Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'm going to call the meeting to order at 730. Roll call, William Johnston. Here. Thomas Graffagnino.

Here.

Lynn Colligan. Here. Lisa Krekeler.

Here.

Phil DiIorio is here. We also have President Tim Hill, GBA attorney. First order of business is to review and approve the May 20, 2026 minutes. Can I have a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion. I'll second it.

All in favor? We have one resolution, and that is for 89 North Ferry Road McGill. Christina, will you? Give us a synopsis of this, please.

Application by Charles McGill for an area variance at 89 North Ferry Road, Schultz Rd, New York, Suffolk County Fact Map 700-14-4-19. This is a type 2 action and not first required. The subject property is located on North Ferry Road in the CA zoning district. Applicant is seeking to construct a detached accessory structure consisting of a garage and two bedroom accessory dwelling unit. The applicant requests an area variance for relief from the town requirements. The town code section 133-17, which provides that an accessory apartment may be sited on a legal non-conforming lot, which contains no less than 75% of the district's lot area requirement. Here, the lot for the C-zone is 40,000 square feet. 75% of such lot area is 30,000 square feet. Accordingly, since the subject lot is 22,129 square feet, it is deficient by 7,871 square feet. And this tolerance constitutes the request variance. The applicant modified the proposal such that there is no request for variance with respect to the height of the retaining wall. Additionally, relocated the shelf. Resolution of the board is to approve the request for area variance relief from the town requirements of the town code section 133-17 ADU lot area to construct an ADU. On the property upon the conditions that first there shall be no additional living quarters on the parcel and second applicant shall install and maintain 10 feet driveway as shown on the submitted plans in the board's file.

I have a motion to approve the resolution. I'll make that motion.

I'll second.

All in favor. All right, so we have 2 applications in front of us tonight. The 1st is.

44 gardener's bay alpha nest llc christina where you go it's a rundown on the applicant legal notice hearing an application that often tells the owner of 34 gardener's bay drive show trial in new york which is located in zone aa within the nearshore oval industry more specifically described on the sepulchral county tax map as 700-1-2-73.3 the applicant seeks to live from the requirements of the family section 133-6b6 The permit proposed construction of a primary dwelling, full house farm, and condition storage building, resulting in a total of 10,081 SFLA, where 5,900 is allowed. There was a... Correspondent received... We received updated groundwater evaluation from the applicant. We received memo from the town engineer, memo from environmental consultant, Theresa Mason, and a landscaping plan.

i mean just uh sorry to interrupt but i think on the uh resolution we need to take a roll call vote oh sorry about that um all right let's go back to the resolution for 89 north ferry road mcgill we're going to take a roll call vote to approve that resolution do we need another motion tim are we good with the old motion good with the motion take the role okay uh william johnson yes tom graffino yes

when colligan yes lisa crackler no and i'm voting yes motion carries 4-1 sorry lisa i didn't realize that you were voting well that we had just done to that was just the roll call before was just to for what was this for thank you yeah okay all right very good

All right. Sorry. Can we?

I think the notice is in the record now. It's been. Okay.

All right. Is there anyone here to present again for AlphaNet?

