Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/07/2019 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York February 7, 2019 10:20 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Absent) ERIC DANTES— Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page MGH Enterprises Inc./T-Mobile#7274 3-4 Thomas and Roberta Magg#7236SE 5 - 7 Hound Lane, Fishers Island #7237 7 - 10 Jack and Barbara Stavridis#7238 10- 13 S3S LLC, Martin Kosmynka # 7239 13 - 22 Steven Crom #7240 22 - 24 Renee Poncet and Stephen Fitzpatrick/CGC Bayberry, LLC (CV) 24- 27 Katie Nickolaus, Alexandra Nickolas Carnicom and Jamie Nickolaus#7241 27 - 31 First Universalist Church # 7123SE 31 - 33 Vanston Bear, LLC#7243 33 - 52 Southold Sunsets, LLC# 7103 52 - 59 8100 Hortons Lane, LLC#7214 59 - 65 a February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7274— MGH ENTERPRISES INC:/T-MOBILE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for MGH Enterprises Inc./T- Mobile #7274. This is a request for a variance under,Article'XIII Section 280-56 based-on. an - application for a permit to collocate a wireless communications facility on subject property at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 25 feet located at 40200 NYS Route 25 (adj. to Gardeners Bay) in Orient. Would you please enter your name into the record. DAVID KENNY : Good evening Board my name is David Kenny.I'm from the law firm Schneider and Schneider, I'm here today representing T-Mobile Northeast LLC in connection with its collocation application. This application is filed just very similar to an application that was approved in 2017 for Verizon. This is a similar collocation application. Instead of building a new -facility T-Mobile has found that it can provide the service required by collocating it's antennas inside this existing facility however that'does require a little bit of an expansion of the existing ground equipment compound area which is why we're here before this Board requesting the variances. However it is the same type of application that was approved in 2017 for Verizon. I'm here tonight to answer any here today to answer any questions the Board may have regarding this application but I did want to point out I'm sure the Board has in its files that we did receive a recommendation of approval from the Planning Board as well as the consultant and we also received a consistent determination from the LWRP. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're looking for-a side yard setback of 7.3 feet. The code requiring 25 is that'correct? DAVID KENNY : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so that is what was granted previously. What degree of increase in fencing in the fencing area is needed for the equipment compound? DAVID KENNY : I have the engineer with me today we can have him answer those specific questions to the layout but I believe the fencing is just the additional I think I'll have the engineer explain it but I believe it's just a little bit of a bump out, it goes to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Since you're all here we might as well say hello. AJ DESANTIS : Good morning, AJ Desantis with Infinigy. The fenced it would be approximately 14 feet by just over 18 feet to the north of the existing fenced area. The fence would match the existing height and screening that is currently installed at this location and this would just be to surround the proposed T-Mobile installation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's all I needed to know thank you. February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting DAVID KENNY : And there is landscaping proposed around the exterior of that fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and you're familiar with the recommendations of the Planning Board's consultant adding more screening and evergreens and so on to mitigate visual impacts which you're proposing to do. DAVID KENNY : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All the cables are going to be installed inside the monopole? DAVID KENNY : Again I have the engineer but yes we will be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just reading this into the record you all have it. All the parts should be sufficiently sealed to prevent access by birds and wildlife. Facility shall remain secured and protected from unauthorized personnel. This also requires site plan approval from the Planning Board and I don't know if anybody has any other questions. Does anyone have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : You don't have that variance from the Verizon one? DAVID KENNY : I do have a copy of the variance with me. It is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it in our file. DAVID KENNY : ZBA file 7023. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application. This is very straightforward. Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 4 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7236SE THOMAS and ROBERTA MAGG', CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas and Roberta Magg #7236SE. This is a request for a Special Exception•under Article III Section 280-13B(13). r The applicants are the owners of subject property requesting authorization to create an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 7020 Peconic Bay Boulevard (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. Would you state your name for th-e record please. THOMAS MAGG : Good morning my name is Thomas Magg. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we've all done a site inspection and.we'll just enter,into the record a couple of things. The size of your proposed apartment above the garage is 570 square feet which is conforming to the code as confirmed by the Building Department.We had a prior ZBA #4804 in 2000 for prior owner for a covered deck bulkhead setback and side yard setback. You want to have your widowed father Albert Wilkinson living in the apartment? THOMAS MAGG :•That's correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Currently he lives in Jamesport I think you said. THOMAS MAGG : Yes actually he sold his house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So he will be and you will be residing full time in the •principle dwelling? THOMAS MAGG : That's correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the you know we all went upstairs and had a look around and the floor plans you submitted look just like what's up there. It's already pretty well fully finished with the sheetr6ck and paint and flooring and so on. What is the current use? I saw there was furniture stored there but are you using ,THOMAS MAGG : When I purchased the home in 2014 it was in that condition and'it was noted as a storage area. It looks like it's an updated storage area a very nice storage area but that's what we've been,using it for. In fact if you went up there that's my father in laws most of his possessions and furniture are being stored there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see. So it was as built when you purchased? THOMAS MAGG : That's correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyth-ing from the Board, Eric any questions that you might have, Nick? February.7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just curious to learn a little bit more about any proposed kitchen. The plan illustrates sort of like a bar area but do you plan on having appliances for cooking or? THOMAS MAGG : No we-do not nothing other-than potentially a microwave oven. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but no refrigerator, no dishwasher or stove? THOMAS MAGG : There will probably be a refrigerator like one of those in fact there was one there when you visited one of the like the college type refrigerators we'll probably put there just to keep things, my father in law like a cup of coffee in the morning so yea so coffee pot, microwave to reheat it and a small refrigerator if that's okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course it is. The apartment would allow you to put in one full ,bathroom and you know that means a shower or a tub and a toilet and sink and also you could have a full kitchen if you wanted to. It's not required but by granting this as an apartment, an apartment is defined as a standalone independent dwelling. The size that makes the difference between apartment and house so you are allowed to do that. As I said you're not required to but we didn't see evidence of it in the plans and that's unusual. Most people put in a small kitchen something like that. THOMAS MAGG : Yea I mean in the plan there was like a bar sink area that the architect drew in. We wanted to avoid a stove for.safety reasons so-we don't have to put a stove in and the other things are just portable appliances I guess that weren't on the plan like a small refrigerator. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're not doing like a separate bedroom, it's more like a bed sit kind of THOMAS MAGG : No actually if you look at the plan there is a separate bedroom area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh there is a separate bedroom okay. THOMAS MAGG : The only major change I guess from a construction point of view is adding that bathroom in as you suggested. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Rob any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I could go take a nap. THOMAS MAGG : How long was I scheduled for? February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait till the afternoon we have some challenges in front of us this is not one of them. Okay there.is no one else in the audience to comment so hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. ; MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7237- HOUND LANE, LLC. FISHERS ISLAND CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for,Hound Lane, LLC, Fishers Island #7237. This is a request for variances under Article XI Section 280-49 and Section 280-50 and the Building Inspector's August 10, 2018 amended August 22, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to alter an existing building into a restaurant on the first floor and to `construct a second story addition for two apartment units at 1) the second story addition shall have less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 100 feet, 2) the second story addition—shall have more than the required minimum 60 linear feet of frontage on one street, 3) landscaping area measuring less than.the required 3S% of subject lot located at Hound Lane on Fishers Island, New York. Good morning., STEVE HAM : Good morning. Stephen Ham 38 Nugent St. Southampton for the applicant. I've distributed a memorandum which addresses the criteria you need to consider for granting the three variances that are requested in this application. I'll give you just a little summary and see if I can answer any questions you may have. My client could not be here unfortunately but if there are things that I can't answer I'd,like to be able to submit something from him if you need his input on something. So with regard to the setback and the linear footage variances there's really to preserve this building which is a historic building there's really nothing that can-be done. It's already existing at the zero foot setback. It's already existing with 70 linear feet as opposed to the 60 feet that is the maximum under the ordinance. So the alternatives there are 7 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting basically nonexistent other than to,destroy it which may be more economical but he would like to preserve the historic nature of the building or to move it which would be obviously prohibit ably expensive and still require variances. So those I think those are easily addressed.'The third variance is for the landscaping requirement. What we have here is a pre-existing non- conforming lot. It has 19,604 sq. ft. In order to make the project which he's undertaking which is obviously the restaurant and the two apartments work he needs a certain number of seats in the restaurant. The certain number of seats in the restaurant require X number of parking spaces. The parking spaces have to be of a certain dimension. To get his number of parking spaces he needs and to still require thirty five percent landscaping is impossible given the size of the lot itself. So we're asking for a landscaping variance which would provide only 27.6% as opposed to the 35% which is about a 1,400 foot deficiency. However as I point out in the memorandum, that should not be considered substantial in this setting. For one thing it's a big improvement to what it will be. A big, improvement to what's there now in terms of landscaping. Secondly, I think the policy or at least one of the policies behind the requirement of landscaping is so that we don't have businesses piled on top of each other and'you know there's some separation with some green areas and so forth. This lot is as I have an aerial in there as you can see it's surrounded on three sides by the Fishers Island School District property and it's not property they use. It's heavily vegetated with trees and so forth so there's already you could make him do more landscaping but it really would be meaningless because it's essentially landscaped.all around the property anyway, and third &will be the Planning Board is going to give us a full site plan approval. So things could be tweaked as necessary in that regard. So that basically is the case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is LWRP consistent. It has the support of the Planning Board. It's always very beneficial to preserve a historic building. It certainly speaks for the character of that whole area on Fishers Island and we did look at that when we were there. STEVE HAM : That's right last August and the neighborhood itself second stories are not unusual. In fact they're common in that neighborhood. Whether it's across the street, in the community center, the ordinance building; I'll be here next month on the ferry district building, that's two stories, Greenwood Rd. the houses there are two stories so it's not a situation where that's unusual and you can see from the renderings and the elevations in the plans that it still preserves the character of the building itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see if anybody has anything, Nick you want to start? MEMBER PLANAMENTO,: A couple of questions if I can.Mr.,Ham, first within the packet that you provided do you,discuss that there had been a prior abatement of an underground storage tank of sorts? 8 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting STEVE HAM : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there a certificate of abatement available or do you have access to some evidence of what that was? STEVE HAM : Yes. I don't have it with me. I can provide that. There was that smaller building on this property apparently was a service station for the Army and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Way back. STEVE HAM : Right way back. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was my next question, what that is or was. STEVE HAM :That's what it was and the Cleveland family owned this and some other properties in the area. Mrs. Cleveland died, the children got various pieces. Tom Cleveland acquired who was the predecessor entitled to my client; I represented him when he sold it but between the time he acquired from his mother and when he sold the property he had to do an environmental cleanup and he got a permit from the town and so forth and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You had said that in the application. STEVE HAM : Right it's been everything is cleared up I just don't have the evidence in front of me but I can certainly provide that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that smaller structure of 280 sq. ft. approximate which is also a brick structure,that you're saying was sort of some sort of fuel station. STEVE HAM : That was I'm advised that that was the case. The main building was a bakery and that was a fuel station and the underground tank servicing that has now been removed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And does the current owner have any plans for renovation to that structure or use? STEVE HAM : There's been talk of you know maybe selling coffee or something for people getting off the ferry that sort of thing but nothing firm that I'm aware of. I think it will be put to some use at some point but I don't think that's part of I'm not doing a site plan application but the people that are I guess that will come out in that connection but no I'm not aware of other than the hearsay that I just mentioned about possibly selling coffee or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd like to see some rental apartments. We need them everywhere. d, STEVE HAM : Well that's just it. It's needed because he's going to have some employees probably for the restaurant, it alleviates that situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George Horning will be happy. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7238—JACK and BARBARA STAVRIDIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jack and Barbara Stavridis #7238. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 25, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize the "as built" additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 170 Ruth Rd. in Mattituck. Would you please state your name for the record. CHARLES BRUDI : Good morning, Charles Brudi architect 30 (inaudible) Lane Sayville, New York representing the property owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this is to legalize an as built roof over a brick patio with a rear yard setback of 32.2 feet CHARLES BRUDI : Correct instead of the required 35 on a non-conforming lot size. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's for an awning overhang basically, an 8% relief approximately. 3.® February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHARLES,BRUDI : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How did it happen that that was built without CHARLES BRUDI : Well apparently when the other work was done also which if you look at the survey the detached shed I should say,shed which was we have a permit on already and there was also the garage conversion which is a permit in for that I guess nobody. paid attention to what the rear yard setback was when it was constructed at the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how was it that you come to be before us? CHARLES BRUDI : Me personally? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well not you but the applicant. You're hear representing them.,How is it the applicant was discovered that there is this non-conforming rear yard setback? CHARLES BRUDI : I did work for the across the street for his cousin so my name was given to him in regards to doing architectural drawings for the garage conversion which 'then led to the awning that had no permit and also for the shed that had no permit. So in investigation of what the setbacks were, required by the town this is how we came up with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what did you do, come in to get a building permit and you got a Notice of Disapproval or CHARLES BRUDI : Well I check the codes. I had checked the setbacks'on the zoning and spoke to Zoning Department, filed separately the two different permits, one for the shed and then one for the interior alteration and also the awning'and then the awning that application was denied based on the variance required for the awning setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so you were applying for permits or C.O.'s or what CHARLES BRUDI : Yea as built garage conversion permit. T.,A. DUFFY :,So (inaudible) knew that he built it without permits? CHARLES BRUDI Yes but didn't know what the setback were. T. A. DUFFY : If he would have gone for a building permit he would have found out right? CHARLES BRUDI : I agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's why the Notice of Disapproval. Eric questions? v February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Was there something there before or is the covered.porch (inaudible) the covered patio was built? CHARLES BRUDI : No I think they were both built in conjunction with (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : Was there something there previously like did he take a covered patio down and put a new one up? CHARLES BRUDI : Not that I'm aware of no I don't believe there was any. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLAN'AMENTO : Rob and I were just talking about the footings that support this sort of shed awning, did you dig down or research what footings are physically CHARLES BRUDI : Yes I physically had dug down and they are sufficient to support. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have photographs or anything that support MEMBER DANTES : The Building Department MEMBER PLANAMENTO.: Will look into that? MEMBER LEHNERT : They'll do an inspection. CHARLES,BRUDI I don't have any with me at the moment no. Structurally looking at it and doing my inspection it's all up to code with the exception of the girder to the roof rafters you're missing the twist ties under the current building code but everything else was done correctly, connected to the house correctly. Connection of the support posts themselves to the girder and also to the footing with brackets. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? MEMBER DANTES : Actually I do have a question now that I look at it. The survey has one corner listed at 31.7 feet and the other corner lists it at 32.2 feet so I'm confused as to,what variance (inaudible) asking us to grant. CHARLES BRUDI : Can the call be amended for the smaller? I don't know where the 32 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's strange looks very parallel. CHARLES BRUDI : Yes unless the property line CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Might be slightly at an angle. I2 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : The Building Department just read it wrong the shed there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a good point Eric, I think we should address the 31.7 cause otherwise CHARLES BRUDI : We would have a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If someone catches that and says it's 31.7 there's a problem. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea it's back again. CHARLES BRUDI :Just for additional information, we have applied and approved by the Board of Health which you can see Ion the survey the proposed sanitary system for the additional bedroom added to the house and that system has been installed, it has been inspected and we're just waiting on the final from the Board of Health to come back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, anything else anybody? We don't need to get an amended Notice of Disapproval do we? We're just simply addressing this 31.7 what do you think Bill? T. A. DUFFY : I agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7239—S3S LLC, MARTIN KOSMYNKA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for S3S LLC, Martin Kosmynka #7239. This is a request for variances under Article XV Section 280-64 A&C and Section 280-50 and the Building Inspector's May 25, 2018 amended August 10, 2018 and 13. February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting October 16, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct buildings for a self-storage business at 1) two buildings having less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 100 feet from a right of way located at 65 Commerce Drive in Cutchogue. GAIL WICKHAM : Good morning, Abigail Wickham, Wickham, Bressler and Giesla 13015 Main Rd. Mattituck, New York appearing on behalf of the applicant. I was recently asked to appear and expand on the analysis on the relief requested so I'd like to go through that with you if may. First I'm going to address primarily the physical factors with respect to the granting of a variance and secondly analyze the code language which I think supports the building placement as it is. The first reason for a variance or point is that we believe will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties for several reasons. First, this is a light industrial area with similar sized buildings on both sides of the property as well as further north there's a building and further north than that there is a very large transfer station building. Code 280-62A3 specifically allows public and private warehousing which of necessity does require larger buildings and the surrounding parcels are as I just mentioned commercial in nature and are in keeping with the so this is in keeping with that area. I also think this is a clean relatively clean use for a light industrial area in terms of noise, pollution and other things that could be allowed in this zone. Secondly, there is a lesser front yard setback on the adjoining property on 50 Commerce Drive. The nearest building is 15.9 feet which you did approve in a prior application which is in this application. Thirdly, the lot coverage is under 30% so over 70% of the property is open and that includes more than 25% of landscaping and buffers. The front yard setbacks on both Depot Lane and CR48 both are at or over 100 feet that is required by the Planning Board covenants when the subdivision was initiated and those have been maintained. Fourthly, only a small portion of the McCall farm which is on the other side of Route 48 and which expressed a concern about this application is directly across from the property. Most of the properties directly across from the County sump. The development rights to the McCall farm have been sold to the county of Suffolk so there is not a problem with a future residential development there that would affect this property. We also note that there are several letters in support of this application in your file. Fifthly, as you can see from the map that the shape of the lot does narrow along Commerce Drive which limits the building width along that front yard so the closeness of the buildings to Commerce Drive will look less imposing from Commerce Drive. There won't be a big huge edifice on any of the buildings that you will see. Lastly the limited or smaller front yard setbacks of the two closest buildings to Commerce Drive and those setbacks are 25 feet and 27.1 feet respectively. Those occur mainly because of the curve of the cul-de-sac incurring into the property. This brings the street line well into the property and what would otherwise be the front yard area. Further don't think the proximity of those buildings to the street line will be noticeable until you 14 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting actually turn into the property when you get down to the end of the road and the cul-de-sac at that end does get very little traffic. It would mostly be into that other storage facility I think which is 50 Commerce Drive. So for those reasons we don't think there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Point two is whether there's another way that the applicant can receive a benefit that would be feasible to pursue without a variance. I would say the answer to that is no because we've proposed a front yard setback as it is for several reasons. First, the lot setbacks and lot shape limit the available building area by a considerable amount almost four thousand square feet. The lot is on a corner. It has three front yards and as I mentioned before a hundred foot setback on two of those frontages Rt. 48 and Rt. 25 as well as the setback that's required on Commerce Drive. This of necessity pushes the permissible building area into the interior of the lot and significantly lessens the size of the available buildings. Being wedged shape the lot telescopes towards Commerce Drive and that requires a much narrower building area near the Commerce Drive St. where the front yard reduction is requested. Since I mentioned before that I think the shorter front yard setback on Commerce will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood as we described in the first point we're asking the reasons in favor of this variance be balanced toward making up for the building area limitations on this lot. I might want to note just briefly that storage buildings of this type are necessarily long and narrow. So to pull the building back from Commerce Drive by making it shorter and wider which would be okay under lot coverage and other restrictions that would change the size of the interior storage units and make them so narrow and long that they really wouldn't be able to be used properly. Point three is whether the requested variance is substantial. I'm going to say no and I hope you can bear with me cause I'm trying to do an analysis here of Code Section 280-64 and it's possible it's written that a variance might not even be required; 280-64C addresses the setbacks here. Multiple buildings which are not limited to the sixty foot width which we have here but we do not have to be a sixty foot width limitation under that code must have a hundred foot setback or the average setback on adjoining parcels. The Notice of Disapproval referred to a 100 foot setback but if you look at the adjoining parcels we have a setback on 50 Commerce Drive of 15.9 feet that's the property to the east the original storage facility that was granted by your appeal #6514. The setback on the building to the north 115 Commerce Drive is 130 feet which well exceeds the 100 feet and that was built that way because that lot is so narrow there was really no point of moving the building further to the road. It would have been a very basically a hallway. So if you average 15.9 feet and 130.4 feet you get an average of 73.15 feet. I would argue that where you have a setback of over 100 feet since where we do on the 130 foot lot setback that if you used 100 feet which is the most that is required you could average 15.9 plus 100 and divide by 2 which gives you a required setback of 57.92. I'm not sure as I go through it that that's going to make a difference in my final analysis but so somewhere if you do averaging the setback requirement would actually be 57.92 to 73.15 not 100 feet. So that lessens the substantiality of the requested variance as 15 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting applied for. However if you go to 280-64D that provides the setbacks of multiple structures on a parcel may vary provided that the average setback of the structures meets the setback required above. So I just said the setback required above is somewhere between 57 and 73 feet that's where you would have to be. If you look at the buildings, the four buildings on this property and none of them by the way are wider than 60 feet so we stay within those perimeters. The first building along the north the twenty foot wide building is 25 feet back. The next building is I wrote down 217 but I think it's 317 I'll have to re-compute that, that's the building towards the rear. The next building which is the phase two 45 foot wide building is 58 feet back and the building closest to the east the twenty foot building is 27.1 feet. If you average those four buildings that means your required setback is 76.775 feet. If you look at that I don't think if we're required to be at 76 feet we're less than that on the averaging of the adjoining parcels setback. I don't know if I lost you there cause it took me a while to get there but I can give you this in writing if it will help. So I can argue that not only is the variance not substantial, it may not be required in which case if you decided to adopt that reasoning we would request that we amend the application to seek a reversal of the determination of the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval as a technical matter. I'll stop for a minute while you digest that. It's that 280- 64D language that I'm looking at. MEMBER DANTES : Honestly that's kind of up to the Building Department if they'll reverse their Notice of Disapproval it's their prerogative if you want to ask them to do it but we generally GAIL WICKHAM : Well I know sometimes I've been here before where the Zoning Board is charged with interpretation and they did interpret it as 100 feet and I think that's wrong. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have so many site plans I don't know which one to look at first. GAIL WICKHAM : Would you like me to give you a copy I blew up the area in question CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have received some GAIL WICKHAM : Do you know where it dropped? Okay what I was starting to say that the 100 foot buffer that was required by the Planning Board covenants on Rt. 48 and Depot Lane requires a 100 foot buffer. It does not say it's a landscape buffer but the Planning Board has uniformly required that a certain number of trees be planted in that buffer and that they be maintained. The original developer had to have I remember the number eighty five over some period of area that had to survive for five years. On this site plan the applicant will be augmenting the trees in that buffer area even more with native plants in the site plan. He's already agreed to do that. I noticed that on the variance application for the original storage building the Planning Board also imposed that requirement that they have a certain number of trees in there that survive for a certain number of years and if you drive by there, it's quite 16 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting dense. That's not to say they couldn't add more and they will add more but the buffer itself is written more in the nature of a setback than it is a it doesn't say it has to be a landscape buffer and none of the buildings on these plans are within that hundred feet. MEMBER DANTES : Do we have the covenants in this package here? GAIL WICKHAM : I have it right here. I was just going to hand it up. What I gave you I can hand up now the cover page showing the recording information, the first page which shows that it is a declaration for the industrial park by Tie Group in 2005 and then section for the buffer area Section 4A. If you want the entire covenant I can certainly email it to Kim and I can email this as well but let me show this to Bill. It's the first paragraph on (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can we keep this Gail or do you need it? GAIL WICKHAM : You can have that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure because you're going to need site plan approval too, I want to make sure that Planning and Zoning are on the same page and have the same understanding so the C&R's help but I need to get comments from Planning. They gave us comments but they didn't address the buffer issue. GAIL WICKHAM : Yea well I do believe that's how they had Mr. Kosmynka has had a number of meetings with the Planning Board already and that has not been raised and as I said this came up through the Fire Marshall's review so they've had quite an in depth review already. As you mentioned there is a letter from the Planning Board based on your request for recommendation that they saw no basis for any objection to this application but certainly if you want to clarify that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do because in just conversation which•is here say until it's in writing there was a comment from someone in the Planning Department that said asphalt is not the intention of a buffer is not to include asphalt. Now that's where the lack of clarity is and listening to your description and we're reading the C&R's and I just want to get their comments because it may be something they overlooked and we're not paying attention to or maybe it's fine. GAIL WICKHAM : I can also mention that these days they're very careful when they address buffers. To call them non-disturbance buffers and be very specific about what can and cannot be done in them and put them in so this is an older subdivision CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an older one that's correct too. 17 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting GAIL WICKHAM : He has advised me that they also did a wood lot survey for the Planning Board. They already have that showing what's there. So hopefully we can clarify that point. Shall I continue? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please unless anybody has any questions at this point. Okay just keep going Gail. Town Attorney is suggesting it would be a good idea for us to have the entire C&R. GAIL WICKHAM : I can I have it here do you want to look at it right now but I will also send it over. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're not going to make a decision today so. GAIL WICKHAM : It's pretty big. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) landscape buffer at 50 feet, vegetated buffer 20 feet it seems all over the place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's several buffers depending on which property boundary. MEMBER DANTES : I don't see anything but the southerly boundary. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You see where the first paragraph says hundred foot? MEMBER DANTES : Yea on the southerly (inaudible) buffer it doesn't say specifically say vegetated or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right that's what Gail was telling us however someone in Planning suggested that a buffer does not include asphalt. MEMBER LEHNERT : But then the second paragraph says 50 feet landscape buffer. MEMBER DANTES : If it made a distinction between a buffer and a landscape CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not the clearest of covenants. MEMBER DANTES : What's the difference between a landscape buffer and a vegetated buffer? GAIL WICKHAM : And Mr. Kosmynka also just pointed out when this subdivision was approved this was LIO zoning and it was down zoned thereafter, LI zoning which is a whole other set of bulk schedules so I think we're in compliance but certainly if you need to clarify that we'd be have no objection to that. February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : But this is a twenty foot vegetated buffer, so this is a landscape buffer this is a vegetated buffer and this is just a buffer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a distinction in the code between vegetated buffer and landscape buffer. I don't think so. Excuse me you guys we can figure this out later we shouldn't be taken up the hearing to be doing this. I don't really even think the code makes a distinction between landscape and vegetated buffer we'll check it out, we'll find out but we can look at that later. GAIL WICKHAM : You might also look at how close the compost facility next door as in terms of buffers because I think they have a different a shorter distance but we'll look at that too. The fourth point is whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood and we think no. As to the reduction in the front yard setback it is caused in part by the curve of the cul de sac into the property area. So the buildings will appear to be set back further considerably further from the street as you come down Commerce Drive until you actually turn into the property. Landscaping along that front yard will be extensive and will mitigate any visual impact. There are already cedar trees there, native cedar trees and the Planning Board I'm sure will specify exactly what that has to look like. The two buildings closest to Commerce Drive are each only 20 feet wide, the two that require the most extensive front yard inquiry. So they're not going to present large edifices as you come into the property. They're narrow buildings so the frontage of the building will only be 25 feet wide in each case and they're not even right next to each other they're at different angles. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the height of the building Gail? GAIL WICKHAM : Those are one stories. There is as I mentioned before there's the dense and wide buffering along Rt. 48 and Depot Lane and those buffers as I said before will be augmented with additional plantings. All roof run off will be contained on site. So we don't believe any adverse impacts or effects have been shown to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or the district. The last point is whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. In part it certainly is because this is how the buildings were designed to maximize the building area given the constraints on the configuration and setbacks in cul-de-sac. However as I want to point out the Southold Town Fire Marshall did require that the 25 foot wide fire lane be provided around the buildings which does push the buildings further towards the Commerce Drive portion of the lot. I don't know if the Board CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gail is it possible to get something in writing from the Fire Marshall confirming that? 19 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MARTY KOSMYNKA : I spoke to Bob Fisher about two weeks ago. He said he couldn't put it in writing but he's been at least three workshops with Planning Board. He expressed exactly what we did. He also said he was going to speak to somebody staff the day I spoke to him he said I'll go talk to the staff about why you're required to do this. But he did not put it in writing. I believe he did walk over and speak to somebody. GAIL WICKHAM : For the record that was Mr. Kosmynka who is the principle applicant. MEMBER DANTES : Is it part of the Planning Board minutes maybe for those meetings? GAIL WICKHAM : He doesn't usually appear at the Planning Board but we can see if he had any comments that were added I don't know. MEMBER DANTES : If it's in their minutes we can use their minutes. MARTY KOSMYNKA : Just to give you an overall I mean 115 has a 48 front footage right it's a nice big cone and I had to set that back to 135 in order to even have a 20 foot wide building because of the (inaudible) arrow right so one of the things that Bob said and I had the opportunity to finally find the pieces (inaudible) I'm making the drive aisles wider and you'll see that. There is now a literally it's about 18 feet at its narrowest point. We've taken that narrow point with a two and half story structure on asphalt we've now opened that up to 40 feet and (inaudible) you know that's a good thing for these guys and that's what Bob said go ahead and do it. Now I am moving the buffer areas they've asked me to calculate that which we are doing with Planning and you'll see on the site plan that (inaudible) I guess overall because and even on parcel 50 I'm making wider drive aisles and it just works out better for any type of fire safety whatever and for (inaudible) to be very honest with you. GAIL WICKHAM : I have one more thing, I just again for the record want to advise you that since the application was made Mr. Kosmynka has acquired the property in the name of 65 Commerce Drive, LLC of which he is the sole member and I will give you a copy of that deed for your record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application please come forward and go to the mic and you can go to either one it doesn't matter. JONATHAN BROWN : Good morning, Jonathan Brown 737 Roanoke Ave. Riverhead, New York 11901 appearing for Mr. McCall the owner of approximately 30 acre vacant parcel of farmland directly across CR48 from this facility. I was recently retained, I looked at the file yesterday. I drove past the site. My client and I have no opinion with regard to a variance on the Commerce Drive entry point to this facility. Our concern is expressly with regard to the buffer along CR48. 20 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting There was an interesting discussion among the Board and the applicant and I thank Ms. Wickham for a copy of the C&R's from the Planning Board resolution. I think in common parlance a buffer is buffer is a buffer and if you look at the adjacent parcel the fence line is at 75 feet. There are PODS stored butt up against that fence line. That is not a buffer that is a 75 foot buffer with improved parking, fencing and storage in the 25 foot buffer area and the buffer is supposed to be a 100 foot buffer so I think most laymen, most common sense people would believe that a buffer whether or not it is to be improved with vegetation is in fact a buffer and there are to be no improvements within the buffer area when in fact there are improvements within the buffer area on the adjacent parcel. So that is the sole concern, the aesthetic concern. I believe Mr. McCall emailed the Board with his concerns about that buffer. That is our sole worry and but to the extent again that it applies only to Commerce Drive this variance then we have no opinion. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome, anybody else? Anything else from the Board? I'll tell you what hearing no further questions or comments let me do this, let's adjourn this to the Special Meeting so we can get a chance to really look at the total C&R and you know speak a little bit more to Planning and make sure we have everything we need and then if we do we'll close it at the Special Meeting and we will either deliberate that night or we will deliberate at the next Regular Meeting. GAIL WICKHAM : Okay what is the date of that, do we have it yet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Special Meeting, February 211t GAIL WI'CKHAM : If I can just add that the PODS are temporarily there. They had a lot come back when the weather went bad. Those are going to be removed. They're not part of the site plan and I think Mr. Brown's comments are going to be fully explored at the site plan level in terms of beefing up the buffer I guess we would say and the landscaping. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on February 211t, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7240—STEVEN CROM CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steven Crom #7240. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 17, 2018 amended September 18, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to make additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1980 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck. Just state your name for the record please. EDWARD LUCAS : Edward Lucas 119 Manor Lane Jamesport, New York. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you representing the application? EDWARD LUCAS : I acting as an agent for Mr. Crom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a side yard setback proposed at 6.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10 and lot coverage proposed at 27.9% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. EDWARD LUCAS : Yes. I just wanted to as far as there were four mailings that had to go out and I just did some tracking cause I hadn't received CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh good please bring them up. EDWARD LUCAS : I guess if we take on the lot coverage aspect first, back in 1986 there was a variance granted for a deck and a roof to cover an entrance to the basement and at that point the lot coverage as confirmed by the surveyor Woychuck was 30.9 and the new proposal because of the removal of the rear deck and shed and other entrances to the house the lot coverage including the proposed 6 x 10 porch is reduced to 27.9% so you know it's a few percentage points less than what was granted in 1986 and as for the side yard aspect being reduced to 6.2 feet the entire existing house since the sixties has had that reduced 6.2 foot side yard setback as many of the houses on the Sigsbee Rd. have odd setbacks because of the improvements on the street so you know we're not encroaching on that setback any more than what was you know existing. You can see if you look at the survey that on that south property line there is a little bit of an extension into that. That was the staircase that was granted back in 221 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting '86 so that has that most minimum. I think there it's a 50 inch setback but the new porch on the front of the house stays consistent with the you know eighty percent of the south property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's what I was going to ask about, clearly that proposed covered front porch is maintaining the setback of the house and you're saying that enclosed cellar entrance was approved in a prior ZBA decision? EDWARD LUCAS : That was approved back yea in 1986. You have it in your file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do I'm going to have to take another look at that. Well fortunately the other side yard is quite open if anybody needs to get emergency equipment back there. EDWARD LUCAS : There used to be a driveway extending to the garage behind the house but the owners are not garage people so they wanted the increased grass area so the driveway was removed and now there's just parking for three cars at you know closest to the street that's depicted on the survey as well. So in dotted the way the surveyor did it he shows the existing asphalt driveway to be removed which has been since removed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware we've all inspected the property prior to this hearing so we know the neighborhood and so on. It is known to this Board that (inaudible) a lot of non-conforming lot coverages and setbacks all along Sigsbee Rd. Knowing that I'm okay with not having a whole bunch of prior variances sited but if the Board wants that submitted we can. I'll just ask the members of the Board do we need them or do we already know that there's a lot of non-conformity. MEMBER LEHNERT : We know that street pretty well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We know the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Sometimes we ask the prior variances for lot coverage or for side yard setbacks to show the character of the neighborhood were granted but because we're so familiar with that street and with the variances granted the Board is saying we don't need to have you submit that. Is there anyone else in the audience wanting to address the application? Anything else from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 23, February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7242— RENEE PONCET and STEPHEN FITZPATRICK/CGC BAYBERRY, LLC (CV) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Renee Poncet and Stephen Fitzpatrick/CGC Bayberry, LLC #7242. This is a request for variances under Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's August 28, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on a determination for lot recognition at 1) at less than the code required minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft., 2) less than the code required minimum lot width of 150 feet located at 702 Wiggins Lane (adj. to Gull Pond Inlet) in Greenport. FRANK YAKABOSKI : Francis Yakaboski, 1668 Sound Ave. Baiting Hollow, New York. I represent CGC Bayberry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. We have a proposed lot with a width of 103 feet where the code requires a minimum of 150 and the lot size of 20,120 sq. ft. in an R40 zone district where the code requires 40,000 sq. ft. minimum. What else would you like us to know? FRANK YAKABOSKI : Well the original parcel was part of a filed map in 1966 1 think it was so that was a recognized parcel. In 1999 Ms. Poncet and her husband Stephen purchased the upland parcel, that was in April. In November of that same year they acquired title to the lands under Fordham Canal which added to the lot area. Your Board previously granted a variance on this parcel back in the nineties I think it was and we're looking for the same setbacks. In discussing this issue with Mr. Verity he advised and I'm sure that the Board is well aware that the lands underwater are not counted as far as determination of lot area and setbacks so that's what we're looking for. I guess what prompted this or maybe not of course this land has been one parcel since 1999. What happened in 2011 1 think it was is Mr. and Mrs. Fitzpatrick decided to convey the parcel to Ms. Poncet alone. They visited with Mr. Gould their attorney who did not represent them when they purchased nor when they acquired the land underwater and being lay people they brought her one deed saying this is what we own. We want to convey it to Renee only which they did which Ms. Gould did but of course she knew nothing about the land underwater and that's why we're a reason why we're here because the lot was fractured if you will unintentionally and again I think lot recognition is all we need. I know that it's been since 1999 that this has been all one parcel but you know no one in the municipality has raised any issues with it. The Fitzpatrick's got bulkhead permits and dredging permits from the Trustees 241 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting years ago and here's where we are. We've been in contract now just twenty days shy of a year and would like to get the transaction concluded and get the house built that we're planning to build. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the lot line change will merge the underwater land then with the FRANK YAKABOSKI : Exactly. I mean we gotta undo what was done in 2012. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This looks more like a technical matter than FRANK YAKABOSKI : Yea I wish there were an administrative procedure that could be used rather than taking your time but here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay the lot is vacant we've done a site inspection and we see the lot is still vacant FRANK YAKABOSKI : Oh indeed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and wooded and let's think if there's anything else. It does basically have Planning Board approval. They're supporting this application. FRANK YAKABOSKI : Yes, yes indeed except I have to go through the steps I've already made an appointment with Erica over in Planning to go through the necessary procedure to have them bless this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if the Board has any questions, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Not really I mean making a lot bigger (inaudible) so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well after this situation developed the code was changed so that the buildable area is now it's calculated in land underwater though it's part of the deed. It's not calculated in terms of setbacks (inaudible). Town changed the code there also which changes the way in which the size of the property described okay anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I just want to verify that the decision here the discussion the application is relative to the lot recognition and not about any future building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If FRANK YAKABOSKI : I didn't understand your comment. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My understanding is the application is for lot recognition. I'm confused about the proposed structure. 2'S February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Folks I'm going to make a motion to enter into executive session for just a brief matter cause there's some technical legal things that I'd like to discuss with Town Attorney. We'll be right back. Alright so I have questions because the Notice of Disapproval does not refer to any sort of lot recognition. It refers to the bulk schedule, a non-conforming lot size. FRANK YAKABOSKI : Subsequent to Mr. Building Inspector issuing that Notice of Disapproval he and I met and he said really when you do your application leave out the reference to the area and bulk schedule because you've got a prior variance and the land underwater doesn't do anything to your setbacks etc. and keep it at lot recognition. Perhaps I should have listened but I wanted to be sure that we didn't come here on lot recognition and somebody raised the issue that's not addressed in my application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see because what this appears to be is the Board as you know certainly is obligated legally to only address things that are noticed by a code enforcement official. I think procedurally what we would be doing would be to be recognizing a non- conforming lot size providing a variance for that that would then allow you to go to Planning for the lot line change that would merge them effectively. FRANK YAKABOSKI : Good that's exactly what we want. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That procedurally T. A. DUFFY : Technically we're not giving recognizing as an existing lot. Technically the Board will be granting you a variance for the lot size as it is right now. FRANK YAKABOSKI : Thank you, thank you and then we'll deal with the Planning Board on the lot issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's procedurally what we should do. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. 26 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN,: Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7241 — KATIE NICKOLAUS, ALEXANDRA NICKOLAS CARNICOM and JAMIE NICKOLAUS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN The next application before the Board is for Katie Nickolaus, Alexandra Nickola's Carnicom and Jamie Nickolaus #7241. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 20, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required 'rear yard located at 17555 Soundview Ave. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. ROB HERMANN : Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at a pool in a side yard. ROB HERMANN : 'Yes. So to give the Board a little bit of background the variance that we're asking for. This is a property and' a 'homeowner that I've actually have been working with now for about seven years I think Jamie and this proposed swimming pool represents I hope one of the last phases of what has been a long term comprehensive process of bluff restoration and stabilization and landward retreat of structures on a property that fronts what was at the time I met the-Nickolaus family in 2012 a severely eroding Long Island bluff. At that time you can see a couple of photographs (inaudible).but this was the property in 2014 where you can see the swimming pool and the house located very close to the edge of the bluff. This is an aerial photo from late 2017 after the pool had been removed and the house had been located and this is just an old photo that I'happen to have from when I first met them that show you can see where the swimming pool, patio and-house were at that time. So starting with two structures that were getting perilously close to the edge of the bluff and a bluff that was eroding at a fairly rapid rate we began this multi phased process of retreat and bluff restoration that has required extensive permitting involving the State DEC, the Town Trustees, the Town Building Department, the Town Engineer and now'your Board. The first step in the process was the removal of the swimming pool and the patio and the relocation of the house' which was accomplished in 2015 and at`that time the house was actually moved back to what was the hundred foot top of bluff setback from the bluff as it existed at that time.