Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/11/2019 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 April 11, 2019 10:26 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES— Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Edna Beirne#7254 3- 17 Edna Beirne#7256 3 - 17 Jeremy and Kimberly Bell # 7255 17 - 23 Alexander Wilmerding#7259 23 - 26 Fishers Island Fire District# 7267 26- 30 Karen and James Speyer#7260 30-32 Karen M. Power#7262 32 - 35 Peter Patinella #7263 35-44 Andrew T. Fohrkolb #7266 44-49 William and Ann Froehlich #7261 50-55 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7254&#7256 EDNA BEIRNE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Edna Beirne and there are two of them and they are intertwined so I'm going to open both of them at the same time. This is #7254 and this is #7256. The Notice if Disapproval reads the same, request for variances under Article II Section 280-9A and the Building Inspector's October 15, 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 135 feet, 3) less than the code required minimum lot depth of 175 feet located at 405 Faye Court in Mattituck. There's two different Suffolk County tax map numbers, 1000-123-5-36.9 and 1000- 123-5-36.10. BRUCE ANDERSON : Good morning Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicants Edna Beirne and Michael (inaudible) Beirne. These are two side by side lots. The first lot is owned by Edna Beirne. It is at 305 Faye Ct. in Mattituck. The second lot the side by side is owned by Michael and Leslie Beirne and that address is 405 Faye Ct. also in Mattituck. Lot 36.10 which is the 305 lot is 10,000 sq. ft., 36.9 which is the 405 Faye Ct. lot contains 9,311 sq. ft.. Combined the lots total 19,311 sq. ft. in the R-40 zoning districts and both lots take access off of Faye Ct. private right of way 30 feet west. For us this has been a very interesting application and a very challenging one for me and I just want to take a moment to thank a multitude people that helped me with including Ms. Fuentes in your department, the Building Department, the Town Clerk's Office, Lynn Rudder, (inaudible) also the folks at Real Property who took over for Guy Simonson (inaudible), Dottie who helped us assemble the deed as part of the handout I provided. Without this people would have been almost impossible for me to put this together and finally also Edna Beirne and her family who had a lot of historical knowledge in the area and have been long term residents here and with all of these people working and rolling in the same direction we're able to sort of put together the presentation that we're bringing today so for the record I'm very much grateful for that. This of course starts with the Building Department and Mike Verity and Damon Rallis who wrote the Notice of Disapproval and take us 3 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting to the area of lot recognition and lot recognition is a feature in the code and it just simply says that if a lot is recognized if a lot is created by deed town approval shall be recognized (inaudible) if one of the following standards apply and the lots have not merged and the first one of course is identical lot was created by deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on or before June 30, 1983 and the lot conforms to the minimum standards set forth in the bulk schedule AA as of the date of that lot creation. The second is that the lot in question is or are was approved by the Town Planning Board. The third standard, the lot appears in the subdivision map approved by the Planning Board prior to 1983 and the fourth condition is the lot in question was recognized by formal action of this Board. So we were guided by that and we were asked to put in an application based and asking for relief from those standards. The bulk schedule AA gives you three important dates, the first one of course is the adoption of zoning which occurred on April 9, 1957 and if your lot was created prior to that time it could be of any size, of any width of any depth and it would be recognized by the town. The second critical thing is between April 9, 1957 and December 1971 and in a residential zone at that time within that interval you would have had to have a 12,500 sq. ft. and a lot width of 100 feet. Then finally between December 2, 1971 and June 30, 1983 the lot would have had to have contained 40,000 sq. ft. and a minimum width of 135 feet and minimum depth of 175 feet. Let's for a moment start with the lot as combined. If you open up your booklet here, the first tab you will see is 36.9, 36.10 those are the two lots in question and when you go to the assessment card you will see that this lot was split into two other parcels and accompanying that and something the Building Department requires to do is to provide you with an updated chain of title and it starts with the underlying deed of Mary Milligan, Leena Howell, (inaudible) Howell, Dorothy Dettner and Mildred Gregory dated January 31, 1975. Now if you turn to that deed that'll be the first deed that follows I've circled it, it's actually parcel 4 and what's interesting to me about this is parcel 4 doesn't accurately describe the property rather it describes the property that's surrounded and it's what we call in our business a gore so when you have properties that describe everything that surrounds it doesn't describe the property itself called a gore it's by analogy like the donut hole the thing in the middle and for us to Edna and the family were able to produce a map which I will hand up and it's a map created by Otto Van Tuyl in 1959 and it describes the Beirne parcels and when we've noted we've put a dash line on it so don't be confused by that but it describes what surrounds that so you'll see Mendo, you'll see Faye Ct., you'll see Beirne, you'll see Allen and that coincides with parcel 4 of this January 1975 deed and that was the earliest deed the title company so I'm going just give you one copy but it's quite interesting because I have all the old (inaudible) you'll recognize many of them that originally settled this area what they call Camp Mineola MEMBER DANTES : Sorry Bruce, is that a recorded map or official map? April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : No I don't really know. It was something that Edna it was in her records. She had voluminous records over the years that she kept with that and she gave it all and I was sifting through it and I came across it and I brought it to the surveyor. I don't really know it was just an assemblage of maps I believe from which deeds at that time were created and you'll see as we go through this will have parts of it were subsequently subdivided by actions of this Board, lots that were recognized by this Board, lots that maybe weren't recognized but were by this Board but were nevertheless built upon because it's just the way it was and it was the way they did things in those days. I processed subdivision maps and the way we process the subdivision maps today is completely different. This is really the olden days and that's how things were done. T. A. DUFFY : Bruce in 1975, 36.9 and 36.10 were one lot? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes according to this deed that's correct. T. A. DUFFY : And do you know what tax number it had at that point (inaudible) because it was a gore? BRUCE ANDERSON : No I do not know. I don't think there was a tax number we could find none. So you should keep that for your'records because to me it's sort of a valuable historical document. So the individual lots were described by these individual lots were described by deed and it shows on the chain of titles. You should know that also the chain of titles will show that the lots since they were created always been held in single and separate ownership. You will see that the properties enjoyed separate tax map numbers since their creation and you'll see 36.9 and 36.10 1 blew up the section of the tax map that I call reasonably tells us what the neighborhood is and that appears on the cover of the booklet I handed up so we're talking 36.9 and 36.10 on a thirty foot right of way known as Bay Ave. off of Camp Mineola Rd. So they enjoyed separate tax map numbers, they were assessed separately and they were taxed separately since their creation and the next document I'm going to hand up are two tax maps. The first one is going to be the current tax map of the area. It's tax map 123 and the tax map that proceeds it is the tax map the 1981 tax map and the reason why I give you the 1981 tax map is because the two lots appeared separate parcels as they do today on that lot and you should know that these are recognized building lots from the Health Department because the Health Department in filing an application today will go up to 1981 tax map to see if the parcels exist since 1981 was the date that the Suffolk County sanitary code that we work with today was adopted. So these are two buildable lots as to water supply and sewage disposal. So in trying to put this all together and speaking with Edna's daughter Leslie and looking at the tax map we decided to focus on those tax map lots that have a decimal point. In my business when you see a tax map parcel that's identified by a decimal point it means some sort of land use April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting action happens. It happens to be a subdivision, it could be a lot line modification or some sort of reconfiguration of a property boundary. It could lead you to a zoning variance, it could lead you to all kinds of things. It means that at some point boundaries changed and they were assigned a sub-number a decimal point number to recognize the lots as currently existing. So in this (inaudible) we didn't really bother too much with the waterfront lots but we massed all these lots that have decimal points. So if you look on the right of your neighborhood regulatory record you'll see all the paths have decimal points. So 12.2 refers to the lot identified as 12.2 on the tax map that's on the cover of your document and you'll see there are about there are actually nine in total including these lots. Now when we first started the first thing we did was to access the assessment cards. In each and every lot you'll see as you go through that they all say that these lots were established by deed and we thought at that point that would be proof positive that we should have been recognized just like all the other lots but as you'll see upon digging deeper we found various approvals and I'll go through them quickly. The first is that there was a lot 12.2, 12.3, 12.5, 12.4 and the help we got from the Town Clerk's office we were able to find a subdivision map which was never filed, the county never picked up on the deeds but was in fact was approved by the`town and that would be the map of Lena Howell that was approved in 1969 and this is what the Town Clerk people, Lynn Rudder was able to locate and provide for me I'm very grateful that she did because I couldn't find it but what we'll discover though is that despite all of that there are still actions that the Zoning Board undertakes the first one are lots 12.2 and 12.3 and if you go to those it'll take you to variance determination #5811 and what happened was in lots 12.2 and 12.3 they were inadvertently merged. They were both undersized and you can tell from the lot there are approximately 15,000 just quite under 14,000 sq. ft. each and they inadvertently merged because they were held in common ownership and they were in an R-40 zone and so they came to the Board for relief to unmerge them and when you read through this you'll find that the first thing that is interesting is that only one the northerly half of the property that would have been lot 12.2 T. A. DUFFY : Bruce just so you're referring to ZBA decision #5811? BRUCE ANDERSON : That's correct. Okay and then there's a series of the applicant comes to the Board to request unmerge of the lot. The variance is granted and they make a series of findings and the benefit to the applicant not being cheated of the benefit of the variance and this Board graciously provided that the variance was not substantial even though the lot area even combined would not have complied with the R-40 zoning and in fact at the time that the variance was granted the variance was the minimum and there was some personal circumstances like Mr. Howell passing away unexpectedly and another important finding that the merger would not result in any significant increase in the size of the lots of the neighborhood so the Board at that time in looking at the neighborhood just as I'm looking at it and we're both drawing the same conclusion that this is a unique neighborhood in that the vast 6 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting majority of the lots that occur in this neighborhood are well below the one acre standard that exists today; 12.3 obviously mirrors 12.4 just like our lots 39.9 mirrors lot 36.10. The difference is we were asked to apply under a lot merger under lot recognition. They were asked to apply under a lot merger. Then comes lot 12.5,and in 12.5 the Board made a series of findings and basically what they say is that this lot is in fact recognized by creation because it appeared on the 1969 map of Lena Howell that I have already provided you with. So that's what that's all about. We then turn ourselves to lot 21 and 21.2 and on that you will be drawn to decision 1901 which is a Zoning Board determination and we provide that to you and in that the Board grants substantial relief creating two non-conforming lots by division and I must say that I was thrown for a loop when I was going through one of the lots because Georgia Rudder who works for the Building Department had somehow found this lot but the map was dated subsequent to the Board's as a proposed subdivision granting of relief. Nevertheless I have no doubt that those lots exist and they are building lots. They are also substantially undersized in which the zone that they lay in and I'm also of the view that so far in every case in my own opinion that the Board consistently is doing the right thing and we (inaudible) copy of that map under 21.2 and you'll see it says proposed division you'll see the map is it is actually the Paul Kelly lot which appears on the first map that I gave you back dated by Otto Van Tuyl in 1959 so the Kelly lot is depicted in the 1959 map which is not filed but created somehow. Arthur Kelly's lot that was subsequently divided by action of this Board. The Board makes some finding again that this unique hardship is an unnecessary hardship that the variance will not change the character of the neighborhood and would observe the spirit of the ordinance and that's how they sort of rolled back in that day. That variance is dated April 1974 and again in 1974 there would have been a residential zone, 40,000 sq. ft. required, a minimum width of 135 width and a minimum depth of 175 feet and of course in order to create those lots they would have needed relief from the area, the width and the depth required existing at that time and the relief was granted by this Board I would argue appropriately. Finally we come to lot 36.2 and that would be the what we call the major lot and going through that again we collect the same deeds that was the creation of the underlying lot here. Like I said at the beginning of my presentation parcel 4 would have been the combined Beirne lots and so this I believe that the parcel one that describes it but what was interesting to me is that directly below the major lot if you go back to the front of the document (inaudible) is 36.2 it's created by deed what I'm told because the assessors card was (inaudible) is that the original house was built we think in 1980 and there is no record of lot merger but I'm of the view that if someone came