Yes, Matt Sherman, Sherman Engineering Consulting. I'm here with Alex Hellers on Zoom as well. He's the owner's representative, as well as Jim Taylor, who's the architect on the project. I'll just give a real quick recap of what happened last time. um i don't think we need to belabor any of those points but we've got a six acre developed property um on the uh on the open water on the north side of the island um we had in 2023 we had a excuse me special permit application that was um with the town board in order to basically uh um apply for this same project just some some minor differences from that original application We had gotten through the hearing. We'd gotten through the follow-up. The hearing had been closed. We'd gotten through the follow-up work session, and I believe we were poised to get an approval when the town put its moratorium on the special permits for large houses. Rather than fight that, we'd The property owner decided to just sit back, let the dust settle, and then come back for whatever process it was that the town had, whatever the town came up with at the time, and which that's bringing it back to you guys for the zoning variance for anything over 6,000 square feet. So that's what brought this application into play. At the last hearing, we described the project, described what the buildings were going to be like. We did discuss one change to what was applied for in the letter of denial and the initial ZBA application. And what that change was is there was an old two-bedroom or old cottage on the property. We had discussed it last time how it had been moved from Garner's Farm somewhere else on the island. And that building was is part of the square foot living area that we're applying for for you guys tonight. The only change was the property owner wanted to add a half bath so that the building could be used as some other way, not sleeping because it's only a half bath, but then it could be used as an office, as a gym, as a workshop or something along those lines. So something, a convenience in that property or in that building, excuse me. So the square foot living area, the zoning variance request remains exactly the same. It's the same square foot living area. Again, what we're talking about for that is 10,115 square feet. That's the total square foot living area for the buildings on site. That's spread out amongst the proposed single family dwelling, the existing pool house that's on site. this cottage that's existing on site, and then 57 square feet in a barn or a maintenance building. And that maintenance building has also got a half bath, but that's been part of the program from the beginning. One of the things that the board had asked for was a revised groundwater evaluation, which, as noted earlier, we provided. The town engineer had weighed in saying that it was, in essence, I'll just boil it down, but basically that it was a generally reasonable, that the findings presented in the report, excuse me, were generally reasonable. And he noted the fact that we're talking about the removal of groundwater fed irrigation. He also cited that The idea of having a 12 gallon per minute well and a 500 gallon storage tank in order to soften the groundwater impacts on site was a good idea. He took it another step further and suggested that we use a variable speed pump in order to even further lessen possible impacts on groundwater. And we're perfectly fine with that if the board would like to make that a condition of an approval. Variable speed pump, not a problem at all. That makes perfectly good sense. The groundwater report also went to Teresa Mason, the town's environmental consultant, and she also noted that the parcel was three times the maximum required for the district. She had said that the benefit sought cannot be achieved by alternative methods. um and that based on the review of aerial photographs the subject premises is an oversized lot within the community she does note that most of the surrounding properties do contain smaller dwellings that's something that we talked about at the first hearing we also mentioned that the property immediately adjacent to this which is six and a half acres, about a half an acre of that is wetlands. So basically if you take the wetlands out, it's the same size property, a six acre property. And that one was approved by special permit for 10,779 square feet living area. So a little bit, basically the same size property, a little bit bigger square foot living area on the adjacent property. um teresa's uh note she also mentioned that we're taking out the existing irrigation uh or excuse me existing uh um well-fed irrigation and we're going to be using cisterns something that she noted which we have looked at but it's really not feasible the way that the buildings are laid out is having all of the roof leaders feed storm water into a cistern that would be used for irrigation The main house is going to be far enough away from where we would want to place the cistern, which would be down by the tennis court. The main house is far enough away that's really not practical to send that stormwater back to where that cistern is. So we would look to feed that cistern with an off-island water source. The benefit of that is that the stormwater that does get captured from that roof and put into the leaders and into the ground by the way of dry wells will directly recharge groundwater. So even though that groundwater is continuing to move out toward the shoreline, toward open water, it is replenishing the groundwater from whatever is falling on the site. One of the other things on Teresa's report was larger building. It's going to have larger energy demand. That was something we discussed initially. In order to mitigate it, she suggested the use of geothermal. Sean Spivey, shelter island does not allow geothermal we would love it if shelter island did I think that there's a lot of definite environmental benefits that could be could be obtained if. Sean Spivey, The island went back to allowing certain geothermal systems to be installed she'd also mentioned solar or a combination of different different things along those lines and then the last thing that she had mentioned was the screening. to offset any potential visual impacts on surrounding neighborhood, and that's that Hollander plan that was delivered to the town today. I believe you got hard copies of it, but it may have come in too late. I'm not sure if you got hard copies of it today or not, but there is a PDF that we sent in that I believe has been posted. So that's basically the open items that we had left from the last hearing. I believe that that should handle everything that the questions that the board had, unless they've created more questions, those answers, or if in the time that the board's had to think about the application from the initial hearing that you do have other questions and either I or Jim or Alex would be happy to answer.

