The Building Team (BT) convened August 8, with Ray Calamari and Brian Davis (Beth Peterson was unable to attend). The purpose of this meeting was to inform the BT of status of our project and to meet with local builders for their input.

Brian and Ray reported on their meeting with the Architectural Review Board. They noted while it was generally a favorable meeting, there were some issues with the design brought up by members of the ARB. Ray had worked through them and presented the updates to the BT. The BT was favorably impressed and approved them for submission to the Historic
Preservation Commission on August 25. (Note: The Southold Historic District runs along Main Road from Jockey Creek to the west to Wells Avenue on the east, bordered on the north by the LIRR tracks.)

The BT then met with a representative from Seifert Builders of Mattituck and Greco Builders of East Quogue and Huntington. Both felt the budget $2.4M was “very tight” on first viewing for the building as presented. Brian and Ray had met with representatives from North Fork Building of Southold earlier and noted NFB felt more optimistic it could be done. All three
contractors explained to the BT their process in completing our project, including but not limited to, dealing with sub-contractors, “shopping around” for best prices on materials, and their interactions with the BT.

Report of the meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission, 8/25: Ray met with the HPC and presented the updated renderings, utilizing the suggestions made by the ARB and approved by the BT. The meeting was also attended by BT member Sherry Smith and congregation member Patte McManus. (Note: While the meeting was closed for comments, Mses. Smith and McManus were both able to address the Commission and spoke about what it means to be UU and our dedication to this project.) Mr. Calamari reported, via email, the HPC was, initially, less than enthusiastic with our design. However,
looking at his notes on their comments, some were simple fixes (e.g., changing the roofing materials color and shape.) Others will be more difficult to render and may indicate an “aesthetic difference of opinion.” However, Ray feels generally good about the conversation and can adapt our design to satisfy the HPC concerns.

The BT plans a meeting to discuss the HPC comments/suggestions via Zoom early in the week of Sept. 5th. The goal now is to incorporate our responses to the HPC concerns into the building design, by the public hearing scheduled for Oct. 27th.
.