in and built a house got a building permit they built a house in 1980, the house subsequently sold to Mr. and Mrs. Maser who then do an addition in 2005, so since the assessment card the lot is recognized even though at that time it would appear they would have had to gone to same process that we're going through today for whatever reason. It's not an unusual lot, it's not there's nothing that's out of character with it. No one has an objection to it. It's just the way things occurred at that April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting time is the only explanation I could offer to you. As we go through the variance standards we submit that these lots have been recognized by this Board we in fact comply with the zoning standards we would need relief because the lots are not 40,000 sq. ft. but (inaudible) our papers and it's our application that-an undesirable change would not be produced by this Board recognizing these two lots that have existed for many, many years with separate tax maps, separate tax assessments and tax bills all paid and they are if you look at these lots they're larger than some smaller well within the range of the lot areas and lot dimensions that occur in the neighborhood and is consistent with prior determinations made by this Board whether by individual variances, whether by re-subdivision as was the case in the original Kelly lot or there was merger lots in the case of the Leena Howell lots. In each of these cases we're saying we're in the range of the lots that exist and so are we. We submit that the benefits of the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method feasible because the lot was created by deed without requisite dimensional variances granted. I think if we were to do it all over again we would have done just what (inaudible) Kelly lot which would come in at that time and seek an actual subdivision by this Board and presumably the Board would have granted the division just as they did the Kelly lot. We submit that the amount of relief is not substantial because the Board has made prior findings that lots created in this size even in a R-40 zone do not rise to the level of a substantial variance. We did that in Kelly lots and we did that in the Leena Howell lots and they're actually stated in your findings of approvals a variance involving those particular areas and we submit that the variance would not have adverse effect or impact or the physical environmental conditions of the neighborhood in the district because these are recognized lots by the Health Department and that's why I gave you a copy of the 1981 tax maps. So they're recognized building lots for purposes of water supply and sewage disposal and there are no other important natural features associated with this lot so it would just come down to the water supply and sewage disposal incidentally public water is available to these sites. Arguably it is self-created and I think the answer is they may have gotten some sort of approval which I couldn't find because I must say we've (inaudible) of a time trying to locate all these approvals and it is entirely possible that there is an approval somewhere in Town Hall. You know when we looked at these lots, one of the things we thought would be a useful and that's all the lots with the decimal points. Since they have decimal points I think something happened to them (inaudible) creation, lot line modifications something and my expectation was that they would appear somewhere in the Planning Board files. We went to the Planning Board. We did our own research plus we went to the office itself and in no case are any of these lots appear in the data base of the Planning Department. You need to know that and I suppose back in the day if we go to the Kelly lot that the Zoning Board could have subdivided because it would have been considered a minor subdivision at the time. That's something that Zoning Boards did. I have no idea why the Leena Howell subdivision approved by I think it was John Wickham who was the Planning Board Chairman in 1969 why that doesn't appear in the Planning Board data base or April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting files. I simply do not know. I'm fortunate to have had folks in Town Hall to help me find that and that concludes my basic presentation today. With me is Edna Beirne with her grandson Ethan I'm sorry, Jackie Fedynack is a neighbor here and she is with us I believe the Dunns are here as well. I do draw your attention to an email that you received from John Major I hope it is part of your CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we have it Bruce. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay and he expresses his full he and his wife express their full support for what we're requesting and in fact I would just ask if Edna and Jackie just briefly say a few words and of course I am here to answer questions you may have. T. A. DUFFY : Bruce can I ask you are these lots improved right now? BRUCE ANDERSON : No they're vacant lots. T. A. DUFFY : Both of them are vacant? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. EDNA BEIRNE : What to say, from a human interest standpoint these lots were purchased by my darling husband that I did not know at the time. He came home one day and said I just bought the two lots down the street for the kids. We have three children, one would get the house and two would get lots which was all very magnanimous and wonderful. Something that he and I never grew up with that luxury and so forth. Well it didn't turn out that way, (emotional) passed and my son lost his wife two years ago, my oldest daughter who lived in (inaudible) ran a Pilates studio, was a Lieutenant in the Mattituck Fire Department an EMT they moved to Georgia to help Mike and the family and Deidra died two years ago forty five years old, three young children left behind and an insurmountable medical bills. That's his golden day, he needs money so the properties will not be built on by the Beirne family. When we got to do Deidra's funeral Leslie's husband Artie had a cardiac arrest. She saved his life. Again insurmountable medical bills that were not covered. So it is very important now that we sell this property. Two lots are better than one. I ask for you to be understanding in hopes would I love to keep it green space sure but that does not pay their bills. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your testimony and I'm sorry for your losses. JACKIE FEDYNAK : I am Jackie Fedynak at 155 Faye Ct. I am the neighbor to the lots and I am in favor of the lots you know being built. The deer running through is kind of nice but with the situations that are here I would be in favor of it. Thank you. 9 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MARGERY DUNN : Hello my name is Margery Dunn. I live at 300 Faye Ct. Mattituck. I was wondering if you also received two other letters from neighbors? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have one let's see. Robert and Margaret Bergamani I have a letter from them and we had one letter or support. This particular letter is objecting and Cane a letter from Cane family. MARGERY DUNN : Another neighbor had offered to buy this piece of property and with the whole association okay so that houses wouldn't be built on it because of the area that it's located in and the precedence that it would set okay. The other neighbor who just sold Fedynak, she also had a piece of parcel attached to her property okay that the town sought fit to join as a small lot which they declared not buildable on her piece of property and to the other side of this lot is another piece of property that's 20 by 100 and another piece owned by a lawyer that's 35 by 100. If this precedence is set through he is going to build on his 35 by 100 piece of property okay because that would be the determination that this Board would have made okay. Now just because you made errors in the past okay doesn't mean that you have to keep doing it the same thing. The Board saw fit to rectify whatever errors were made in the past on buildable lots and that's why they changed the size of what lots should be okay. So if these two are granted it really could make it into five lots, five different houses being built on this very small piece of property okay that's very close to the bay that already that all the people in the area already pollute the bay by the chemicals that they put in and they don't live there all year round okay. So I think it would be a better idea if the association bought the property. I understand Edna's dilemma there but I don't think that the Board should make the mistake of setting a new precedent because it's just going to increase the density and there are no fire hydrants in that whole are there so you start building houses close together like in Queens well you're exasperating the potential okay for a fire hazard. MEMBER DANTES : Question for you, why doesn't the association buy the property? Is it negotiation over money or is it just MARGERY DUNN : I know one of the financial owners this is basically there's only two families there who live all year round and that's myself and another family so this other fellow from Garden City he wanted the came to me and said let's see if the association we'll all chip in and buy it because otherwise you put five houses up there it's going to be ridiculous. If you came down and saw the area CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should tell you we all have. We do this for every application not just for the one that's before us. We each of us individually go and inspect every property before a public hearing so we know the area, we know Camp Mineola, we know Faye Ct., 1® April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MARGERTY DUNN : Right and you know there's no fire hydrants and you know how close these properties are? I also have a letter, who do I present this to? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it a letter from you or from somebody else? MARGERY DUNN : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We'll make sure it's MARGERY DUNN : Just wanted to make one other notation since you're familiar with the area. 1450 Ole Jule Lane which is almost near New Suffolk Ave. you said you're familiar with the area, there's a lot there okay-and the lot is 1.14 acres and-they I've been to the-Building Department on it okay, they will not allow a house to be built on that property. They said because it is an illegal lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : Bruce we have some-questions about procedurally about variances and lot recognition I'm going to let Bill describe,the procedure. T. A. DUFFY : So maybe I'm misunderstanding but when I see an application for lot recognition it's almost like-you're suggesting that the Building Department was wrong in its determination and somehow this qualifies for lot recognition but you're' kind of making an argument for variance relief. Are you suggesting that this Board can grant variance relief and recognize the lot without having to go through a subdivision process because'in my mind we had overruled the Building Department and say this lot should'nt have been recognized because it meets the standards set forth in the code as (inaudible) or that we grant you a variance then you have to go to the Planning Board and-(inaudible) BRUCE ANDERSON : 'I understand. Honestly it's something that I and the Building Department have struggled with and we struggled with it before we even put in an application before we even got the Notice of Disapproval because these are very they're hard to wrap your arms around. We followed their guidance but I would simply point out 'that.if you look at the standards for lot recognition and you put that.sort of the left compartment and you go to the right compartment you go to powers of the Zoning Board of Appeals and what the Zoning Board of Appeals is I tell people is the most powerful land use Board I ever go in front of because they have and you folks are an appellate and have the ability to vary any portion of the zoning code whether it would be a dimensional variance sending us to Planning Board or whether it would be a variance on the lot area for purposes of lot recognition. My preference is the latter and the reason is that going to the for example I got dimensional relief to create,two lots and you are sending me to the Planning Board what would the Planning Board do. The Planning Board would do nothing because it would then comply with zoning because when you give me that variance you make me comply. I comply at that point. So to me a trip to the JLI April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting Planning Board just costs time and money and doesn't accrue to'anyone's benefit. So I have to depend on your judgement you know to do the right thing and I hope you do the right thing and hopefully the (inaudible) given the situation we present you with but I have to leave that in your hands. T. A. DUFFY : I understand where you're coming from but just to counter, one of the things Planning Board does do they would be able to use their planning expertise and maybe talk about lot access, shape of driveways maybe not in this case because it's pretty much straightforward two lots'the same-size but in other cases Planning does play a role. BRUCE ANDERSON : I agree with you but I don't in this case I don't see that benefit. T. A. DUFFY : I understand your argument about the power of the Board to vary any (inaudible) moving on can you address the comments made by the public about if we were to grant the relief,or any type of relief here and these two lots would be created by (inaudible) cause I think we're talking about here lots (inaudible) two sized lots would be created as opposed,to the other two lots that they mentioned. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well if we go to the Dunn property if you look at the cover of your sheet Dunn it is literally an identical sized lot as the lot we are creating. It is 100 by 100 and so it is in my view impossible to say that what we would be doing is something out of character with the neighborhood. We're exactly what we have across the street exactly. I would also point,out that if you go to your survey for 36.9 and you,look to the north of that property boundary you'll see another parcel that says Beirne on it and it's roughly 20 by 100 and parcel 9 on the (inaudible) and I'm here representing will never be built upon and if the-Board would say-lot 9 will never be_ built upon as a condition however you do that I think would be impossible to build on a lot that small and I say that only because I do lots of permits and I don't think it's physically possible to build on a lot that narrow but that's my view. I,couldn't get a septic system in there, I couldn't get a house in there. It is just physically too small but I will tell you that if we didn't bring that into the mix but I will tell you this, if you were to somehow whatever by whatever covenant, by whatever device the- Board thinks appropriate and now we're not talking about building anything like that so these other lots that was spoken of I•have no idea what she's talking about but lot 9 would never be built on. T. A. DUFFY-: Well I think my point was by creating lots of 93 by 100 and-100 by 100 is no way precedence that we have,to create (inaudible) I think there's a difference between 100 by 100, and a lot that's 35 by 100. BRUCE ANDERSON : I totally agree with that. Lz April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I think that 20 by 100 for a lot is probably merged by operation by law with the 36.9. BRUCE ANDERSON We're never going to build upon, we're never going to use it we will sterilize" it we can create whatever you want with that but it will never be built upon is my representation and whatever you do and however you want to condition that is perfectly acceptable to us because it can't be built upon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look in the interest of time here we had a really long arraignment, we have people waiting I'm going to run through if there's any more the Board wants to ask for here. Eric anymore questions? MEMBER DANTES : Yes. On this deed the 31St of January 1975 Mary'Milligan to Trust Leena Howell first one on 36.9 (inaudible) 36.10 on your handout here, on parcel one or parcel two or parcel three are any of those lots developed? BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh sure, I mean parcel one MEMBER DANTES : Can you point out to where that is I can't BRUCE ANDERSON : There's a way to figure that out is through the 1959 1 have to give you that in writing because the reason why I gave you the 1959 map is it describes those. These are all common and they occur throughout this booklet you'll see the same deed alright and they are built upon. MEMBER DANTES : Which ones are built upon? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's alright we can you know BRUCE ANDERSON : On that map because they're all done the same way. In other words they're all gores. They're all described not by what they are but what surrounds them. So it says, north let's go parcel north Marie Rambo, east right of way well that's going to be Faye okay, south Gertrude Miller, west another right of way so you have to go back-into these lots and determine where they are and what they are. You have to build around there-I'm sure it's a surveyors nightmare or has been at some point for that surveyor who had to piece of this together at some point. CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : Well 'you know riding around it's pretty well built out in that area. You know the point is MARGERY DUNN : The last two lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just going to say I didn't see any other vacant lots. I'm sorry? 1.3 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting UNNAMED SPEAKER : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's okay. I'm happy to hear whatever you want to tell us but you have to speak into the mic cause we're recording. So It's pretty much built out. These two lots with a lot of dead grass on it basically and a couple of trees. Now your neighbor wanted to say something. MARGERY DUNN : I Just wanted to say the other lot he's talking about the 20 by 100 okay was owned by the Monahan's up until I think it was when did the Monahan's flip with you Edmond a year ago or two? They flipped lots okay so what they did was they gave the Monahan's the bigger parcel which is 35 by 100 1 think it's on and Monahan told me okay and he's a lawyer so I believe what he said, that he will build on that piece of property and that is a guarantee. So by flipping it okay he got the bigger piece of property. The 20 feet then went closer to the other lot that Edna owns. Is that correct Edna? EDNA BEIRNE : That is not correct. T. A. DUFFY : Don't address the applicant. EDNA BEIRNE : It's not correct. As far as the Monahan's are concerned Mrs. Monahan told me that he thought he would put a little shed up there, his boats and the town said he cannot build on the property. That's what they told me so Mrs. Dunn has different information and as far as anybody from the community wanting to purchase our property this is the first I've heard of it. Five houses I don't know where that comes from so there's a lot that has to be (inaudible) out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll look into it. The one thing that you should understand, no one can build a shed without a principle use. That's an accessory building so the only way a shed could be built on that property is if there was a dwelling with it and the size would never meet the bulk schedule for a principle dwelling so just because a lot is recognized it doesn't mean you can build on it and if you can build on it it's only because this Board was willing to grant a lot of variances to do so. MARGERY DUNN : But Mr. Monahan went and already cut down had Coffey come and cut down all of that land okay and I called the town on that and they said that was not allowed and you weren't supposed to do it but nothing was done about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a matter for the Building Department and for Code Enforcement. It's not a matter that's before this Board. MARGERY DUNN : I know but it just adds to what he said that what he was going to do and what he also told Edna, he told Edna a shed okay and he told me that he's a lawyer and that he 14 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting would be able to build just like change the laws here like you set precedent.now you'll set precedent that he'll be able to build on that piece of property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we do here does not establish a precedent that would allow that gentleman to build. They're not one in the same. They're kind of apples and oranges really and again it's a matter of determination of the Building Department and if someone attempts to do something without a building permit they're going to be in big trouble. MARGERY DUNN :,Well they already did that cut down all of that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Getting a building well we are an appellate court, we are not a regular court. You're going to have to come in and sue the guy if you thought something was (inaudible) and they were doing something illegal. Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to speak to this? EDNA BEIRNE : I just feel we're beating-an uninformed dead horse. The property in question Mr. Monahan, that is a right of way. Are you able to build on a right of way anyway? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. EDNA BEIRNE : He Has a right of way it's an easement that comes with his house because it's outside of the community. I rest my case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anymore questions Eric? JULIE AMPER : I have one question if I may, my name is Julie Amper but I do live in Mattituck. My question is if these lots were bought by her husband for their—two children so the third child could have their house why did it take forty two years I mean how were they going to build them back then if they weren't declared lots for the children? Now they want to sell them to a third party so they want to make sure they can get the most money but why did it take forty two years to realize these weren't separate lots? MEMBER DANTES : Honestly it's irrelevant to our application and the other answer is it's an asset. I mean sometimes you buy stocks you hold them for a century, sometimes you sell them there's no JULIE AMPER : But they were bought to be built on it seems. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's really not has no impact on what's before us. ETHAN BEIRNE : My name is Ethan Beirne, I'm Edna's, grandson. It feels like some things are being brought up and holes are trying to (inaudible) arguments for invalid reasons and you guys 1� April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting r can show that you,have a history of unless they can show a.history of objecting to building on these sized lots in the past then this just feels like they're taking out a personal vendetta. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you one last question Bruce? So parcel 4 then that is the lot both of these lots combined in the deed? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : And then the next deed is what subdivided them. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct and that's right in,your chain (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have in effect two deeds, two lots. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes you do and again held separately, separate tax maps, separate assessments, separate bills paid. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience? Can you get us the information on what's surrounding the gore that's built on that's developed BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes I could. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So,Eric you wanted that information. BRUCE ANDERSON : I can get that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How long do you need Bruce? BRUCE ANDERSON : I think I could do it I will have to do it next week cause I'm going away on a trip. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so the question is do you want to close this subject to receipt or do you want I don't think there's any need for additional public hearing. So what I'm going to do is close, make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of information regarding other lots that are developed in the surrounding area. BRUCE ANDERSON : To be clear, what Eric speaks to' are if you'go to,the first deed it describes parcel one, two, three, four. Four I told you is (inaudible) I'm going to tell you what is one is two is and three is. You may discover that I think I know we'll discover one of them was further subdivided because (inaudible) Howell. 16 April 11;2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that make sense? Okay so there's a motion before this Board and what this means is that as soon as we get the information we then have sixty two days by law in which time we must make a decision. We certainly won't take that long. We do our very best we meet twice a month. We do our best to try to have a decision two weeks from now but that would simply depend upon the speed with which we get the information. We can't do that until that's received and if we can have it done then we will. If we can't have it done it will be a month from now. It will be in our next regular meeting. The one in two weeks we meet at five o'clock at night to deliberate on decisions. Just so you understand the procedure the time frame. Anything else from anybody? Okay there's a motion do I hear a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.. MEMBER PLANAME,NTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7255—JEREMY and KIMBERLY BELL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jeremy'and Kimberly Bell # 7255. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 29, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application fora permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at-1) located in other than the code required rear yard at 2540 Calves Neck Road in Southold. Is there someone here to represent this application? Please come to the podium and state your name please. JEN DELVAGLIO : I'm Jennifer Delvaglio and I'm the agent for the homeowners and also constructing the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we've been out to the property and we understand it's kind of a corner lot actually on a curve so it's very hard to define what is a rear yard or if there is one. It 1 April 11,2019 Regular Meeting looks like the proposal for the pool is mostly behind the house and some of it would be on a side street frontage correct? JEN DELVAGLIO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what would you like us to know about this application? JEN DELVAGLIO : I'm just here to answer any questions that you might have to help move the process the along for the homeowners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well Rob would you like to start, any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I really don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There were a whole lot of colored flags. Some of them where the pool some of them was a sprinkler system I think was not the easiest thing to.read but I'm presuming that the we have photographs where we can see the tape it was taped out but it wasn't when we got there oto inspect the property. Can you talk a little bit about how far that pool is setback from that side street? JEN DELVAGLIO : Sure let me just look at the survey. Also those flags all the different colors were because I did the due diligence of calling 811 to mark all underground utilities so different flags were indicating the water line, the electric line, the sewer line and the-gas line. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excellent. You know because this is visible from the street the Board is likely to condition the requirement of evergreen screening. Do you have any concerns about that? • - - -- - - - -- ---- -- - -- -- -- JEN DELVAGLIO : Not at all. It's actually in the architectural design at the end for the pool fence that will go around the pool there will be shrubs and it seems here in my survey that for the Calves Neck Rd. we're going to be 62.5 setback for the corner,of the pool and from when you wrap around on the water side of Calves.Neck Rd. we're well over 100 feet cause I have 100 feet to where the drywell is proposed and the pool is probably set about 25 feet off of that drywell. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So on the other street it's about 100 foot. Well that's way more than what a principle,structure would need for ,a front yard setback. Okay let's see if there's any questions. Rob any questions or you're alright, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No maybe just hand us a copy of that JEN DELVAGLIO : Architectural designs? MEMBER DANTES : Yea with the shrubs on it. JEN DELVAGLIO : Of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application, please .come forward and state your name'please. RICHARD NOLDIN : My name is Richard Noldin. My wife and myself reside at 800 Midfarm Rd. which is perpendicular to the property:We have the corner lot which is also-on Calves Neck Rd. aka Harper Rd. so we're directly across the street from the swimming pool. I did not see the architectural design plans because I went and got a notice from the pool company that they were required to notify me because we have a corner piece of property. So my concern is with the fence. There's a fence I would not want to see a six foot tall PVC fence which has not been conforming design with the rest of the fences that are in the neighborhood. I would be okay to an evergreen type of fence that would be alright and with along with the existing like chain link fence which is required for (inaudible) swimming pool. And the other concern I have is with the pool why you know is the variance that we're here about today is that for also known as just a basic pool permit or is it a variance because the_pool is oversized and it's setback close to the road? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me explain.'First of all you will not be seeing a six foot high fence without a variance because it's a front yard so the highest that's allowed by law is four feet which is what's required for a pool. So that's nothing for you to be concerned about. The only reason that this is before us is because they don't have enough because they are on this corner lot it's almost all front yard and it's going to be mostly behind the house cause it kind of fronts more on Calves Neck but Harper you know you can see that it's that's why I asked how far back from that road'it's about 100 feet. A house only needs to be like 35 feet so it's going to be set way back, it will be screened with evergreens and will have a four foot high fence and what Mr. Dantes has asked for is the landscape plan that shows the proposed evergreen screening which we would have required anyway. Is that drawn by a landscape architect or JEN DELVAGLIO : Yes that's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on come to the mic. 19 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting RICHARD NOLDIN : That's my wife. Her concern is it will be town trees that border Harper Rd. will they be removed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. They don't if they're along a shoulder of the road they belong to the town so the property owner has no right to do anything with them. RICHARD NOLDIN : One other question, is the driveway being realigned? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so. It's staying where it is. We don't see any change. HILDI PETERS : My name is Hildi Peters, I'm at 1640 Calves Neck Rd. I am basically a neighbor, however there is a small stretch of land behind us which forms a triangle which we don't own but the rest they aren't really our neighbors. With them locating the pool where they did they are directly in relation to our back yard, to our patio and will certainly affect our quality of life. CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN : Let's see how far away they are. HILDI PETERS : it's right there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ms. Peters would you tell us what lot number you have. HILDI PETERS : I'm 1640 I'm right MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're on the other side of that triangle. Ms. Peters for the record you're tax map lot or actually your Suffolk County tax map lot number ends 39.1 thank you and your house faces the homes that abut town creek on the east side. HILDI PETERS : Directly in relationship to where the pool MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you know who owns lot number (inaudible) wedge of land? HILDI PETERS : Yes it was I have the person's name and his name is Giannakos but it's at an auction. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the survey it shows it's now or formerly Mary Rowley. HILDI PETERS : Then they must have sold it. Nothing can be done,on the property nothing can be built. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When the Board has concerns about well we do this rather regularly about impacts on neighbors, one of the things that we do is number one make sure that there is adequate visual screening and privacy with landscaping if it's not already there. Number two, we require that the pump equipment which is increasingly improved and it's quieter and zo April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting quieter all the time but we will ,require that it's a sound deadening container so that it's not disturbing neighbors sometimes disturbing property owners. HILDI PETERS : What I don't understand,is why couldn't they have done it in the rear? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well most of it is in the rear. Have you seen the survey to see where it's located? HILDI PETERS : I have it'right here but when I see it laid out it's directly'the patio is going to be directly where our patio is and it is we're going to hear every party they have at night and 'all the different activities we will definitely be right there. MEMBER DANTES : Honestly do they have a barbeque? I mean if,they have a barbeque now they have dinner HILDI PETERS :They're building a patio with the pool. MEMBER DANTES : I know but they could even have kids out there playing soccer. HILDI PETERS : Well all the activities seem to be on the right hand side. They have his huge piece of property but all the activities are right by us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they really don't have any more conforming place to put the pool. I will show you if you want to come up here I'll show you what part of the pool is in their rear yard which would mean it wasn't even before us and what part is in the non-conforming yard. HILDI PETERS : I have this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So just a small part that's not conforming and they have'a severe burden with being as my house is too I have two front yards cause I live on a corner lot. HILDI PETERS : I just know it's going to impact our CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll,do everything we can to mitigate it but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add I don't know if the other Board members would be in agreement about this but if the pool were to be relocated or "the driveway relocated to accommodate the pool in a more conforming location it would actually be closer to,your property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's true. HILDI PETERS : Where would it be then when you're talking about relocating? April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So if they would push the swimming pool-in this direction it would be closer to you. Your house is here you're saying. HILDI PETERS : No, no, no our house is on Calves Neck right here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is-the building envelope of the subject property and Calves Neck is here, your house is back in this area. HILDI PETERS : Our house is here cause we're right on Harper. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you're looking at the tax map the highlighted lot is the subject property and this is your home to the sort of northeast. HILDI PETERS-: We're on Calves Neck and Harper. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the (inaudible) is Harper not Calves Neck but on the tax map it's labeled as Calves Neck. HILDI PETERS : This is Harper and we're on Calves Neck and all the activity is (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The pool is proposed, like being in this location. If they were to relocate it more in the back yard it would actually be closer to you in that little wedge of land. HILDI PETERS : Wouldn't it be in this direction here? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I'm saying. -- HILDI PETERS : Yea well that would be closer there that's not where we are. - - -T. A. DUFFY : You can't (inaudible) is more to the side yard it's less conforming (inaudible) the code you have the driveway towards your house. The other way makes it less conforming: HILDI PETERS : You mean they'll have to move it to here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When the Board considers variance relief we are by law obligated to grant the smallest variance possible to allow the applicant do what it is they want to do. So to move it farther away from into the rear yard that will make it.more conforming but it would have a greater impact on you. HILDI PETERS : It'would be away from us our patios. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Your patios are right here. There's still that fifty foot wide triangle. HILDI PETERS : Cause it's another piece of property there. 22 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we thank you for your testimony. Anything else from anyone in the audience, anything from the Board? 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 DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7259—ALEXANDER WILMERDING , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Alexander Wilmerding # 7259. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 9, 2018 amended October 29, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory gazebo at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 25 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet located at Reservoir Rd. (adj. to Hay Harbor) on Fishers Island. STEVE HAM : Steve Ham 38 Nugent St. Southampton for the applicant. I have a memorandum and some affidavits. Earlier this week I received the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program report from the LWRP coordinator which found and I'm sure you have it obviously an inconsistent determination. I think what you need to focus on in connection with this application is the fact that there is a structure that's already there. We would never come before this Board to ask for this location for a gazebo for obvious reasons cause there are conforming alternatives. We don't deny that but we would like the benefit of this historic structure. I'm going to do a little bit of history and I had already drafted the memorandum but I modified it in my section five to give you my thoughts and perhaps you will agree on several policies of the LWRP that you can point to to override the inconsistent determination and make a consistency determination and I think you know so that would be a focus. I think I address four policies in the memo making efficient use of infrastructure and beneficial use of a coastal 23 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting location, preserve historic resources and- I spoke well I've attached actually an article from Peirce.Rafferty who is the island historian as my exhibit C to my memorandum which goes into the little history about the turn of the last century architect, Bruce Price who designed several homes in the area including the residence on this property which had been a power plant of all things at one point. Even Pierce I spoke to Pierce yesterday he did not know the purpose of this foundation. We thought maybe it was a well house for,pumping water out of. Hay Harbor for the power plant but it does have significant history this property does. Enhancing visual quality this is in the state of disrepair and it'll be an attractive gazebo added to it. The neighbor whose letter is attached to my memo as well Sheila Kennedy is the adjoining property owner who would be the one most affected by this enthusiastically supports the project. Then minimizing erosion, well the alternative proposed in the LWRP report states and I just think this is just ludicrous that the accessory gazebo could be relocated landward of the top of the bluff and outside the coastal erosion hazard area. Well that would in and of itself would cause significant disturbance to the bluff to try to move this structure to preserve its history and I just through email I had asked the architect to try to get an estimate to what the cost of that would be. I don't have it in the memo but he's reported that BD Remodeling whose working on the main residence now is (inaudible) had to move things before but it was an $80,000 project to do this for no apparent purpose. This property is located in a remote location, nobody is going to see it really except from the water and as I said the most.important factor in the LWRP determination is the fact that you would cause damage by moving this so we think that you have adequate ground to make a consistency determination here as well as I address the very standards in the memo. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN,: Steve you need Trustees approval right? STEVE HAM : Yea they'll have to get something from the Trustees. The architect thought that your Board would act first. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We usually go first depending on environmental impacts. STEVE HAM : My next hearing I have something from the Trustees (inaudible) non-jurisdiction but yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO You mentioned in your memo you have a 1993 letter, whatever happened between-'93 and today that the renovation well not the renovation but the addition STEVE HAM : I have well it's maybe the coastal erosion hazard law perhaps is something that makes it different but according to this report we will need a permit from the Trustees. They'll vet what needs to be vetted in terms of protecting the wetlands but the main point again is the structure is there it's not like we're proposing it to add it this April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and it's removal would create great land disturbance actually. STEVE HAM : As well as expense for no real good reason. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let me ask you a question, the assumption is if this Board decided to grant this subject to Trustees approval that's STEVE HAM : Oh absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Reasonable and let them deal with the protection of the buffered zone. MEMBER ACAMPORA : We saw the property when we were last on Fishers Island for the Town Board meeting and I was wondering for safety reasons why it's left exposed that way? STEVE HAM : You would have to ask the owner. I think it's in such a remote location perhaps MEMBER ACAMPORA : You know a lot of visitors come to Fishers Island and you know they wander around and that thing to me was really a safety hazard. STEVE HAM : Right and he will address that. He pointed it out to me that some cavity in it somewhat can fall in that's between him and his insurance agent but MEMBER ACAMPORA : And if this was granted what precautions would they take even though there's going to be a top of it what about the surrounding area? STEVE HAM : Yea they're going to close off the where it's open now the door if it was an open door there would be a real door with a lock presumably and where there's an open window a window that you know some child can access. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it is on private property. I mean it's they would have to be sort of trespassing but STEVE HAM : It could be I understand your point it could be a nuisance and (inaudible) wants to make an efficient use of this structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else? I only hear silence. STEVE HAM : I rest my case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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. April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING# 7267— FISHERS ISLAND FIRE DISTRICT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Fishers Island Fire District # 7267. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's September 19, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing fire house at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 60 feet (Equestrian Ave.) and 2) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 60 feet (Crescent Ave.) at Crescent Ave. on Fishers Island. STEVE HAM : Steve Ham 38 Nugent St. Southampton for the applicant and again I have a memo addressing the criteria for area variance. This is the second time I've been here on this property. Ten years ago or so for a truck bay. As you can see it's a very odd shaped property corner property with wetlands in the rear so it's the classic case of practical difficulty and what they're proposing here has a setback no greater than what's already existing so I think it's a strong case obviously and the owners of the public service so if you have questions I have something that I need to ask you however and that is last week in speaking to the Chairperson for the Building Committee for the Fire District, he mentioned that it might be more cost efficient for them to tear this thing down and rebuild it from scratch. This is I spoke to Mike Verity about this yesterday. It's advertised as alterations and additions because that was always the intent. The architect knew that I knew that they would just be adding to it rather than starting from scratch. I guess the question is are you able to grant relief in the alternative or would this have to be re-advertised as a demolition and rebuild? If it's possible obviously I'd like to have alternative relief for adding it or rebuilding what's there or what's proposed in that exact footprint. 