Matt, are they considering solar?

No, they're not considering solar. Their reason, I don't know if it's never been discussed with me. I don't know if there would be an aesthetic or other type of concern or consideration. I don't know. Jim. Is that something that that you've discussed with the property owner?

It isn't something we've discussed with the owner, but just thinking about this and just reacting off the cuff, and actually I'm going through this on my own house right now, so I'm familiar with the issues at stake. The main house is oriented north-south, and because it's a shingled house and it has pitched roofs, I don't think just off the cuff that it lends itself to an efficient deployment of PV. That being said, I would have to discuss with Odo before being definitive about that. I'm not optimistic it would work very well.

Aesthetically or functionally?

Aesthetically. Functionally, it's problematic to break up PV arrays into smaller pieces. you know would that work here i i couldn't really say i i'd need a i'd need a technical opinion from a pv installer to be really sure about that but my gut feeling is and having just gone through this on my own house this roof is too complex and doesn't have enough south-facing square footage that would you know make a pv array reasonable or productive thank you

Matt, I have a question for you. Yeah. Shows where the proposed cistern is going, because I'm looking at the original site plan and I don't see that.

We didn't have one initially. I can supply one and it'll be over by where the tennis court is. We really came up with the idea with the cistern when the town started talking about revising the irrigation code. If the town's going to revise the irrigation code, let's get ahead of it and take the existing irrigation. It's a legal groundwater fed irrigation system. Let's just jump the gun, get it out of there and put in a new put in a cistern and cistern fed system. So I can certainly provide that to the board.

I think that's a really positive thing, especially for this large piece of property. Do you know how big the cistern is that you're installing, planning to install?

It would be at least 8,000 gallons, which is what the town requirement is. I'd have to check with the contractor to see if they're recommending something larger than that. But I'll include that on the drawing.

That would be great.

Thank you. What kind of flow would you have out of that? That's above my pay grade. I'd have to talk to the irrigation consultant and the landscape designer to see what they would actually be looking at for that. I'm just curious how often this will have to be filled. Yeah, that's a very realistic issue, and that's kind of the biggest thing of the 8,000 gallons is the minimum required by town code. In other projects that we've worked on, we've installed larger ones, 10,000, 12,000 gallons, in order to minimize the amount of truckloads that have to come over and get a longer time span out of a fill. Um, we can also take to some of what Teresa had said, take some of her recommendations into play and feed some of the dry, the roof leaders from the barn from the, the existing cottage feed those into it as well. So that's going to help minimize some of the, um, some of the need to refill it with off island water. It's obviously not going to replace it because you're just not getting that much rainwater from those buildings, but it will help minimize that. And that's something I can, um, You know, I can put that on the drawing as well, what the anticipated usage would be.

I'm curious, like how many nights a week the irrigation would be running? How many gallons per night you'd be using? Like, is this a thing that the truck have to come every week or does the truck ever come every month? Or, you know, I just don't know. I'd just be curious to know. Yeah, I'll put that in. Yeah.

It depends on what plants I put in. Right.

I understand that. But I mean, that's got to be part of it.

And how often it rains and stuff.

Yeah. But as sort of like a dry summer kind of thing, I'd be curious to know. Because some plants, you don't need much water. I understand that. Yeah.

Yeah. We'll do a worst case, probable case scenario.

Yeah. OK. Anybody else have any other questions? Tim, is there anything you feel like we need to any answers? We're missing any questions on asked. Matt, is there anything else that you would like to present on behalf of your client?

No, I believe we're, we covered everything between last hearing in this 1. I think that we've said everything that that I feel is relevant, but obviously, if there's anything else the board would like, I can, I can certainly get it to you in a timely manner. Okay, so, I mean, there were just.

I think that's the one thing is the flow and also the updated site plan with the cistern placement on it. Yep, absolutely. Yep. Okay. So can we, let me just get back.

And Matt, Matt, I appreciate you going through the exercise of, you know, getting this, you know, having the additional environmental thing, because I feel that it was extremely helpful.

Yeah, absolutely.

