Full Transcript

Thank you. [transcription gap] There's an extra one. Here, I got it. All right. And there's a photo of the interior of the shed as well. It's not finished. I'm going to put it down for you guys. Am I understanding there's a pool on the ground? Is that correct? There's a pool, yes. You understand it needs a CVO? The pool? Yep. I think he's pursuing that on a separate application. Yeah. The pool didn't need a variance. The only reason for the variance was the sheds. That's why we're before you. Is there anything else on the property that needs to be changed? No. We submitted an updated survey that shows everything that's on the property. It's basically the main house, the greenhouse, the shed, the pool, which is currently being filed. And that's it. Mr. Sofocles had reviewed everything, and these were the two items he wanted permits for. We haven't seen everybody. I know. We passed what we needed. We're going to have to get the commissioners and they get the CVO. Yeah, presumably. Okay. Is anyone in the audience that would like to speak? Anybody on Zoom? Leroy, you got anything? No. I'm fine with it. Ann Marie? We have Ann Marie Prudente, counsel for the zoning board on Zoom as well. No? Yes. So I would just recommend that due to the significance of having a pool without a certificate of occupancy, that the zoning board should be able to provide a pool for the residents of the area. And that's the only way that we can get the pool. So I'm just going to say that we're going to have to get the pool. I'm going to say that we're going to have to get the pool. I'm going to say that we're going to have to get the pool. So I'm going to say that due to the significance of having a pool without a certificate of occupancy, that any grant deconditioned upon obtaining all outstanding certificates of occupancy for any improvements on the property that did not go through the permit process and or receive a certificate of occupancy. Understood. We can condition. Okay. So we can condition it based on the pool getting a CVO. Okay. Is there anyone else? Who's got this reading? You want to put that in there about the CO? Yep. Okay. Mr. Chairman and the board, with respect to appeal number 2024-029, I move that the appeal of Dominic Cusimano, 1777, be approved. Thank you. Second. Second. Second. new Calverton SCT m number 600-39 dash 1-19.6 residents a 40 are a 40 zoning for variance and or relief from Town Code chapter 301-9 a 1b where side yard accessory setback is 8.8 feet and the minimum required is 20 feet be granted subject to the issuance of a building permit inspections and requisite CEO for the in-ground pool in accordance with the applications and sketches with amendments there too if any as filed with the building inspector second freshetta

second so let's get right I Godzilla and I vote aye so your variance has been passed oh Leroy you got to make some noise up there they were okay thank you aye so the variance has been passed good luck thank you very much I'm very way the council looks kind of great take care of yourself

so she's head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head back is 43.5 feet and the minimum required is 60 feet where a proposed rear yard setback is 32 feet and the minimum required is 75 feet and we're proposed side yard a budding road setback is 23 feet and the minimum required is 60 feet and just to note we did receive the posting and mailing all those requirements have been met so we're good to open hearing thank you please raise your right hand I do solemnly swear to tell truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God yes they do my name is Megan Carrick and 206 Lincoln Street for her head New York tell us what you're presenting already first I just have some packets just so hi everyone I'm here tonight to represent my clients Curtis and Dominica who are a longtime Riverhead residents and are looking to establish the roots here further they recently purchased a home on Gregory Way and came to us with a goal of modernizing the house to have it better suit their lifestyle specifically they hope to modernize the home's layout expand the living room to make it more functional for them and to add it to our garage with some extra storage as Curtis is a builder so that's very helpful to him after carefully considering their goals and the unique layout of the lot we found that the best approach involves some additions one of the additions is that they're going to be able to head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head [transcription gap] head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head [transcription gap] head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head that the design for the additions and alterations would be sympathetic to our neighbors. For instance, we located the garage addition on the side of the house that does not have any neighbors directly abutting it, and we orientated the living room addition in a way that takes advantage of the offset position of the neighbor to the rear house. Although our design does require setback relief, and that's why we're here, we do not feel that this was a self-imposed hardship due to the irregular shape of the lot and the existing position of the house. We looked at many different options for how to give Curtis and Dominica exactly what they wanted, but ultimately arrived at this design, and we think that it minimally impacts the neighbors. Additionally, we do not believe that our proposal will have any adverse effects to the environment nor the character of the neighborhood. So thank you for your time tonight, and please feel free to ask any questions. Subtitles by américano Subtitles by américano Subtitles by américano

