I don't have to dispute it or refute it with you, I don't have to. ANTHONY PASCA : You do have to say, you're wrong and that's it. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY: No, I'm saying that for every case that you present and this would be for any Board or anybody but the point being is that,that should not be the only reason that you think that the Zoning Board should make a decision is because of your five rules based on case law. ANTHONY PASCA : It's the five rules based on case law as applied to the unique facts here. We do have a determination by a Building Inspector after the alleged merger had occurred, after the properties had been separated in auction, it's not just law, its law coupled with the unique fact that I doubt this Board's ever seen. Maybe I'm wrong about that, I was not able to find a prior decision where something that clear that happened in the sequence that we've laid it out. There may be certainly I'm not saying that there's not a scenario where a 1995 law could be August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting retroactively applied. If the two vacant lots, if they were parcels that hadn't been through the zoning process afterwards and a decision hadn't been made and they had invested rights it may very well be circumstances where the '95 law could be applied to 1983 to 1987. Not in a case where the Building Inspector had an opportunity to say, these were merged, knew what the facts were at the time and applied the law that was in effect in 1988 which didn't have a merger law and allowed these people to go forward, Ms. Axien. Then you have all this reliance on that for the next forty years and the Bruni's, Kim's here, Steve's on Zoom they're the ones paying the price for that. I know this town struggled with merger laws, this is my first one here on merger and it's a difficult area. I get the concept, I get why we have it, it's not a good concept when it applies to approved parcels like this. Maybe that's an argument for taking out the 850 square foot rule, I can tell you no other jurisdiction has as an 850 square foot rule. Every other jurisdiction says, if it's improved, it doesn't merge, period. But, that's an argument for somebody else which may eliminate some of the struggle for other people but right now we have to deal with this and there is no scenario where the fair result is to tell the Bruni's and the Mohamed's who have a family,they're the innocent bystanders here. If the determination that our property merged with theirs is upheld, they're not entitled to ever get a building permit again until this is dealt with. There are two chains of title that have come out of 1987 and had multiple transfers since then, all of them assuming that they had legal homes and the ability to get building permits for 36,000 square foot lots and a 40,000 square foot and it's not a fair result to tell both of those families you merged because of something that happened in 1986 or'83. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :July 1, 1983, not that I remember. I think you mentioned that you've been involved with this merger law previously and I just want to make it clear that this Board has previously had applications before us for waivers of merger or overturning the Notice of Disapproval where the properties are no longer in common ownership and in many cases, we have upheld the Notice of Disapproval and denied the waiver of merger. It seems to me maybe at a high level your arguments challenge the legality of the lot recognition merger and waiver of merger laws that were passed in 1995, code that was passed in 1995. ANTHONY PASCA : I wouldn't say, on it's (inaudible), I'm not questioning on it's (inaudible) and that's why I said it may very well be circumstances where the retro it's the retroactive aspect of the'95 law that I (inaudible). VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : That is what we have previously applied. ANTHONY PASCA : I know, I understand but what I think distinguishes this is just why I don't have to make a sweeping determination that the retroactive nature of the '95 law is out, I'm asking you to do that. In cases where a C.O. was given where we clearly have vested rights August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting based on a building permit, construction and then a subsequent C.O. all happening the alleged merger that's where you can apply it retroactively. So, it's a pretty narrow rule, I've never seen that before maybe you've had obviously, I'm not aware of every single decision you guys have done but that's a pretty rare circumstance which is why I focused on that. I never want to ask a Zoning Board to issue sweeping decisions that then you know upset prior decisions and create precedent but this is a narrow thing and if I'm right that's the only time that those specific circumstances happen, I think you talk about once in forty years, since the '95 once in thirty years.That's a pretty narrow exception to a rule is what I'm asking you to VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I did want to go through some points or questions about the five rules particularly the idea of the vested rights. Elaine Axien's building permit requested it gave her the right to put an addition on a summer bungalow. It seems to me the vested rights granted thereby were for a summer bungalow expanded. To me it's a little bit of a stretch to say that that established a vested right and I'm not a lawyer, I'm just reading what's in front of me but it seems like that might be a stretch to say that established a vested right to demolish that bungalow and build a different house somewhere else on the lot. But again, this is your opportunity to say I'm misinterpreting. ANTHONY PASCA : What I'm saying it's what I said earlier which is, I don't believe that the Building Department could have made that determination less where they applied the law at the time remember it's the law without the merger rule so the single and separate law that they had at the time, they could not have issued that determination unless they believed that this was a legal lot. That's the only lot that they have in front of them, they did not have 8.4 1 think is Dr. Mohamed's lot, they did not have Dr. Mohamed's lot in front of them. If they were giving a building permit and a subsequent C.O. on this lot, they had to have recognized that it was a legal lot at the time based on the code that in existence at the time. I talk about not wanting to go back in to their heads but I can tell you that there are other jurisdictions at least on Eastern Long Island where they don't have the exception that you guys have which is for approved parcels. Building inspectors still do not find mergers in other jurisdictions where the parcels are approved. The reason that they do that I talked to them before about it is that two dwellings on one parcel for them is more nonconforming than one dwelling on each parcel being 36,000 square feet. So, there are building inspectors and maybe Tom Fisher and (inaudible) W. were those types of building inspectors who would not have found the merger because each of the lots was approved at the time. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : It was approved with a bungalow and that's the difference. It was improved with less than 850 square foot bungalow which you testified to yourself that that was a bungalow. So, I draw the distinction there especially because the building permit the vested right that you're applying now is in a C.O. for a bungalow and I don't know again, you can't nor �1 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting can we go back and try to figure out well, I mean at this particular time did they think that this was one piece of property which had a one-family residence and a bungalow which would have been okay. You can't and nor can we. The point is just to get everything out there to try to find a way to make the best decision and I don't think it's I think unfortunately you know if they have to look at just the strict letter of the law you would have to agree that the properties have merged and that there's no waiver because it's not common ownership with somebody. I mean because it's separate ownership, sorry. ANTHONY PASCA : When you say strict letter of the law I A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Well the code (inaudible) ANTHONY PASCA : I think I'll tell you what, I'll agree that what the Building Department what I assume the Building Department did in 2025 when they issued the Disapproval was that they applied the literal word of the current Southold zoning merger law right, I agree. They applied that law to its strict letter. I don't fault the Building Department for not going beyond and asking questions like vested rights and the types of state law requirements that I'm urging you to apply because I think that's a little beyond what a building inspector should do. I don't think it's beyond what a Zoning Board should do. I think the Zoning Board has an obligation to apply the rules that I laid out including the rule that without a clear merger law the municipality has no business finding mergers. By the time you want to get into the (inaudible) personally a little bit by the retroactive nature of the'95 law, I don't need you to apply to issue a sweeping decision but I don't believe that that's a (inaudible)retroactive application. Maybe you've done it dozens of times before,that's not my business. I'm here for one specific set of facts, you don't have to go that far in order to grant the Bruni's relief on this. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I'm still a little puzzled by that because the law,they picked a date and that was 1983; anybody who disputed that at the time I mean you have included in here the hearings, everybody who had their property next to a nonconforming would be subject to the same exact rule. ANTHONY PASCA : I'll tell you why, there are also cases that say that, if properties were separated at a time when there was no merger law the merger law cannot be applied to take away those rights. They exist, I didn't want to have to argue the grander picture question of whether the Town of Southold's retroactive nature but the Bruni's are caught in that because there's absolutely no question that in 1987 the ownership was split right? In 1987 there was no clear merger law in this town. So, by 1988 when Elaine Axien held onto her parcel and Dr. Mohamed had his parcel several years later the town says, oh by the way because of that thing that happened the few years before you split ownership you guys are both screwed, sorry. August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : That tends to be the it is a sad situation but that does tend to be a very similar set of facts for almost every application that comes before us relative to ANTHONY PASCA : For that period of time. You must have applications that took place after 1995 where there was a merger after 1995, 1 know that that's true but VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We do, we have some that we heard earlier that happened you know on the crack of dawn on July 1, 1983 because they were held in common ownership. ANTHONY PASCA : I'm not going to agree that that's a correct thing but we also don't need you to go that far in order to grant the Bruni's relief. You can decide this on a more limited state of facts which is, let's recognize that the Building Department knew about this, never asked the Mohamed family to come in and join in application because their property was allegedly merged, gave a building permit for this one lot as a stand-alone lot, gave a C.O. for this one parcel as a stand-alone lot and made no finding of merger. That's all I'm asking you to decide this on and you can even say,we're not sure if those building inspectors were correct but that's not our job to second guess them. That's the law that we've provided you which once they make a decision people are allowed to rely on going forward. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I agree with the assertion that they can rely on a Certificate of Occupancy for a seasonal cottage. It seems to me there's a distinction to be made between that and a demo and establishing a new house. A C.O. is often granted for the use of the structure and to say that the structure conforms to the building plans that were submitted to the Building Department and to whatever you know building codes the state might have at the time. So, it's my common understanding is that it applies to the structure, it says the structure was built like you told me you were going to build it and it's safe. I fall short of understanding how that grant vested right to then tear that down and establish a different structure. ANTHONY PASCA: But if your premise was true then we would have been entitled to a building permit. If all that the Building Department did was look at the structure itself then the Bruni's would have been entitled to a building permit. The Building Department applies two things, they apply the state law, the building code; you guys never get those appeals because those appeals go to somebody else, they also apply the zoning code. To assume that Tom Fisher and Vinny W. weren't thinking about the zoning code that was in effect at the time and were only thinking about the building code doesn't make much sense either. They had to have had in mind however they applied it and I don't that's the part we don't know is how they applied that single and separate language which I still find confusing; rereading over and over again. I understand why they clarified it in '95 it makes perfect sense because it was confusing, it's still confusing. They had to have taken that into account, they were aware of the splitting of the things and I don't know how on earth they could have applied given a building permit to Elaine 3 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting Axien without insisting that Dr. Mohamed come in and join her if they thought that those parcels were merged. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Anthony again, the C.O. that was issued was for an addition to an existing summer bungalow. ANTHONY PASCA : For one property. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : an existing summer bungalow ANTHONY PASCA : For one property. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : what the no, no, no, it's an existing summer bungalow that's all that it was for. ANTHONY PASCA : We did not make a permit, alright look you give whatever(inaudible) he can make a determination that it was A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : No, no, no, ANTHONY PASCA : one bungalow out of two on a bigger parcel. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : You have no idea either so ANTHONY PASCA : I do. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : How do you know that? ANTHONY PASCA : Because the building permit was one tax lot, there were two separate tax lots at the time. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : But at the time if you have so this particular lot has an existing summer bungalow on it so the building inspector could have assumed that it was C.O'd for a bungalow. So, you're saying that you wouldn't have gotten any building permit. If you were saying that you wouldn't have gotten a building permit to build or make something, sure but this was already an existing bungalow and the Building Department could have then thought that that was a legal structure. ANTHONY PASCA : He couldn't have issued a building permit on a half of a parcel that didn't exist. Take the merger argument, if they merged in 1983 this was one lot in the town's eyes. How does a building inspector issue a building permit for half a lot without making sure that the other half of the lot is in place and conforming and everything else? It doesn't make any sense to say that he had a right to issue a building permit on half a parcel? 641 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Again, alright I don't want to belabor this because we're both are making assumptions and I don't think that that's the best way to do it. Who knows what they were thinking, I really don't know. ANTHONY PASCA : I don't know what they're thinking but I know that he granted a building permit and a C.O. for this lot exactly after a time that it was allegedly merged with the parcel next door.That is a fact that he did that. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : But their tax map number they had three separate lot numbers ANTHONY PASCA : Separate surveys and separate addresses. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : No, no, no, your subdivision they were called lots one, two and three. So, why I don't understand, why couldn't they then reference that for the building permit for the existing bungalow? ANTHONY PASCA : If it had merged it would have been parcel. Before and so this is 8.3; 8.4 and 8.3 would have been one parcel. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Not necessarily how they would have done it. Again, unfortunately these are all nice conversations that we're having and there's interesting points but the Zoning Board still has to make their decision based on what the law is. ANTHONY PASCA : What the law is, including what state law is. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : There was a point I wanted to make relative to something you said earlier which. I think was that the Building Department at the time it issued the building permit to Elain Axien would have been considering all the zoning code including what was then understood of whatever elements of it were implied mergers when the word merger wasn't used but they should have been ANTHONY PASCA : The single and separate law. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yes, single and separate and that's sprinkled throughout the code. From my understanding and I did try to understand year by year from 1983 to 1989 what the code said about lot size requirements and bulk schedule. To my understanding in 1988 when Elaine Axien applied for her building permit, the code at that time required the bulk schedule required 40,000 square feet and a house size minimum of 850 square feet. So, she's adding an addition maybe she gets a building permit because she's adding on it, it's going to be more conforming but I-believe she was required to have a lot size of 40,000 square feet. There's a place in the code that says, even for nonconforming lots they have to go by column A40 of the bulk schedule which calls for 40,000 square feet. I'm belaboring this a bit but perhaps I'm doing 65 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting so because it suggests that the Building Department at that time was actually not considering the code wholistically and not it seems to me they weren't even paying attention to the bulk schedule. ANTHONY PASCA : But that's why I say it's dangerous trying to VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We can't put