Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/03/2019 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 July 3, 2019 9:30 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 1 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Brad and Kathryn Piecuch #7288 3-9 HC NOFO, LLC/Todd Feuerstein #7290 9 - 12 SANTOSHA AFTER 50, LLC#7291 12 - 19 Michael McCarrick Real Estate, Inc. #7292 19 - 29 Harun Sinha and Austin Dowling#7294 30- 33 Rachel Murphy#7295 34-42 Lewis Topper#7296 42 -46 Phillip B. Cammann #7297 47'- 49 Timothy and Natalie Hough #7298SE 49 - 51 905 9th Street, LLC#7289 52- 59 2 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING#7288—BRAD and KATHRYN PIECUCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Brad and Kathryn Piecuch #7288. This is a request a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 9, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard at 1350 Woodcliff Drive in Mattituck. Are you here to represent the application? Would you come to the podium please one of you or both of you. So we're looking to have an accessory located in the front yard where the code requires a rear yard location. This would appear to be a two story 22 foot high garage that you're proposing and I don't see any plumbing in it. What do you propose to use the second story for? BRAD PIECUCH : Just storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a lot of dormers up there which will create headroom and a lot of natural light. One wonders whether boxes require natural light and headroom. BRAD PIECUCH : I think the architect just put that on just kind of as an aesthetic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you seen the letter from the neighbor objecting to the location? BRAD PIECUCH : I heard about it but I hadn't seen it no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one of the questions is one of the problems is that it's because it's a curve you're going to have to locate if you really need to build an accessory garage you already have an attached garage, are you going to convert that or you're still going to use that for a garage also? BRAD PIECUCH : Yes I'm going to keep the attached garage. I collect cars so the idea is to store my cars in the new garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no way you're really going to be able to put it a conforming rear yard given the nature of your property. However there is a site line issue on a curve especially when it's proposed that close and on a slope on that part of the property which can cause drainage problems and the removal of trees and so on although I see you're trying to place it on the other side of some of those existing trees. You have apparently a garden, there's a couple a shed that's not on the survey that we noticed. We do site inspections we go out and look at every property before a hearing and when did that shed get put in? 3 i July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting BRAD PIECUCH : About two three months ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking to see what your lot coverage is on here. Is there another shed on the property or just that one? BRAD PIECUCH : Just that one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The question is why not put the garage a lot closer to the house? BRAD PIECUCH : The reason is because there's that corner lot right there is a nice place to put it and there's trees right there. There's like three big trees that I don't want to take down. I mean if we have to we will you know to get approval but we were trying to save those trees so we didn't create an eyesore for the neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood but you can put it on the other side of the trees closer to your house and create a much more conforming setback. The Board feels like you know it's understandable lots vary in shape and sometimes it's just impossible to do anything conforming with lots that are not conforming in shape and you're mostly all front yard. So I would suggest that if you could build a principle residence 35 feet from a front yard setback then at the very least an accessory garage should be 35 feet even though what's before us is just a non- conforming location I think this Board would feel a lot more favorably inclined if in fact it was closer to your house where you could pretty much use the same driveway and just add to it to get over to the garage or the other option is to place it on the other side of your house. You have a big front yard that says garden here. BRAD PIECUCH : That's like a hill that's like a big slope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's,too hard to build on. BRAD PIECUCH : Yeah absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But the area near your house is quite flat. It's relatively more flat than let's say where you're proposing it now. BRAD PIECUCH : It's basically flat, the whole lot is flat except for the last probably fifteen feet on the corner it just kind of slopes down right there in the corner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well also we're always aware of drainage so we wouldn't want you to cut the trees down number one cause that would cause more erosion and less water absorption but I think you were planning a room for this proposed garage on the other side of those trees much closer to your house. That would give a minimum when you're house is set back 43 feet from the road and if you put it you know somewhere around there or you can slide July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting (inaudible) as long as it has the 35 foot setback and also that would make it much more conforming. It would be probably right now it's proposed at 28 but the garage is 22 so that's you're going to be like 60 feet away so if someone was driving around that corner you're not going to be creating any site line problems with potential accidents and things like that. See what I'm saying? BRAD PIECUCH : So you're saying the 35 feet off of the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the minimum but what here why don't you come up and I'm going to show you on this sketch. What I did when I went out there so here's your street, here's your house you had it here, here's the trees I'm suggesting it go over here on the side of your house and you can use your driveway like that. Put in another driveway if you wish but cause that doesn't count in lot coverage but to put it here it's way too close to here, it could become a hazard. BRAD PIECUCH : What is the setback here that needs to be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is 28 or something. BRAD PIECUCH : And what's the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 35 is the minimum. BRAD PIECUCH : Can I just go 35 this way which would be shifting it 7 feet and then same thing here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This would have to go back well you know what I can let you play with it but the bottom line is I think it would probably be if it's conforming to the 35 foot setback in all directions there's probably enough visualization. You want to put it on the flattest part obviously. You will have to conform to the town's on site drainage code all structures do. That mean gutters and leaders and possibly needs a drywell if you don't already have one. That's where the drainage runoff so it's going to have to go there and make sure there's nothing going on to the road. BRAD PIECUCH : One other thing here that is not pictured is a big beautiful tree right here a big pine tree. So this whole from here over is not really feasible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it certainly looked like it. You may not want it there but it BRAD PIECUCH : It doesn't show all the trees here. There's trees here, there's a tree here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well all of this has yeah I know all of that had some tree and this is very flat grass and open. July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting BRAD PIECUCH : So you're saying 35 feet from all directions from the road minimum? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Minimum but we really don't want to see trees come down either SO. BRAD PIECUCH : Neither do I that's why we moved (inaudible) big beautiful mature trees. (inaudible) get this amended by the architect and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see there's no plumbing proposed in the garage it's just electric. BRAD PIECUCH : Just electric. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And this is to be used for storage of cars and the second floor for BRAD PIECUCH : Storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have no intent of applying at some point for an apartment up there or use it that way? BRAD PIECUCH : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, let me see if the Board has anything else. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You asked the questions I wanted to ask. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody down there, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just wanted to say when I went on the site inspection there were two young boys, one was instructing the other boy about the ATV and so coming around that curve with a proposed garage there these two were in jeopardy because there is that curve and it does slope and we all know that sometimes people drive fast whether they live in the neighborhood or they don't. I think that the Chair's suggestion of moving this building so that drivers have a sight line cause there are young people in that area. I mean I don't live that far away so I know what goes on around that road and just trying to get out of Woodcliff yesterday was a horror show with people speeding down Wickhams so nobody is safe anymore so I'm trying to make things as safe as possible for the area. I think it should be a consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? TERESA MCCLASKIE : Teresa McClaskie I live at 940 Woodcliff Drive and I'm the one who submitted the information. I'm on the down slope of the property so I do have quite a few concerns. I appreciate the Board making suggestions to the homeowners so that they can July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting better accommodate their needs. I still you know am quite concerned about any tree removal cause we try to keep a very natural barrier between our neighbors and ourselves for a reason because we do have quite a bit of deer in the community and again for privacy pretty much for privacy. So we're very much concerned about any trees even during construction they can be very well damaged cause they do have at least one beautiful big tree that I admire every time I go by that I would hope that the roots would not get damaged. My husband is in construction and as soon as you start damaging the roots of a tree there's a good chance that in a short period of time that those trees will end up having to come down due to the interference of the roots. I believe there is another shed on the opposite side on the pool side of the property. I'm not sure is that correct? BRAD PIECUCH : Yes, yes there is. TERESA MCCLASKIE : So my point is how many sheds do you need and how many garages do you need? If he's collecting cars I understand that but then okay if you collect cars then where is the exhaust going to go when you're working on the cars? Am I going to listening to engines running and it being tweaked on, worked on and you know to what hours of the day and of the night? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This Board does not have the jurisdiction over what a homeowner has the right to do on their property, that's unfair. We do have jurisdiction over cutting trees and creating damage from runoff and things like that. TERESA MCCLASKIE : I'm very concerned about the runoff also. You can pull up the Highway Dept. information. For nineteen years it has taken me nineteen years to get the asphalt to be applied from the corner of their property to my property which is 940 Woodcliff Drive. All the sand basically I have a mini beach in front of my house on the side of the mailbox and right in front of my home so and again it took me nineteen years and the documentation is there and I have those emails to prove that I have faithfully requested for that to be addressed to stop the sand from falling in front of our particular property. Again, we are on the down slope, we do not have property drainage in the Anchorage, we've asked the Town Board to try and address that. I know that's another topic but again we're speaking about drainage and what can possibly happen here so again I'm very concerned about how that would be addressed. I think that pretty much does cover it so thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So your question was, what do you need to do next. You need to go back to the surveyor, have them add whatever accessory, structures are on the property. Remove the garden if there isn't one there. I think what you need to do is have the mature healthy trees marked on the survey accurately and then show us where you want to put the garage so that those trees are not damaged and that you are at a minimum 35 feet in all July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting directions from the front road from the street. So I'll leave that up to you to determine. You'll have to think about it and do some measuring probably I mean you can't just do this off the top of your head and when you get that done submit it to our office and the Board will take a look at it. As soon as we receive it we'll then make a determination. I don't think there's any necessity to hold the hearing open. What we will do is I'm going to adjourn this however to the next meeting which is in two weeks which gives you time to submit that survey. That means if we have any questions about it we can ask them. If we don't have any questions we'll simply close the matter and then we'll deliberate on a decision and you'll have the decision based upon how long it takes you to get the survey. If the survey is in our hands with enough time to write a decision and we don't have any questions the earliest will be in two weeks but the latest would be within a month. We meet twice a month so it would have to be a meeting so it's either going to be at the next meeting or the following depending on how you get your surveyor to do the work and figure out where you want to put this. BRAD PIECUCH : Ok great appreciate it so much thank you. TERESA MCCLASKIE : I have one more question I apologize. I know you discussed with him on how to possibly position the driveway and I wasn't part of that conversation so I'm understanding that the driveway will be adjoined to their current driveway? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know that. TERESA MCCLASKIE : Okay so that's something proposed in two weeks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It depends on where they ultimately wind up putting this garage and that will be up to them as to how the driveway works but the driveway will also have to contain any runoff on site so if they need to put another drywell in there that's what they'll have to do. All applications have to conform to Chapter 236 of the Storm Water Management Code. It's in every decision that we write. TERESA MCCLASKIE : Thank you for clarifying. BRAD PIECUCH : I believe the driveway has to also be approved by the Highway Department the curb cut. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The curb cut. You might find that it's cheaper and easier since you have one curb cut to just adjoin it depending on where you put rather than to have to go through that rigmarole of getting yet another approval but that's up to you. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the hearing to the Special Meeting on July 181h subject to receipt of the revised survey. I presume the building plans will remain the same. July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting BRAD PIECUCH : Do I need to get the actual blueprint redrawn as well? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, if it's the same building you're proposing we only need to see where you're locating it,just a survey. BRAD PIECUCH : So the survey will have to show the new location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The setback, it will have to show lot coverage, it will have,to show all the sheds that are on your property, the existing and the proposed. Existing would be your house and the two sheds and proposed would be adding the garage. I have a motion 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 #7290—HC NOFO, LLC/TODD FEUERSTEIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for HC NOFO, LLC/Todd Feuerstein #7290. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 26, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling and an accessory garage 1) proposed single family dwelling measuring less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) proposed accessory garage is located in other than the code required rear yard at 6370 Skunk Lane in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? ISAAC COFFEY : Hi I'm Clay Coffey the architect for the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any green cards to submit? 9 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting ISAAC COFFEY : I submitted some we should have some more in the mail coming but we have already submitted some two days ago. CHAIRPERSON WEVSMAN : Well what we'll do is just hold it open till we receive them or the notification that it was undeliverable. So we have a demo of an existing dwelling and you're proposing a rear yard setback at 20 feet? ISAAC COFFEY : That's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code requires a minimum of 50 and an accessory garage in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard location. Is that about it? ISAAC COFFEY : Yes ma'am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what else would you like us to know about the application? ISAAC COFFEY : So this site is as you can see from the site plan, it's a very constrained site. We have six property lines, we have wetlands, we have neighboring (inaudible) that dictates the location of our septic system so we had to maintain 150 foot setback from that. So one of the other things we tried to do to be sensitive to a kind of an existing ecosystem of the site and existing trees. So primarily the way this house is positioned is that it's over the vast majority of the existing footprint of the house. So the existing house being removed the first house situated essentially over the existing house we've also tried to push the situated site is on the house in a way that's further setback from the wetlands than the existing house. So we've tried and taken into consideration a lot of different factors, between the yard setbacks, the septic setbacks, we have high ground water there as well which is one of the reasons that the septic system is placed where it is. We're also proposing which is a revision to the site plan that you have but we're proposing an IA system for that site as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excellent. Both this Board and the Trustees have been of late requiring when you have new construction that we use an IA system particularly when it's that close to wetlands and ISAAC COFFEY : One of the things we want to do is the existing cesspool essentially gets flushed out every high tide cycle so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what the Board wants to know, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : My question was the IA system, we answered that already. My next question the proposed garage, is there any reason why it can't at least meet the 20 foot setback of the house? 10 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting ISAAC COFFEY : I can speak with the client about it. I don't think there would be an issue necessarily. We can absolutely push it forward. MEMBER LEHNERT : If we're issuing a variance for 20 feet for the house I can't see why the garage can't. ISAAC COFFEY : Sure that would be (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I agree with Rob's 20 foot setback idea for the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, I definitely agree with the 20 foot setback. So then now that circular type of driveway that's there that's going to be gone? ISAAC COFFEY : That will be removed. MEMBER ACAMPORA : There will only be a straight driveway to the garage? ISAAC COFFEY : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? MEMBER DANTES : I do have one clarification, looking at one of these pages of site plan it says 19 feet 11 inches. It doesn't matter now but if you go to the Building Department with the final survey and it says 19 feet 11 inches they'll make a big deal out of it. ISAAC COFFEY : It'll be 20 feet. We're going to have it updated on the revised site plan as well. Will the ZBA accept a revised site plan by the architect? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes as long as you have your stamp on it that's a licensed professional that's fine we don't have to have a survey. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you also note the IA system on the revised site plan? ISAAC COFFEY : I will and I can issue one you already have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think Trustees is going to be required on this as well. ISAAC COFFEY : It will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you got here next. 11 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting ISAAC COFFEY : So we already have our application in and that's basically (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we will likely condition any approvals we grant based upon Trustee approval that way you don't have to go back and forth if there's an issue between one Board and another to try to eliminate that problem for property owners. Anyone else in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended site plan based upon consistent 20 foot setback for both the dwelling and the garage and the labeling of an IA system on the site plan. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7291—SANTOSHA AFTER 50, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Santosha After 50, LLC #7291. This is a request for variances under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 1, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to make additions and alterations to an existing seasonal dwelling, 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 56155 Rt. 48 (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Greenport. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning everyone. Michael Kimack for the applicants who are present in the audience also. The reason for being here obviously is, the original building when my clients acquired it had the as built shower stall on the property and they were detached and the Building Department in order to receive a C. of 0. required that section detached to be attached to the building so it's a minimum section in between about 111 sq. ft. to detached shower in order to be able to receive a C. of 0. and that's it. 12 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking here there was a Stop Work Order issued on this I take it. MIKE KIMACK : Yes there was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and no building permit had been issued let's see what else. Side yard setback actually will be zero feet. MIKE KIMACK : The shower stalls are pretty much 6 or 7 inches I think when Damon put it together he just put down zero. It's not over the property line but it's very close to the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this was established prior to the current owners purchasing the property? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was locked so we couldn't go in but the plans do show that it was not a legal structure because there are no indoor showers permitted in accessory structures and there is one in here. I mean a half bath is allowed but not the shower and there was an outdoor shower as well. MIKE KIMACK : When we make the connection that would be legalizing in order to be able to get the C.O. from the town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood so it's a front yard setback of 31.5 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 35. MIKE KIMACK : You will notice on the property I'll make a comment on this that we're not dealing with the minimum of 850 sq. ft. cause this is somewhat of a unique situation. We're roughly about 729 sq. ft. with the addition. However because there's no really other place to expand this building. You can't go seaward, you can't east or west, you can't come back to the town. If we did in any particular situation we would exceed the 20% cause we're close and to look at that at the present time we're at 18%. So there really isn't anyway on this particular structure building to get other than what we did. We just combined the shower stall with the existing building in order to make it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the C.O. will not state that it's a dwelling than it'll just state that's it's a MIKE KIMACK : It's a seasonal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seasonal cottage and it will remain so? 13 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And is that the intent that it will remain a seasonal cottage? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. It's very, very small. I think inside Nick it's like 460 some odd sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know we do site inspections and so of course it was pretty clear that there's no real foundation on this thing there's some locust posts and some erosion MIKE KIMACK : The only thing good about locust posts it goes a long time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They do last a long time. These look kind of tired let's put it that way. MIKE KIMACK : They also did say that they're trying to they have that shed up for sale. I mean part of the agreement that I have with the (inaudible) was to remove the shed so that's going to get out of there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Otherwise I guess you get into a lot coverage situation. MIKE KIMACK : And also a front yard with that particular one. It was one of the things that the Building Department required. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we will simply make sure that any approval we grant is going to be conditioned based upon the knowledge that this is not to constitute a demolition. You know the language that we now have in all of our decisions that has now become sort of standard language of how to proceed in the event that there's a problem. Based on what you're proposing it doesn't look like this would be an issue but nevertheless it's just don't be surprised when you see standard language in there that allows the homeowner to be made aware of the fact that this is not meant to be demolition and if it is determined to be such there are certain actions that have to be followed. MIKE KIMACK : I can understand your (inaudible) making it so that it's clear the clarity within the language itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the homeowner is responsible. Anything from anybody else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have a few questions if I may. Mike did I see on site irrigation? MIKE KIMACK : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought I saw an irrigation control. MIKE KIMACK : No. :14 L July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a six foot high fence and I don't know if there's any opinion on that from the jurisdiction. Is that something we consider also? It runs obviously well CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not on the site plan but it should be., MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the fence when you pull iri you can't miss it. MIKE,KIMACK : If you're facing on the right hand side correct? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would be on the west side of the house. Obviously there's like a doorway between which is a fence connecting the showerwith the house. MIKE KIMACK : On the west side of the house. So you're looking at the water MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's a long fence that runs the width of the'property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please we are recording please come to the mic and state your name. SUSAN MAFFETONE : I'm Susan Maffetone. I'm fifty percent member of the Santosha LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What were you saying about the fence? SUSAN MAFFETONE : So the fence if you're facing the water the fence on the right is our neighbor Carmela, she just put that up. She didn't consult with us. She said that she was going to put one up. We didn't really get involved in it. She's been there a long time since the original, she's the original owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There,is also a fence on the other side. SUSAN MAFFETONE : Yes on the left hand side we have a privacy fence cause we had a problem with like vagrants coming back there and leaving needles and medical stuff back there. It was very bad on that Route 48 for a while. So there was a fence there, we just kind of added to it and painted it. So we did go a little bit further on than was there. I have a picture of the original. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's really a side yard but it's the front it's a 6 foot high fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as it's not in front of the dwelling. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's along the side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's parallel to,the front facade which is what believe that's what SUSAN MAFFETONE : to keep people from going in the back. s July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN then that would be considered a side yard and it would be permitted but it should be on the site plan. It's not on here. SUSAN MAFFETONE : I will call Mark Schwartz, he's our architect and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.Just make sure that everything on your property is on the survey or the site plan. We can accept either it doesn't have to be a survey. A site plan stamped by Mark is fine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one other thing just as a point of clarification, when you acquired the property you purchased it with the knowledge that the outdoor shower and I guess the laundry room did not have a C.O? SUSAN MAFFETONE : They said that everything was grandfathered in that's how they proposed it. The family that were there the (inaudible) they had owned it from the beginning and it was the great, great grandchildren that were selling it so I guess how they proposed you know how they presented it to us was that it was all legal and it was all fine and that's what we were told yes at the closing and we didn't question it and the lawyer didn't question it. I should say our representation didn't question it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Have you given any thought or consideration to perhaps relocating or demolishing the structure that houses the outdoor shower and just put a traditional outdoor shower on the side of your house? SUSAN MAFFETONE : That is an idea. It's a good idea except on the other side we're very close to that (inaudible) and all of you know the wetlands so we don't want to get anywhere near that. We don't want to change something that seems to be working and really it's exactly what we wanted just a small little place to go to the beach. We're not looking to my neighbor Carmela next door, we did speak with her about it because it's right that is the property line. Once we met her and she doesn't seem to have a problem. She said she would put it in writing that she has no problem with it being there. We keep it clean, as long as it's got clean painted, no we really weren't thinking about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see what you're saying.-If they were to put anything on the other any addition I mean MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I wasn't suggesting an addition just a regular outdoor shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there is one there now. SUSAN MAFFETONE : It wasn't our idea to even enclose it. The Building Department is insisting that we enclose. They don't want us to have a separate bathroom from the house. :16 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct because the code will allow for a shower in an accessory structure I mean a toilet and sink but not a shower. Showers in accessory structures SUSAN MAFFETONE : But if we attach it now with that small CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then it will legalize it because it will be part of the dwelling. Dwellings have a side yard setback of minimum of 15 feet and you're sitting on the property line thus the need for a variance. SUSAN MAFFETONE : Thank you for that explanation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything, Eric, Pat? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie the sanitary system, want to talk a little bit about that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the last thing I was going to bring up. MIKE KIMACK : I anticipated that. Leslie may I make a statement about that? I do know that in the purposes of the ZBA (inaudible) protection enhancement of the coastal environment is basically what triggers your assessment of whether an IA system is necessary under certain conditions. In this particular section it is not and I'm going to give you the reason why. What this document is, is they have been looking and studying the Long Island Sound for some time now and that section of Long Island Sound which is adjoining this particular property and it actually goes all the way to the south harbor has continually shown not to have any degradation from any nitrogen. As a matter of fact they rate it as being excellent A+, A-, a hundred percent oxygenation (inaudible) at the lowest levels. No (inaudible) and they basically attributed that which I happen to know from the flushing action of the Atlantic Ocean. To give you an example of that 85% of the Connecticut River flushes out. So in essence this particular property as well as all the other we're only talking about this one with the existing system on a seasonal basis has not and does not have any impact on the quality of the water of Long Island Sound. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think that the concern was not necessarily to suggest an IA system. The concern was simply to locate the septic on a survey that's all. MIKE KIMACK : We had it. It was located on an older survey. We know where the septic tank is it's a nine hundred to a thousand gallon septic tank. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what we'll need is simply to have that information. We know that it's going to have to be obviously in the front yard some place. MIKE KIMACK : It is in the front yard. 17 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But we just need to have proof that this is where it's located and that it's functional because it's in such close proximity to surface water. MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) out there basically we'll open it up primarily, identify and make a description of primarily the condition and we'll take a look at the (inaudible) pool disposable pool too and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just want to make sure we know where it is and that it's functional. MIKE KIMACK : Just to let you know I mean the Health Department works with thousand gallon septic tanks and it used to work with four bedrooms for a thousand. The reason is, is that every state generally uses 250 gallons per bedroom as their basis and the reason they do that is 250 gallons in terms of quality of size is sufficient enough to be able to use the anaerobic action in the tank to break down those solids without overflowing into the disposable. That's what that particular number comes from. You're dealing with this situation where we actually have one bedroom at best and I believe it's a 900 gallon tank. We will verify. It's more than enough to take care of this situation on a seasonal basis. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we just need a professional to tell us what's on the property that's all. MIKE KIMACK : As I indicated I think the professional could be either an architect or an engineer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could. All we need is a licensed professional an engineer, architect they both are licensed by the state that's fine. MIKE KIMACK : I'll get that information to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to say something else Ms. Maffetone? MIKE KIMACK : This is what we have but we'll verify it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh this is VanTuyl. I have one of those too. MIKE KIMACK : Everybody's got one of those. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You live long enough you have a VanTuyl survey. MIKE KIMACK : But we will verify that's what you're asking for. SUSAN MAFFETONE : Do you know Morris's last name? He's an old town guy that's been July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Daisy Morris. SUSAN MAFFETONE : Yes he did a full inspection of this. I have pictures of it. MIKE KIMACK : I've got to get that back to Mark because Mark has to verify whatever anyone else finds I understand the process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so as long as we receive all that information then we'll have whatever we need to go ahead and render a decision. MIKE KIMACK : We'll get that for you thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mike, anything else from the Board or anyone else in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to close the hearing subject to receipt of information of the existing septic system, 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 #7292— MICHAEL MCCARRICK REAL ESTATE, INC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael McCarrick Real Estate, Inc. #7292. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's February 21, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet at 415 Lakeside Drive (adj. to Pleasant Inlet) in Southold. Is someone here to represent the application? GAIL WICKHAM : Good morning, Abigail Wickham; Wickham, Bressler and Geisler for the applicants. I want to start with a two overview points on this application. The first is that in my 19 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting opinion the prior application should not have been made. It was really ill advised and I think he was given that advice so I hope that I know that it did rile up the neighborhood there and I trust it won't take the Board's opinion that this application which we think is a much, much more much better plane. The second point is I have been down in and out of that neighborhood several times since I was retained to do this application and I was really struck, it's a beautiful neighborhood. It's an old neighborhood many small lots. I was struck by the density of the neighborhood in terms of the dwellings, the accessory buildings, the vegetation, it's quite unique among what you would now see in most Southold town. To get to the questions that you have to consider today on this appeal, I don't believe that the character of the neighborhood would be adversely affected or whether there would be an undesirable for several reasons. There are in this neighborhood and it's quite a number of multiple garages on the same property or single garages both attached and detached and so I don't think that this is at all out of keeping with the fact that a house is it's important for a house to have a garage and this would not be unusual in the neighborhood. The second thing that I think is very important is that no one will actually see this proposed garage from their house because it is at the end of a road. The only person that will see it driving by is the neighbor further beyond him, tax lot 17 and only as he or she drives by. Once they are in their house they won't see it. It's not visible to the neighbor directly across the street as you'll see from one of the photographs I brought. They have a very large hedge that actually shields their very large two car garage with living quarters over it. The house immediately adjacent to it on the left as you face the house is a small ranch. It's got a garage on that side of the house. They won't see it and no one else in that neighborhood can actually see the house unless they come down and drive by it. The house is a nice colonial. The garage is going to be it's a two story, the garage is going to be one story in a comparable design and I think it complements the house and the area quite nicely. The other thing I think is important to note is while Lakeside Drive is a 50 foot road, the actual roads down there are for the most part very narrow. They're only 15 feet wide maybe 20 feet wide including this one and so there is a considerable buffer within the street itself in terms of a front yard in this and all of the other houses in that neighborhood. The second point on the appeal application is that it is not feasible to come up with a different plan for this. The garage is a one car garage. It was not designed to accommodate a big truck. It was designed to accommodate a single vehicle with additional length for storage because you do have a waterfront piece of property, people may want to store their kayaks or their grills or other things in there during the off season and it would be important for them to have the space to do that. The lot shape also tapers down and the lot lines are angled in a peculiar way with respect to the street and the creek. So it does provide an awkward building envelope. The concept of breaking through the foundation to get a second egress would I'm told by the contractor be expensive, difficult and create the potential for leakage. The difficulty of the egress that is now along the side of the garage where the house was, was (inaudible) by the fire 20 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting code and where it was set forth in the original