and that the garage would assist him greatly um what's the garage going to be used for really just storage of of the tools that he does have it's not going to be to run a business out of it in any shape or form it's for his cars his lawnmower and just storage personal storage okay so it's personal storage it's not sorry if i am a bit confusing for operating a business that's correct correct just personal storage okay and there is there a second story or an attic um there is a there is a second story over the proposed garage and that's just going to be unfinished space megan on the uh on the drawing it says proposed bonus room oh i'm sorry that should not be bonus room that should just say attic space correct that's what we're moving forward with right would there be any objection to a restriction that no portion of the garage whether it's the lower portion or the upper portion the attic space to use for habitable space no objection there is an objection oh there is an objection i'm sorry we would in the future i believe they would like to use that as as living space but not right now we have a secondary stairwell going up up to that space that would just be for them to use as a future living room

so the only utility you have up there at this point yes i'm sorry miss mcqueen ann marie if i if i may yes if i may didn't you just head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head [transcription gap] head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head The idea for that would be as their family grew, they might want to have space for just their family as they grow because they are getting married in I think the summer. So I imagine that they would like kids and like to have that space. It also is just a function of roof lines and the additional space that comes from that, from adding the garage. Leroy, you got any comments? Well, you know, most people when they build a garage, they like to build that second space for future use. Potentially even, you know, for a bed and, not a bed and breakfast, for an accessory apartment. You know, a young couple, you know, you want to try to help them have some kind of income towards the house. I don't have a problem. I don't have a problem with it. And if we put a condition on it, that could have them not have the ability to apply for that rental permit. So or a building permit to actually finish it. So it's a tough decision to make, but I don't have a problem with it. My only question, and I pose this to Heather. Is an accessory apartment. Permitted in this zoning district? Yes. That's residents B80. Okay. It doesn't matter. You know, maybe we could put a condition that they need to come back to us. If, if that apartment has to be built in the future. I just, I don't think it's necessary to put that restriction on that one in that particular case. I don't. I don't think it's necessary. [transcription gap] I don't think so. [transcription gap] any conditions that we put on this what they're applying for accessory they'd come back well accessory apartments are handled through the building department not through the zoning board so are we saying that they just have to make well it was just a suggestion on my behalf it doesn't have to be that way so we're not going to put a condition on it no matter what anyway for the building department right I mean it's for any alteration of that space which fire it in any way so let's move it forward please okay so mr. chairman with respect to appeal number 2024 0 3 oh I moved at the appeal of the man Cooper 154 Gregory way waiting river suffolk a tax map 600-58 dash 2-10 point 1 8 residents be 80 zoning for variances and or relief from chapter 301 dash 31 where proposed front yard setback is 40 three and a half foot and the minimum required is 60 where proposed rear yard setback is 32 foot and the minimum required is 75 and with a proposed side yard of budding road setback is 23 foot minimum required is 60 foot be granted in accordance with the applications and sketches with this amendment there to if any as filed with the building inspector second all right let's vote mr. Porsche are you all right mr. Zawiski all right this Godzilla hi and I vote aye so your variance has been granted and good luck don't forget about the right not only Ray Barnes thank you gonna have a bell or something all right thank you thank you guys