-Subsequently in 2016 the bluff was regraded, re-nourished, re-vegetated and stabilized with a stone rock revetment at the toe of the bluff and terracing across the bluff face. Now at that time what had been-the existing bluff crest was moved landward because you had that vertical sheer lip at the top that 27 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting was cut off. The bluff crest was pushed back to create a more stable angle of repose and so actually the bluff crest you see on the survey today is up to 29 feet landward of where it had been about six to seven years ago. As you can see in this photograph and as I told'Jamie I think this is sort of a poster child property for bluff stabilization, you can see what the property looked like prior to stabilization and what the property looks like now. This is only a couple of years into a couple of growing seasons after the stabilization project and we will be going into I think our fourth yea this summer will be the fourth year. So after a certificate of occupancy was issued for the dwelling in May of 2018 we started the design process in earnest for the relocated swimming pool and that's how we get to you today but it's as Leslie noted this is not a bluff setback variance but a side yard variance because given the history of the site even though we have successfully stabilized the bluff we specifically wanted to meet the 100 foot bluff setback given the nature of the erosive condition on this shoreline and we decided this was sort of the smartest you know wisest long term variance to ask for. And I should note that because of the new position of the bluff and the configuration sort of L configuration of this lot 'it really isn't possible to move both the house and an accessory pool to a 100 foot setback on this property because you end up between a 100 foot bluff setback and a 50 foot front yard setback and the restriction on what yards the pool"can go in you end up needing a variance somehow and that was the decision,we had to make here where if we put the pool on the seaward side of the house it would be too close to the bluff. Obviously west or,east we're in a side yard and we're here as we are today and even if you put it in the front which would be highly undesirable for lots of other reasons it would still amazingly have required a front yard setback because of that L-shaped half of the property line. The pool we've argued in our application would not impact the only potentially affected neighbor which is_the neighbor to the west because we've situated the pool 58 feet from the westerly lot line which is more than I think twice what would be the 25 feet setback that the pool would have to meet if it was truly an accessory like if we located it in the rear yard it could actually be located much closer to that neighbor and although we have some clearing associated with the"project at least a 25 foot area on the west side of the property will remain vegetated and undisturbed to create that screening buffer. In terms of the overall character of the neighborhood, as the Board knows this is an area where pools are common. I think all three properties immediately to the east of the subject lot have swimming pools including the property immediately adjacent to the east whose swimming pool was constructed pursuant to variance relief granted by this Board and our written application, makes reference to cases 4976, 6221, 6237 and 6750 which are all variances that had been granted in the neighborhood for swimming pools. I guess finally it is the pools conformance with the bluff setback that allows us to allows the Board to grant the side yard variance without any concern, for physical impact on the sorry let me start over, it allows the Board to grant the variance necessary without concern for the projects impact on the physical environment which as you know is one of the variance criteria. As I noted at the as February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting beginning of the presentation the relocation of the previously existing pool which had been on the property since 1974 is part of a long term restoration and bluff protection plan that has 1) restored and revegetated the bluff, 2) established a covenant of 15 foot wide vegetated buffer adjacent to the top of the bluff and 3) promoted the landward retreat of structures away from the bluff and as part of the pool construction specifically although the on grade patio was not within your Board's jurisdiction we do have a trench drain proposed around the patio because it is an extensive patio and we want to make sure that we capture and recharge potential runoff from that patio so we'll have a system, drywells connected to the trench drain and also dry well `designated to capture pool backwash. I should note that the project and its entirety is outside the jurisdiction of the New York State DEC based on a non-jurisdictional determination that was made in 2014 and actually and I can hand a copy of this up to Kim if she didn't get it internally but the Trustees about a week ago issued a non-jurisdictional letter for a part of our project that's located outside their jurisdiction including the swimming pool that we're here seeking relief for. So I'll give that to Kim so you can add that to your file. I guess as one final thought, I often I don't really talk often about the whether the difficulties leading up to the application are self-created because I think the Board tends to find most seem to be and I guess you can argue you could always avoid a variance by not asking for one but this is probably one of maybe the few cases where I think we can tenably argue that it's really not a self-created difficulty. The property has been held in the Nickolaus family since 1981 prior to any of the town's bluff setbacks and as I noted because of the natural erosion of the property and the pre-existing history of the structures here and the configuration of the lot it would just be pretty much impossible to retreat in a wise way here without needing your Board's blessing for something. So all in all we think it's a good project. It's been smartly designed and it kind of takes the least impactful variance route to accomplish what has again been a long term process of retreat and stabilization here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I should also say that your proposed locations were in the 300 feet from Soundview and you know it's certainly not going to be visible. ROB HERMANN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Moreover the front yard is very sloppy and very heavily wooded and there would be great deal more land disturbance to place it in a conforming location than to put it in the side yard. I have no questions, anyone down there Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think Rob answered. I was more curious about the house move and what happened previously so thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Eric? 29 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? State your name please. EDWARD BOOTH : My name is Edward Booth I live next door, I'm the guy to the west. So I'm the one impacted by this pool. I'm not opposing the pool, I'm simply here to say it would be great if you can put in a little more sound insulation between my property and the pool and you know by the way he's quite right about what happened on the bluff. I thought that they would be washed away by now all along the not the rocks but the terraces and things it's working very well actually. Also they gave me a break as you may remember a few extra stones along the edge which actually probably will keep my house (inaudible) a couple of years which I'm grateful for. Anyway so that's all I would like to see a little more sound insulation if I could thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will tell you at this point that it is very common for this Board when granting swimming pools particularly if they are in side yards to require the pool pump equipment be placed in a sound deadening enclosure. For that very reason to protect the kind of acoustical privacy of others. EDWARD BOOTH : There might be a party who knows. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There could be. It sounds like you might be invited. Anyone else, please come forward and state your name. MARGO BOOTH : My name is Margo Booth I received architectural designs to create I just wanted to propose I know you probably have done a lot with your plans already but is there any possibility you might be able to put the pool on the east side of the property rather than the west? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you seen the survey? MARGO BOOTH : I haven't I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you'd like to have a look you can have a look of mine. You'll see that there's not only a driveway but a brick garage on that side and there's far greater room on the side they're proposing and it's flat. MARGO BOOTH : Is it a year round residence on the east side. MEMBER DANTES : I don't know but we can't take that into consideration. February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MARGO BOOTH : Okay. Well I just wanted to throw that out there cause it would help with our privacy.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a substantial buffer by the way being proposed MARGO BOOTH : The 60 foot rather than the 25. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : between the two properties. Anyone else, anything from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7123SE FIRST UNIVERSALIST CHURCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for First Universalist Church #7123SE. This is a request for a Special Exception pursuant to Article III Section 280-13B(1) and Article VIII Section 280-38B(1) the applicant is requesting permission to construct a new house of worship building upon a parcel with an existing single family dwelling and a parish house located at 51970 Rt. 25 in Southold. Hi Pat would you please just enter your name into the record please. PAT MOORE Yes Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. As you know you're all very familiar with this property. This was for a hundred years was the location of the Universalist Church before it caught fire and it was burnt to the ground. This is the reconstruction of the church. It is I could certainly go through the criteria for a Special Exception but I think it's recognized that the church was here probably about the same time that some of the old houses were built on the main road and certainly before most of the community was developed. So it was a center point of the community as many of the churches were during this period in the 31 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting late eighteen hundreds early nineteen hundreds. I would prefer to address any questions which you might have. In writing William Moore appearing since I always come before this Board he asked me to cover this. He had submitted the application and went through the standards and you have those in writing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat the only thing I would want to find out about is how far along with the COA the certificate of appropriateness from the Landmarks. PAT MOORE : Mr. Maron is here Peter Maron and my understanding is you have already gone through the Historical Society and has already excuse me the Historical Commission has reviewed the plan. They are how soon will we get a certificate do we know? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please do come to the mic and state your name. PETER MARON : Peter Maron the architect. We went to actually twice to the Commission and they've been encouraging and even enthusiastic about the evolution of the design. They've asked us to come back with the sort of final details and final material list and stuff and we also did the same with the Architectural Review Committee. This (inaudible) pending final details and final material list. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I presume the Planning Board is waiting final site plan approval subject to the Special Exception permit from the ZBA. PETER MARON : Right so it's all kind one happy circle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's with great pleasure that I can say welcome home Universalist Church. It's been a long difficult process and I think all of us who live here will be very happy to see the restoration of what is considered a community asset. PAT MOORE : Yes so the special permit will be based on it will be let's say at an overlay for the property so it gives some flexibility for the final design to be between the church community and the final site plan and so on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All we have to do is condition it subject to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness and site plan approval. PAT MOORE : Perfect that's all we need. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That gives them the flexibility to make whatever fine you know tweaking as necessary. It's going to be a lot better parking than what was there. PAT MOORE : Oh my yes, yes it will overall be a very beautiful project so February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Anything from the Board, comments or questions? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7243—VANSTON BEAR, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Vanston Bear, LLC #7243. This is a request for variances under Article XXII Section 280-116A, Article XXIII Section 280-123A and the Building Inspector's September 20, 2018 amended October 5, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and build a new single family dwelling, construct an accessory garage/barn, construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool, and make alterations to an existing carriage house at 1) single family dwelling located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) the existing non-conforming accessory carriage house which contains a non-conforming use cannot be structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use located at 5250 Vanston Rd. (adj. to Cutchogue Harbor) in Cutchogue. Rob do you want to start or do you want me to ask you some questions first? ROB HERMANN : I don't know are the questions quick and easy? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't know. ROB HERMANN : Let me start because and this one is going to take a while so you're going to have to bear with me. Also it's not that often that I get to talk to you twice in the same half hour. This is an interesting case actually a very complex case and it's probably unlike any other bluff setback variance that the Board has looked at which has to do with a few things; the location of the property, the nature and condition of the bluff that necessitates the variance 331 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting relief and the relationship of these two things to the code amendments that were passed by the Town Board in May of 2017 which is the Board will recall redefine a bluff, created a mathematical definition for a bluff and a bank and fortunately enough for the applicants that code amendment was adopted about three months after they bought the property. So before I get into the site design and summarize a little bit on the variance criteria I do want to go through that setting the context of what we're the relief that we're asking for. Can you ask the gentleman to thank you guys. So based on my initial conversations with the Building Department which now date back to August 2017 1 think this was the first property cause again that was a few months after the code amendments that actually truly tests the mathematically based definition of a bluff as it was defined for Chapter 280 zoning purposes by the Chapter 275 code amendments that were adopted by the Board in May of '17. So just to put some context on it the Board determined at that time that a land incline adjoining a water body with a slope twenty percent or greater and a height more than 20 feet from the top to the toe of the slope would be considered a bluff. Any slope with a lesser height or a lesser angle would be considered a bank which was more broadly defined at the same time as any land incline adjoining a water body, wetland or beach. So basically as of May 2017 in order to determine whether a land incline on your waterfront property is a bluff or a bank for all wetland and zoning purposes a surveyor has to calculate the heights and slopes of the bank in order to determine whether it meets that threshold definition of a bluff and I've got the survey posted there in front of you so you can imagine that was no easy task for this nearly twelve and a half acre parcel because as you can see from the survey the property has rolling slopes, hills, valleys of varying heights and angles. So what the surveyor did was he had to actually take the survey topography and go north to south along the property line and determine which of these land inclines qualified as bank and which qualified as a bluff and what he ended up finding was you have this very sort of traditional looking bluff down on the south side of the property it's very steep and then you have this more moderately sloped bluff up at the north side of the property and then you have this little section right in the middle conveniently or maybe not so conveniently immediately west of the house and these slopes in between are either too short or too flat to qualify as a bluff. So I had to take this survey in I think I met probably with Damon Rallis initially but basically we had to submit this survey to the Building Department and say you just changed the code. This is really complicated is this a sound approach and they said yes it is. So what they agreed was that this would be a usable mathematical way of determining what's a bluff or a bank but that still doesn't tell us whether we have to get to you. It doesn't tell us whether the Board has jurisdiction of the bluff cause as you know not every bluff in the Town of Southold is regulated by this Board. Every bluff in the Town of Southold regulated by the Trustees but not necessarily on the zoning code because Chapter 280-116A which is a section of the code we need relief from states, only lots fronting certain waterbodies must have structures set back 100 feet from the bluff and that's Long Island Sound, Fishers Island Sound, $4 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting Block Island Sound, Gardiners Bay and Peconic Bay which is where this case gets even more interesting and got more complicated from the start because unlike the properties that are located on the east side of Nassau Point and front the taller, steeper bluffs we all know and refer to as the Peconic Bay bluffs this property is located on the west side of Nassau Point and quite a ways up the west side of Nassau Point by the way on Cutchogue Harbor so if you look at this aerial photograph and I only know this because I was at the hearings before the Town Board in 2017. 