So I really appreciate it.

You know, and I'm glad that we did that, especially because they agreed with us. So anytime I can get that to happen, I'm all for it.

Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment on this application? Is there anyone else out in... The zoom land that would like to comment on this application. Is there a hand up there? Christina.

So, I see a mouse.

Okay. Okay. All right. So. I think I would like to get a motion to close the hearing, leaving an open written comment until. Until June 17th, is it? So the 17th will be the work session until June 10. We'll leave it open to written comment and take it up with our work session on the 17th. Can I have a motion to call? I have a motion. Is there a hearing? I'll second. All in favor?

Aye.

OK. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, Matt. All right, next up. Let me just get my hand on here.

There was a supplement of filing dated April 7th, 2026, and letters of support were received from Andrea Ward, 12 St. Mary's Road, Donna Vincent, 3 Lower Ram Island Road, and Jean Pepper, Day 7 of Burns Road.

Is there someone here that wishes to present for 44 St. Mary? Deputy Chairman Garrido,

Even the form of the interpretation of the code or variants from the board for the 44 St. Mary's to allow for the garage space to be conditioned space. I started on the plan for six people to care about pre, before moving to shelter. And we're now DBA. So, I understand and appreciate your time. The interpretation of the argument, which we presented. With substantial testimony and documentation in the March meeting, so I'm going to be brief about this. Basically, under the code is currently written applicant contends that garage spaces are not included in the square put into limitations on condition space. So, therefore, that determination by the building inspector is included. It's not correct. And we believe should be granted. That funnels into the 2nd of the interpretation argument, and that is the reliance on the building inspectors early interpretation on the subject. Email dated February 21st, 2025, or it's not only the interpretation argument. But it's also harm the applicant since we're not for this reliance. on those communications with the building inspector advocate would not have closed on the property and would not have developed developed it this far that being said there's an alternative argument um if your favorable interpretation is not granted by the board applicant believes that a variance is warranted for this property because of the following reasons the benefit applicant stands to receive to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The addition of heat, pump, and air condensers to the building simply will not have any impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. To go through the factors as outlined in the New York State guidelines, there's no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood nor detriment to nearby properties by granting said area variance. The benefits sought cannot be achieved by some other method. The variance is not substantial given that it is a garage. It is already built within the current code standards within setbacks of the property and it will not be used as an accessory structure with sleeping or cooking. It will not have adverse effect on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood and the difficulty here is not self created. Taking those factors into account, the area variance should be granted that is low, no impact on the neighborhood and the structure is already built and the variance simply goes to the conditioning of the space. Few more items in support of the request. Advocate agrees to covenant that the garage space will not be used as an accessory structure in sleeping or for cooking. Advocate also agrees to covenant that the property will reduce future potential density by restricting any future subdivision of the property to four lots. The neighbors who were at the last meeting in March had comments. submitted that they no longer have an objection and they don't have a problem with address their concerns. So in closing, Ken Tropin and I have roots in the community. We care about Shelter Island. I'm from Sike Harbor. Ken's been here a long time, since the 80s. We love it here. We want to do right by the community by our neighbors. We believe that this plan for the property, which is now largely developed already is a net positive outcome, reducing the density. It could have been 6 houses. It's not, which could take 6 to 10 years to build. This should hopefully be done in the next. 18 months, so I thank you for your time and support as any questions. I'm happy to address.

I just want to ask Tim a question. Tim, what's the process here now? We have a request for an interpretation, and then we also have the variance request. I don't know what we're supposed to do first.

you know, because the two things are together, it's... Yeah, well, as framed by the applicant, the variance request is made in the alternative. So you would decide the interpretation issue first, which may moot the second part if it's in their favor. And if it's not, then you would proceed to the variance analysis.

Okay. And would we do... this at a work session?

Yes.

We're not going to hash out an interpretation here tonight. Correct. Okay.

You can ask questions. You heard from the prior hearing their argument about it. You can ask me questions, but the ultimate deliberation over that would happen at the work session. Okay.

So, I guess, does anyone have any questions right now?