all right are we ready for the the last appeal okay appeal number 2024 dash 031 Jason and Jamie pastrano 834 soundshore road in Jamesport Suffolk County tax that number 600 dash 8 dash 1 dash 8 residents a 40 zoning single-family dwelling in-ground pool and legalize existing hot tub applicant request variances and early from chapter 219 dash 14 a 2 were proposed single-family dwelling in-ground pool and existing hot tub are not specifically allowed development under 219 dash 14 subsection B all development in bluff area is prohibited unless specifically allowed by 219 dash 14 subsection B and just a note we have all of the required documents affidavits and photos to open the hearing okay I know your lawyer we don't have to swear you in so please state your name and address good evening mr. chairman members of the board my name is Anton Borovina attorney I represent the applicants the owners of a subject premises located at 834 soundshore road in Jamesport and the applicants the names of the owners are Jason and Jamie pastrano the if I may I'm just let me just describe it currently exists on the property the property consists of approximately 1.07 acres of residentially improved land it is located within the a 40 residents district and the coastal erosion hazard area the applicant is here today requesting that the board issue a 219 variance allowing allowing the applicant to do the following you should know that it's going to be amended later on a few more minutes my presentation but let me tell you what we want to do in some in substance we want to demolish the existing residential structure that structure consists of a currently a one-story bungalow with a raised with a raised deck we then want to construct a new two-story single-family residential dwelling with a full basement and a and a patio located further distant from the from from you know from the from the bluff line and also construct a new 20 foot by 48 20 foot by 48 in ground in ground pool we also would installing a Fuji system septic system system so that's clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear [transcription gap] clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear to have the office area used as an office area, potentially a gaming area for the family. We will not be using it. We have no present intention of using it for habitable space. There's always a possibility down the road that the applicant may want to use it for a habitable space, and the applicant understands that upon such determination or desire, the applicant would be making the appropriate, requesting appropriate relief from the town, allowing the accessory structure to be used for habitable purposes. There is an existing hot tub. The applicant will be removing the existing hot tub. There is a drainage pipe located adjacent to the hot tub that encroaches within the buffer, within the bluff, I should say. That also will be removed. Now, that said, I wish to tell the board, after discussing, with the client and with Heather, who, by the way, did an outstanding job, I thank her for her assistance in helping us and have the process be guided accordingly for the board's presentation. The existing structure, that is the bungalow and the deck, is located at its closest point, is located 14 feet from the bluff line. Our application is to be amended so that our proposed structure, which consists of the pool, followed by landward of that, the patio, and landward of that, the home. The line of the pool will be located not close, at the same distance. That is 14 feet away, which is already the pre-existing, non-conforming distance approved and existing by virtue of the bungalow. So we're not encroaching any further, within the regulated area of the buffer zone. I submit that the application, if granted, would satisfy the criteria associated with section 219-9 of the town code, in that we submit it as reasonable and necessary for us to do. We are not in any way exacerbating or in any way adding to the application, the environmental impacts. Indeed, we will be alleviating them by virtue of our relocating the existing structure further landward and putting in the state-of-the-art septic system, as opposed to the old-fashioned, outdated one that currently exists. We will also be undertaking all measures necessary and appropriate to make sure that any environmental impacts are either mitigated substantially or avoided altogether. And we do not, there will not be any value, any environmental value that we think that will be compromised. Excuse me, how far in will you go landward with the proposed new house? You said you're moving it in? Yes, sir. How far? Well, the existing, currently with the house and the deck is currently, that line is 14 feet away from the bluff line. Actually, by the way, if I may, Mr. Chairman, there are, we've taken three measurements. We're using the most conservative one. The three measurements relative to the existing structure is 37.2 feet, 35 feet and 14 feet. So that portion of the existing structure closest to the bluff line, which is 14 feet, we're assuming for the sake of argument that the entire existing structure is 14 feet, which frankly is the more onerous or more obvious environmental matter that would be raised. Our proposed structure, Mr. Chairman, would be located at that line as well. It's not going to be any further to the lot line. Stated differently, the existing structure encroaches within the regulated area to the tune of 11 feet, but that's pre-existing non-conforming. And