Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/03/2026 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Annex (Lower Level) &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York September 3, 2026 10:03 A.M. Board Members: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN—Chairperson (Zoom) PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Absent) ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member(Absent) MARGARET STEINBUGLER— Member (Vice Chair) JULIE MCGIVNEY—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS— Board Secretary DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant EDWARD DOWLING—Office Assistant September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Decision for Glen and Angela Pressler#8115 3 -4 Decision for Kimberly and Steven Bruni#8103 and #8104 4 Ronald S. Dobert#8125 5 - 7 Martin Finnegan and Dylan Hahn #8126 7 - 10 K2J4E6 LLC#8127 10- 17 Cheryl Prochilo#8128 17 - 19 John J. Colbert#8129 19- 21 Freda Gift Trust#8131 21- 23 Angela Geras#8132SE 24- 28 1875 Jackson LLC#8110 28- 31 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER: Welcome everybody to our and welcome everybody to our September Yd Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. To start off I ask everybody to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. The first resolution we have is regarding,SEAR Environmental Quality Reviews. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Pat 617.5 © including the following: 1875 Jackson LLC, Ronald and Marie Dobert, Martin and liana Finnegan/Dylan and Mary Hahn, K2J4E6, LLC. Cheryl Prochilo, John and Wendy Colbert, Freda Gift Trust and Angela Geras. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye. We have three decisions on our agenda. The first is file NO. 8115, Glen and Angela Pressler on Lake Drive in Southold.This was a request to demolish a single-family dwelling and reconstruct a new dwelling resulting in a front yard setback of 30.9 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35. During the public hearing the applicant was discussion resulted in an approach that would reduce that setback involving creating more or less a mirror image of the home and taking advantage of the curvature of Lake Drive such that the front yard setback was reduced to 25.2 feet making the project less nonconforming.All that said, I make a motion to deny the application as applied for and grant the relief as amended subject to conditions that the deck the structure and the deck may not be any closer to the wetlands than as proposed. The septic system be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health. The applicant must receive approval from the Southold Town Board of Trustees and the applicant will install construction fencing and erosion and sediment control measures during and immediately after construction to protect runoff and sediment from entering Great Pond. is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :Aye.The second deliberation is No. 8103 Kimberly and Steven Bruni on Salt Marsh Lane in Peconic. This is a request to overturn the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval which found that this parcel had merged with the adjacent parcel to the west.The subject parcel and the adjacent parcel to the west were held in common ownership as of July 1, 1983 when the merger law was effected, they were owned then by Nelson Axien and although the three parcels had been subdivided in 1971 and approved by the Planning Board at that time the subdivision did not except them from the merger law. The chain of title made it quite clear that the subject parcel and its adjacent parcel to the west were held in common ownership at the time the merger law was effected. I would point out that this decision is made without prejudice and applicant can return for a variance if the subdivision is approved. With that, I make a motion to uphold the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated October 27, 2025. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye.The third resolution is for file 8103 again, Kimberly and Steven Bruni on Salt Marsh Lane in Peconic. This was a request to waive the merger that the building inspector found.The town code requires that in order to waive a merger we apply a two-prong test, first determining whether the lot proposed to be recognized has been transferred to an unrelated person or entity since the merger came into effect and if that is found to be proved or if it has not been transferred then we can apply balancing factors. In this case,the title search confirmed that this property was transferred to an unrelated person after the merger was affected and consequently it is not eligible for a waiver of merger.Accordingly, I make a motion to deny the waiver of merger as applied for. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting HEARING#8125—RONALD S. DOBERT VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The first application before us is Ronald S. Dobert #8125. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's February 20, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" roofed over carport to an existing single-family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet located at 1350 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, NY. (adj.to James Creek). Just to be on the record, the side yard setback is 9.1 feet where the code requires a minimum of 20 feet. JACKIE HUBBARD : Good morning my name is Jackie Hubbard, I'm here on behalf of the applicant from Tourney, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin, Quartararo Riverhead and Mary Ellen is here today as well and she will speak to you after I speak and go briefly through the application. As noted, we are this carport is 9.1 feet in the side yard where it needs to be 20. Just to give you some background of the property,the owner constructed the dwelling himself in 1983 and added a number of improvements which we (inaudible) required permits for and were included with the application. One of the reasons this roof over was not included in those approvals and it is only now that this (inaudible) clean up the property and bring everything into compliance (inaudible) this was not included. We have not received any violation to come there, she's coming on her own in good faith. Of course, we understand that a permit was required at the time, it seems to have been constructed sometime in 2007 so it has been there for quite some time. It doesn't seem to have caused any issue to the neighbors or to the property itself. It's not out of line with the character of the neighborhood. As noted in the LWRP report provided by the Board it was constructed landward of the wetlands and we are aware that we're going to have to come back to Trustees both for this improvement and a couple of other improvements as well but hopefully they're within the wetland setbacks. I would note that the on the survey the coop has been removed and I did receive correspondence from the neighbors to the north and I have that letter if I approach you. They have no VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We did receive this. JACKIE HUBBARD : They note in the letter that they had no issue with this improvement. They did want me to note and you'll see in the letter that the encroachment of the driveway onto their property has been removed. I didn't think that we needed to update the survey for that (inaudible) let her know that that has been removed on record. This is you know the carport itself matches the aesthetic of the house; it was constructed in that way; quite frankly it was just part of the primary dwelling didn't realize that it needed the extra permit for it. Although the amount of relief could be considered more substantial in the (inaudible) property itself it's not a substantial structure or with the property or (inaudible). As far as I can tell, any affect 5 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting surrounding the property, the property is the neighbors and like I said, it is landward of the wetlands which we'll be going to the Trustees for the permits. If it's okay with you, if you have questions for me otherwise, I'll let the client speak. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I just had one question and maybe it's for your client to answer I'm not certain but, there's a two car garage and I just wondered why a carport was needed when the two car garage is there. JACKIE HUBBARD : Sure, again this was built some time ago, I think it was just to make it easier for the clients to get in and out of the car in the rain and that's her thing but I think she will speak to that as well.That was all just additional protection, any other question beyond that? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie do you have questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No MARIE ELLEN DOBERT : Good morning, my name is Marie Ellen Lynch Dobert, I'm Ronald Dobert's wife. My husband (emotional) is unable to be here he's in the house, I'm sorry. I am here as the co-owner of 1350 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. My ownership began in 2019. At the time I began taking care of the house with my husband. I am here because I was made aware that the carport was (emotional) and had no C.O. The carport is important to my husband and I; it protects us from the rain when getting in and out of the car. My neighbor submitted a letter stating that the carport is not a problem to them. It's located behind their house; our house is setback on our property so it's not in line with anyone's view except to my neighbor on the left, the carport butts up to their yard. I'd like to thank you for taking this into consideration. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Thank you, just one more question, it just seems like the garage would also afford protection from the elements if the cars were in the garage so what is the use of the garage? MARIE ELLEN DOBERT : The garage is basically empty but my husband has tools, he has a saw on one side and I use it for storage. Right now, I have all his medical supplies in the garage which we have to completely empty the garage in order to I don't know if two cars would really fit. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Thank you, any other questions from the Board, Rob, Leslie? MEMBER LEHNERT : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Is there anyone on Zoom? Anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this application? I will make a motion to close this public hearing and reserve decision to a later date, likely in two weeks' time at our Special Meeting. September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll second it. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING#8126—MARTIN FINNEGAN and DYLAN HAHN VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The next application before the Board is for Martin Finnegan and Dylan Hahn #8126. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18, Article VIII Section 280-39 and the Building Inspector's March 16, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for a lot line change at 1) proposed Lot 1 (a.k.a. 19.1) having less than the permitted lot area of 40,000 square feet, 2) proposed Lot 2 (a.k.a. lot 27) having less than the permitted lot area of 40,000 square feet, 3) Lot 2 (lot 27) having less than the lot width of 150 feet located at 14065 Main Road and 1710 Pike Street, Mattituck. Just for the record, this involves adding about 18,931 square feet to lot 1 and subtracting that from lot 2. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning Margaret, good morning everybody I'm Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. I'm actually here this time for myself, my wife and my daughter and son-in-law. As Margaret explained, we are here seeking variance relief so that we can accomplish a lot line modification between these two properties. My daughter and son-in-law purchased the property right behind us last year. Just a little bit of background, this property for years we couldn't even see it, we'd look out our window and there was just all this brush and stuff and could kind of make out some structures that were there. Ben Doroski bought it from the prior owner and he fixed it up and he started cleaning up the yard and then all of sudden one day I looked out the window and I could see a house. I never really realized where the house was and at that time our daughter and son-in-law were, they were with my mother-in-law saving money trying to be able to buy a house and I said you guys gotta buy this house. Well of course that turned into how much is that house going to be and of course as we know for young couples to try and buy a house out here is really not attainable. So, we kind of made a deal with them a we figured out because their parcel is L-shaped parcel which matches right up to our back yard and I thought we can help you guys buy this but we're going to have to have a little deal to get something back for it because we have six other kids and we can't afford to do this September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting for every other kid. I went to Heather and I just said, hey, what do you think of this? Do you think this would work and she said yeah, it makes sense.The zoning district,the RO, R40 zoning district are actually you know is that line. Essentially there's a little (inaudible) but it basically is there and you know this was also an opportunity to clean up I'm just going to one of our neighbors Mr. (inaudible) is here who lives next door to (inaudible) and Dylan for a long time but he could probably tell you that, the owner did not take this was just a property that was really in disrepair. I'll show you just some of the pictures of there was a farm, the old hoop house, this was actually after it was relatively cleaned up but all kinds of piles of it was just a mess.So,you have eight letters of support from pretty much all of our neighbors who are pretty happy that they don't have to look at that anymore and we've done our best to kind of clean it up. I don't want to really you know belabor, I mentioned in my application it talked about the criteria here. I think it's pretty straightforward, it's kind of a swap. Our lot is going to become obviously a lot more conforming as to lot area, really from (inaudible) Dylan the variance is just to allow that nonconforming lot width to remain as it is. It ends up kind of resulting in the parcels being within the right zoning districts,their lot will just mirror the DeRitter lot right next door. Our lot will be more consistent with all the other lots around us so we feel that in terms of character it is consistent with the character. Obviously, we need the variance relief. I don't think that under the circumstances that it's substantial. You have the Planning Board support for the application, they kind of rehashed pretty much what we've said in our application in terms of you know how this is consistent with the comp plan and how it's just a swap. We're still conforming as to lot coverage.That's really it, I'm happy to answer any questions that you would have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I had a question, I just wondered, how will that land lot, the new lot that's in the middle you know that's between the two parcels be accessed?Will there be a right of way from either Pike Street or from Main Street, an easement of some sort? How do they get in there? MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's going to become part of our lot, it's just going to be part of my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, you're annexing the whole thing? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, yes so the lot line changes this will just be as (inaudible) it's kind of already like that. Our daughter already got married in the back yard last year so VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It's fenced as though it has already taken place. 8 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGA : Yea,the fence, my dogs but there is a yes there is a fence there already, it's already been you know cleaned up and everything so now we're just going through the process here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, got it, thank you. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I was going to state for the record and you can correct me if I've erred here but, if the lot line change is approved the lot coverage I think of lot one will be just under 7% and lot two will be just under 8%. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Correct VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We're not entering into any lot coverage issues. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think the parcel your parcel will be split zoned with just a little bit of RO? MARTIN FINNEGAN : A tiny bit in the corner there but it's substantially within the district VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Right and I think the code says, the majority the zoning district that is the majority of the parcel prevails. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :There was a question as to whether if just to avoid future confusion or any future complications, would you be willing to waive the RO designation of that little portion of the lot? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Absolutely VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Okay, I guess your daughter and son-in-law's lot is going to be all RO? MARTIN FINNEGAN : All RO, yes. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Does that place any restrictions or reduced flexibility on that parcel? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think one of the significant differences between RO and just R40 is I think there's the availability to have like a home office or something like that. There's really not a whole lot of difference between they're both residential zones so that's really it. Down the road there you can see there's a couple other (inaudible) some of the people that have that. September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Any questions from the Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Donna is there anyone on Zoom? Anyone from the audience wish to address this application? I make a motion to close this public hearing reserve decision to a later date, probably in two weeks'time at our Special Meeting which will be on September 17tn CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING#8127—K2J4E6 LLC VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Our next application is for K2J4E6 LLC #8127. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116 A (1) and the Building Inspector's March 16, 2026 Notice of Disapproval, Reversal of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling and to legalize an "as built" accessory deck at 1) additions and alterations located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) "as built" accessory deck located seaward of the top of the bluff, not permitted; located at 9202 Bridge Lane in Cutchogue, NY (adj. to Long Island Sound). For the record in that the bluff setback for the addition is 60 feet where the code requires 100 feet and the accessory deck is seaward of the top of the bluff so it is in a noncompliant location. Rob, I hope you don't take this personally, I was supposed to request that each speaker including the two before you limit their comments to a ten-minute period so we can keep the public hearing moving along. It's a new stipulation for me and I missed the first two so I'll just ask that you try to stick to the important points, keep it to ten minutes as we have read the application and we have visited the property. ROB HERRMANN : I think I can do that. I don't know if I can do it with Leslie behind me instead of in front of me. There are two variances, one is a relatively straightforward request it's a proposed 190 square foot addition. It's roughly an 11 X 17 on the landward side of the house which basically is just an enclosure of an existing roofed over second-floor terrace that will JLO September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting increase the space of the existing family room behind it in the direction of the road. The relief is unavoidable due to the location of the existing dwelling, less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff. As we describe in the written application, while the 40 feet is mathematically substantial, we argue that it's not substantial in fact given that it is being constructed over and within the existing dwelling footprint on the roadside of the house and thus will not impact or change existing bluff setback which has been the subject of prior Zoning Boards. As we also describe, because the addition will create so little change to the dwelling itself, it would cause no change to the character of the neighborhood or adverse impacts to the neighbors. At 60 feet it well exceeds the previously approved 42-foot setback for the waterside of the house, that was case 6275 in 2009 and again, case 7062 in 2017 and it also well exceeds the 40-foot setback that was authorized by the Board through case 3564 for the construction of a house on the adjacent easterly property.As far as the closest adjacent neighbor is concerned,there really should be no impacts, the addition sky plan compliant, height compliant and if anything, it's enclosing an existing outdoor rec space so in theory we might argue that that's a benefit for that neighbor. There (inaudible) physical or environmental impacts but anticipating any mitigation of the Trustees would likely want to see a connection with any additional construction with the setback (inaudible) provide vegetative non turf buffer proposed along (inaudible). The second variance is a little bit more complicated; it's triggered by the Building Department's determination that is a roughly 8 X 10 platform that is part of the existing bluff stairway which needs relief from the zoning code as an accessory deck.Our application,actually there's two things the Board to find that that relief is not in fact required and thus effectively reverse the Building Inspector's determination or if you agree the relief that is required then we're asking to grant relief. Each for the reasons I'll describe here is quickly as I can but I think it is worth spending a few minutes on it. First, I just would like to note that all the time I've ever been working with the town which of course now is kind of over thirty years, I can't recall at least until very recently and with this case in particular, the Building Department ever claiming permitting or zoning jurisdiction over bluff, stairways pursuant to building zoning code. In fact, once we found ourselves in the position of needing to request a variance here. We did our due diligence to look for other approvals in the neighborhood as there are similar stairways some with similar platforms located to the east and west. At that time your Laserfiche records were down and the response we.got back from the Building Department said that they don't have any records because they don't issue building permits for bluff stairs,that's within the purview of the Trustees. That's an important thing to note because in the description which Margaret just read, it states that the structure is not permitted. There's a similar indirect statement in the LWRP recommendation that says, the structure has no permit. In fact, the stairway including the platform in the exact location configurational dimensions that exist today were issued with Trustees approval twenty-two years ago in 2004. The platform itself is in fact consistent with the town's wetlands code, Section 275-11A (6) states, "platform associated 3,1 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting with stairs may not be larger than 100 square feet" which this one is not, it's 90 square feet. Obviously, I can't offer any firsthand knowledge of what happened in 2004, the prior property owner but I can essentially guarantee that no one at that time would have told the owner at that time that any approval other than Trustees approval was required for that stairway platform. This applicant, his family purchased this property in 2011 (inaudible) and operating knowledge and belief that the stairway in its entirety with its landing and platform are fully and legally authorized at that time based on the Town Trustees permit. We also point out in our application that that belief would have been supported multiple times since then as during the past fifteen years various applications for building permits, zoning variances and C.O.'s have been submitted and granted all with the same stairway and platform being in place without the platform every being questioned in connection with any of those applications until now. It was a bit of a punch in the stomach for the applicant who has used and enjoyed the platform for years to receive that Notice of Disapproval. With all of that said, if that's where we are and the Board does feel the platform requires an area variance to remain then we're also respectfully asking that you grant that relief for all the additional reasons we articulated in our application. In brief, because the structure is in fact a platform that's connected to a bluff stairway it cannot possibly meet the bluff setback because it's on the bluff itself. It certainly had no identifiable impact on the character of the neighborhood or any adjoining property owners; again, there are similar stairs and any landings and platforms in both directions as is common on the Sound. We would argue that the relief is obviously is mathematical taken at face value mathematically substantial but is not substantial in fact because it was in fact permitted by the Trustees twenty years ago. At no time was a building permit to our knowledge ever required for it and to my knowledge still would not be required. If someone went into the Building Department and asked about getting a permit for bluff stair and again with respect to its size, it is consistent with the Trustees code. If anything,there's a little conflict in codes going on here because if the wetlands code permits up to a 100 square foot platform in connection with a bluff stair, then the Building Department is saying that's actually not permissible under zoning code so there's a bit of a conflict there which really adds to the confusion. If you've seen