1 think it was really this east side of Nassau Point that the Town Board was looking to pull into these bluff setback requirements. Once you get around to the west side of Nassau Point the question is, where does Peconic Bay end and the interior waterbodies begin? Unfortunately the code does not give us any real clear way of making that determination so went to Mike Verity for example and said well this property is really on Cutchogue Harbor. Well Cutchogue Harbor is kind of connected to Peconic Bay isn't it? I mean where really is the dividing line? They are (inaudible) for other purposes New York State Coastal Management Act for example treats state significant fish and wildlife habitat treats Cutchogue Harbor differently from Peconic Bay but there's no dividing line. So the Building Department basically said we're going to leave it up to the Zoning Board to figure this out. I had suggested one interesting way which is look at the tax map because this property is conveniently the most southerly lot in section 111 and the tax map declares the waterbody in front at Cutchogue Harbor. If you drop down to the south section 119 closer to Wunneweta Pond it says Peconic Bay but Mike wasn't convinced so here we are. Now I don't know if the Board I'm not expecting the Board to make that decision while you sit there. I'm here to argue the merits of our case and we'll treat the application jurisdictionally as any other bluff setback application but I still made the Board to keep in mind the actual in fact physical differences related to this bluff that stem from everything else I just said because first of all mathematically the bluff that's requiring us to be before you today is barely a bluff even by the very conservative code amendment made in 2017. The height differences from toe to top are about 22 to 24 feet so just over the 20 foot threshold and the slopes are 24 to 25% so just over the threshold and I recall Joe Fischetti and others arguing at the Town Board that you had to get at least over 30% for something to be considered a bluff and just to give you some context like a Long Island Sound bluff like the one I just talked,about for Nickolaus is a 50 to 60 foot difference in height and 60 to 70% slopes. So if you look at the photographs of the bluff that I've put up here even to the (inaudible) test this doesn't really look like the type of bluff that this Board is normally regulating. It's very gently sloping, it's not only heavily vegetated but it's heavily vegetated with a lot of woody vegetation and mature hardwood trees which is not really something that you ever see on the Sound or say the east side of Nassau Point and that characterization by the way is supported in the report that was given to you by the Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation District which describes the bluff immediately west of the dwelling as "not steep, gently sloping seaward and shows no signs of erosion or degradation". But despite all that despite the location, despite the .5 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting uncertainty of whether we should be here in the first place, despite the gentle nature of the bluff as the architect who is here by the way came in from Texas to see you all and my client behind me they can attest. We have taken this variance very seriously and the design. We came here basically to argue the merits of the case because we want to ensure through the design and the mitigation that the Board can grant this relief without adversely impacting the neighbors causing an undesirable change to the neighborhood or adversely impacting the adjacent slopes whatever we want to call them or whatever they are defined as code. So the question is, how have we sought to accomplish that and most significantly it's the design itself. So the existing dwelling predates 1957. It's covered by a Pre-CO that was issued by the Building Department and there was initial contemplation of substantially renovating that dwelling given its historic location in place but the owners opted not to do that. The owners are proposing to build a new dwelling which unlike probably ninety percent of the applications that come before you is going to be smaller, shorter? About half the GFA of the existing dwelling and it's being pushed roughly 23 feet landward straight back and what I mean by that this gets a little complicated because a change in the bluff setback but right here this is the existing brick patio and this is the existing house. This is the proposed house so our straight back push is almost 23 feet which would be double the existing setback. But because the house is longer we get pinched on the corners so just for the record the actual difference in bluff setback changes from 23 feet to 35 feet so that's really 50% in terms of the mathematical difference in the bluff setback. But even with the enclosed porch the footprint will be 433 feet smaller than the existing. The proposed GFA is about 3,000 sq. ft. which is half the 6,000 sq. ft. GFA of the existing and by reconstructing and relocating the house the applicants can create this smaller more efficient modernized dwelling which will sit lower on the landscape and it's been designed in conjunction with a replacement garage and a new swimming pool neither of which are under your jurisdiction because they are more than 100 feet from the bluff setback and a renovated guest cottage which Leslie mentioned in the beginning or the so called carriage house which does require a second variance which I'll discuss in just a few minutes. I'm trying to get through this as fast as I can but the context of this is really important to your decision. In the context this overall site design and the site's undulating topography, the house really can't be moved farther from the bluff than where we're showing it for a bunch a reason which the architect can get into in more detail if the Board wishes but in short, once you start relocating the dwelling even farther toward the house; first of all the house starts to become situated entirely landward of the existing foundation area of the existing house so you lose the advantage of being able to work somewhat with the existing excavation area of the existing house foundation. It also starts to creep up to the base of a topographic knoll which you can see on the topographical survey which does a couple of things. First of all it starts to complicate access to the front of the house but it also forces the house to sit taller on the landscape and we're trying to get lower on the landscape and it also increases site disturbance. So you have 361 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting additional tree cutting, additional cut and fill activities and just generally more disturbance than we have with the current proposal and architecturally and aesthetically in addition to standing taller on the landscape it starts to crowd the other structures on the house which for a nearly twelve and a half acre parcel we think is unreasonable and unnecessary to have crowding on a lot this size. Although the requested relief is substantial mathematically can't argue that we do argue in our written application that it's not substantial in the context of the location in size of the existing dwelling relative to the proposed and the project's consistency with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. As the Board is aware and as you have recognized in prior variance cases although there have not been but a few of these on Nassau Point the (inaudible) community of Nassau Point is characterized by dwellings and accessory structures located substantially less than 100 feet from the bluff. Most of which predate the Chapter 275 bluff setback requirements that were first adopted in 2004 and the 280 setbacks that were adopted in December 2015 and modified in December I'm sorry modified in May 2017 as they relate to the so called bay bluffs. Some have been more recently established pursuant the variance relief granted by this Board most relevant of which was case 7003. That was a case in December '16 for 7325 Nassau Point Rd. which strangely is almost identical to our application. They also had a house, now this again is on the east side of Nassau Point about a half mile from our property as the crow flies. They had a house that was located 23 feet from the top of that much taller and steeper bluff which actually the Soil Conservation District found was an unstable bluff at the time of the application and they moved back to a setback of 34 feet that was granted by this Board. So we're going from 23 to 35 but again our landward push really in reality is more than that because we are going back directly back 23 feet. Both the architectural design and the environmental mitigations measured incorporated into this overall project design, our design not only to ensure that the project won't adversely impact the physical environment but will actually improve it and we're seeking to do that by increasing the bluff setback by fifty percent. We're decreasing lot coverage within the 100 foot bluff setback by 14% by making the house smaller. We're improving the treatment of the onsite sanitary waste by removing the existing septic system which is actually located on the face of the bluff so seaward of the top of the bluff and we had to get a New York State DEC tidal wetlands permit to do that and in its place will be a low nitrogen innovative or IA sanitary system that will be located more than 100 feet from the top of the bluff and more than 250 feet from Cutchogue Harbor and we also seek to increase the site's drainage capacity and decreasing the site's runoff potential which will be done in a broader context of a storm water pollution prevention plan or a SWIP but we'll be installing a drainage system. There is a plan to install a non-turf buffer that's going to be planted with native vegetation along the top of the bluff. That's not a plan that the Board has, that's something that the landscape architect has been working on in anticipation of the Trustees review of this project although we can certainly share that with you. There are also additional construction methodologies that have been designed to minimize the impact on the property 37 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting during construction which again the architect can share with you if the Board wishes. For all of these reasons we really do believe this is good project. We've been at this for a very long time. We had a pre application meeting with the Trustees and I think it was Nick Krupski who looked at me and said you're going to move the house back and make it smaller nobody does that. They all seemed very pleased with the proposal to build a smaller and shorter house. Before I leave the microphone I have to talk about the other variance and I'll try to relate the two because the ultimately the applicants ability and willingness to build a smaller house is tied into the ability to use this pre-existing non-conforming guest house or carriage house which is also it is legally existing. It has a certificate of occupancy which is 38226. It also predates 1957 and is recognized by the Building Department but because of the language of Section 280-123A and how the Building Department interprets it, pretty much any structural alteration to that building is going to require us to come to the Board. The proposed renovations to the carriage house are relatively minimal from the perspective of the neighbor or relative to the character of the neighborhood as the only proposed exterior change to the building is the construction of the 339 sq. ft. on grade deck which is going to be on the west side of the house faces away from the road and it kind of wraps partially around the other two sides. This is the carriage house as seen from the road and this (inaudible) area is where the deck would so the road in this photo is over here and the deck primarily is on the side that faces away from the street. So that's the north and south sides that the deck extends around. Otherwise the renovations are interior or they're superficial on the exterior and include the conversion of an existing 74 sq. ft. enclosed porch into living space and the installation of new roofing, siding, window, doors which will of course improve the outward appearance of the aging building although I don't think those improvements actually require your blessing. As I just showed you in that photograph or as you can see in the top photograph there the building is actually sort of recessed in the downward slope from the road toward the house and is partially obscured from view from the road. We can't avoid a variance. Again really to make any improvements to the carriage house but it's unreasonable to expect that a pre-existing non-conforming building that's over sixty years old will not at some point in its lifetime require some renovation and modernization and again here the applicant is proposing pretty minimal reasonable improvements to the building with no change to the building's footprint, no change to the building's height. We're not changing the occupancy and the only change in living space is again really an incorporation of this already enclosed porch. Again it's important to understand the connection of this to the dwelling proposal because having guest space here reduces the need to create additional guest space in the primary dwelling. Finally, the carriage house renovation will also contribute to the overall site designs improvement on the physical environment because it will also have its own upgraded septic system which is going to be a second IA low nitrogen system on the property and a dry well is proposed to collect and recharge roof runoff from the cottage. You've been listening to me for a long time and I appreciate you letting me get through it so I would ask do 38 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting you want to hear more from the architect or would you rather take public comments and now ask your questions that one of us can answer? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to ask some questions. First of all in checking with the Building Department's plans for the cottage, guest cottage there indeed a Pre CO, however the Pre CO was for a three car garage with a small guest quarter no cottage attached to a three car garage. I also have an affidavit from a Charles E. Bratz who submitted the same on June 12, 2015 who is a sixty seven year old who was a child who used that home and it was his grandfathers and he said my grandfather I'll read you a little bit; my grandfather built the cottage as a residence for his chauffeur. I clearly remember my grandfather chauffeur residing in the cottage during the summers of my early childhood. This cottage remains on the property today. As an adult I've returned to the property to visit every several years. When I was a young adult the front garage was built and the original garage adjoining the cottage was converted to habitable space. That conversion was done without benefit of building permits or C.O. according to the Building Department's records. So the Pre CO really only covers that original one room, one bath cottage attached to a three car garage. So if you look at the plans that exist today you will see that there is a wall running smack into the middle of a garage door. So it's clear that whoever did it didn't really logically think through what they were doing. They left the exterior shell and then provided an irrational floor plan. ROB HERMANN : So Leslie let me just interrupt you just for one second, so the Pre CO that was issued in April 2016 that describes an accessory seasonal guest cottage you're saying that accessory seasonal guest cottage is actually further limited by the information that you just read? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. In fact that guest cottage is that original small piece with a three car garage attached. ROB HERMANN : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're proposing a very large expansion of that original cottage to create habitable space in the entire structure. ROB HERMANN : With respect to the interior space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing three bedrooms, three bathrooms none of which are connected to anything other than the outside and then there's the original section of which will be a lounge room or living room or something like that. ROB HERMANN : I'm going to let the architect address that when you're 39 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wanted to raise that right away to get your reaction. So let's look at that first maybe we'll have the architect come and explain the intent here. DAVID ERICKSON : Hi, I'm David Erickson I'm with Lake (inaudible) Architects. A lot of the concerns with the existing carriage house is when the property was bought they all thought it was a three bedroom two;bath carriage house with a C of 0 cause that's how it was pitched and then finding this out later that only that original part could be used and that the three car garage attached wasn't part of the deal. We had tried to figure out how can we use this existing structure and come up with a design that responds to the exterior shell without having to make major modifications and so each garage stall we just thought that could be a bedroom suite. It's for like summer guest use for their visiting family and then they'd all share that living room in the original apartment and it would be big enough to have like an eat in kitchen for all the people staying at the carriage house. Considering that we had an existing three bedroom house is what we all thought we just wanted to distribute those bedrooms evenly that would be sympathetic with the exterior condition of what we were working with which is carriage house stalls. So each carriage house door corresponds with the little narrow bedroom for somebody to stay in with its own bathroom. So that's basically how we got there instead of turning that back into a garage because we had this other garage on the property that we're demolishing and replace with our new one. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Erickson excuse me, did I understand you just to say that you are aware of this problem before the design process or you just learned of it today? DAVID ERICKSON : No we learned of it when we were talking about it with Mike Verity and the C of 0 like we were but this was brought to our notification probably I mean we've been working on the design for over a year now and it seems like we kept on opening up new things. I think we were made aware of this condition when the carriage house when the garage was built. Once they converted that three car garage into a bedroom and a living room that's what Mike Verity told us when we were trying to get this permit in cause we're oh okay we're just taking three bedrooms, we're not putting any more burden on the septic system because we're just doing three we're just reconfiguring what we thought was a three bedroom house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you understood that it was really something lesser? DAVID ERICKSON : That's when we learned later like a lot later after we had already tried to submit out permits. ROB HERMANN : So I let me just respond quickly to something for Nick just so I understand it cause you know I'm a full disclosure guy. Originally we were told that these two applications should run separately that we should applications for the carriage house and submit a separate 40 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting application for the house and as you might imagine I was going to handle the variance for the house and the architectural firm was going to handle the variance for the carriage house. Then we went in for the letter of denial well actually David submitted for a letter of denial and I submitted for a letter of denial and then we got a call from Damon Rallis saying no, no, no this all has to be part of one application. Okay well that wasn't our original guidance so what ended ,up happening is I had to sort of incorporate this into this application. So I think if I'm reading this subtext of Nick's comment I got caught a little bit flat footed on this because this was just not something that I was originally charged to deal with and try to sort of you know coattail it into my application for the house with the expectation that Dave would be able to address this with you today. So if there was anything that I said or wrote that would not have properly recognized that I just apologize because that went over my head. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure understood. Let's see if those are the things I had concerns for. mean the setting of the house is certainly an improvement from what's there now and I understand all of your arguments pretty clearly. It's also the flattest part and by moving it back I mean it's the most logical place to put something. We are going to get I spoke to Mike Domino and we're going to get comments from Trustees. I think they did a site inspection today, you're going to need them anyway cause you have to go before them so it's not going to hold up anything. They're meeting on Monday, they'll submit written comments with regard to the accuracy of the bluff line, the top of the bluff, the top of the bank whatever you want to call it. We see that it's not the traditional typical bluff that we look at and the bottom line is I want to look at environmental impacts. I'm looking at what Soil and Water has to say. Whether it's a bank or a bluff we're there to protect you know erosion from happening and so on and so forth so I see most of this especially with (inaudible) sanitary that's landward of a house as a lot of improvement. The pool and the proposed new garage which will be pretty much on the footprint that was there are not they're conforming so we have no issue with that. So it's just a matter really of I think you made your arguments very clearly about the setback for the dwelling then we just have to grapple with what in the world to do with this carriage house because this is a huge expansion of the Pre C 0. T. A. DUFFY : It's also a use variance really. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if it constitutes a second dwelling if it becomes a second dwelling if the Pre C 0 is not for anything that size then in fact if you're expanding it to a legal proposing a legal three bedroom then it is a second use a second dwelling on the subject property. ROB HERMANN : Well we went through that was another part of this, there was really extensive conversation with the Building Department as Kim will remember about whether this 41 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting was an area variance as it's been presented or a use variance. In fact my Kim I don't know if I'm remembering this correctly but I feel like we may have actually submitted a use variance application to your office and there was some point in which Kim then had additional conversations with the Building Department and because there was a Pre-CO for the building as a guest cottage the Building Department changed its mind and they determined through an amended Notice of Disapproval that it was not in fact a use variance because the understanding was, if there was no second dwelling unit again never mind whether it's you know the building is this big never minding whether the inside cottage space is this big or this big. It is a legal second dwelling unit on the property. I don't think there's any doubt about that and if we were only proposing to change you know shingles and roofing and siding Mike confir=med we would not have needed a variance for that because it's a legal structure. So I think because it was a legally recognized use that that was why they determined well this isn't a use variance cause a use variance would be if that use didn't exist and then we were introducing it on the property. It would be the same as Breezy Shores. When somebody comes in to renovate one of those cottages it would be different whether somebody is proposing a new cottage versus renovating an existing one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But bear in mind that Breezy Shores the very maximum because of the need for over time some renovation that this Board has permitted and they all know it is three percent. Mostly for utilities or to meet code. Expansion from the original piece into the three garage is not three percent. ROB HERMANN : I guess maybe where I'm getting lost here is and maybe correct me if I'm wrong, it's all one continuous building correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. ROB HERMANN : So it's not like we're proposing to expand the size of the building. I guess what you're saying is it's the interior occupancy that's changing, well not the occupancy but the living space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wasn't a legal what they did was not legal. In other words when they expanded it ROB HERMANN : Right, that was not what matched the original. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They changed the use. T. A. DUFFY : A garage that was changed to habitable space. 42 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting ROB HERMANN : (inaudible) changed since 2016 1 mean the Pre-CO was issued by the Building Department in 2016 so are you saying somebody changed the interior of that building since 2016? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably not but if that Pre-CO was issued in 2016 they probably didn't go back and inspect it. ROB HERMANN : I find that hard to believe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know but ROB HERMANN : I mean I couldn't answer Mike Verity would have to answer that question but Mike misses very little and again that's in my defense that's the reason why I you know when I say I was caught flat footed because this was something I discussed at the Building Department with Mike and we understood that it was you know a legal accessory cottage but I guess the nuance lies in how the interior space is positioned versus how it was positioned prior to 1957. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure I mean I have before I went out and did an inspection and I really started digging in more deeply into what was going on and met with Mike in order to see if I was on the right or the wrong track with this Pre, and then we found this affidavit ROB HERMANN : Right well I never saw that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea of course understand. So then I thought well we better bring this up at the hearing and see where we're going with this that's all. No one is making any accusations or anything of the sort it's just a matter of figuring out I understand what your argument is about a use variance; how big is the square footage of this total structure? DAVID ERICKSON : It's 1,230 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's a dwelling. If you have that all as habitable space that's not a cottage. The original piece attached to a three car garage was well under 750 sq. ft. At 850 you're talking about the definition of a dwelling rather than a cottage or apartment. So you're talking about a fairly large I mean my house is about that big you're talking about a fairly large structure which is considerably different than a Pre-CO for a three car garage with a chauffeur's you know quarter a little kitchenette, bathroom and bedroom. That in a nutshell is what we're looking at here with that structure. Everything else I think is very clear. MEMBER DANTES : This doesn't I mean the one I have doesn't say it has a different line for garage it just says seasonal guest cottage. 43 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It calls it seasonal guest cottage and of course it's even more confused by the fact that there were two garages on the property. So which CO is for which garage and when and what so we had to do a whole lot of documentation and a timeline on all of this to see which one we're talking about. Obviously the one that you're demolishing and rebuilding was the second one that was built. That's when the three car garage attached to the guest cottage was abandoned and somebody enlarged it as habitable space. So at least we're clear on the history. ROB HERMANN : Like the fine language was at that time that conversion was done without an approval. I get it now. T. A. DUFFY : I think this determination puts kind of you in a bad position and the Board in a bad position because what area relief are we granting for the cottage? There's no area relief because it's within the same footprint right, so if it's not area ROB HERMANN : Right other than the exterior on grade deck and again the fact like you know on a conversational basis when you talk to Mike about these kind of renovations basically you know if you're touching it it's going to the ZBA. So it is you know it's not am I right? I mean that was pretty much the architects impression too where it was like you know each conversation well what if we only do this you know you sort of end up DAVID ERICKSON : What are we allowed to do. ROB HERMANN : Yeah what are we allowed to do and what we're not. Well you're not allowed to do anything unless the Zoning Board says you can do it so that's why again I mean just in my own defense, my pitch on the cottage was that it seems almost CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Benign. ROB HERMANN : Yea Mr. Duffy's words like what area variance am I even asking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean well what they're talking about is you know the section of the code that refers to a non-conforming building with a non-conforming use. ROB HERMANN : Yea that any structural alteration and I think even the and again I can be wrong but my understanding from talking to Mike is even the interior structural alterations then triggers it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Triggers it and it says it may not be enlarged and clearly (inaudible) ROB HERMANN : Correct, well we didn't think well I didn't think it was being enlarged. 44 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The habitable space was enlarged without benefit of a permit and I can understand where if you were just looking at as builts you're going to say well this was a three bedroom you know so we're not changing anything except the spatial organization, circulation. DAVID ERICKSON : That part wasn't disclosed to anyone buying the property or even to us until we were well finished with the design ROB HERMANN : Close to here I guess. DAVID ERICKSON : (inaudible) and that comes up we were like ok so I guess when you're selling a house whose going to disclose what was done without a permit when you go through and the garage (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That must be frustrating. ROB HERMANN : The owner has come here and he would like to just make address the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure please. ANDREW BECK : Hi my legal name is Andrew Beck. I go by Trey Beck and I'm the sole member of Vanston Bear which is the owner of the property. So just as historical context, first of all I've never heard the letter that you read into the record from Charles Bratz but you mean the Bratz family was the prior owner of that residence. The title holders of that property were three of the sisters who were the heirs of Mrs. Bratz who was originally born a Vanston hence Vanston Rd. so this is actually news to me literally today that that was built for the chauffeur of Mr. Vanston back in the day. I just wanted to make abundantly clear that when we purchased the property I had none of this prior context. What I understood was that was a structure with an envelope that was fully usable for residential purposes. It was used by the family and it was my understanding that it had a C of 0 that applied universally to that structure and so what we're proposing to do is to use that structure in a way identical to its use my understanding at least by the family over the previous fifty, sixty years. I have no idea when the work that you're discussing now was performed to expand it form the original incarnation as this you know combo garage and residential structure. But to put anyone at ease about the proposed use of the structure, this is purely for our use. If you're wondering about the proposed design where two of the rooms not all three but two of the rooms have only egress to the exterior; that's purely for functional and probably for aesthetic reasons which is that if we had an interior hallway it would eat up a lot of the square footage and we actually just thought it would be sort of fun since it's mostly for summer use that we would have you know maybe teenage family staying there. They could you know view it as sort of their own little room. So it was sort of it was whimsy if anything to do that but if there are any other questions about the intended use 45 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting or my understanding of what the structure was going to be for when I bought it, I'm happy to answer those questions here. And by the way I'd also like to note two of my neighbors are here too in support of our application for this work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the things you're proposing which is not before us cause it's conforming is this new two story garage. A lot of two story garages in this town wind up with an apartment on the second floor. I'm not suggesting that's what your intent is but certainly one of the things the Board would want to think about was whether or not there was any intent for habitable space and whether or not we could (inaudible) from using that structure for any habitable space. ANDREW BECK : You're welcome to bar us from using it as habitable space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do you do the second floor for? ANDREW BECK : The second floor would be a studio. My partner Laura is a film maker so she would use it as an office. We might have a ping pong table something like that. It's supposed to be just a pleasant place to read a book but it's not a bedroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No cooking, no sleeping. ANDREW BECK : There's no gas or anything like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it heated, is it finished? ANDREW BECK : There's AC yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's year round. ANDREW BECK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And are you proposing in the renovation on this so called guest cottage we'll call it the guest cottage, are you proposing year round use? ANDREW BECK : That would be heated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Heat, air-conditioning. ANDREW BECK : Yes and as a reminder Rob's spent a lot of time on the initial variance request because the two variances are in our mind expressly linked which is to say we're building a relatively small in the grand scheme of things you know a three thousand square foot structure on an existing six thousand square foot floor print because we know or at least our assumption has been all along that we have this secondary structure which we can use for residential 46 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting purposes as well. So there is no need to construct a six bedroom you know giant dwelling-that would you know would be duplicate of with two or three bedrooms in this other building. So the two are in our mind linked the two you know we view it almost as one house on two existing building sites., CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand what your aspirations are and what your rational for scattered site housing. ANDREW BECK : I mean the intent is to be sort of barn like you know ca'use it's sort of the agricultural history of the area. I know it's not actually a barn in practice. 'ROB HERMANN : And Leslie I don't know if it's responsive to what you were getting at but, and Trey can hit me in the back or something if I'm speaking out of term but I think if the Board were ultimately inclined to approve the renovation and the guest cottage then he would agree to covenant the use of the garage that would forever prohibit that space as being habitable or containing a kitchen or whatever because then there's the I understand; I think Leslie's concern is the proliferation of you know sort of secondary sleeping units so I don't think we have any problem covenanting the prohibition of that garage if that were a potential condition of you know getting the Board's blessing for the carriage house renovation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes why don't we let the public speak, anyone want to address the application? Come to the podium and state your name please. PATRICIA HARRISON : Hi my name is Patricia Harrison. I'm at 4490 Vanston Rd. two doors down. I just want to give you a little bit of information about the cottage. My family has been out here since 1930 and as far back as the sixties that cottage was usually rented out in the summertime and it was no repairs were really ever made on it. I kind of in the last ten years or so have been overseeing rentals and everything that went in and out of there for the Bratz' and there's no heat in it presently and I'm just giving you what might be you know information that you could use to make your decision. I also want to say that I am thrilled with what Trey and Laura are doing with the property, not building a big house doing everything that is environmentally correct, no pesticides. I can't speak for the whole neighborhood but I can speak for a lot of us are thrilled for that they're doing. CHAIRPERSONVEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony, anyone else? MELISSA BILLING : Melissa Billing, 84505 Vanston Rd. I'm across from Trey and Laura on Vanston Rd. and my husband and I are thrilled with the plan that's proposed. The house is smaller, it fits with the landscape a lot better and the modern septic systems are a big plus for us. We're on that beach and in the water constantly. Regarding the guest house, I do want to say the nature of Vanston Rd. and much of Nassau Point is about families and friends coming 47 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting together and I only hope that in the future I can make a nice big guest room in my house at one point because my children are soon to be teenagers and honestly it's a revolving door with friends and family who want to come out and see us and that is what Vanston Rd. is about. Pat's house sleeps twelve. We have cooking and drinks and people sleeping over and families getting together from all over the neighborhood and from far away. So I understand the need with a family why a guest house would be very important and I think that anyone who sees the action you know in full swing in the summer knows that about Nassau Point. Thank you. We welcome them to get going. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, any other questions you have? We do have to get Trustees comments so I'm going to suggest although I'm not saying we're finished with the discussion yet but I'm going to suggest that we're going to adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks. That might give you Rob an opportunity to think through what you heard today and talk to the architect. I don't know it's up to you but at least we'll get comments from them about the designation of bluff and banks. I don't think that's going to be an issue but we do need to get their comments and it's not going to hold up anything. If we don't have any further questions or information then MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'd like to ask one question if I may CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I don't mean just yet I'm just saying procedurally. We will be prepared to close this hearing this just leaves it open for written commentary and questions and communications and so on. ROB HERMANN : Right procedurally that was the question I was going to ask cause as I understand usually your Special Meetings in two weeks are for the purpose of rendering decisions but you're not closing today. But are you saying that procedurally not hearing anything from the Trustees that would upset the apple cart relative to the environmental components of the property you would be in a position to close the hearing in two weeks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. ROB HERMANN : But not in a public form like this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct, I don't know if we'll need another public hearing. That just depends what gets (inaudible) but I'm not anticipating personally I'll speak for myself I don't anticipate that. ROB HERMANN : So one question I do have MEMBER DANTES : It's a public meeting, you can attend it's just not a presentation. 