26 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well we haven't I'm glad you brought it up because we've been dismayed by the number of times where variance relief for additions and alterations have been granted and then the next thing you know there's a demo. Sometimes for good reason sometimes because everybody is blaming everybody else for doing it and had there been a demo we might have granted different variance relief if need be or we might require that it be in conforming location. It's complicated because then there it is rebuilt often on the footprint but it's no longer additions and 'alterations. I don't think the Board has ever done that I'm aware of you know granted something for additions and alterations and at the same time granted a reconstruction, new construction in the same footprint. We I guess would have to talk about that as a Board- We would be setting a precedent. What we have done is conditioned almost any additions and alteration that looks like it could become a demolition unless it's really, really minor and you know it's going to be okay but sometimes a second story 'is too heavy for the structure that's discovered along the way and whatever there's rot and we've indicated that they must call the Building Department immediately should the demolition have to take place prior to the demolition so the Building Department can work it out with them and you know make a determination before a stop work order has to be issued and all that. So it's now become almost a standard condition. We would prefer STEVE HAM : The rule (inaudible) fifty percent of the value and so forth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what we would do would be prefer to have an application for demolition and then if you don't have to . MEMBER DANTES : Leslie there's a dock this is a fire district they can apply different standards to fire districts. T. A. DUFFY : There's privacy concerns I .don't think there's a reason to re-notice this. It's the same building size and everything regardless STEVE HAM : Oh yea it would be they would do whatever the plans show yea. T. A. DUFFY : You're looking at it on line the reasons why if it was a demolition why you cannot make it conforming or why this is an ideal spot? It's potentially the same argument for the variance I mean STEVE HAM : Well yea I mean if they want a particular size and its history, it's a disturbed area and so forth so it would be the same basic argument and obviously a problematic lot and also a very insubstantial variance in both cases. T. A. DUFFY : We do all the conditions where we have questions but here the applicant is actually saying it may be a demolition you know and address .the factors I don't a problem 7-7 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting moving forward with it: It's in the-spot and the same size (inaudible) to be-noticed.(inaudible) request for the amendments to include STEVE HAM : Possible demolition so I have something to show Mr. Verity when he shows up to, T. A. DUFFY : We can condition that that it has to be the same footprint, the same (inaudible) STEVE HAM :There's no problem whatever we're asking for' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea your front yard setback one is 58 feet the code requires 60 that's not substantial and then the other Crescent is 52.4 a little more substantial but again you have a problematic lot. Is there any chance you would be rebuilding on the foundation or you don't know? STEVE HAM : I don't know, probably they would I would guess they would because I think that would make sense. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Would.they look to get a different location with a bigger piece of property? STEVE HAM : No I mean. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Cause I see there's vacant land. STEVE HAM : Well there's wetlands. There's an issue with wetlands in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that has an impact with setbacks also. STEVE HAM : And we're-non-jurisdictional with the Trustees right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you formally enter into the record that you would like to amend the application and ask for amended relief which includes the variances either for the existing structure with additions and alterations or for new construction in the same footprint with the same setbacks. STEVE HAM : I-would like to amend the application as Ms. Weisman said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whatever she said. We get it we get it and Eric is right. We do give special consideration to municipal services like fire departments and fire districts. I think the same variance standards apply though. STEVE HAM : And the Town Board actually waived the fee for this as well which is very nice. 28 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just from a safety concern standpoint, in the event that the building is demolished and you're building a new building where Will the temporary fire house function or what is the plan? STEVE HAM : I don't know what their plan is. I think what's there now is more or less a meeting room and so forth. The truck bay will stay the fire equipment MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you weren't suggesting the removal of STEVE HAM : No we're not tearing the whole structure down no just that portion of it that's the subject of this application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought that you stated that you wanted to demolish the entire structure. STEVE HAM : Oh no I'm sorry no I did not mean that at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ah. Would you show us on the survey what portion that you're talking about. That would make it much clearer. STEVE HAM : The bigger portion of this will stay. The question is what's happening here the survey shows basically two parts to the building. One in the bigger part is labeled truck bay that will stay. The area that we're asking variances for is to add a second story addition to the existing portion of the building behind the truck bay which is existing. It says on the survey 1,280 sq. ft. proposed exactly double that 2,560 sq. ft. plus a little first floor entry way which was added later. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can't we just reference the architectural plans? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's it labeled on that survey? STEVE HAM : It just says building first floor 31.5 existing number of square feet, 1,280 plus basement proposed 2,560 sq. ft. plus basement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's the second story that's being proposed. STEVE HAM : No they're not tearing down the entire, that's a good question though I'm glad we MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would be at most a partial demolition. STEVE HAM : Yes. Z9 April 11,2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that makes sense. Things go much smoother when there's some when people are prepared like that for you,know discussing it with the Board beforehand rather than later. n STEVE HAM : There was a recent.experience where a client of mine had a non=conforming setback and rebuilding in the same location but the architect didn't tell him that he had to keep some of it there and took it away and then there was a stop work order and etc. so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It benefits nobody. It really holds up property owners and the town and everything else. Alright, anything else from anybody? 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., MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7260—KAREN and JAMES SPEYER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Karen and James Speyer # 7260. This is a request for variances under Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's October 24, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than'the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet (Jackson St.), 2) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet (Fourth St.) at 2100 Jackson St. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in New Suffolk. Please state'your name. , ROBERT BROWN : Robert Brown architect I have a mailing card. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so the first question is tell me it's not going to be a demolition. 30 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting ROBERT BROWN : Oh God I hope not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like you're on a corner lot with a front yard setback from Jackson is at 22.1 feet. ROBERT BROWN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN The code requires 50 and a front yard setback on the existing dwelling off of Fourth St. is 32 feet, the code requires 50 feet. We have prior ZBA on this, March 9, 2006 setback relief to reconstruct a pre-existing non-conforming section of an as built dwelling. Basically you want to put a bedroom over an existing garage. ROBERT BROWN : It's a couple of bedrooms over the garage and increasing the floor area of the garage. Mrs. Speyer is a harpist and is hoping to build a small studio on the ground floor to give harp lessons and you can't do that on the second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea that would be fun carrying that up and down the stairs. You said in your application that the additions are mostly within the footprint, what percentage is not within the existing footprint? ROBERT BROWN : Gosh I don't have a percentage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many square feet or ROBERT BROWN : Let me explain, the addition that impinges on Fourth St. is an enclosure of an existing porch which is on the far side of the house on (inaudible) St. The garage is 22 feet roughly back from the property line on Jackson. The existing house is approximately 11 feet back from Jackson. We are adding 8 feet eastward along Jackson to the garage and adding a second floor. So it's 8 by 24 it's approximately 200 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two hundred square feet beyond are you increasing or decreasing any existing setbacks? ROBERT BROWN : No. r CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the setbacks are all going to remain as they are? ROBERT BROWN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? 31 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes. Maybe I misunderstood what you said but just a moment ago I believe in your introduction you stated that the applicant wishes to host art classes in this ROBERT BROWN : No she's a harpist. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you that solves my question thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wow see what happens when we get tired. Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision, oh I did not ask anyone this is a p.s. there's no one in the audience for me to ask if they want to make a comment so hearing none I'm going to make a motion reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7262— KAREN M. POWER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Karen M. Power# 7262. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 16, 2018 amended November 16, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less 32 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting than the code required minimum total side yard setback of 25 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% at 555 Riley Ave. in Mattituck. Are you here to represent the application? State your name please. DOUG BURNS : Yes hi I'm Doug Burns. I'm the contractor on the job. Eileen Santora who is the designer couldn't be here (inaudible) I'm also the builder. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so we're looking at additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a total side yard setback of 14.5 feet where the code requires 25 feet and lot coverage of 21.4% where the code allows 20% maximum. It looks like you are putting on a bedroom and second bathroom following the existing setbacks is that correct? DOUG BURNS : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything else you would like us to know about this application? DOUG BURNS : Ms. Power's father in law has (inaudible) built the house a number of years ago and he passed away last year so (inaudible) she's on oxygen as (inaudible) she's probably going to be confined to a wheelchair in the near future and the new house includes a bedroom and a bathroom for her (inaudible) the living room where the existing screened porch exists. The design also has a side door in the hall to make it easier for her to get in and out of the house. There's larger openings in the new proposed addition. We ask for variance for the side yard and lot coverage which is 21.4% roughly (inaudible) and that's about it. We can't go out because we're locked in with the neighbor's driveway on one side and the Power's driveway on the other and we're not extending the house out any more maintaining the same lines as the existing house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it's all going in the rear yard. DOUG BURNS : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it won't be visible from the street. Let's see if the Board has any questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes actually a question relative to the design as proposed, the square footage exceeds the code permitted square footage of 20% lot coverage. Have you given any consideration or has the applicant given any consideration to a design that would conform to the 20% lot coverage by reducing the proposed plan by 1.4%? DOUG BURNS : I would assume that Ms. Santora has spoken with Ms. Powers as to what her needs were in terms of her handicap and so on and so forth. I'm not sure what 1.4 how much smaller the addition would be you know if 33 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was going to be the other question because it seems like such a negligible amount that you could remove one of the variances by altering the plan modestly. DOUG BURNS : That's a possibility. I think you now she has her married children and their children and I know that the house is very, very small so that may be what their needs are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if there are any other dwellings on Riley that have received variances for lot coverage? DOUG BURNS : I do not know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you think you could ask Eileen to research that and let us know if there are precedence in the neighborhood, if it's characteristic of the neighborhood. Some of them are quite small lots so DOUG BURNS : When I was working there I noted a lot of the neighbors walked by and said this is wonderful, these are wonderful people and everybody that I had spoken with was all for it. No one had any objections in fact some people said they were going to write letters to you folks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To the best of my knowledge one letter was received in support but I think in addition to the Chairperson's question on other area variances it would be helpful to know if the applicant could perhaps amend the design just to reduce it to the 20% lot coverage and then you had mentioned also that the applicant maybe wheelchair bound or there's discussion DOUG BURNS : Not with me but that's what I have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the notes. Perhaps what we could do is to give you a chance to talk to Eileen and maybe to the applicant and just I don't think it's like an egregious variance but if there's a way to reduce it; the side yard is the side yard you know you're not changing that but if there's a way to bring it down a little more that would be something the Board would look favorably upon but she may have arguments explaining why she can't. It might have to do with access. We're really not permitted to personalize applications even though it makes sense in a way to say well I need it for wheelchair access. It's still not a part of what the standards are whether or not a person needs this or a person needs that cause they run with the land. DOUG BURNS : Right but at 1.4% is that something that is you know other than exceeds you know the 20% it seems like a kind of a small number. �4 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a large number but the Board is'•allowed by law`to only grant the minimum variance possible so we have to ask those questions. If Eileen can.come,up-with other excessive lot coverage either pre-dating zoning before 1957 that got variances then we can say that there is a precedent there and that's the end of that. It would likely be granted but so why don't.we.do this, let's give you a chance to talk to her and come back with something she wants to write up I don't know that we need another public hearing per say but we'll see. I .mean I'm willing to just adjourn this to the,Special Meeting in two weeks to see what you can come up with what Eileen can come up with and then you let the office know. She'll send us whatever it is and then we'll probably just close the hearing in two weeks and we may even have a draft ready that evening to deliberate. Worse comes to worse it'll be a month from today cause we only meet twice.a month. Does that make sense? Anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Okay then I'm going to.make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on April 25th, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. 'MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7263—PETER PATINELLA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Peter Patinella # 7263. This is for request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 8, 2018 amended November 13, 2,018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum total side yard setback of 25 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% at 440 South Lane in East Marion. 35 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK Good afternoon, Michael Kimack for the applicant. They are present in the audience as well as the contractor. I would like to first address the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program letter that came 'out and point out some of the inaccuracies that are present. If you look at the bottom of that it talks about the parcel located within the coastal erosion hazard area. Well it's not within that hazard area because the following sentence basically says it's 10%feet away from that so we don't have a CEHL situation. I'm not quite sure why they would say it was within and 10 % feet away. I've got a survey I can show it to you but I'm sure is part of your record. The second part is dealing with the their records seem to indicate that there was a loss that the property had suffered land loss in the past with erosion due to storm events. That goes back to Sandy. This was an older bulkhead that had not been repaired for some time. The one adjacent to the house adjacent to it had a new bulkhead and when Sandy came along it took that bulkhead out and probably.about ten feet of soil behind it. The owners applied to the town and to D.E.C., you'see the permits in late 2012 and replaced it in kind and in place in 2013 with the soil replaced behind it so in fact there has been no loss of soil. There was erosion as a result of the storm but there hasn't been continuing erosion once the new bulkhead had been replaced,. From my understanding in ,talking with the owner that there are two or three other properties that also suffered the same damage in the same area and everyone replaced in kind all of their bulkheads. So to the extent that that seems to be the representation of the LWRP I wanted to correct on the record that basically in two it's not a CEHL situation and too there's no loss of soil as a result of the new bulkhead being put back and soil is being replaced behind it that might have been (inaudible). Any questions for me on any of that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not on the LWRP. MIKE KIMACK : As far as the house is concerned I think the Board really wants to hear from the contractor who basically worked on it in terms of providing you the rational and justification as to why circumstances prevailed that would of have required them to remove rather than a portion of it which was permitted to the entire structure itself. To that I will bring the contractor up, Nick. NICK ZOUMAS : Hi I'm Nick Zoumas from JNS Contracting. The original plan the architectural plans show two wood lumber exterior framings. When we removed the sheetrock to open up the new openings, the new windows and doors we realized it was all concrete block. So at that point with all the new openings going into the concrete block and we left two or three inches of concrete in between the new openings'which wouldn't have been structural so we had to take down the block at that point and reframe new wood walls. So we`did not demo the entire structure, we did leave all the existing you know the foundation, subfloor, floor joists all intact and, (inaudible) the existing and from there up we went with new exterior framing to 36 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting accommodate the new window openings and door openings. The block was also hollow and cracking and out of square so it would have been impossible to try to install new windows in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you receive more than one Stop Work Order? NICK ZOUMAS : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that correct Kim? I thought two Stop Work Orders. NICK ZOUMAS : Not that I'm aware of. John Jarski came down I forget the date, he came down told us to stop and we stopped for the rest of the day. We had I don't know about a day or two worth of work just to get it with the roof up and so that everything wasn't open to the elements. A few weeks went by and we requested to get the home weather tight at which point they granted us to do that and we signed an affidavit or a paper stating that we would take no liability at that point but as far as I know we only had one, the original Stop Work Order. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're just checking our records to see. So this one looks like a Stop Work Order dated October 3, 2018. NICK ZOUMAS : I don't remember the date but I know he did come down one time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The basis is construction beyond the scope of the building permit okay that's the reason. T. A. DUFFY : Why did it take a Stop Work Order? NICK ZOUMAS : Why did he issue a Stop Work Order? T. A. DUFFY : Why did he have to? Why didn't you stop construction when you knew you were going beyond the plans? NICK ZOUMAS : I didn't know I was going beyond. I honestly thought that I couldn't work with what was there. The permit was granted for we stayed in the same footprint, we stayed in the same home everything is identical it's just new wood exterior walls and (inaudible) block walls. The permit that we originally received did not show concrete block walls. Obviously the architect couldn't foresee that, he (inaudible) sheetrock you know see the sign on the outside and assume wood but it wasn't the case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well according to the Stop Work Order which was issued on October 3rd it was quite some time ago the conditions under which work may be resumed doesn't say anything about you know making it weather tight, it says when the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town Trustees and the Building Department have issued approvals because the variances that 37 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting were granted by this Board were for additions and alterations and what it (inaudible) it takes place it's beyond the scope of what was granted and we have to re-hear as we're doing now. So we need to understand the circumstances under which a demolition was determined to be the case and a Stop Work Order was issued. Was the existing foundation okay, you're still working with that or are you replacing it? NICK ZOUMAS : The existing foundation is still the same. The floor joists are still the same. The first floor subfloor is still the same and pretty much from there up is new. There's a few existing interior walls that are being attacked all the exterior walls are new walls. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And are you before the Trustees at this point? MIKE KIMACK : That's my next stop after you. I had talked to the Trustees and they do require me to go back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well these are always very difficult because money has been invested and new construction without benefit of a permit to do it. You had a permit but not for what happened and we're doing our best to try an avoid that. We are now conditioning almost every addition and alteration with some reference to the fact that should a demolition have to take place cause we know that sometimes you find rot you find things that you didn't expect that we have spelled out a procedure that you need to follow and that means to contact the Building Department and stop work and wait until you are basically approved by them or you're told you have to come back to us. It's just a complicated mess when these sorts of things happen. T. A. DUFFY : It's in this in this decision, any deviation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's our standard but we have an even tougher one now. That just basically says any deviation in the decision that we grant is that's a standard language that we use that basically says that if there's any change or deviation you have to come back before this Board possibly for another public hearing. Let's see if the Board has any questions, Eric let's start with you, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Let me ask a question that when you realized that you had to do the demolition did you consider then moving the house more towards the street? NICK ZOUMAS : Honestly I don't think it was a demolition. If you look at the plans almost the entire rear of the home the front the side the windows even if it was wood framing it would be almost impossible to install those new headers, install those doors without (inaudible) walls to begin with not that the plans says that we taking it down and bringing it back up but it's almost assumed when I was bidding the project and working the project that it would have to get it all 38 April 11,2019,Regular Meeting had to come out to be redone anyway. I honestly didn't think it was a demolition in my head when we were doing the work. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have photographic evidence to what you just said? NICK ZOUMAS : No I wish I did but no. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's no evidence to support your claim, no conversations, written documentation, emails with the owner? NICK ZOUMAS : You didn't take any photos while we were working? PETER PATINELLA : No, it was never a plan to take down any house. It was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Can you do me a favor and come to the mic. We- record these hearings and we need to hear. Tell usyouur name please. PETER PATINELLA': Peter Patinella I'm the owner. It was never our intention to build a new house. Our intention was to plan something altogether different. We applied for variances and wanted to fit everything in the plan that you guys approved. This thing that Nick ran into I was recommended to Nick Zoumas by several friends who found them to be correct, ethical. I trusted,him fully and when he made this decision he made it for the reasons that he technically it's interesting as far as the house being out of square that when we first moved into this house we had in 'our living ;room a ceiling which was like a soft ceiling even lower than a. normal ceiling. So what happened was we hired Charlie Thorp who was a (inaudible) contractor here for some time who was working next door to the Meyers and so what he had to do was there was an empty spot an empty storage space above that ceiling my wife said we can make this into a cathedral ceiling so when he finished it he started with bead board even on both sides and when he got to the middle there were running into each other so I' said to Charlie you didn't do a good job. I said look it's not even. He goes that's because the house is out-of square. So when this thing happened I remembered this incident so I assumed that he used common sense and try to build the house there was probably not something that you have square and then you put something else on top of it so I have good faith rin the work that he has done for people and I have good faith that he made the right decision here to build an integral proper house. Other than that I know that you guys have rules and regulations and this is why we're here several months later. I hope you understand the circumstance that led the build'er to make this kind of decision and you practice the okay to proceed and finish up this project. You have letters from both of our rieighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do. 39 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting PETER PATINELLA : They both support the project and say that we're doing something which is in harmony with the community and we're not blocking or doing anything other than you know rebuilding the space in the nicest way possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob or Nick? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea I have a couple of questions. Since you don't have any evidence can you lead us'through I mean concrete blocks walls on top of a wood frame floor I sort of you know that I don't understand that one at all I mean how is that (inaudible)? NICK ZOUMAS : Cause there was siding and sheetrock on both sides. MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay and no one thought to open up a little hole and see what was there? NICK ZOUMAS : It wasn't involved in the design process but I guess the architect didn't do it at that point. We hand demoed all the sheetrock all the siding off the home to get prepped for this. If I had planned on demoing I probably would have used an excavator to be more efficient so I don't know what to say. Everything was covered we had no idea T. A. DUFFY : What did you say before Mr. Patinella got up when you bid the job and you expected to redo the roof and the walls and (inaudible) under consideration NICK ZOUMAS : We're putting three six foot sliders-inside the 23 foot long wall there's only a few inches of space in between to the odds of those•existing studs to be in the right spot held up a new header would have been it would have been a lot it just doesn't work out that way. T. A. DUFFY : So I mean the most reasonable to contemplate taking down Walls-and rebuilding walls reasonable contemplate taking down walls and rebuilding the walls and new headers if you say they had to come out. NICK ZOUMAS : I do not understand the questioning. T. A. DUFFY : You said you planned when you did when you bid the job you expected to replace the walls. NICK ZOUMAS : Yes. T. A. DUFFY : Okay so isn't that NICK ZOUMAS : I know but I'm going to do everything by hand I'm not going to knock down the house. T. A. DUFFY : I'm talking about before any work began it was contemplated that 470 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting NICK ZOUMAS : It was in my budget is what I'm saying but part of the walls the other parts there were six foot areas of walls that were staying existing those would have stayed up but the majority of the new openings it would have been impossible to try to save those walls. MEMBER LEHNERT : And by demolishing the house you know there's implications with the Health Department and FEMA requirements. NICK ZOUMAS : I didn't think of it as a demo we left foundation, we left the subfloor, we left a lot of interior walls. We dem'oed the all the exterior walls but the northern. I didn't think it was a demolition. When I think demolition I think of coming with an excavator pulling everything out of there and starting a new foundation that's what I assumed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our code defines it all. NICK ZOUMAS : I understand,that at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fifty percent of the appraised value of the dwelling. Nick anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, other than the fact,that for me I think having reviewed the original application the application was to renovate an existing structure and [think what you see today is something drastically different than what was previously approved which I can see we're here (inaudible) mitigating difference but I think in all fairness the house was without a doubt demolished and you know I just don't understand why somebody wouldn't pick up the phone, call the Building Department or spoken to whatever authority to explain what was going on let alone taken photographs in this electronic age, sending an email with photographs to the owner to make a decision before the house is actually drastically'altered. I think it's very hard without evidence to support to suggest what the claim is (inaudible) this Board in a difficult position. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why we try to avoid these situations. We'd rather talk about it before you put the time and effort in and you discover that something really needs to be done r differently than thought,that's the time to have a conversation and work it out: Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No I mean.no I think we-have all the infdrmation we're going to get. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And there's no emails-there's nothing between the builder, applicant, agent, owner? MEMBER DANTES He didn't do the permitting. He just knew what he had to do and then did it so he's not going to be able to answer the questions. 41 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : 1 think that during the course of MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When you start taking down walls when you know when there was no roofing system everything was gone. MEMBER DANTES : That's just part of building. I mean you just do it. You 'bid what you're going to bid and then you do what you're going to do that's what the builder does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN But builders ought to be very careful to read what the zoning variances NICK ZOUMAS : Oh I understand that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : because that's what gave them the approvals to have you hired to do any work on that property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think also I mean my conversation with the Building Inspector were two different visits. There was one I was told where the one you mentioned there was some sort of a form that you filled out, signed I have not seen it but something that addressed that any future work that you do would be at your own risk and that was back in October, November CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : October. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and clearly there's work done beyond the scope of(inaudible) NICK ZOQMAS- : We didn't think a tarp would make it through the whole winter.so again-we - took that chance signed the-letter and we put the roof on it and put the windows,in so we didn't have to worry about the plywood sheathing.and the rest of the framing you know getting damaged throughout the winter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think that',s a feasible thing to do but did you do that in conversation with the Building Department and they said okay? NICK ZOUMAS : (inaudible) drafted the letter that we signed I don't have a copy of it I personally didn't sign I think one of my partners came in and signed it but so John called us in and said do you want to come in and do this and sign this letter and you're taking over the liability and take all the risk. Do you want to protect your structure you're more than welcomed to. That's what we did at that point. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was the second time from what I understand from John. NICK ZOUMAS : The first time was just it was the day with the framing. 4Z April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll check with the Building Department's records. NICK ZOUMAS : (inaudible) stop work order and work the following day. That was not our intention (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll check with the Building Department and their records and see. We just want to make sure that we describe this accurately. Anything else from anyone, anyone in the audience wishing to address the Board on this application? What do you want to do, do you want to close it? T. A. DUFFY : I think you should leave it open if you want to get more documentation from the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a good idea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ma'am did you want to say something? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just state your name for the record please. MARIE PATINELLA : My name is Marie Patinella with my husband the owner of the property. just want to say that this will become our permanent home that with the scope to renovate and so I'm looking forward to having it finished somehow as quickly as possible so we can move in and become part a permanent part of the community. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. What I'm going to do is make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting which is in two weeks so that we can have conversation with the Building Department and tell them what we find out. You'll have access to that information in case you want to (inaudible) in any way and we will likely close this matter in two weeks. We will possibly depending on how quickly we can obtain that information have a decision that night. I can't guarantee we will it depends how fast we can find out everything we need to know. The worst that will happen is you will have a decision one month from today because we only meet twice a month. So we can't make decisions unless we are a quorum before the public and in an open meeting so it will either be in two weeks or it will be in one month but we're going to try and talk to John tomorrow and Mike will keep you informed about what we discover. MIKE KIMACK : Thank you I will keep abreast of your (inaudible) thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there's a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on April 25th is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. 43 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All-in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING# 7266—ANDREW T. FOHRKOLB CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for•Andrew T. Fohrkolb # 7266. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 30, 2018 amended September 18, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new single family dwelling and an accessory garage at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum total side yard setback of 35 feet at 1335 Fleetwood Rd. in Cutchogue. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon, for the record Martin Finnegan, Twoumey, Latham,-Shea, Kelley, Dubun and Quartarraro 56340 Main Rd. Southold. I am here today for the applicant Andrew Fohrkolb seeking for side yard setback relief. Just want to briefly talk about the property. It is a 21,000 plus sq. ft. parcel that is triangular in shape and that really is the crux of why we are here. The property located on Fleetwood Drive in Fleets Neck Community in Cutchogue. The,original house on the property was destroyed by a fire in 1984 and (inaudible) demolished and removed. So the proposed dwelling has been sited on the property in the most conforming location both the front and rear setbacks and essentially we are here because of the triangular configuration even though the house is substantially within the side yard setbacks the front end of the house encroached slightly and as we go towards the road. So actually want if you look at the map the 20 foot line goes right here and this is the 15 foot line so really the (inaudible) the house itself that are (inaudible) into the,side yard setbacks are just highlighted here these small little highlighted areas and then there is an open covered walkway that is also part of the relief we're seeking so I just want to hit on the 267 criteria briefly if I may whether or not the grant of a variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. So this (inaudible) that in that neighborhood you know is characterized by similarly sized awnings. Many are constructed on substandard lots in a particular area is going 44 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting to briefly hold up a load overhead from (inaudible) parcel inquiry. There are many parcels that are these narrow lots where the structures are pretty much hugging the side yard setbacks-in the area. So in this instance the effort was to really what was the choice, the choice was to move-the house back into the rear yard setback which would ,have required a much more substantial variance or stay where we are where we're almost conforming for most of'Ahe structure but because of the angle of the lot we creep in there towards the road. I should note that both of the property owners and if I may add I would like to hand them up right now on either side of the parcel and have written.letters in support of the application if could just. Anyway the letters you'll read Lori (inaudible) who.is the neighbor to the north and from Mr. (inaudible) who is here today are in support of the application and (inaudible) proposed construction is in character of the neighborhood. I' shoulc,note that I'm also joined here by Meryll Kramer who is the architect on the project and is available should you have any questions. Anyway so (inaudible) ,we do not believe `that this construction will have an undesirable change '(inaudible) character of the houses in the surrounding neighborhood and community there. Could we do it without'a variance, no I mean not without another kind of variance so this is as I explained we believe the path of least resistance here rather than moving the house back staying away from to the bluff and honoring all the other dimensional restrictions on the property of lot area front and, rear. So as for substantiality looking at it in a vacuum without the configuration of the lot it's a 27% variance with a single side yard setback of 37% from the combined however if we go back to the site plan and the survey the actual percentage of the house that lays within the setback is 71.9 sq. ft. This is a 1,780 sq. ft. structure so that's not a large part. In addition we have this portion of the covered walkway which (inaudible) setback isagain it's (inaudible) and that 'is about 300 sq. ft. so grand total of the entire lot coverage is about 2,800 sq. ft. and we have about 400 sq. ft' that is going to be involved here (inaudible) so all-in all we do not believe the relief requested is substantial. As for adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions again (inaudible) we've stayed away from the rear setback line and are conforming there and I should note that the property is currently improved with a pre-existing non-conforming structure over here. The (inaudible) of the property absolutely straddles the property line and that would be removed by construction as would the other structure that is right on that property line so we're getting rid of structures that are really right on the line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Martin can you answer, what is that existing it looks like an accessory structure. MARTIN FINNEGAN Yes it was you had to ask that. It was more important to have the garage associated with the dwelling and right now it's a little bit more than a garage but it's going to be it's you know there's the property is improved with a dock so it became more or less kind of like a boat house for the dock that is existing on the property. Self-created we don't believe that 45 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting that should include relief.here. Again going back to the irregular shape for the fact that we have this angular, lot on the .roadside of the lot we really wouldn't need a relief unless that's why we're here so all in all I would suggest to,you that under the facts and circumstances here we believe that variance relief is warranted and I'm happy to answer any questions and like I said Merryll is here as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you want to start. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea the environmental you guys thought about the new IA septic systems? We're asking people to install them on new'builds on the water. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No and I'll tell you.why. This property is substantially elevated. It is about 30 feet above ground water and so the system that, is currently contemplated is just a code compliant sanitary system. It'll be obviously landward of the house and there was really I mean those systems are much more effective obviously when you're dealing with properties that are down close to the ground water and it really wasn't implicated here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No that was it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think he touched on everything thank you. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I do have some schematic drawings of the property. Just to give you the perspective, the house does (inaudible) looking at the-picture here it really just this kind of little bump out here and a portion of the .covered walkway which just provides protective•access from the garage to the house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you about this maybe Meryll can answer this I don't know I'm looking at the single and combined side yard setbacks it says the single is 11 feet and 22 feet combined so we've got 11 foot and a 10 foot on the opposite side at 'the nearest point and then there's an 11.2 % and 11 and the combined is sited as 22. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The 10 is off the accessory structure okay MERYLL KRAMER : Because it's attached. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I was going to say yea it's deemed, as part of the dwelling because it's attached with the deck is that correct? 461 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MERYLL KRAMER : Actually it's the roof. My name is Meryll Kramer for the record and yes we actually had to have the Disapproval written three times because he couldn't decide if the garage was attached or not attached and it's not actually attached by well I guess it is attached by the deck but also because the covered roof even though it's not heated space it's still a roof. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause otherwise that side yard would be 11.2 instead of 10 but okay I just wanted for the record to be clear because I don't want you know I realize that this was a little gray area and I wanted to make sure that we understood. T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It should be 21. It really should be 10 and 21 and it's sited at 22 so that's why I was wondering why in the world you see what I'm saying? MEMBER DANTES : I would like to propose two conditions to the Board. One that a flat roof never being closed or rather never be made into a deck that someone can walk on just being so close to the neighbor's property and the other that the existing second floor balcony be removed as a balcony just because I mean it's in the non-conforming setback area and I mean they can look right down at the neighbors from the balcony. It's up to you guys. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's address that as a possibility Martin? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Do you want to address that Meryll? MERYLL KRAMER : I don't know whether I'm a hundred percent certain that the owner has absolutely no intention of using the second you know the roof as a deck but I do know that there was you know intention to use the roof over you know as you can see from the drawings the roof over the bay so I don't know whether I'm certain that they (inaudible) I would think right? (inaudible) the neighbors are here on that side MARTIN FINNEGAN : (inaudible) that was not an issue for them so that's why we would not be inclined to a condition unless CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Part of this would depend entirely upon where their dwelling which I think is set back closer to the water than what you're proposing. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where would this would they be looking at your accessory garage or your dwelling from there? So why don't we ask you to come and can you go and explain to add more UNAMED SPEAKER : We don't know where there's a potential balcony on the second floor. 471 1 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why I'm going to ask them to show it to you. I think they're going to be looking at the accessory garage cause their house is much farther from the water so I don't think it's going to have any visual impact on their house. It's just going to be their driveway and their accessory garage. MERYLL KRAMER : I think it's going to be adjacent to their garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm thinking, I know the property. Your house is closer to the water than what this is going to be. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So just to match up the aerial with what we have here their house is it seems to be pretty adjacent to the existing this structure back here (inaudible) to their house so we're up on the road on the north end of(inaudible) of the property. ANN HOWARD : My name is Ann Howard and because we also have a triangular lot and our house is very old from the thirties and it's very close to the bluff so I think that this area that you're talking about that might be a balcony it would look at the straight side of our house or maybe the garage or our yard but it certainly wouldn't be like just looking into our house by any means. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we have a letter of support from you in our records along with the other neighbor's letters on the other side. Anything from anybody else? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes I have question, upon inspection and you also have a picture of it here in the accessory what was a garage but presently isn't, there's an outdoor shower but yet you show outdoor shower on the plans for the new home so what are you going to do with this one? MARTIN FINNEGAN : That's being removed, that's being demolished. That whole structure is (inaudible) so prior to any construction of the new house. That could be a condition of (inaudible) but that's the plan. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And also how the door jets out from the back of the building, is that going to be taken away and a door will be just from inside the garage? MERYLL KRAMER : That whole garage is being completely demolished. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The whole structure. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Oh it is? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea the entire this entire structure here will go completely as well as (inaudible) up here too. 4,, April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : On the east side yea: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright Martin I just want to make sure that what we really are then looking at is a combined side yard setback of 21 and not 22 the way the Notice is written. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes. I think that's correct yea., CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't want to give you 22 and then have them stop you. MARTIN FINNEGAN : There was considerable confusion there but yes thank you,for so with that I just have my handy dandy memo of law if you don't mind I'll hand'that up. Are there any other questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience who wishes-to address the 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. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN': Aye. (S-ee Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7261—WILLIAM and ANN FROEHLICH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN The next application before the Board is for William and Ann- Froehlich # 7261. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 24, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling 49 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum total side yard setback of 35 feet at 6130 Peconic Bay Blvd. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. MR. CUDDY : Good afternoon Charles Cuddy for the applicant office located at 445 Griffing Ave. Riverhead, New York: With me today are Mr. and Mrs. Froehlich and Charles Thomas is the architect. This is somewhat similar to Mr. Finnegan's presentation but.our,lot is a lot that's on the which stretches from Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel to Peconic.Bay. It's 21,907 sq. ft., it has a house on it now, it has a garage that this Board approved in 2016. This lot is 60 feet wide and (inaudible) on the road so'it's only 50 feet wide in depth so the problem really becomes a side yard. What these applicants are doing is taking the existing house demolishing it and virtually building in the footprint of the existing house a new house. So they have a house now that has virtually the same side yards as we are proposing. We're proposing a 6 foot side yard which is there on one side and a 19.6 side yard on the other side. The requirements in accordance with the code having 15 foot side yard and a 35 foot combination. We can't do that and have a house where it is. We think putting the house in exactly in the footprint that the other house makes some sense, we're not extending it. We have a lot that's long. We think that we're placing the house where it should be. It will be a two story house. Certainly the neighborhood is not at all harmed by or the community harmed by placing a house there cause there is one there. There's no environmental impact from the noise except for the traffic component. The alternative I guess would be to do something smaller but to make it much smaller would be hard because again the lot is only 60 feet wide and where the house is it's approximately 55 feet wide. So we really don't have a lot of alternatives to go through and placing it in the same footprints certainly doesn't-harm the-neighborhood in any way. It's somewhat substantial we recognize that but on the other hand the lot as I say is narrow. There's only a house there that we're essentially mirroring with our footprint. I know that we talk about hardship being self- created but the lot was there, it's true they bought it and they understood that but it's a small lot to start with so there is not a great deal that we can do with that type of lot. We're certainly pleased to answer any questions that you may have 'and we believe that the variance request is appropriate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Well the only thing that I would inquire about would be the width of the house itself, 32 feet it looks like is that right? MR. CUDDY : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I simply have to ask you know because we try to grant the smallest variance possible, is there any way to narrow it a little bit so that that 6 foot which is really quite close is a little bit bigger? 5o April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MR. CUDDY : I think Mr. Thomas can answer that better than I could, 32 'feet'is not an enormously big house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not I just wanted to have the record reflect the reasons for needing 32 feet. CHUCK THOMAS : Hello I'm Chuck Thomas the architect for the project. We based the 32 feet off of the existing house which was 32 feet and rarely do I like to correct Mr. Cuddy on anything but the existing side yard setback is 4.1 feet. The house is cocked slightly on the property and when we repositioned this house we're going to take the non-conforming 4.1 feet and make',it the 6 feet. So in our minds keeping,the 32 feet but rotating it slightly and increasing that non- conforming 4 up to the 6 essentially, added 2 feet to that;side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'see that, I see the dotted line that's what I wanted in the record. MEMBER DANTES : Is the 6 feet to the house or is the 6 feet to the chimney? CHUCK THOMAS : It's to the house. MEMBER DANTES : So then the chimney then sticks another 3 or 4 feet closer? CHUCK THOMAS : Two foot, chimney those are allowable encroachments within the Building Department. F MEMBER DANTES : So then technically it's 4 feet to the chimney? CHUCK THOMAS : Yes sir. MEMBER DANTES :Where would the AC condenser then go? CHUCK THOMAS : We haven't replaced those. I could put those on the street side. I could put them (inaudible) on the north side if I had to if that was a condition of this Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know you have one good side (inaudible) for emergency access and so on. I 'just wouldn't I think what Eric is talking about is we wouldn't want to see any blockage of at least that. CHUCK THOMAS : And if I can address that, the house to the east that's on a narrow non- conforming lot also and you can see the side yard setback at the closest point is 5.5 on that lot so centering the house on a lot to give more room to the west really you know I feel more comfortable having that 13 %feet at least on one side as you said for emergency access just the maintenance of a home to be able to get around it and to be able to build it again. 5� April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Would you comment on the existing structure versus the future design. In the photographs and during site inspection the roof massing cause of the eaves it just seemed like a roof heavy house or something that the roof extended beyond the side plane of the house and you can see it in the photographs. How will the eaves work in the design that you've presented for the new construction? CHUCK THOMAS : Have you seen the plans for the new house? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely. CHUCK THOMAS : So we have minimal overhangs 16 inch overhangs. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems to be short of the fireplace. CHUCK THOMAS : Yes that's correct: MEMBER DANTES : Also looking at the plans it looks like there's a covered porch on the I guess it's the front elevation the left side. CHUCK THOMAS : That is the-entry porch. MEMBER DANTES : Is it on the site plan or on the surveythat marks the setback? CHUCK THOMAS : Yes it has an "X" on it. MEMBER DANTES : So it's 14.3 feet to that little covered entry porch? CHUCK THOMAS : That is correct. — - --- - - MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How many bedrooms does the existing house have? CHUCK THOMAS : Three. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Three bedrooms. CHUCK THOMAS : Three on the first floor.one on the second floor, four bedrooms. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you're proposing obviously CHUCK THOMAS : No there's two on the first floor and one bedroom on the second floor and a full bath on both. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So three bedrooms. WILLIAM FROEHLICH : It's three bedrooms proposing to put five. 52 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting CHUCK THOMAS : These are the owners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And new sanitary system goes where? CHUCK THOMAS : That is going to the north end of the house. Well since you have waterfront property here have you considered the sanitary to be an IA system? CHUCK THOMAS : We have talked about it. That would be up to the owners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When new construction is proposed in order to protect the water quality of your property as well as the town in general the Board has been discussing of the installation of an IA system rather than a conventional system which creates a lot more nitrogen loading than an IA system would so I'm bringing it up here so you can address it if you wish. CHUCK THOMAS : We did talk about that and not to copy Mr. Finnegan, this is an elevated property and our depth to ground water isn't going to be as critical as a high ground water (inaudible) zone but we would definitely consider it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you want to get back to us as far as if they would be willing to install the IA system? CHUCK THOMAS : If we have to do it we would do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just condition. CHUCK THOMAS : I mean I don't know we haven't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's okay I'm sorry if you're going to talk you need to in a microphone. Just state your name please. WILLIAM FROEHLICH : William Forehlich I'm the owner. We haven't discussed it in depth. I talked to the surveyor and he's mapped out I guess a traditional and not you know a builder per say and if it is mandatory there's nothing really to discuss. We had no idea I can't say yes or no cause I don't even I'm uneducated not fully educated on what we're talking about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well eventually it's the type of system that the county is going to require. They don't right now. They're testing some of them and they have if approved and again in good faith efforts on our part to (inaudible) water quality and do everything we reasonably can to maintain it we're trying to get a system installed where there's new construction and you have to put in a brand new system anyway to do what is the most recent to reduce nitrogen. It protects your water and it protects 53 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting WILLIAM FROEHLICH : Oh absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have public water there? WILLIAM FROEHLICH : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought so. So you're okay you're not going to run into a problem then. Anything else from the Board, is there anything else you'd like to tell us? CHUCK THOMAS : If you have any further questions I'd be happy to answer them. MR. CUDDY : I stand corrected by Mr. Thomas the side yard, I think that what they're doing is appropriate because (inaudible) by where the house is so not changing anything in that sense and the side yards I think are what they are not much we can do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the biggest argument is the lot. Thirty two feet wide is not an excessively wide house and there's some improvement in the one side yard due to positioning the house on the side. MR. CUDDY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you don't have a problem with a setback from the bay so that's if that were the case the Board probably would say no we don't want you to put it back where it was we want you to push it back to a conforming location on the bay but you already have that and the side yards are really pretty much dictated by the lots all along Peconic Bay Blvd. there are those long skinny lots. MR. CUDDY : Which all of them are the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I would imagine there are probably priors in that area where we had side yard variances. MR. CUDDY : I didn't see them but there are houses there that look like they've been CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Some might pre-date zoning you know I would imagine. Okay 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 second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. 54 April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting CERTIFICAT1 ® N 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 U Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : April 22, 2019 56