our new structure is also going to be encroaching to that same amount that is 11 feet. So, we will not be encroaching any further than that. And as I stated earlier, we will be removing the hot tub and we will be removing the drainage pipe as well. We also submit that our application satisfies the criteria associated with 219-20 in that there is really no alternative way to do this. We are undertaking all responsible means and methods to make sure that the construction of the new structure is in compliance with and will satisfy applicable environmental standards and we will not be exacerbating whatever values currently exist from an environmental point of view. We will also be conducting the construction in a manner that is safe and will not cause, once constructed, any flood or erosion damage and that the various requests that we submit is the minimum necessary. Our initial application, I must tell the Board, as I'm sure you may know, we wanted to have the structure even closer to the bluff line. We are moving it back so that it does not encroach any further than what currently exists on the bungalow and raised deck. I have with me, by the way, the applicant's architect, Phillip Rizzillo, and the engineer, Thomas Wolpert. I ask that Mr. Rizzillo come to the podium and answer any questions that the Board may have from a technical aspect and likewise the same with respect to the engineer. We are aware of an engineer, the town's engineer, has submitted its evaluation to the Planning Board, but also has given it to the attention of this Board. And I presume that you have already received the report. I'm sorry, I presume that you have already read it and if you have any questions from a technical aspect, from an architectural or siting point of view, or from an engineering point of view, we have Mr. Rizzillo and Mr. Wolpert to answer any questions. If you have any further questions, we'll be... Councillor. I do. Rizzillo, I don't know what he's doing. I have a question. Hold on. The survey that we have that we received in the packet to review this case, is it going to be different than what you're talking about? Because I'm looking at a survey that shows a two-bedroom cottage being proposed. Yes, sir. It will be different. You said that wasn't going to be the case. The answer is yes, and that is that the structure, the, how shall I say, the footprint of the structure as shown in that survey will actually... Right. The dimensions will remain the same, but it will be further landward so that the line closest to the bluff... Closest to the bluff coincides with the existing line of the bungalow and raised deck. But what we're looking at is not going to happen. Is that what we're saying? That's... We're going to change that? Yes, sir. We're going to amend that? Yes, sir. Okay. So in those amendments, and I have a little problem with the pool being in the front near the bluff line. I really do. I don't know how the other board members feel, but I would suggest that you reconsider placing it in front of the house and put it streetward behind the house towards the street. That's just me, and that's my opinion on this right now. And having a full basement near the bluff line, that could be dangerous to this environmental sensitive area. I would suggest that if you put the house where you're proposing it, that you do at least the front part of the house with a crawl spate and back further, put a foundation in, not the whole structure. That's just a suggestion I'm making. Well, thank you for your comment. May I say we have considered that. Okay. Our engineers here as a result, to answer any of those questions, obviously it's going to be further forensically examined when submitted to the planning board assuming that this board approves the 219 permit application. And that kind of information will be delved in with further detail. But to answer your general question, or your general, the issues that you have, we, it is, and our engineer intends to evaluate the premises and has evaluated the premises and can conclude and will be able to demonstrate in consultation with the town's engineer that the siting of the pool, as amended, and its location further landward will not adversely affect the integrity of the bluff line. And likewise, the home itself, now with a full basement, likewise will not affect, adversely affect the integrity of the lot line. So if I may. So we need an amended site plan then? Well, I would say. To make a decision, we need an amended site plan. Yes, you'll have an amended site plan for your records, of course. Okay. And at the same time, at the appropriate time, we will have our engineer to have a discussion with the town's engineer to address whatever issues they have. And our engineer will render a determination, will render a determination, based on his professional opinion, that the siting of the pool and the home of the structure, as amended, will not adversely affect the integrity of the bluff line. Okay. If I may. That's our biggest concern. Okay. Pertinent to your question, if you're going to have a pool and you're going to have a pool, I would like to. Yes, please. Okay. Is it fair to say that those, the engineers, our engineers evaluation of this is going to be. Is that addressable to this board or to the planning board or both? Both. In other words, whatever questions regarding the siting of the construction of the pool and the home with the full basement. Is that. [transcription gap] Do we have anything better than this? They're going to be amending it. It's going to be amended. But if you have, I've looked at the site plan. It seems to be, it seems to contain the pertinent information regarding the existing application. Mindful, it's going to be amended. And as Ms. Trojanowski just mentioned, it's going to be amended and we'll specify whatever specifications, both national and federal. Both narrative and in data form regarding the relocation of the proposed structure as compared to what we currently propose. So the amended will show that the pool is moved back? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Simultaneously on this survey, it's one story frame guest house. I'm sorry. A new survey. I'm sorry, go ahead. And I do have some comments. Please. I have a question. Leroy, were you finished? So the hot tub that is sitting on the bluff was placed there without benefit of a permit and with no certificate of occupancy, correct? From our information, yes. The prior owner, I don't know if the immediate predecessor or prior to that time may have installed the hot tub. But it's going to be removed. And I think next, there appears our engineer's report that there's been some clearing of the property without the benefit of a permit. Well, I visited the site and I am aware that landward of the existing dwelling, there seems to be, I see a disturbance. I'm not aware that it's a, I think it was done for protecting what was going to be done and what currently exists. Okay. But there was no permit for that activity, correct? I think, I'm not aware of, I don't believe so. I'm not aware of any permit. I'm sorry. Okay. Our architect, if I may. Hold on. Hold on. Pardon to your question. Does the garage being converted? Yes. Has the garage been converted to living space presently? Well, during the stewardship of the current owner, no. I can tell you from my understanding of, is that the prior owner would have occasion to visit the premises during the wintertime. The bungalow is not insulated. And it's not protected. And it's not insulated. So, I'm not aware. Okay. So, I'm not aware. I'm not aware. Okay. So, I'm not aware. Okay. So, I'm not aware. And it's not protected from the cult. And what the family has done when they have visited the premises in the wintertime is that it's been better for them because of, to use the accessory structure. That's my understanding of it. But in any event. I'm sorry. What? I can hear you. Justin? They would appreciate as what? That's not my internet. Yeah. Ann Marie, can you speak up a little bit? I'm here. [transcription gap] Ann Marie? You could probably raise her volume up. What? What? What would they use the accessory structure for? The accessory structure is going to consist of a office space potentially used for gaming purposes only, not for habitable space, and a bathroom. The actual garage component is going to be removed. So, actually, the proposed structure, as I just described, will actually be less of a of a presence than what currently exists. There's always the understanding, so there's full disclosure. There's a possibility, not that the applicant is currently thinking of it, but down the road, should there come a time when the applicant desires to use the accessory structure for habitable purposes, the applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Pastrana, understand that they would have to make the appropriate application to the town of Riverhead. Well, you're setting the application up for additional relief because pursuant to town code, an accessory apartment can be no greater than 650 square feet. So while you're amending the current structure, you're still sizing it over what would be permitted potentially later on. Thank you for that input. Be aware of that. Thank you. And obviously at the appropriate time, after all, the existing requirements, the existing structure already has a CFO and has already been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, I think in August of 2010. But should there come a time when we want to have an apartment, mindful of what you just mentioned, we would have to obviously look at that and apply for relief appropriate to the square footage requirements allowed for accessory structures used for an apartment. Just to make a note, this size... That's the problem. [transcription gap] The relief granted back in 2010 did not permit use of that structure for habitable space. So what you also must do when you amend your plans is amend your application because essentially what you're asking the Zoning Board of Appeals to do is to amend that determination. I would... No, I don't believe so in the following way. As we sit here today, the proposed accessory structure is going to be used for an office space with its potential as a gaming room. It's not going to be used for an apartment and for a bathroom. And the garage is going to be removed. So I would... That's what we're asking for today. With all due respect, the Zoning Board of Appeals grant of approval was for a garage with no habitable space. So you are, in fact, seeking to... Ask the Zoning Board to amend that relief. Well, if you... Explain on the face of the approval. Well, I'm aware what the approval stated in 2010 says. I understand that. But what was constructed in accordance with that approval was what was described as the office space and the bathroom and the carport associated with it. That was done approximately... My understanding is it was done approximately... Approximately at that time as a result of the ZBA in 2010 giving the approval.

