Village of Dering Harbor
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Minutes DRAFT
February 11th, 2022, 10:00 AM

● The meeting was called to order at 10:05am.
● Attendance: Susannah Rose (chairperson), Mickey Kostow, Bridgford Hunt, George Birman, Stephanie Deutsch, Vicki Shields (village clerk), Wayne Bruyn (village
attorney), Donna Ritzzmann (Tim Hogue’s stenographer), Jeff Bragman, Melinda Carroll, Eric Deutsch, Kevin Calrk, Debra Nelson, Ted Nelson, Kimberlea Rea, Samunel Ashner,
Kirk Ressler, Brad Goldfarb, Rob Ferris, Julie Farris, Jim Rich, Peter Reich, Annmarie Seddio, Devon Cross, Kimberly Carey ● A motion to accept the minutes from the January 15th meeting was made by Susannah and seconded by Mickey. 4 votes in favor, 1 abstention (Stephanie).
● Next meeting date- March 12, 2022- Susannah will not be able to attend and George may not be able to attend.
● Old Business

Continuation of Public Hearing – Building Permit Application

Submitted by Annmarie Seddio (property owner)
SCTM# 701 – 1 – 3 – 21.1
Street Address: 2 Dering Woods Road, Dering Harbor
Building permit application for new construction of a 2-story dwelling, garage, and swimming pool.
The applicant requested an adjournment in writing, which Vicki made part of the record.

A motion for a resolution to adjourn this public hearing, at the applicant’s request, until
the next meeting of the ARB was made by Susannah and seconded by George. 4 votes in
favor, 1 abstention (Stephanie).

● New Business

Public Hearing – Building Permit Application

Submitted by Yoshimi Kono (property owner)
SCTM# 701 – 1 – 3 – 16.3
Street Address: 3 Dering Woods Lane, Dering Harbor

Building permit application for new construction of dwelling, garage, swimming pool, and tennis court.

Susannah asked Vicki if she had received everything needed for the ARB to hear this application. She responded yes and confirmed that she had received proof that the applicant had noticed his neighbors (per village code) and submitted the Affidavit of Mailing.
A motion to open the public hearing was made by Susannah and seconded by Rob Ferris.
Stephanie Deutsch stated for the record that she has recused herself for this application. In light of this recusal, Susannah appointed Rob Ferris (an ARB alternate) to fill the vacant seat for this application.
Kevin Clark (Historical Concepts), Yoshimi Kono’s architect, made his presentation. This was his second time presenting to the board, the first being back in June where he received generally positive feedback regarding the design. His approach to this design is to understand the place, the guiding principles of the village, and to design something that is in keeping with the character of the place.

Questions from ARB:

● Mickey Kostow asked about the big opening in the screen porch. He wasn’t sure if it was glazed or open. Kevin explained that the porch is
screened in on 3 sides.
● Rob Ferris asked about the patio next to the pool. He also had a question about the choice to site the front of the house and the tennis court so close
to the setback line. Susannah suggested that would be better left for the discussion portion of the meeting.
● George Birman asked why the applicant downgraded the roofing from natural to asphalt. Kevin explained that it was for a variety of reasons. They originally wanted to do asphalt, but had switched to natural when the plan changed to natural siding. But when they decided that the siding would be painted white, they went back to an asphalt roof.

Public comments:

1. Susannah read an email from Ari and Margarita Benacerraf. Vicki made the email part of the record.
2. Kimberly Carey commented and referred to a meeting she and the surrounding neighbors had with Mr. Kono. She is very concerned of the placement of the tennis court, being so close to her property. She is extremely disappointed that nothing has changed about Mr. Kono’s choices of siting, even after hearing her concerns during that meeting.
3. Brad Goldfarb commented that he is a big fan of Kevin Clark and his firm’s work. He is disappointed that the roofing material has been changed from cedar to asphalt. He thinks in this particular design, the roofline is of utmost importance. He is also concerned about the siting and the fact that it is not facing the road like other houses in the village. He wants to see
designs that meet the needs of the homeowner while not looking like a suburban subdivision. In his opinion, it’s the little cues that are critical in keeping with the character of the village.
4. Sam Ashner commented that he thinks the revisions to the actual structure have improved from earlier versions. He has the same concerns as Brad about siting and choice of roofing materials.
5. Devon Cross commented that her biggest concern is how pushed out the design elements are to the perimeter. She feels that this house is setting a precedent for what gets built in the future and thinks it looks more appropriate for the Hay Beach area than the Village of Dering Harbor.
6. Eric Deutsch’s comments echoed a lot about what has already been said about the siting and feels personally, as one of Mr. Kono’s neighbors, that it is intrusive. Similar to Brad, he is concerned about how this house will look from the road. There are plenty of instances where the ARB has guided and requested applicants to reconsider siting of structures. He is
also opposed to an asphalt roof. He thinks the design of the house is an improvement over previous designs, but doesn’t think there has been any further improvements, just a downgrade of the materials.
7. Kirk Ressler had a general question about zoning setbacks and asked if the ARB believe that it has jurisdiction over requesting an applicant re-site their house, even if they meet set-back requirements. Susannah asked Wayne to address Kirk’s question, which he did. Wayne referred to the section in the code (Section 230-65) that outlines the standards that the RB
needs to apply to every application.
8. Susannah read an email from Patrick Parcells, which she asked Vicki to make part of the record.
9. Melinda Carrol, new owner of 16 Harbor Lane (formerly Baker residence) commented that she appreciates the great sensitivity that the ARB brings and appreciates what is done in the village to keep the character and historic nature of the village. It’s one of the reasons why she and her husband bought in the village.
10. Eric Deutsch further commented on Patrick’s email regarding his experience when Jason Weisenfeld built his house that because of the distance between the structures, the sensitivity of siting is very different. Eric also stated that the zoning code does not equal ARB compliance.

The public comment period was closed.

ARB comments:

● Bridgford said he likes the design a lot and thinks it fits in with the village. In response to a comment that was made about siting and how all the houses in the village are in the middle of lots, Bridgford showed an aerial photo showing instances of structures cited off center and near property lines. To him, it seems unfair to be asking for anything more from the applicant than what is in the zoning code. In response to comments made about the applicant’s choice of an asphalt roof, he wanted to remind the ARB members that many of the homes cited in the Design Principles have asphalt roofs. He also expressed his concern about the safety of a cedar roof, as an ex-fire chief. He went on to read two paragraphs from a letter that was written to the general manager of the Shelter Island Heights Historic District from an engineering firm regarding the safety of asphalt roofs over the aesthetic appeal of wood shingles. The letter was made part of the record.
● Mickey Kostow echoed Bridgford’s comments about citing. He said that near his house, Richard Smith’s tennis court was built right on his setback line and Mickey has no issue with it. He also commented that he doesn’t agree with the view that the voice of an asphalt roof is a downgrade. It is simply another material that can be used. He would challenge anyone who
thinks they could tell the difference between an asphalt and wood shingle roof at the distance the house would be from the road. In terms of the overall design, he thinks Mr. Kono has listened to the feedback from the village and responded well. He knows it’s hard as an architect to build a modest house and gave Kevin Clark kudos for doing a great job. He thinks
the citing of the garage is good and sensitive to the neighbor, as well as the pitch of the roof. He noted that a lot can be done with landscaping to shield an unwanted view of something. Lastly, he commented that he feels that as long as a design meets the setback requirements in the code, it’s good.
● Rob Ferrris commented that a majority of the comments from the public and ARB members are related to siting and materials. He wonders if it’s possible to move the driveway, motor court, and tennis court inward. He thinks the saltbox design of the garage is really cool but is concerned that it is right on the setback line. He suggested the applicant listen to the
concerns of their immediate neighbors. Kevin explained that if they move the tennis court more northward, the landowner will lose some of the old growth trees that they are trying to keep. Kevin also noted that it is not right on the setback line but more like 5’ in. Rob also commented that he would like them to go back to the cedar roof as opposed to the asphalt.
● George Birman commented that he doesn’t think that the examples that Bridgford gave of other houses and structures having been built near or on their setback lines are the same situation as the design they are considering. It’s a unique lot and therefore requires unique consideration. He doesn’t think the process of approval is hard if an applicant takes into
consideration the concerns of their neighbors and the feedback that’s been given to them. With respect to the choice of roofing material, he doesn’t think that the safety concern is a legitimate reason for the choice and that he thinks it has more to do with wanting to cut a corner cost wise. He agrees with Devon Cross that this is a precedent house and thinks
everyone who plans to build in the village should be prepared to build something that is of very high quality.
● Susannah Rose commented that she does not struggle with the siting like other residents and members of the ARB do. She personally appreciated their attempt to save old growth trees. She is ok with the siting. She thinks landscaping is a big part of this in mitigating any aspects of neighboring properties that neighbors do not like. She feels strongly that asphalt roofs
are not in keeping with the flavor and style of the village moving forward. She stated that cedar roofing material is approved as a safe building material and strongly favors it. She went on to comment on the architectural elements of the design and encouraged the other ARB members to do so, if they haven’t already. She is assuming that if ARB members do not have comments, that they are ok with the architecture. She echoed Devon Cross’s comment that the structure reads ranch-like from the front as opposed to a salt-box but can’t quite put her finger on it. She had questions about egress, possible skylight, the screen porch, etc. Kevin answered Susannah’s questions.
● Further questions from George Birman regarding materials planned for doors, windows, plans for fencing. Kevin explained that the perimeter fence is going to be a welded-wire mesh that meets pool-code requirements. The exterior wood shingles will be painted, windows will be traditional wood or wood-composite, as well as the doors and garage doors. Susannah explained to Kevin that he needs to submit a detailed and specific materials list that, once approved by the ARB, must be adhered to. He said that they were included in the plans that were submitted. Kimberlea Rea, Mr. Kono’s attorney, asked if there is anything missing that the ARB needs. Kevin explained that what he included in the construction drawings and materials list is what he typically presents to ARBs for approval. There was a discussion about what was actually submitted and what the ARB members received from the clerk. Vicki confirmed that what the ARB members received electronically are the same as the printed plans she received in her office.
● Mickey commented that the applicant cleary tried to address the neighbors concerns about headlights with the placement of tree.
● Susannah proposed that the ARB have time to digest the public comments and give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns that were raised during the meeting. Wayne confirmed that there is a section in the code that gives the applicant an opportunity to raise any concerns that were raised during the meeting.