it, I mean it's you know the vegetation and everything is (inaudible) up and around the platform over the years and if anything, it might be more you know (inaudible) disturbance of removing it than allowing it to remain. I did as and I don't know if I'm past my ten minutes here but I did just want to make one other (inaudible). There is also another factual error in the LWRP recommendation, I just want to make sure for the record that I get this right so that I make sure that you know what I'm telling you. The report states that the platform was built within the coastal erosion hazard area which is of course correct but it then references a prohibition of "non (inaudible)" structures pursuant to Section 111-10B but, Section 111 10 sets forth restrictions for areas designated as structural hazard areas which is not applicable to this property.Structural hazard areas are actually areas that are landward of natural protective features like a bluff where 12 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting there's a long-term average recession rate of one foot or more per year so thirty whatever years I've been working in I've never actually encountered a property up here with that designation. Really the proper section of code to reference in the context of this application would be 111-14 which is the restrictions that are set forth for bluffs. In fact, if you go a little bit broader up the coastal erosion code to Section 111-6 it states that, pedestrian stairways and structures built with open work supports having a top surface area of less than 200 square feet are actually defined as unregulated activities.They are not even permit required activities. So, based on the code and based on the permit history and our understanding of the various involved town codes this is a compliant legally permitted structure since 2004. Again, even if the Board finds that this variance relief is required for it, we would ask you to grant it for all those reasons. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I do have a couple of questions and maybe I'll just get started. I think you quoted 275-11 A (6) allowing platforms associated with stairs up to 100 square feet. ROB HERRMANN : Correct VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The very next line of code 275-11 A 6 (b) states that, platforms so I assume it's all this code is taken together since it's all part of 275-111 A (6). The very next line says, platforms must be landward of the bluff. ROB HERRMANN : Correct VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It seems like it's not ROB HERRMANN : It's not written well but the spirit is clear when well it's not really when the Trustees past that code they were establishing limitations on two things that were consistent with their longstanding policy at the time that any platforms, decks whatever you want to call them associated with a bluff stair I mean they say stairs but really it was about bluff stairs would be no greater than 10 X 10, no greater than 100 square feet. A lot of people also want to build what is truly an accessory deck like a separate independent platform where you can just build a platform out, standing on its own near the top of the bluff, set up dinner, BBQ, cocktails etc. Because the coastal erosion code that I just referenced limits the top surface area of any kind of deck like that to 200 square feet, the Trustees added each section of code. One was 100 square foot limit for platforms associated with stairs and the other was a 200 square foot limit associated with what is truly an accessory platform, a deck. If you read it any other way then those two lines are mutually contradictory and obviously,they would not have passed the code like that. Again, it's not clear enough to see the face value but if it's connected to the stair it's gotta to be 100 square feet if it's true accessory deck or platform it's gotta be 200 square feet or less. 13 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I guess that brings me to my next question regarding Chapter 111- 6, the whole you know the language there starts with, it seems that it applies to the language seems to apply that portion of the code applies to structures that are over water because it starts with decks, piers etc. The part about structures built on open timber piles with a top surface area less than 200 square feet are accepted activities. If I read this just in the context of how the code is written I would presume that 200 square foot limit applies to structures built on pilings etc. over water because it starts out talking about docks, piers and moorings. ROB HERRMANN : I don't disagree with you in terms of the limited ability to interpret that. I can tell you that I've worked with the code both with NYS and the Town for a long time and how it has always been interpreted and applied is that any deck structure that's 200 square feet or less that's within the coastal erosion hazard area is an accepted activity. So, it's not limited strictly to docks and again I mean all of this aside these are all the codes that we're discussing in terms of wetlands code and the coastal erosion hazard area code are administered by the Town Trustees. The Town Trustees issued a permit for this structure. What we're here today is a question of whether the Building Department is correctly applying the zoning code to a structure that they otherwise don't take jurisdiction over and if you feel that they are then given the fact that these other codes have already been administered and a permit issued would it be fair or proper to now take that right away from the property owner and that's what we're arguing that it would not be based on these reasons. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER: I did check all the Trustee permits that were granted to this property and I found the 2004 Trustee permit granting this platform at that time. It was associated with rock revetment at the toe of the bluff, the photographs from that time do depict a platform that's different from what's there now. It might be the same in size but it looks like it was a wood platform with backing for the thank you, I did find that; and I'll say the chair back there's benched seating on the platform so the back of the bench for the back support was horizontal wood members with spaces between and what is now there is a solid back. So, the platform has been rebuilt since the 2004 Trustee approval and it appears to have been done without Trustee approval because there is no permit for modifying or repairing the deck. ROB HERRMANN : I can't, I don't have any knowledge I can't speak to whether that was repaired or replaced or reconstructed or to what extent since that time. If you have a wetlands permitted structure the Trustees code allows you to replace and that has changed recently in terms of the numbers but I believe it used to be I think it was to fully replace thirty percent of it at a time and then in the most recent code changes there may have been a change that it's fifty percent. As long a structure has been permitted you can repair and partially reconstruct it up to certain percentages without a Trustees permit,without a second Trustees permit.Again, I can't I don't know what the history is, I only know that it was permitted at that time and you may I thought 141 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting we submitted a copy of the Trustees permit with the application but in case we did not that's what I just handed up to you. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I may have missed something, the permit only is for the stairway, where is the (inaudible). VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : This is the diagram that accompanied that Trustee permit. ROB HERRMANN : There is a Costello Marine plan that shows the stair and platform that were stamped approved, I think Al Krupski at the time was the Chairman. I have edited that page to add the red circle to draw attention to it. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I'll just go back to the I think the application states and you may have said in your remarks that there are similar structures perhaps east and west of this parcel, so I did take a look at the tax map so I had an aerial view to look for something on a neighboring parcel that seemed to be of similar size. I didn't see anything that large and I understand that from a practical perspective it'll probably be difficult if no building permits are issued for them, it might be difficult to find but you know a precedent but do you have any evidence of there being (inaudible) of similar size? ROB HERRMANN : To me it's sort of beside the point but if that was necessary the number of (inaudible) on sound front applications that I've had exposure to over the years yeah, I can probably hand you a stack of permits from the Trustees that shows similar platforms. That's why they codified this at some point because people used to want to build you know 150 square foot, 200 square foot these larger platforms associated with these stairs because it would create something that you couldn't otherwise get approved right, because anything that was up if somebody proposed like a 200 square foot deck twenty feet back from the bluff that was above grade and you had to step up to it that would require a building permit and because it doesn't meet the 100 foot bluff setback it would require a variance. The way the town has always operated is that, these bluff stairs do not require building permits, they never applied the zoning code to these structures, you're always told that it's within the purview of the Trustees. MEMBER LEHNERT : You can go to every other house along the Long Island Sound and the east side of Nassau Point to find these. ROB HERRMANN : Correct, so if you need us to present you know photographs and old Trustee permits you know for lots of other properties to support what I'm telling you, we would ask you to give us the chance to do that if you feel September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I used to do these repairs all the time,just get a Trustees permit. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I'll leave the deck for now thanks and I don't know if it's necessary to provide further examples of similar decks. While I was at the property, I did look into the door to the pool house and observed that there's a loft space on the I think it's the left side which I think is the south side and there appeared to be possibly a kitchenette; there was sort of a kitchen sink opposite the door I was looking in, there was an undercounter appliance, it looked like it might have had a cooking function I can't be sure. ROB HERRMANN : What I do know is there because the applicant called me after you were there,they had stuck a microwave in there many years ago and she said they never used it and she said as soon as you left she went back to the pool house and took it out. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Was it a countertop microwave or under counter? ROB HERRMANN : This is just what she told me. My understanding is, there is not you know that pool house was subject to a prior variance approval and I know that the conditions were that it couldn't be used for sleeping quarters and could not have I think it was allowed a bath but it couldn't have a shower and it couldn't have a kitchen. My understanding from the applicant is that it does not have any of those things and she relayed to me that you asked her I'm not sure she understood why you were asking in connection with this application but you asked her if you could look in the pool house and she had no problem with you (inaudible). VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I just peered through the door. ROB HERRMANN : I have to assume that if she had something to hide there that she would have you now been reluctant to allow you to look at it. If there is something there that is an issue unrelated to this application I'm sure that they would resolve it. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I'll say the loft, since I wasn't inside I can't say what exactly what I saw and what appeared like it might be a kitchenette but obviously I don't have definitive conclusion on that but the loft was not part of the plans that led to the building permit that allowed the construction of the pool house so as it sits now it appears the pool house does not comply with the original building permit so we might work with the Building Department to have an interior look. ROB HERRMANN : I will certainly pass that along. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Are there any questions from the Board, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie? CHAIR PERSON WEISMAN : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Anyone from the audience who would like to address this application, anyone on Zoom? With that, I will make a motion to close this public hearing and reserve the decision to a later date probably at our next Special Meeting. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING#8128—CHERYL PROCHILO VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The next application is for Cheryl Prochilo #8128. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-122A and the Building Inspector's March 16, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" addition to an existing garage at 1) garage located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 4714 Peconic Bay Blvd in Laurel.This is a garage that's in a nonpermitted location. BROOKE EPPERSON : Brooke Epperson from AMP Architecture.The owners hired us to provide plans to submit a Pre C. 0. application to get the C.O. for the garage and the house. Looking at the house and also an addition that she wanted to do we realized that you saw the roof in between the garage and the house? So, we are proposing to take that off because if we kept that on with the house and the garage and the roof it would be over lot coverage so we decided to remove that, not deal with lot coverage cause we felt that would be more of an ask and the garage was existing in that location so we knew we would have to come here for the other than rear yard relief for the garage. We also provided the map of Peconic Bay Blvd. that area which shows that there are many homes along the boulevard and the flagged lot streets that have accessory structures in the front yard or the side yard. We did also provide two or three prior reliefs for other properties in this area that have accessories in the rear yard or side yard. 17 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I don't know if it was me and my inability to read the survey but I couldn't find the date on this survey except that it seemed to be surveyed September 9, 1998 and at the time it still showed a proposed one-story addition which I think has since been constructed. Is there a more current survey? BROOKE EPPERSON : No, we provided a site plan knowing the addition that we proposed that is permitted by the Building Department currently she has not started construction on that however so our site plan does show the (inaudible) location. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : One reason I ask is that based on my site inspection the site plan does not depict the shed on the property and in fact there's now two sheds since this 1998 survey so I just wondered. I don't think that it's going to run into lot coverage issues but it's just we don't have a depiction of the property as it exists now,that's all.There was a garage addition and maybe I didn't look close on the property card but, I wondered when the garage addition was made, do you know? BROOKE EPPERSON : About forty years ago. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Forty years ago, thank you. Does anyone else on the Board have a question or two, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, the presentation clarified the way it's written you could say, there's an addition to an existing garage but there's an addition proposed on the house to enlarge the kitchen so it took a little sorting out to figure out that the garage (inaudible). VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Right, it needs to be legalized so the kitchen addition can be constructed. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this application? Anyone on Zoom, Donna? With that I will make a motion to close this public hearing and reserve the decision to a later date, most likely at our Special Meeting in two weeks' time. Do I have a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING#8129—JOHN J. COLBERT VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :The next application before the Board is for John J. Colbert#81296. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124,Article XXXVI Section 280-207A (1) (d) and the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated April 7, 2026 AMENDED April 28. 