Counsel, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm going to ask you to take a harder look. I'd like to move on. In your application, is this a four- or five-bedroom house? Because in the Zoning Board of Appeals application, you state it's a five-bedroom. And in the EAF, you state it's a four. On the survey as well. It's a four. I think it's four.

It's a four-bedroom. The proposed new structure... Okay, well, if you look at the Zoning Board of Appeals application under nature of relief, subsection three, you describe it as a five-bedroom. So you should correct that. To be corrected.

Next, in your application... Yes, we agree. We will, in addition to amending the survey, make that appropriate correction. Correct. Next, in the application, you make two significant statements. Quote, maintaining minimal disturbance, end quote. Quote, highest degree of environmental protection, of coastal hazard area, end quote. Yet, this proposal that you're presenting now is going to require excavation for a basement and excavation for a pool. Correct? Well, yes, the excavation to be done by hand, by the way. And yes, you are correct. It would require excavation for the new pool and for the basement. That is correct. So how is that maintaining minimal disturbance? Because relative to where the existing deck is, which itself is elevated on pilings, that already, we submit, is a disturbance within that area. And the house is a home, and the new home will be located landward of that. And... Okay. So, therefore, the... In as much as the activity would be even further away from where the already disturbed area is, consisting of the elevated deck, we believe that the construction would not exacerbate any environmental value associated with the, with the, its location to the bluff. So, if you intend to measure plans... I'm sorry. Go ahead, Ann Marie. You don't believe that excavation of a basement and a pool within the coastal hazard area, you believe that does not exacerbate, and instead that maintains minimal disturbance? Well, we will be... Is that your position? I'm sorry. To your good question, we will be maintaining minimal disturbance, at the appropriate time, and obviously subject to review. We'll be clear about what's under construction, so that's clear. We'll clear up accordingly. [transcription gap] We'll clear up accordingly. [transcription gap] We'll clear up accordingly. We'll clear up accordingly. avoided and once the building is in place that it will not exacerbate the environmental condition, its proximity to the bluff. And that construction therefore and including once the home is used will therefore satisfy the concerns that the board may have regarding its proximity to the bluff line. So your survey does not include any distances from the bluff and the way the application that was presented to the zoning board and the one that's before them now actually shows the pool actually on the bluff. Well, for the next planning survey should clearly show the distances from the bluff. We agree. Yes. What is the plan for all of the material excavated for the pool and the house, the basement? That would be included. That would be included in the on our in our submission. The submission of the amended site plan and to include how we intend to remove, dispose of the fill. Not only the anticipated quantity of the fill to be removed but that it would be located in, I'm sorry, removed to some other appropriate landfill or disposed of in some other way but certainly not on the property. Well, don't you think that would be the case? No. I think that would be significant for the zoning board of appeals to have that information. Well, I think it's... Well, because... Yes. The answer is yes. And... [transcription gap] If you keep it on site, you're significantly changing the topography of the property. Well, I'm saying a number of things here. In terms of the topography, I should tell you that the existing survey actually does its flat land essentially and there are points, topographical points delineated on the existing survey. Nevertheless, the amended survey that will describe the new location as I just gave in this presentation now will, to the extent necessary, provide even further topographical information and data but also will include, with detail, our estimate of the fill to be removed, the means and methods by which the fill is to be removed and that it's going to be removed at an appropriate location, not off premises. In the matter that, you know, in some other location that is permitted for acceptance of that kind of activity. So the survey, the amended survey document, site plan, will address those points. May I say the points that you're now raising were really brought to our attention only today when the engineering report of the town raised that as an issue to be addressed. And we intend to address it. And it will be addressed by the way. And where is the drainage location? I mean, I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. [transcription gap] Located. I'm sorry. And it will be addressed. It will be addressed by, in the amended survey. Site plan, I should say. I'm sorry. You said something else? About drainage? I think we're to the point now. Let's wait for the amended survey and site plan and amended application. And then we'll evaluate it and then have them come back. Great. I have one more issue, though, I must raise. Okay. So. I have a clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear [transcription gap] clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear And I believe planning staff, Heather in particular, requested that an expert provide a report regarding the wetland on the property. Heather Briccet... Heather Briccet... Yes. So, I provided the zoning board with a copy of my staff report and that is something I brought up. I spoke with the applicant's council and that's something that they are working on currently. Eric Green... We most certainly, we understand that. We also, we will be, by the way, may I say that our initial view is given that the proposed location of the structures is either further landward than our, I'm sorry, the amended proposed location is going to be even further landward of the bluff line that the, and there will not be any encroachment within the regulated area of the, of this pond or land. We do have clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear to look at the pond, that depressed area, I should say, and under the criteria of the New York State DEC, that consultant render an evaluation as to whether or not it is a protected wetland, subject to regulation under CEQA, and under the Town Code's Environmental Quality Review provisions. And if so, we understand we'd have to make further application to the CAC. That's correct. And it may impact the other site improvements that you have plotted out on the plan submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It's possible. And once the amended survey is prepared and then presented to this board, and to the extent that, and subject to the evaluation of our environmental consultant, of course, further review by the Town's environmental consultant as well, there may be, we will be addressing what you just said. I think, by the way, the appropriate jurisdiction is the CAC. Yes, the Conservation Advisory Council. Right. Yes. Right. So they would be addressing those issues, and obviously we'd have to respond to them satisfactorily. So I'd like to make a point. There are town-identified wetlands, and then there are DEC wetlands. So we have to make sure we know which wetland that was and how it was mapped. I can tell you. Are you familiar with those town maps, Heather? So on our GIS, it doesn't come up as a flagged wetland, but we've run into several instances where the maps that we have don't reflect the existing site conditions. There were a few properties just east of the subject parcel that had wetlands on them, but they weren't mapped. So those applications. I'll just clear this up so she's clear. I'll clear this up so she's clear. I'll clear this up so she's clear. [transcription gap] I'll clear this up so she's clear. [transcription gap] and then they went through the Conservation Advisory Council process. Greg Bergman, the senior planner, he's the liaison to that board. He's very familiar with what those applications are. Male Speaker 2. Male Speaker 3. Male Speaker 4. Male Speaker 5. Male Speaker 6. Male Speaker 7. Male Speaker 8. Male Speaker 9. Male Speaker 10. Male Speaker 11. Male Speaker 12. Male Speaker 13. Male Speaker 14. Male Speaker 14. Male Speaker 15. Male Speaker 16. Male Speaker 17. Male Speaker 18. Male Speaker 19. Male Speaker 20. Male Speaker 21. Male Speaker 29. [transcription gap] EEC issued their letter of no jurisdiction. And we still intend to address, as I stated earlier, whether or not that depression actually is a freshwater wetland. And if it is, obviously, we'd have to make the appropriate application for a relief before the CAC.