48 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting ROB HERMANN : Well that's what I mean like I didn't I know it's not like a secret closed door thing but it's not an environment where you would have people coming in and offering public testimony. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All our meetings are transparent and opened to the public if they choose but that meeting is to listen. You can listen to us deliberate before the public. We don't have any interaction with people who are sitting there. The only thing that ever happens is if someone is sitting there and they are the seventh one and nobody else is there, I'll move the agenda to give them the first slot so unless they're fascinated with what we're talking about they don't have to sit through the whole meeting but other than those changes that's basically what happens. Occasionally we are prepared to close and deliberate if we have a draft prepared, but at the very latest the draft would be discussed a month from now in this forum again without public input but public listening if they want. So the very latest would be probably you know four weeks from today if everything goes fine. It could be as soon as two weeks it just depends on what we unearth and when information comes in. The sooner we get it the more time we have to write a draft decision. If we get something too close to that date which is February 211t we won't have time. So we'll just typically close it and then have another two weeks to write everything up and deliberate at this meeting. ROB HERMANN : Right so procedurally then I have two questions, 1) since the submission of this application the site plan has been updated for reasons not having anything to do with the structural proposals but sanitary system tweaks and things, I have copies of that map and I would like I guess for the record submit them to you because then it would be the same plan that was submitted to the Trustees and it would also be the plan that's you know has been for all other intents and purposes approved by the Health Department pending approvals from the ZBA and the Trustees. The other question and just maybe this is more a question for Bill is one of the things we grapple with with these applications now is that at some point the town changed its policy on these waterfront applications where we are required to not only to make application to your Board but to get a determination from your Board before the Trustees will even process an application. So we're in a position now where I mean we submitted this application I think in October and we're being heard in February and can't go to the Trustees until you render a determination but now somehow are being delayed in front of you because you have to wait to hear from the Trustees. So it's just something Bill I would ask the town to think about in terms of the staging of these applications because we're almost we're creating new delays to the delays that already exist and this is a serious project so it's not intended to try to rush you on this. It's just in the grand scheme of things, it's frustrating for us to not be able to get an environmental matter before the Trustees and then find out when we come to you that you're waiting to hear from the Trustees who won't hear from us until after they hear from you. 49 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I will tell you that that is not in the code. That is an internal procedure ROB HERMANN : No it's a policy yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : we agreed to because it benefits the property owner. What was happening is you know you go to the Trustees, you get approval, you come to us and we'd say well I'll give you alternative relief or something. Then you had to go back to the Trustees for an amendment. It didn't make any sense. ROB HERMANN : We'd rather do that though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are times when we've actually asked and I've written memos to the Trustees to say we would like you to evaluate first. If there are significant environmental impacts then we would rely on their decision to affect ours instead of the other way around. ROB HERMANN : Understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we do do that. Bear in mind it's just a way of trying to do good bargaining, it's not without some faults but ROB HERMANN : It's just something I struggle with every month so T. A. DUFFY : I appreciate that and I (inaudible) Trustees on maybe what their process is and I don't see the way ZBA and Planning work together is if you're waiting for one at least you can get to a certain point with the Planning Board process and then they say well let's wait so you don't have to come back to us. The Trustees can maybe adjust the way they do things too. A public hearing will get you so far and then once the ZBA signs off then we can ROB HERMANN : We can actually close it. T. A. DUFFY : so you're not waiting two months, three months. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could be concurrent. ROB HERMANN : Having that even the potential for that is worth my having said what I said so I appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick you had a question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea, I wanted to ask a question and Rob I don't know if you want to answer or maybe the property owner but on the survey submitted with the application it February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting illustrates lots across the street also owned by Vanston Bear and I was just curious to know if those are in fact residential lots, if there's houses on them? ROB HERMANN : There is one parcel that's located across the street. It's the one that has like kind of a decrepit tennis court in the front and that's one parcel. ANDREW BECK : There are I believe originally two tax lots. It's I think accumulative three acres on other side of Vanston Rd. from the twelve and half acres we've been talking about today. We purchased concurrently with the property we're talking about today. Currently the land is fallow it's just tennis court. It's been there for probably thirty years and our intent is either to sell that at some point or to refurbish the tennis court or to build a house there that (inaudible) get all the requisite permits. We haven't determined what to do with the land but our priority has been the Peconic side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Understood but there are two lots and those are owned also by you? ANDREW BECK : Yes they are and I do think we'll probably just leave it fallow for a while, while we do the work on the west side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just ask you a question so that it's entered into the record. The intended use of this guest cottage is for friends and family only? ANDREW BECK : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not to be rented? ANDREW BECK : Absolutely not, no. We're happy to covenant that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you, Eric anything more? Anything from the audience? Looks like we're done for the moment. ROB HERMANN : I just wanted to hand in the plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I adjourn this do I have your permission to adjourn this. I'm going to make a motion hearing no further questions or comments to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on February 21St, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7103 - SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Southold Sunsets, LLC #7103. This is a request for variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 31, 2017 amended October 10, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 4200 Kenneys Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. Mike just enter your name for the record. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So when we first looked at this application we knew we needed a permit for coastal erosion hazard area MIKE KIMACK : In October you sent me to the Trustees for 275. MIKE KIMACK : Right you went to Trustees and you got their wetlands permit. You went to the Town Board and you've received permission MIKE KIMACK : For the demolition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the demolition and the reconstruction basically in the same footprint for a one story, 15 feet high on piles and so we now can make this LWRP consistent which we never could without those permits. MIKE KIMACK : Yea just to give you a quickie on that particular one, the original footprint was 39.11 by 31.8 and the new one is essentially that. It's about 55 sq. ft. less overall between the decks and the house, raised in the same location because of the primary dune and because of the beach but also and you got before you the Trustees renovation basically of that particular area. We went off to the Town Board where the Trustees had approved a standard system. The Town Board then imposed the innovative alternative system which is part of theirs and we've already got that Health Department permit approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So now I just want to understand the free board here the elevation. So you're in what AE '2 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : We're in VE13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're in VE13. MIKE KIMACK : Subsequent that's why the pilings required in VE13 because of the velocity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so essentially what the average individual is going to want to know is how high off the beach is this proposed one story dwelling going to be? It looks to me like maybe 7 feet. MIKE KIMACK : No not even. Right now the first floor is 11.4, the ground is roughly 8 roughly at the present time. VE requires at the 13 zone requires 2 foot underneath 16 feet to the first floor as a minimum primarily to be raised. This is being raised at 16 so it's 4.6 feet CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Off the ground MIKE KIMACK : Off the ground as it is now off of more basically if you take the existing ridge and raise it up 4.6 essentially that's what it is because the existing house is 15.1 the new house is 15.1. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The new house is 15.1 MIKE KIMACK : Height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Height. MIKE KIMACK : So in essence the only thing changing in terms of the height is we're going up in order to meet the requirements of FEMA to the 16 foot first floor elevation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay but that's not 16 feet from the beach up in the air. MIKE KIMACK : No, no that's from the ground itself at the 16 foot elevation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I want the public to be very clear what we're talking about because these terms are very technical when we talk about elevations. MIKE KIMACK : The existing grade around the foundation is somewhere around 8 to 8.5 on that particular one so if you looked at that first floor at the present time the first floor is 11.4 and the new floor will be 16 so you're really going up from 11.5 plus the 16 plus the 15 on top of that, about 4.6 feet higher than what it is now. That's the best way to look at it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the simple lay persons 53 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : The easy way. If you look at the house on the ridge raise it up 4 % feet that's where it's going to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So it's going to look pretty much like what it does now. MIKE KIMACK : Essentially the same design house. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : In the same footprint. MIKE KIMACK : Same footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And so all we're looking at now it's no longer 100% lot coverage because you have permits for it. It's just a 4 foot front yard setback is that what it was? MIKE KIMACK : I think so which can't be there's no way to minimize that simply because of the not only because that's what the permit says from the Trustees but also because of the primary dune basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's piping plover in that area. They just don't want any more disturbance. MIKE KIMACK : That and you couldn't obviously move forward either because that's designated beach area and in that particular area where the innovative system is going to be going you got before you also the renovation plan with all beach grass being planted in there which is also approved by the Trustees. That's it, I mean there really isn't much more. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's come a long way since the original proposal. MIKE KIMACK : Talk about a road well-traveled. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's two stories way up high in the air and this is now going to be a newly built about the same size one story cottage, it'll be year round however habitable year round. MIKE KIMACK : Habitable year round yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And in the same footprint and about 4 foot MIKE KIMACK : 4%feet higher than the ridge as it exists now. T. A. DUFFY : Didn't the Town Board require covenants about no second story? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea they did. MIKE KIMACK : I'm sorry. 54 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : Didn't the Town Board require a covenant require a covenant regarding the second story? MIKE KIMACK : There is no second story. T. A. DUFFY : The Town Board required (inaudible) a condition that you file a covenant that they'll never put on a second story. MIKE KIMACK : Oh that you'd never would? T. A. DUFFY : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea there is. MIKE KIMACK : Okay then if there is that's what I'll be doing. If the covenant is there I might have done that going back on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to go and look what I have in my notes. MIKE KIMACK : Take a peek. If I have to do the covenant Bill I will. T. A. DUFFY : That's what I was getting at, if you've filed it yet. MIKE KIMACK : You know Bill I'm not sure but I'll check. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the second condition on the Town Board's approval. The applicant must draft and file with the office of the Suffolk Clerk, covenants and restrictions for the subject property limiting the one family home to one floor subject to approval by the Town Attorney who happens to be sitting right here. MIKE KIMACK : I don't think I did at the present time Bill. I will though. T. A. DUFFY : I don't remember reviewing one so. MIKE KIMACK : If it didn't come your way it didn't come your way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It also says here number one, to refresh your memory; the plans must be amended to show the septic system installed to be an innovative alternative septic system as approved by Suffolk County Department of Health and the Town Engineer. MIKE KIMACK : Well what I had to do basically is because they amended the 275 permit because the Trustees had actually approved a standard system and when I got to the Town Board they required as part of their variance the innovative alternative system. I had to go back to the Trustees and get their permit amended which you got a copy of there, indicating the IA 55 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting system. I had to go back to the Trustees and get their permit amended which you got a copy there of indicating an IA system as part of that. That should have covered it plus we've got a Health Department approval for an IA already so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok, anything from you questions, Eric, Nick, Rob? Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application, please come forward and state your name. JOHN KATRAMADOS : John Katramados 4070 Kenneys Rd. I'm his neighbor. I see the proposal there, they're going to raise the finished floor 16 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's an elevation that's why I was trying to ask him cause I had a feeling JOHN KATRAMADOS : I'd like to clear that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very confusing. The dwelling that they're going to build is going to be about 4 feet off the ground with steps going up to a porch and then on top of that 4 foot deck is going to be a 15 foot high one story dwelling. JOHN KATRAMADOS : One story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just like what you're seeing now which is 15 feet high, it's going to be the same you know footprint JOHN KATRAMADOS : Same size almost. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Same height except it's going to be on piles that will be about 4 feet off the ground enclosed. So you'll just see it's just going to be about 4 feet higher than what it is right now. JOHN KATRAMADOS : I don't think so because now the first finished floor is 4 feet, 4% and they go to 16. MEMBER DANTES : No it's the first JOHN KATRAMADOS : That's what they say here. MEMBER DANTES : Four feet above grade, the sixteen is sixteen feet above sea level elevation. JOHN KATRAMADOS : Oh from sea level. They don't specify. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's confusing. That's why I asked him to tell us in lay people's terms what we're going to look at. What are we going to see you know when this thing is built. 56 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : When they say elevation 8.6 they mean that 8 feet about sea level right now (inaudible) 16 JOHN KATRAMADOS : Above sea level, now explains because it doesn't explain on the drawing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right it doesn't. JOHN KATRAMADOS : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very different than what we first looked at. DOMINIC MAVELLIA : Good afternoon, Dominic Mavellia. I reside at 205 North Sea Drive in Southold. I'm one house east of the applicant's property. So I just wanted to be clear that there was no cause since we're in front of the ZBA that we're not getting applicant is not asking for any variances in terms of height and the footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. They're going to put it back right where it is only 4 feet higher. Same height as the existing but adding 4 feet. DOMINIC MAVELLIA : So what are they accomplishing just by doing that? It's going to be on pilings as opposed to a concrete foundation so normally that would be 16 1 think that's where John CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's sea level rather than feet. That's why when you say elevation to me an elevation has to do with a vertical dimension and you're talking about elevated above sea level so it gets confusing. DOMINIC MAVELLIA : So basically from the dunes of the beach area to the ridge of the structure are we talking about are you saying it's going to be 4 feet higher than what it is now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct, it'll be 19 feet tall all together from the beach to the top of the ridge. DOMINIC MAVELLIA : And they can't expand on that further. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They cannot build on top of it and that is in perpetuity because we are requiring covenants and restrictions on what they can do on the property. DOMINIC MAVELLI : And us neighbors we were for that from day one but the original application was we were afraid that maybe not this neighbor but in the future if it was to sell there would be three apartments and it would be a party house and obviously I don't think anybody wants that or the change of the landscape or the big sky scraper you know so that was what our concern was from day one.Thank you. 57 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was there. Anyone else wanting to address the Board from the audience. MIKE KIMACK : A quick clarification Leslie, it's actually 22 feet from the grade to the ridge line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yes it's on the elevation. MIKE KIMACK : But that's the 4.6 feet raised up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In a nut shell, what they're doing is they're elevating it for flood conditions based on the laws that FEMA required them to do and nothing more. They're not asking for any more, they're not putting a garage underneath it. They're just saying the law requires us in order to be in a flood zone to be that high off the ground and we're putting one story on top of it. DOMINIC MAVELLIA : I appreciate that clarification thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments oh sorry JOHN KATRAMADOS : About the cesspools, are they going to do anything for the cesspools? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're going to put in an advanced waste water treatment system. The updated you know efficient system that is more than what the code requires at the moment. They're going to put in the one that is the most environmentally successful at this point MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it's on the east side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's on the east side. JOHN KATRAMADOS : The east side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea, it's not closer to the water it's on the east side of the proposed dwelling. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then on the plans it's also illustrated that once it's installed it'll be completely planted with beach grass and left in its natural state. MIKE KIMACK : On the design of the septic system, in order to meet Health Department requirements it had to be 100 feet back from the high water mark which it is on the back side of the property. 58 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else from anybody? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7214- 8100 HORTONS LANE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is 8100 Hortons Lane, LLC #7214. This is a request for a\ variance from Article III Section 280-13 and the Building Inspector's July 5, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) more than the code required maximum allowed two and one half (2 %) stories located at 8100 Hortons Lane (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. MIKE KIMACK : Hello again, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicants and Meryl Kramer is here and Stacey is here also too to add additional support. I'll try to be as brief as I can obviously this has been running along longer and you're probably getting a little more exhausted. We are here because we were sent by the Building Department on the fact that they were claiming we had a third floor and we're here to present a testimony in evidence to indicate to you that we don't have a third floor situation but let me give you a little background on the particular lot itself. The existing house right now is in the VE zone and also in the CEHL zone which was very restrictive to the clients in terms of what they can do obviously since we just went through one before. So they decided to demolish the existing structure and move it back about seven and a half feet out of the CEHL zone and ten foot wide and into the AE zone primarily. There's roughly I think the original house had about fifteen hundred square feet roughly to it as a footprint the new house's footprint it's about 2,205. It is required to be raised in accordance to FEMA standards. The AE line is twelve so it has to be raised beyond that 5q February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting particular, that is the requirement of FEMA. What we would like to be able to present today on that basis is that I had given you a copy of an interpretation that you had done some time ago in a very similar case having to do is 6789 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the Gremler Osbourne MIKE KIMACK : Yea. The similarities part of it basically and in essence to (inaudible) in that particular one you basically said that you would interpret the code solely on the basis of (inaudible) town code and what was presented before you that particular one was the structure being raised in accordance with FEMA standards in the VE zone you make two cases (inaudible) determinations there you basically indicated that if you were raising in accordance with FEMA standards. (inaudible machine is off) but what was before you in that particular application was a VE design primarily. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On piles. MIKE KIMACK : On piles. The decision was written around the piling system in a VE zone because FEMA does require that piling because (inaudible) factor involved primarily. The difference here is we were raising it according to FEMA but we're not in the VE zone and FEMA requirements for that raised structure are different in the AE zone (inaudible) standards that are in conformance with FEMA relative to what is being constructed in the AE zone because in that decision you made you basically in number six said the type of structure subject to this interpretation will be (inaudible) where the structure has to be elevated on pilings so as to render the structure FEMA flood zone compliant. So you did rely on FEMA for the standard basically CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did. MIKE KIMACK : we would hope that you would rely on FEMA for the same standard but in the AE zone and not consider it a raised story. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know in looking at the overall project you're AE12 and you need two foot of free board so that's fourteen and you're asking for 4.25 feet more than what is required at the bare minimum and you're on a foundation, partial foundation with open area. I think in looking at it and you know indicating that you're going to be putting a septic system in the front yard and the fact that the front yard is very blocked off as a result of being on a curve so you're buildable area is very minimal and most of it would be a septic system that will be MIKE KIMACK : And dry wells. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And dry wells brand new, I can't remember did you propose IA? 64 February-7;2019 Regular,Meeting MIKE KIMACK : IA has been proposed and the Trustees application also requires IA. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right you know you wouldn't have room in the front yard where this proposal moving it out of the CEHA much (inaudible) attached garage and so I suspect the idea here is to get the car under the house, have enough headroom and I think you kriovv at first I thought maybe this is pushing it I think there's,,more being gained by this proposal than there is being lost and I do think that it is- a third story based upon our prior determination but that's no big deal because we can grant a variance for a third story and it would have to be compliant with do we have enough to pass around, we do. These are renderings of the dwelling. It's going to be very porous and light on the bottom, there's a lot of visual you know see through, it's not going to be bulky and I think that it's probably more be a morel compact footprint than spreading things out on the site. It's not only more attractive but it's also more efficient based on the shape of the lot and the fact that it's moving from a high velocity zone into an AE zone` and you're putting in a new septic and so on all speaks wells for the project in my mind. I'll see ,what the rest of the Board has to say. I think the reason that you're a little bit higher than maybe four feet higher Mel do you want to address that I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. MERYL KRAMER : Hi my name is Meryl Kramer I'm the architect on behalf of the applicant and all of your observations I of course agree with and what I would like to stress, the idea that we are retreating twenty feet landward from what the existing house where'the existing house was located out of the coastal erosion hazard area and as you said we're locating the septic system from seaward of the house to landward of the house. Absolutely there is no space left after we have our storm water management system and our septic IA system there is just no room for parking anywhere except for underneath the house. Just a quick correction, the existing footprint including the shed, is 2,114. Our proposed which includes a generator platform is 2,205 and I don't know whether you would like we did a little spread sheet here I think I gave it to Mike, that just has comparable,of-lots in the area what their square footage is and what their heights are compared to ours and we're right in the average. We're smaller than some and larger than others. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't need a height variance. MERYL KRAMER : No we don't. MIKE KIMACK : But we wanted to address the LWRP inconsistency primarily. That basically suggested that the house was somehow larger than the area larger than the houses in th'e area. Meryl put together a nice presentation, I have some photos here which CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh good can you submit that to us? February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : of all the houses that are there with a tax map. The neighborhood it was funny I tried to look up the definition of neighborhood, you're not going to find one primarily but you know what we'll do is if you give it back I'll have all copies brought to you so you can have it for the Board for the Special Meeting would that'be ok or do you need more? BOARD SECRETARY : We'll take you have to make copied of this? MIKE KIMACK : We can get more. The idea was to present to the Board those pictures of those house which are rather eclectic in the area there. They're kind of all over the place, some small cottages but the ones immediately off to the east are fairly substantial and fairly larger (inaudible) but if you go down North Sea there are some rather substantial structures. That was the first inconsistent, the second part of the inconsistency had to deal with and this was somewhat of an ironic situation because it basically said well you're raising it therefore you're creating 'a vulnerability structure wise but that really is a function for the architect and structural engineer in all due respect. The thing is that houses that will be raised in that area are going to be subject to being higher than they are now and they have to ,be designed but the FEMA requirements require you to design for the velocity load and the wind load and Jeff Butler is the structural engineer on here along with Meryl have done the design calculations. So I do take some exception to the fact that it was because we're higher we're more vulnerable. We're higher because we have to. meet the FEMA requirements and we're narrow in terms of the (inaudible) simply,because of'restrictions that the lot represents in terms of moving it out of the CEHL line CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on one sec Mike, apparently the we have to reboot. Here we go okay carry on. MIKE KIMACK : quickly it was raised in accordance with FEMA as of all the results of raising up it did have a higher low profile but that is being designed by the'structural engineer in terms of the reference to the vulnerability of the height factor there. I did want to point out something, I think what you basically suggested that you may not decide to visit this as an extension of the in terms of the standard that's put into the AE zone as opposed to the VE zone, however you might look at it in terms of a third floor variance. We are required regardless. of that are -required to put in a sprinkler system anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly. MIKE KIMACK : Because that's not before you that's because of the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : New York State code. MIKE KIMACK : New York State code so that would be that's part of the Building February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if the determination was yes it's a third story and we grant a third story,then that's what's before us based on the Notice of- Disapproval right and you gotta sprinkler it, the,only condition on a third story would be sprinklers. MIKE KIMACK : I do know that one of your requirements-obviously is to minimize or eliminate variances when you can and basically the presentation here was to give you a pathway that we thought would be reasonable to make us T. A. DUFFY : That doesn't mean we're supposed to find or figure (inaudible) needing a variance that's not the meaning of the reduce the size or scope. MIKE KIMACK : I,know that Bill but-at the same time my responsibility towards my clients is to give them any opportunity to realize their'dream and this design along with what Meryl did is T. A. DUFFY : I don't have a problem with arguing an alternative, I have a problem with you suggesting that the way to meet our requirement to minimize variances is to find you don't need a variance I don't think that's the intent. MIKE KIMACK : Well that was something that I sent to you as a request basically is in a sense if in fact that was the case and this particular this prior decision was applied to us then yes we would not need a variance for the AE,zone as it's designed as Jeff has CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only way'that would happen would be if we overturned the Notice of Disapproval and or you request a code interpretation but that's not going to happen so MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, I think he's, talking a lot about the hardship for the property but why is the property unique? I mean if we grant this third story why would we have to grant every third story on a FEMA regulated property or dwelling (inaudible) MIKE KIMACK': Well the Building Department right now,is if someone came to you with a set of building plans to raise it in a VE zone with two stories and' a set of pilings, the Building Department does not consider that in need of a variance based upon what you did go ahead Meryl. MERYL KRAMER : I just want to-address the question about why the property is unique. I think Leslie Weisman started to address that fact that it's at that curve of Hortons and the fact that the VE zone I'm sorry the coastal erosion hazard zone is so-far landward it very, much compresses what our buildable area is. But because we have a very,small footprint in which, we're able to build it forces us to be compact and therefore build up because it's AE12 instead of a lot of the other properties are 7 and 81n this area but the AE line starts to curve at an angle f3 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting and again compressing our area that we're able to build and because we can't put a garage anywhere on the property we're parking underneath so and then in order to be able to get from the ground floor up to the first livable floor we're having an enclosed stair and therefore those aspects are causing this property to be unique I think. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In a sense you're asking for a1ittle bit higher for headroom and so on than what FEMA would require. I think it's MERYL KRAMER : Yes because,the 6 foot definition of what a story is we are by definition and by complying with FEMA we are above CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A story yea. That's the thing the definitions are what's driving this. MERYL KRAMER : And there are three different definitions of stories and floors depending if you're talking town code, state code or FEMA. T. A. DUFFY : And you're into the max. height. You're not seeking a height variance. MERYL KRAMER : We are not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And one of the things that's interesting about what's happening all along these waterfront properties is that when people have to be FEMA compliant they all look different because they're not necessarily in the same at the same elevation. So it depends on the topography and the height above sea level and some of them are fairly low like Southold Sunsets doesn't have to be that high yet right down the street and you're in a high velocity zone and right down the street FEMA is requiring in an AE zone a higher elevation than in that VE zone. So it's because the beach goes like this. Like this was my hand waving. MIKE KIMACK : One of the difficulties with that is that 1988 map that they did that everyone follows at the two hundred scale is not only general (inaudible) but it really doesn't follow it wasn't done with contour lines. It was just laid on the map and when we did,Southold for instance the whole lot was CEHL except the line from the town property next door the water had to run uphill in order to make that happen on the contours and I wasn't about to go there but in essence it is somewhat outdated perhaps and somewhat inaccurate in terms of how that was placed to determine that line and we live with it and that's what it is. We've chosen this case because what the Trustees are doing is because when the surveyors put that'singular line on there to determine CEHL the Trustees have told me that look it's based upon a two hundred scale we would like you to be able to broaden it and that's what Meryl basically did. She basically made it five feet either side of that and we moved it 5.7 feet further away just to make sure that the line or where we were going was absolutely outside of the CEHL Iine by making it 10 foot wide. 64 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN And you don't'require any setback variances either. Any other questions from the Board? Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? MIKE KIMACK : Do you need any extra information, let me know. Would you just vote and then maybe close it at the Special Hearing if the case that there's anything else you need from us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know do we need anything, can we close it now? I think we can close it now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just before pardon me, Peggy were you here to speak or you're just witnessing? UNAMED SPEAKER : I own a strip of property, I'm curious to about the changes that was all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody? We can close it but you can submit what we talked about. I don't see where there's anything unresolved.' Okay everybody, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 65 February 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : February 19, 2019 f6