Yeah. Is part, Tim, of the rationale for the first condition the comma and what's included in the antecedent and what followed it? Is that part of that?

Well, that's Mr. Bennett's argument. You will arrive at your own interpretation. The only thing I might add here for the applicant to address or not, or for boards consideration is that I believe, you know, a large focus of. The interpretation argument was addressed to. Definition of in the definition section of the code, there is also. You know, the actual regulation that. Um, was the basis for the turn down letter and I think. In in doing your own deliberations, you'll have to reconcile. Not just the definition in isolation, but as that term is used in the section in 1, 3310. Where the, the restriction exists. Okay.

Thank you.

There's a. This is another layer to their interpretation argument, which is not typical interpretation argument. They kind of making it in this, but. And legal is, is an estoppel argument that there was reliance on communications with the building, but. We can discuss at the work session, whether that type of argument really informs an interpretation analysis. Okay.

Does anybody else have any other interpretation questions before we move on to possible variance questions? No, that was it. Thank you. Anybody have any variance questions? So I did see that the neighbors said that they were happy with the new plan for the condensers. I think that you seem to have made good with those folks. You know, I, I don't know. I, I don't really have much else on that.

Anybody else I just wanted clarification from the applicant regarding the HVAC system itself because I know you have the condenser units and there was, I know When we did a site visit with the contractor, he mentioned interior duct work, but then at the. Hearing there was talk of many split units instead. So I just want clarification of what exactly is going in the building.

It's 2 carrier 5 time heat pumps and that's it and they're relocated to the far side of the building. 100 feet from the line. 144 feet from the deck of that closest neighbor. And then we did the noise analysis, acoustic analysis was submitted where conservative estimates would put it at about 20 at the deck and a whisper is 25.

Okay, and what about the, is there interior duct work going to be present?

There is interior duct work, yes.

And no mini splits?

No.

Okay. I just wanted clarification because there was some There is different information, so thank you.

At the last hearing Mr. Bennett preferred that there was going to be a limit of 3 lots created in a subdivision. Any future subdivision he said, he said, because the barn has to go into 1 of them.

So, fair enough chairman. That's assuming, let's say the subdivision was a 100 years from now. And the guard is no longer there. Right? That would be a different scenario. Under the current plan, it would realistically have to be three lots.

If I may, I thought the concept was if you're going to have that accessory structure live on a separate lot, that lot is going to have to be and it would end up merging two of those lots, so you'd end up with three. But if you want to say three, I don't care.

So for me, I don't think for a second that you folks are going to be subdividing. All right. I don't think for one second. But I am thinking about whether it's 50 years, 100 years from now and whatever, the fewer lots being grown out of this in the future, I think the better.

If you want to say three, that's

from six to three okay beautiful thank you very much yeah great anyone else and we we talked about I think no events taking place in the garage only the storage of the cars like other traditional shelter out rules and regulations that if someone someone wanted to have we wanted to have like a grandkid get married there for example we would have to go through the proper channels to allow that but there's no intention to use this as commercial space there's no intention to have events Yep, thank you.

Anyone else? Is there anything else you would like to present?

I don't think so, right?

Mr. Bennett? No?

Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in the audience who would like to comment on this application? Is there anyone in Zoom land that would like to opine on this application? No? OK, so is it all right with all of you if we were going to close this and go to the 10th for written submissions and 17th to discuss in a work session? Jim, is there anything else that you think that we need to hash out here before we head to a work session?

No, I think we just respected the variance, decided their position on the five factors. You'll do the same at the work session. I think the. The issue with respect to the variance is framed in a way that work through it and get decision.

Okay. And then the interpretation, you feel like we have all the information we need to. To start hashing this out of the works.

yes um like i said i think the one thing that uh was not fully explored last time but it's in the code itself is just the the plain language of 133 10. okay and we can discuss that at the work session very good all right so can i have a motion to close the hearing i'll make a motion i'll second all in favor thank you thank you thank you

very much thank you can i have a motion to close the meeting at 8 0 3 p.m i'll make the motion second all in favor aye aye