Anne-Marie? Okay. Well, I think we've covered everything to this point. I think so. So just to highlight, if I could, there's going to be an amended application. Portions of the application are going to be corrected. We're going to get a survey with distances from the bluff. We're going to have where drainage is identified. You're going to address whether it's cut and fill, hauling out, and the topography. I believe you need to seek to amend the grant of the variance from August 12, 2010. And you're going to address the wetland.

And any other concerns that Fini Guardiello had in his memo? I'm sorry, the last one. May I say this? I took notes, Anne-Marie, of your comments, address wetlands. It's still not clear to me that we have to seek to... based upon what I indicated, that we need to amend the variance, the ZBA variance that was granted in 2010, where it did say we're approving the accessory structure, but it cannot be used for habitable purposes, since we do not intend to use the premises for that purpose. It was an accessory structure as a garage. Yeah, I mean, on the application, it's for a two-bedroom cottage. So... You have to change that. That's an... We are aware of that, and no... You've got to take that off. That will be... The amended site plan will reflect the fact that the proposed structure represents a partial demolition of the existing structure by removal of the garage, keeping the bathroom, and having a room designated as an office space potential gaming room, period. Okay, so... Excuse me. The 2010 variance said no habitable space. There's a bathroom in there. That's habitable space. Because you've got the one-story frame guest bedroom. I assume the garage next is a portion of that. That portion of the garage is coming down. But then you have this proposed one-story exterior storage. Is that going to be a remnant of what's in the garage? I don't understand what that triangle is that's on the plan. Let me have our architect address that question. Right. Okay, we need to swear you in, sir. Raise your hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? So help you God. Yes, sir. Please state your name and address. Philip Rosillo, 82 Meadowbrook Road, South New York. Bring that mic up a little, sir, so we can hear you. Thank you. So regarding the accessory structure, so there is a bit of a typo in the survey. That space is an office space with a bathroom. And... And a pretty open space with two rooms. The idea here is to remove the existing garage and provide storage for lawnmowers, tools, garden tools, and things like that. That's what the triangle is. So that triangle is still kind of in where the existing garage was, but the garage is going to go and they're going to build a new storage structure there? Not exactly. So the existing structure, which is basically this office, the garage is right attached to it. We're removing that and then putting the storage on the opposite side. So that they can enter more in line and access with the center of the property. So it's basically, it's hard to explain, but removing the garage and then putting the accessory here, the storage here, so that you can go through the center. Okay. So at the end of the day, three independent structures on the property? Well, it's all connected. It's on the one roof and it's sitting on the foundation that was there, the slab. It's not... Is it almost going to be like a breezeway between the... It's a breezeway. It's a breezeway. Exactly. So it's basically... That's one slab, one roof. And we're basically just putting this triangle under that same roof. Got it, I think. It's a modern structure. Okay. I look forward to your amended side plan. Okay. Would you also indicate a setback from the bluff for those structures in this amendment, in your amendment? Yes. We'll have all the setbacks from the bluff. And also, we're kind of suggesting that the pool be a little smaller. I think we can do that as well. Yes. We talked about that. I think one of the things that when you look at, just to kind of go through and maybe summarize some of the points that were made, if you work from the front of the roadside of the property, you know, we do have this kind of pond area with an existing driveway leading to a parking area, an open space, and then this accessory structure, and then there's some field, and then the existing house. The space between the existing structure and the existing house is what we're kind of condensing, and we're trying to put our septic system in there as well as our drainage. We do have a very elaborate drainage system that will handle 100% of the water that falls on any impervious surface. They're not shown on the survey, but they're on drawing A113, which is our architectural set. Would you be able to provide me with a PDF of that? Absolutely. Thank you. And so that shows that we are picking up 100% of the stormwater and any water that falls on impervious surfaces, roofs, patios. Even the pool has its own. So that's something that we can provide to the board. But, again, this is a very linear site. It's tight, so the space is kind of limited. So if we're kind of pushing and pulling, we were able to redesign the septic system prior to this meeting, and that allowed us to kind of scoot everything back landward to what Anton has been talking about this evening. So we're doing everything we can to kind of get, you know, all of the function in there and try to reduce the impact on the bluff. Okay. Well, have you considered any alternative designs as recommended by Leroy Barnes of locating the pool in between south of the house? We have. And the issue with that, again, comes to our septic system sitting in between there and the proper setbacks from the septic system. So that, you know, that's a bit of a... Well, couldn't it be... Couldn't it be... [transcription gap] Could the septic system sit where you're proposing a basketball court? And really mitigate the impacts to the coastal hazard area? I mean, I didn't consider moving it into the front of the property beyond that. I mean, obviously, we'd have to go around the accessory structure.