ourselves in their shoes. ANTHONY PASCA : That's why I mentioned that there are VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :They did not take into account the easiest thing that they should be able to take into account, the bulk schedule. ANTHONY PASCA:That's why I brought up that there are other building inspectors without that who would not find the merger under those circumstances cause it's more nonconforming to have.the two dwelling units on one parcel than it would be to apply the bulk schedule in the way where you know you have the ninety-six percent conforming lot and a ninety-six conforming lot each with its own dwelling. So, that's why there's I mean I hear you, we can sit here and put on a current lens and say, what were they thinking, why would they have done that with the single and separate law but those are the kinds of things that we can't picture. Laurie Dowd said it, they're all applying these laws differently Building, Zoning, Planning, let's come up with something clear. I think the town did, not happy with some of the results of that town law but the town's backed off on some of these things over the years and tried to create exceptions but for the purposes of respecting what Tom Fisher and Vinny W. did back in 1988, we don't have to go that far. You can just say, we're going to respect their decision, they gave a C.O. for a lot, one lot that if it had been merged it should have been for a different parcel and we're going to respect that decision and we're going to (inaudible) the rights that it's entitled to.This become nonprecedential for all other applications. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : (inaudible) and I also take issue with you saying that we can't go back, we can't go back but that's what your argument is. You want us to go back you want the Zoning Board to go back and look at everything under the lens which you want to the building inspectors to have looked at it. ANTHONY PASCA :The only thing that I'm asking you to go back to is, if there's a C.O.There's a C.O. file that shows that there was a C.O.for a lot that you're not saying we're not, not you,the town is now questioning if that was merged with the parcel next door, that's all. I'm not asking you to figure out why they did it. What was the exception that they were applying in their heads, who knows? All I'm saying is, we know for a fact, they granted a building permit for the allegedly merged parcel, they granted a C.O. for that allegedly merged parcel and nobody challenged it, not for forty years. So, that's where all these laws (inaudible) come into place is 66 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting that you just apply those rules of law not to get into more thorny questions that I think that the retroactive nature of'95 law. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : The forty years is because that was the length of time it took for somebody to do something. I mean it's not you're painting it as if forty years have gone by and nobody has challenged it. She hasn't gone in to apply for a building permit, if she had gone in in 1997 or'98 then it wouldn't have been forty years it would have been a lot closer to the time. So, it's not that it's been forty years and no one's challenged it, it's that nobody has done anything to either one of these properties to bring this to light is more accurate. ANTHONY PASCA :The reason I brought the (inaudible) Management case up A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : But that was a difference, they changed the wording of the C.O. ANTHONY PASCA : (inaudible) Management said that when a C.O. is issued, sixty days goes by without challenging it people thereafter are entitled to rely on it. That's what the case says. I lost that case, I know very well what happened. I was arguing that the Zoning Board had a right because the Zoning Board never ruled on this issue before, the Zoning Board had a right to revisit it and the Court of Appeals said, no. We both have a right to rely on C.O's. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : But they changed the name of the C.O. that was the difference. I believe it was, was it a restaurant was it whatever it was they called it something when it was originally issued. Then later on the building inspector went out and they wanted to call it something different and that was why they said you can rely on it because they couldn't change what it was being used as. I could look for it right now but that really was the difference I mean it was a completely different ANTHONY PASCA : Not really. I lived it so I'm telling you that's not what A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Alright so what was (inaudible) used for? ANTHONY PASCA : The issue that was the big problem in (inaudible) Management is that the Zoning Board said,we're the Zoning Board we can't be stopped by things that were done in the earlier C.O.'s.Those earlier C.O.'s happened but we're the Zoning Board and we have a right to review whether anything that was in this decision was legal and that's what the Court of Appeals said no you don't because people have a right to rely on the C.O.'s if they're not challenged in a timely manner. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Well what was the C.O. originally issued for in that case? ANTHONY PASCA : There were a couple of aspects of the earlier C.O. so there was I don't remember exactly. There were two a couple of things that were deemed in the two earlier 67 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting C.O.'s and then in the later C.O.'s new building inspector relisted those things and a bunch of other things. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : As different names, different things. At that time one of those let's say it was a boarding house when it was originally issued, then later on when the building inspector said oh no, it's not a boarding house this is actually a hotel and hotels weren't allowed. So that was what they were saying, you can't change the name of it, it was originally ANTHONY PASCA :That was not the issue. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Well that may have not been the issue but that was the facts of which the C.O. was relied on because it was issued and relied under a different name and I wish that I could find it at the moment but I can't but I would agree to disagree with you on that. Do you have any other questions, you want to wrap up? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I do want to wrap up but I'm back to it seems to me the Bruni's are relying on that C.O. that was granted; they are using the house for the use that was specified as a summer cottage. No one is taking that away. As you said I think in one of your memos, it's locked in no one's disputing that their use of that structure as a summer bungalow is, no one is trying to take that away. ANTHONY PASCA : If you I'm not saying you, I'm going to use the word you only cause I don't know how else to put it but if the town applying this law is saying to the Bruni's that your lot merged with the lot next door not withstanding that after it had separated in ownership it obtained a C.O. and you relied on a legality of that lot as a separate lot and you never you're not going to be entitled to ever get a building permit again that's how the law works now and get any building permits now. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : They go for a subdivision. ANTHONY PASCA : Say that again. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY: You can't get a building permit but if you had the two lots that have merged then you can go to the Planning Department and get a subdivision. ANTHONY PASCA : It's sort of a (inaudible) to say you have a different remedy of joining with the neighbor and then applying for variances (inaudible). We're here for an interpretation question if whether it merged in the first place, right? That's the only question you guys have allowed me to go forward on which was that question of the waiver of merger law. All I'm arguing today is whether the determination was correct that it merged in the first place. If it was incorrect, it was contrary to law,there's no requirement that they get the Mohamed family August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting together and come up with a new subdivision application and re subdivide the lots. I think that's a (inaudible)for purposes of our appeal. Did I answer your question, I'm not sure? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think so but it's I think we're kind of going around. Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Nick, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Any hands on Zoom Donna? OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : Mr. Bruni's on Zoom but his hand is not raised. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I'll make a motion to close this public hearing and reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually close both hearings. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yes, both hearings thank you, #8103 which was a request for a reversal and #8104 request for waiver of merger. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye Is , August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I see Gail in the audience, would anyone be against proceeding to the Resolution that she is most interested in? I have a resolution relative to extending an application, Resolution: WHEREAS,the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals("the Board".) has received a written request for an extension of variance relief from File # 7387, applicant Hard Corner Partners, LLC dated,July 23, 2026 located at 53530 Main Road, Southold, NY SUM No.1000-61- 4-1. WHEREAS, the Board notes, and the applicant acknowledges, that the request for an extension has been made prior the date on which the variance as extended expired, and WHEREAS, Section 280-146 (B) requires that a written request for an extension be made prior to the expiration of the variance, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that he/she not be required to reapply for the expired variance relief on various grounds, including but not limited to: the completion of the project, the approaching expiration of the variance, and a delay caused by compelling circumstances made known to the Board, and; WHEREAS, the Board, pursuant to Section 280-146 (B) has the power to vary any regulation contained in Chapter 280 so that the spirit of the chapter is observed, public safety and welfare preserved and that substantial justice is done, including the requirement that a written request for an extension must be provided prior to expiration of the variance, and; WHEREAS,the Board has determined that based upon the factors set forth by the applicant,that in this instance it is necessary for the Board to vary the requirement that a written request for an extension be made prior to the expiration of a variance, therefore be it; RESOLVED, the Board hereby grants a one-year extension of the variance relief granted in File #7387, applicant Hard Corner Partners, LLC dated located at 53530 Main Road, Southold, NY SCTM No. 1000-61-4-1 from this date, to expire on August 6, 2027. So, moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye 70 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEIN BUGLER :'Resolution for next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, September 3, 2026 at 9:00 AM. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO.: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from Special Meeting held Thursday,July 16, 2026, so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye. Resolution to grant a one-year extension for a Special Exception to Paul M. Fried and Elizabeth O'Brien Fried #7385SE to expire July 16, 2027 so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye 71-1 August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye. Resolution to amend decision #7800 RQA Properties, LLC located at 29950 Main Rd. Cutchogue, NY SUM No. 1000-102-3-1 to strike Condition #3 to remove a tent structure from the subject property, so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT,: Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :Aye. Resolution to deny deminimus request of Elise of Gerald Maher for application #5926 at 1195 Ruch Lane Greenport SCTM No. 1000-52-3-13 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye. I make a motion to close this hearing. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye 7Z August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape-recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :August 22, 2026 73