Kimberlea Rea asked for clarification about what the board is asking for from the applicant. Kevin Clark had some comments about the concerns that were raised about the siting. They feel very strongly about the choices they have made and he gave reasons behind them. He and his client are very aware of the neighbors concerns but still feels very strongly that where everything is sited is the right design for the site and for the Kono family. Kimberlea went on to supplement the record with a statement: Mr. Kono has been before this board 6 times. After the June 30th pre submission conference, there was an onsite meeting with the applicant and the adjacent neighbors. Following that meeting, Mr, Kono circulated an alternative design, which the neighbors rejected. With regards to siting, she does not think the ARB does not have the legal authority to dictate siting. No part of the village has been designated an historic district. She started to cite a 2017 case from the village of Southampton (index no. 6058/17) but Susannah stopped Ms. Rea. As the chairperson, she stated that she does not want
to hold a vote on this application today, as it is the first time the ARB has had a chance to review this formal building application. They have a lot of information to digest and proposed that it be held open for board members to consider what was discussed and for the applicant to make changes based on the feedback they received, if they so choose.
Wayne acknowledged that he understands what Ms. Rea was saying in her statement but thinks it’s more than appropriate to listen to the chairperson. He suggested she defer to what the chairperson is requesting of the applicant.
Kimberlea asked for the article that Bridgford read and requested copies of any correspondence that the board has received regarding this application.
Kevin asked when they need to have the revisions into the board. Wayne said there is no set date but that it should give the ARB members ample time to review
the plans he submits.

Susannah made a motion to adjourn the public hearing and kept it open for all purposes until the next meeting date or a special meeting date to be determined by the board which was seconded by Rob Ferris.

All Board members present voted in favor.

Next regular meeting date- March 12th, 2022. Since Neither Susannah or George can attend this meeting, Ms. Rea requested that another Special Meeting date be set for 2-3 weeks from now and that it be via Zoom. Susannah said she will confer with the village clerk, village attorney, and ARB members and that she will confirm a special meeting date within 48 hours.
● Motion to adjourn at 12:09am was made by Susannah and seconded by Rob Ferris. All Board members voted in favor.