Right. May I say, the proposed septic system, I can tell you, is designed... ...is designed... by by Fuji clean it's already been approved and certified for advanced septic system use particularly on the east end of Long Island by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services so we're putting in a a much more improved state-of-the-art septic system as compared to what currently exists on the property and I and I think that should be taken into account for purposes of keeping the proposed septic system Fuji clean where we would like to have it and frankly not and having the pool well subject to as I indicated the amended site plan located for the landward but between the proposed dwelling and the and the line of the bluff with the encroachment being no further than what currently exists Council with all due respect these advanced septic systems for the a project such as this is a requirement by Suffolk County Health Department so yes it's improved but it's a requirement oh I agree it's not like you're voluntarily doing me oh oh well okay but I did not mean to say that we're giving something that we had to give we understand that under the Suffolk County Sanitary Code um uh that that a a advanced uh septic system is required we're simply saying saying that as a matter of record that that that septic system is going to be is will be a dramatic improvement over the old-fashioned septic system that's currently in place uh and as a result the overall impact I'm sorry it doesn't address whether or not it could be relocated to accommodate the pool south of the house well I do think that circumstances how the property is currently configured that it is not unreasonable to have the pool located in its new proposed location for the landward uh uh uh as as you know and that the board consider that in in determining to grant the 219 application well I guess it will all depend on the new revised plan that is submitted I mean it's kind of difficult to talk about it because in one part you're talking about the revised plan but the only plan the zoning board of appeals has before it is actually significantly different from what you're describing and we and we agree obviously the what we have in front of you is different than what we intend to do and obviously you will get and entitled to have and to review the amended site plan in the matter that I just discussed uh tonight okay excuse me Ann Marie Ann Marie yes oh I think we've had enough discussion how long it would take to get the amendment how long will it take you to do this men that site plan I mean I think we could turn this around in a week or so how about a month which would be so today we're not going to have another meeting in March but we will have one meeting in the no we're first of December right yeah so then so then would full on Thanksgiving Thanksgiving and Town Hall is closed so we won't be holding a Zoning Board meeting that night so the following meeting would be the second Thursday in December which is the 12th is that love talking to you December 12th so clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear clear do by the way I think it's doable is given the that the hearing is December the 12th this is that we make sure that we give Heather we will give to you the amended site plan for distribution yeah every everything you need to resubmit you can submit to me please do yes all right so anyone else have anything more to add I make a motion we join us to the 712th second all right mr. Barnes motion to adjourn the December time mr. Porsche all right mr. so I mr. Barnes no I also say I so thank you very much all right and please be ready for us we do we have we have minutes from October 10th I may have a motion that they be approved all in favor aye motion to adjourn all in favor aye good

you

! you

[transcription gap]