2026 based on an application to construct additions and alterations to an existing single- family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet, 2)gross floor exceeding permitted maximum square footage lot containing 40,000 square feet in area located at 2155 Long Creek Drive in Southold, NY (adj. to Long Creek). This application is requesting a side yard setback of 15.2 feet, where the code requires a minimum of 20 feet and the request of GFA of 4,874 square feet where the maximum for a parcel of this size is 4,724 square feet. Would you like to speak to this application? BROOKE EPPERSON : We are requested a side yard and GFA relief, I do want to add that we currently have Trustees approval, DEC non jurisdiction and we have Health Department we're just waiting for the final approval from them. Also, the side yard, the second-floor extension is proposed to go over the existing garage and stays within the footprint of the garage which has an existing nonconforming side yard. We feel this relief is minor due to the existing conditions and there is also an existing row of mature trees on that side that block the two properties form each other. The GFA relief we also feel what we are requesting is minimal for the following reasons. First,the total lot size of this parcel is 41, 526 square feet which would allow for a GFA of 5,176 square feet,we are asking for 4,824. Due to the wetlands on the property our allowable GFA is reduced to 4,724 square feet. Second, working with the existing layout of the house, there is a large two-story double heighted space in the foyer leading to the back of the house this is where the stairs to the second-floor and the total square footage of the two heighted space is about 1,000 square feet half of that being the foyer and the stairs where it wasn't really feasible to proposed any renovation to that area to get the square footage they are seeking for additional habitable space. Finally, we provided the map showing the approximate GFA totals in the neighborhood and there are five neighboring homes with similar lot sizes that have GFA's totally either close to what we are asking or go over what we are asking for. 19 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Thank you, what was the significance of the green and the yellow in this assessment of the GFA in the neighborhood? BROOKE EPPERSON :The green are the totals GFA's of the neighboring properties that are close to or over what we're asking for. The yellow is under what we are asking for but still in range of what we are asking for. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Okay thanks, I'm making an assumption since no prior ZBA decisions granting GFA relief were provided with the application that probably all of these were constructed prior to the implementation of the house size law. BROOKE EPPERSON :They were yes, and then I actually do have other reliefs for Southold Town for the GFA relief and also for a side yard which I haven't gotten to you yet. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Right but probably for GFA not in this neighborhood. BROOKE EPPERSON : Not right in the neighborhood. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Okay, I did want to ask if this is the smallest variance that can be designed for this property? It looks like it's on 150 square feet over, it seemed to me that if the addition moved south I don't want to design it, I'm not an architect but if the south wall were just brought back maybe four, four and a half, five feet on both floors you would have a conforming design. BROOKE EPPERSON : The addition on that side of the house is only a one-story addition, they didn't want as far as the second-floor goes, the most feasible way to keep the bedroom count and the layout on the second-floor as I said not messing with that interior staircase that takes up a chunk of space that bedroom was (inaudible) garage and then the first floor addition, the first floor layout doesn't really allow for a formal living room, dinning area.The back wall where there is a fireplace it's a really large open room not very homey, I would say so that was the purpose of trying to give them extra space on the first floor. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Sorry about that missing the first floor only in that section. I think you said you have DEC letter of BROOKE EPPERSON : Non jurisdiction, yes. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think that's it from me, any other questions from the Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie, do you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, it has Trustees approval, right? BROOKE EPPERSON : We have Trustees approval, yes. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Is anyone from the audience? Anyone on Zoom? With that I will make a motion to close this public hearing, reserve decision to a later date. Do I have a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye BROOKE EPPERSON : Would you like these comps? A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I think we had mentioned to Anthony once that try to keep it within the actual neighborhood and also I know that some of your property is flagged with wetlands and if you could use it you wouldn't have to come here but you can't so you have to come here and I just you know that's the way it is with everybody. HEARING#8131—FREDA GIFT TRUST VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :The next application before the Board is for Freda Gift Trust#8131. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's April 21, 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 rear yard setback of 75 feet located at 7715 Indian Neck Rd. in Peconic (adj. to Richmond Creek). This application is requesting a rear yard setback of 70.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 75-feet. BROOKE EPPERSON We are requesting a rear yard setback relief to enlarge an existing screened in porch. I do want to point out that we are also proposing an attached wood deck and pool to the dwelling which does not require zoning relief as these items meet all required yard setbacks to code. The proposed screened in porch addition stays in line with the existing 21 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting first-floor footprint but due to the angle of the house and the way that it is situated on the property a portion of the proposed porch extends past the 75-foot required. Due to the existing conditions,we feel that this is the minimal, we are trying to stay in line with the existing house. We have also provided prior approvals for rear yard setbacks on wetland properties on Indian Neck Rd. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I think unless I missed it, I think the site plan does not include locations for the dry well for pool de watering, did I miss that? BROOKE EPPERSON : It's here. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It's here, gotta get my magnifying glass. A BROOKE EPPERSON : We did hand in a later version. We can send you this one, I can get that to you. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I just wanted to confirm, other than the screen porch which is moving the threshold of the house let's say outward closer to the wetlands, there's no other change to the building footprint, right? BROOKE EPPERSON : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Your status with the Trustees? BROOKE EPPERSON : Pending the ZBA decision and we have DEC non jurisdiction. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Thanks, I think what I'm about to say could have been a typo but the Short EAF form describes the screen porch expansion resulting in an 11-foot rear yard setback where it's actually 70.7 and where 15 is required. I think it should be 75, 1 think the seven became a one. BROOKE EPPERSON : Sorry VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : No problem, is the house currently serviced by an IA system? BROOKE EPPERSON : It is not. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : It's not, okay but you're not adding a bedroom? BROOKE EPPERSON : We are not. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Any other questions from the Board, Rob? 22 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : No,this is pretty straightforward. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie, do you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Julie was pointing out that we did receive a letter from a neighbor asking for a denial on the variance based on the proximity of the project to their bedroom which seems to be close and this is the neighbor I think BROOKE EPPERSON :They only have the one neighbor. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yea, if you're facing the house it's the neighbor to the right, it's a very long stretch on the other side before you encounter a neighbor, you have to go over the boat ramp I think. I wondered if you wanted to address that? BROOKE EPPERSON : I saw that email and I feel like she is talking about the wood deck and the pool which is next to her property line where the screened in porch is on the other side of the existing portion of the dwelling. MEMBER LEHNERT : Which pool and deck are as of right. BROOKE EPPERSON : Yes VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : As you noted, they don't require variance relief. BROOKE EPPERSON : They do not. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Okay, I think and Donna we have no questions from the Zoom audience? With that I will make a motion to close this public hearing and reserve the decision to a later date likely in two weeks' time. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STIENBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting HEARING#81325E—ANGELA GERAS VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :The next application before the Board is for Angela Geras#8132SE. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B (13). The applicant is owner of the subject property requesting authorization to construct and establish an accessory apartment in an accessory structure at 460 Marion Lane in East Marion, NY. Who would like to address this application? HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : Hideaki Arizumi, architect.The owner just maybe two months ago, she is in so I don't think she can (inaudible). The project is (inaudible) little, little building to go back to apartment and her son will (inaudible) the project is since the existing building is so tight and so we added a little bit 2.5 feet to the west so that we can make a one-bedroom at least and added to the east (inaudible) added a screened porch to the east and a little addition for the access to the porch.Those are the only components otherwise it's (inaudible). VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : One concern is that you're probably aware that when granting special exceptions for an accessory apartment it's required that the owner occupy one of the units and the other either be occupied by a relative or someone on or eligible to be on the affordable housing registry.The only evidence submitted with the application establishing that the owner might reside at the main house is a utility bill which is service for 460 Marion Lane but it's mailed to a Manhattan address and I would add that the affidavit I think regarding intention to rent the accessory structure to the son was notarized in Florida. Is there I think we require at least two forms of proof that the main house will be occupied by the owner, is there other documentation that can be provided to establish that? HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : I do not know about that so (inaudible) I can find out but VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I'll give you some examples, I think it would be something like I think a driver's license, a utility bill mailed to a local address, a voter registration card, the first page of a tax return sensitive information can be blacked out but it would have the address. GLYNNIS BERRY : Glynnis Berry, Studio (inaudible) Architects. She owns the property and you know we can get tax records if you need that. She doesn't live there, full time but she doesn't have anybody else living there, it's for her use. That's why you have an address in another location and she does want her son.She understands the rules,she has no intention for renting or using it for any other purpose than family use. (inaudible) what would you need for proof that it's her son? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I'm guessing that the other forms I mentioned would not indicated her full time residence in that. 24 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting GLYNNIS BERRY : Right VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Off the top of my head I cannot answer that question. GLYNNIS BERRY : I should mention that the accessory dwelling originally was a dwelling and then it was changed to storage use while they built the main house and now they're coming back to restore it as a residence. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : (inaudible)structure inside of existing it's got 2 x4 structure here (inaudible) storage but it goes to (inaudible). VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : The cottage is set pretty far back from the parking and the road, is there a plan to provide access to it via either a foot path, another driveway? GLYNNIS BERRY : It's probably more a foot path. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : The driveway is impossible because the existing waste the system is right there. GLYNNIS BERRY : And it meets all the setbacks and lot coverage. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : I was going to ask about lot coverage. If approved it does meet lot coverage? GLYNNIS BERRY : Yep, so the only issue is the use. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Right, okay I think that's it for my questions. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : I think the code still reads and correct me if I'm wrong that it does have to be for the owner's use the permitted exception they changed it to use, I don't think that has gotten caught up yet with the permitted I mean with the special exception which says, that it has to be for occupancy of the owner. Leslie, do you have any different information other than they changed the permitted uses to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I mean it was changed because the town is trying to sorry go ahead. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : No,no, no it's just the permitted uses say that it can be for the owners use. The Special Exception uses say it has to be for their occupancy so they're inconsistent and I believe that the Special Exception one is the one that's going to change to comply with the permitted but it isn't at this time. 25 September 3,2026 Regular Meeting GLYNNIS BERRY : Would the son be considered CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was approved, those changes were approved by the Town Board but the code language may not have been changed yet in the actual on line code. The bottom line is, if no one but the owner is using that principle dwelling it doesn't matter how many days of the year they're in it. It can be either vacant or they can be in it but it belongs to them for their sole use. We did also it's again a little bit of a gray area, previously the C.O. was required then entire thing had to be within the existing footprint of the existing structure, this proposal is to expand the footprint of the existing structure but it is also a conforming livable floor area right. So,that's not typical but it isn't barred by code anymore at least that's my understanding because you're going to need a new C.O. for the whole thing anyway. The question I have is, how often is the son going to be there? Is he living there, full time, year-round? GLYNNIS BERRY : I doubt it it's year round, but I don't know. I assume it's going to be part time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we have I think we have an unexecuted lease agreement. Of course, it's not approved yet so there's no reason for them to execute the lease. What we don't want is for it to become a rented guest house or a guest house in general. What's difficult is when somebody like the son occupies it when he wants to and then there are guests that are coming when the property owner is there. Are they not going to use if for guests? It winds up a de facto guest house, that wasn't the spirit or intent of the code. GLYNNIS BERRY : No, I'm quite sure, they have enough bedrooms for guests. So, they have a daughter as well so she'll be in the main but it's to give freedom to have independence of her children. There's no intention for using it for other than that. HIDEAKI ARIAZUMI : The owner is sometimes said, I am going to use it. GLYNNIS BERRY : In the future. HIDEAKI ARIZUMI : You know when the son is not there. GLYNNIS BERRY : That's way in the future. VICE CHARI STEINBUGLER :You mentioned the septic system interfering with the establishment of a auto driveway access to the cottage, is it an IA system or just a regular? GLYNNIS BERRY: It's regular system, it's a relatively new one but it was installed just before the code changed but it's in very good shape and they oversized it. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have a question about the septic. 261 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yea this was so blurry I couldn't tell how many bedrooms it was. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm starring at that I see that. How are you proposing to attach the existing the cottage to the existing septic for that length of a run? You're going to be under the septic tank by the time you get there. GLYNNIS BERRY : No, I designed this and we just made it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay GLYNNIS BERRY : If not we would have had to install a pump but we don't have to. MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay, you're going to make pitches and everything? GLYNNIS BERRY : Yea, it just made it. It was deep enough because they have quite a large basement so it came out of the basement so the system was quite deep, luckily. Originally,they had a separate cesspool in the back and they removed that. MEMBER LEHNERT : So, they used to have it in the old days. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : While we're on that subject, the survey is very blurry and I couldn't tell how many bedrooms I literally can't read the number of the Suffolk County Department of Health MEMBER LEHNERT : It's a red stamp which is VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Yes it's right here but I can't read the number of bedrooms. MEMBER LEHNERT : Down here it says proposed five bedroom sanitary system. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Okay, I couldn't make out if it was five or six. It's five? MEMBER LEHNERT : It's five on there, yes. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Okay, thank you. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : Can you just reiterate for me please who is going to be living in the main house and who is going be in the cottage and GLYNNIS BERRY : The mom, she also has a daughter so they'll probably be staying there some of the time and when the son comes he will be in the cottage. A.T.A. MCGIVNEY : And the mother does not live there full time? September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting GLYNNIS BERRY : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Rob, did you have any other questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : That was it. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie, did you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Anyone in the audience want to address this application? Donna do we have any one on Zoom?All that being said, I will make a motion to close this public hearing and reserve the decision to a later date probably two weeks from today at our Special Meeting for September. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye HEARING#8110— 1875 JACKSON LLC VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Our last public hearing for this morning for the day is, 1875 Jackson LLC #8110. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 12, 2026 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a raised patio addition to a single-family dwelling (in conjunction with BP #50030) at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet located at 1875 Jackson Street in New Suffolk, New York.The request here is for a front yard setback of 21.3 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet.Good morning,Zack,would you like to speak to this application? ZACK NICHOLSON : Yes, good morning, Zackery Nicholson architect and agent for the owner David Noonan. I worked on the project as the architect and several of the designers when David originally purchased the property was going to be a flip renovation. It was always our intention to respect the historic significance of the property and maintain the architectural feature of the period that the home was built.There was an existing rear yard deck that met the 35-foot yard z81 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting setback that was demolished at the time of our addition/renovation and the original design intent was to replace it with an at grade patio.Through the design development we found that in order to get down to grade it would have required several steps from the house which would have projected into the patio making the patio less usable. We had fill from the excavation of the additions and the pool so we raised the grade around the house on the east side where the patio is. Again, trying to it was our intention to keep this patio at grade. I believe all have been there, the patio is for the most part conforming to the term at grade. There is only one corner on the southeast that is nineteen inches above grade, the rest of the topography slopes right up to the patio. Of the 400 square feet only 210 of those square feet are conforming to the 35- foot rear setback so it's really only this one southeast corner that is subjective into you know saying that it's not at grade. Considering this very minor deviation from the intent here we believe that this patio is you know is conforming to the character of the neighborhood and really should DAVID NOONAN : David Noonan,just a brief statement from the homeowner living there. I'm not versed in the code but certainly our intention was to meet code. As the homeowner or builder was told we can't do the deck but a terrace would be fine, the terrace was not fine. I thought we could grade it so it would be fine so we were trying to we were aiming to comply with code and found out at the end that we had not properly complied with it. It seems to me that a lot of the challenges come from both the slope of the site as it exists and from the fact that the (inaudible) house is kind of stuck in the front corner and we could have started over and demolished it but we wanted to preserve that house and obviously the terrace gives us the advantage of matching the terrace in the rear at the same level as the terrace in the rear of the house as laid out by the landscape architect. In fairness to Zack, we might not be here if he was the architect I started with but he is the architect I have now so I appreciate his explanation of what's going on. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER :Zack, I think you mentioned that there was fill from the an addition, did I miss what addition was made to the house? ZACK NICHOLSON : There was an addition made to the back of the house that was a part of the building permit that we're trying to close as well as the pool. DAVID NOONAN : The original deck was kind of in a notch I guess so there was an original kind of salt box or small house then with a little wing setbacks to it and then as the house when I bought it had a I don't know what the rules would have been but I think it was (inaudible) had a big deck off the kitchen at roughly the same level but it sat behind the wing of the house so it didn't I guess didn't further encroach on (inaudible). ?-9 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting ZACK NICHOLSON : The previous deck was at the 35 foot setback as for where the addition started at 35 feet. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : So it's really the grading that caused you to need those steps to come down from the patio or deck to the level of the front yard. ZACK NICHOLSON : Right, we didn't want to bring in outside fill, we really did do our best to slope the landscaping up to DAVID NOONAN : I don't know do you have pictures or more than this natural picture? VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We have some photos and we've all visited, we've been there. DAVID NOONAN : All the stuff I guess the west boundary is at one level and then the slope drops off severely so to get that stone patio at the same level as the other stone patio is that's why we're here. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Okay DAVID NOONAN : So when we made things level, we did not meet code. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Rob, do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Leslie do you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I have you know looking at the property, it's a very large lot for New Suffolk in that are and you're burdened with the two front yards technically which you know is even though it's attached to the architectural side of the house it is still considered a frontage along a road so that's why we're here for that setback. It's very well screened with mature landscaping so it's not even really visible to either street so nope that's what we observed when we were inspecting the property. So, I have no questions. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Do we have anyone on Zoom? I'll make a motion to close this public hearing and reserve decision to a later date? MEMBER LEHNERT : I'll second that. VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye 3 September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : We have three resolutions to do. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, October 1, 2026 at 9:00 AM, so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye. Second Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held Thursday, August 20, 2026 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye. Third Resolution to reopen the hearing for ZBA File No. 8122 Yingzhen Li to consider a redesign and a reduced GFA. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye, let the record show that this was a unanimous vote of the Members present. I make a motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : All in favor? September 3, 2026 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye VICE CHAIR STEINBUGLER : Aye 32 September 3, 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. ASignature /Asv� &�wi(cc Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : September 13, 2026 3 4