plans. The applicant in discussions with the builder has however agreed that he can shorten the garage to instead of 24 feet shorten it by 2 feet to make it a 22 foot depth, taking that depth from the street line to increase the setback if that would help mitigate your concern over front yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would that increase the proposed front yard setback to (inaudible) GAIL WICKHAM : I would have to get that to you I don't have the exact figure. I have the builder here let's see if he can give us a figure. I'm sorry I just got that information before the hearing so I'm not prepared to answer that question which I have to say is certainly the right question. The amount of relief the substantial amount of the relief first of all we are offering to shorten it, second I mentioned no one would see it and thirdly I mentioned the 50 foot road width. The house could not be changed in terms of its direction because the way the lot shaped out it actually the house doesn't actually face fully the front yard because of the direction of the lot along the creek so it is angled to begin with; that also minimizes the impact of the house from the road somewhat and therefore the garage as well. In terms of the impact on the physical or environmental conditions your point number four, there was some mention of drainage issues I don't know that that's a completely accurate statement but in any event the Storm Water Management Plan has been addressed and two things are going to come from that. Number one the driveway is pervious, it's a gravel driveway. There will be a grate placed in the driveway to contain water. There will be two additional drywells shown on the plan. I'm sorry we don't have that but we will get that to you and most importantly I think the landscaping is not here. It will certainly be contained with turf and shrubbery and different types of landscaping to avoid road runoff. It's every owners obligation to address runoff and that will certainly be done. The fifth point is whether the difficulty was self-created and that is a sort of yes and a no answer. He did buy the lot without a garage but he purchased the lot from an estate where the permits were already in place for a house only and sellers do that often. They want to sell a vacant lot, they'll slap together some permits and they won't do everything that an owner would do and so when the new owner acquires it very often there is a change in plans and I think it was certainly reasonable that the owner would expect that a garage would be something that in order to sell the house would be feasible because you don't want all this stuff that I mentioned before for storage for your cars just laying around. I think that would be more of an eyesore to the neighborhood than not. When we go back to the first point, the character of the neighborhood I have a number of photographs and documents that I'd like to submit. I didn't do them all because we could be here for hours given so many lots in the neighborhood but I do have several properties in the neighborhood and I'd like to hand in examples for and I have two charts. One is tax lot 90 where our lot is shown and I have five properties in the immediate block of this property and then three further out on Midway and while that's not immediately 2:1 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting adjacent it is all part of the neighborhood and this doesn't represent nearly everything it was just representative of the area. Then I further have further I guess this would be east in the neighborhood four other properties as you go past this property down to Inlet Way. I'm going to just describe them by number and then I'll hand them in so you can identify them as part of the record. The first is 75 Cedar Point Drive East which is on the corner it's tax lot I have them all identified, tax lot 8 and that has a two car attached garage as well as a shed which is very close to the line. That is two stories, it's accessory; it looks like it may have been a garage at one time now it appears to be a dwelling and that property has very minor side yard so that is something that I think is certainly the first thing you see when you turn down that area is all of these garage spaces. The second is 265 Cedar Point Drive East tax lot 9 that is the (inaudible) property and that had a variance their setback of the house is 20 feet and I just want to read you the decision of the ZBA and I have that for you, it says as to self-creation, the situation has not been self-created because there have been multiple agency approvals which restrict the building envelope. I thought wow that's a great reason but I'm not sure I can always rely on that but that is something that I found somewhat interesting in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That must have been written a while ago. GAIL WICKHAM : I have to say we do have that but if you say we could use that as precedent we've got it. Number three going the next house down 425 Cedar Drive tax lot 19 for some reason the number is high. There are four space garages, one is a two car two story house which I believe is attached and the other is a detached two car garage next to the side yard. The fourth is tax lots 15 & 16. This is directly across the street from our property. The setback is not an issue but it is a very large two car garage with a second story on it which again illustrates that this type of garage is not out,of character for this neighborhood. Number five is 80 Lakeside Drive and this is a property tax lot 14. It's on a corner and I think it is an older house oh no I'm sorry this is right on the corner and this had a 2009 variance #6238 for a carport and pool which one is the pool is 11 feet and the carport is 25 feet from the side yard. So that is the immediate Lakeside Drive, Cedar Point Drive East contingent. I mentioned as you go further down and the roads are very confusing here but I think I sorted it all out for you, Inlet Way is the drive that continues down and goes out to the water and a little community beach. There is a very modern house 1700 Inlet Way that's 92-1-7. That has an old cottage which doesn't look old now it's been renovated obviously that's one foot from the line and there are also a lot of other buildings and that property has had multiple variances. Next is 92-1.-2.1, 1457 Cedar Point Drive East. I show that just because it does show an attached garage and a structure next to it which is bigger than anything we're planning. The third it's a beautiful piece of property it's all the way out on the point 1455 Inlet Way. That used to be a tiny little beach cottage and now it is a very big house with lots of accessory buildings and a three car garage. I have a picture of it as well, three car garage next to it. I'm sorry for all this paper Kim but it is a neighborhood that 722- July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting has a lot of stuff in it and it's all 8 % x 11 so you can scan or I can scan it for you. Then finally a little further (inaudible) by Midway there are a couple of other garages that I think again on 130 Midway you have a big two car garage this is detached, it's very close to the side line with a pretty big upstairs and out on the bay there are a number of homes this is just representative but they definitely have garages that are attractive and go with the property. I hope you will consider them as indications that garages do exist in this neighborhood and this is not out of character. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So questions, right now the closest proposed setback is 21 feet? GAIL WICKHAM : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You just indicated that you'd be willing to cut that back by two feet? GAIL WICKHAM : Yes on the front side, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that becomes 23 feet. GAIL WICKHAM : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now you also have 7 % feet between the house and the space between where the window well is and the sort of an open breezeway. GAIL WICKHAM : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that space was also reduced to a slightly smaller width instead of 7 feet you could probably gain a little bit more. If you insist on wanting to keep the garage totally parallel to the house and not go behind the house cause another way to increase it is to just move it back on the property slightly. GAIL WICKHAM : You mean towards the water?Which direction? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Toward the non-disturbance buffer but it's you have a 59 foot and a 57 foot setback at the moment MEMBER LEHNERT : If you look at the plan the foundation plan you got 7.6 between the structures but once you have the window well come out that comes down to 29 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : You couldn't walk through that. GAIL WICKHAM : May I ask the builder that question? I'm told and he will correct me if I'm wrong that there are stairs that come out in that egress ingress window well that would be the 23 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting east side between that come to the end at the space between the window well and the garage. So you would have a landing I guess is the question this problem. MEMBER DANTES : Is it a fiberglass window well? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's fiberglass yes. It's a ready-made. We went and inspected it we see you know it's installed we can see it we did see it. GAIL WICKHAM : So that would be the answer to your first question. The second question about angling the garage I don't know I'm not an architect but I think that would look odd but I'm not sure but my other concern is that it would be putting it closer to the wetlands and I don't know how the environmental people would feel about that. MEMBER LEHNERT : What is precluding us from moving this window well to the back of the house? GAIL WICKHAM : You would have to break through the foundation. You'd have to break through the foundation and create and patch it, you would have leakage problems I'm told it would be a difficult thing to do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Gail is this proposed to be a finished basement? The plans illustrate an unfinished basement. GAIL WICKHAM : No it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So why the need for an egress window? GAIL WICKHAM : This was according to the code. According to the code officials we were told we had to have it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I've seen new construction with just regular basement windows. UNNAMED SPEAKER : They have to be above grade then. GAIL WICKHAM : We were told that they have to be above grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd love to hear what you have to say but you have to go to the microphone and state your name please. MICHAEL MCCARRICK : I'm Michael McCarrick I'm the owner of the property. The fire window this particular one is low grade it's like a pool set that you open the window and get out of the basement in case there's a fire in the home. It's (inaudible) 241 July 3, 2019 Regular'Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm confused an egress window, is required to a finished basement but I'm not aware that you need an (inaudible) for an unfinished basement. MICHAEL MCCARRICK : Unfortunately it's for every ,basement. They just don't want people down there-or if the future owner would convert the basement. MEMBER PLANAMENT0 : Right that's a different story that's when you add an egress window. MICHAEL MCCARRICK : You can't put that in later. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim can,you verify that with the Building Department that you need an 'egress window? BOARD SECRETARTY : Sure. MICHAEL MCCARRICK : It's gotta be. MEMBER DANTES : Is there a bilco on that? GAIL WICKHAM : No. MEMBER LEHNERT : No there's not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what we're trying to do obviously is get the most conforming. You submitted priors,,you've submitted lots of information on conforming setbacks in the area. You've told,us lots of things about attached and detached garages in the area. We'll take all that information in, absorb it and consider it and what we're just simply trying to do is get the setback to be as conforming to the 3,5 feet as possible. So we've now gone from 21 to 23 feet that's the 2 foot difference on size of garage. However there is something to be noted then .you'll probably be going up to 32 -feet at the farthest point rather than 30 feet. So it's somewhere between about 23 to 24 feet, 23 feet then it's 24 feet plus or minus then it's going to be 32 feet so it's not GAIL WICKHAM : I'm confused what is the 32 foot CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at the wait a minute that (inaudible) is going to stay the same. I see what you're talking about it's just these,two-feet in the front. GAIL WICKHAM : And then 23 will be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well 30 instead of 35 is not an enormous variance. GAIL WICKHAM : Then 23 is going to be a bigger setback than the (inaudible) right down the street and certainly the pool is right down the street. 25 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the applications please come to the mic and state your name. GAIL WICKHAM : I'm sorry can I just say one more thing? I do want to say that when I was going through these multitude of variances in the neighborhood and there are many, a great number of them are as built so this was people who just went ahead and did what they did and then came in to ask for forgiveness and we're not in that position we're asking ahead of time which I think is important. RALPH GERCHAK : Good morning my name is Ralph Gerchak I'm the property owner opposite the applicant's property and I believe the Board has submission from myself and my neighbors. I just wanted to briefly go over those issues and focus on the drainage problem. Obviously self- created, the site was pre-planned this situation wouldn't have existed. The garage could have been incorporated into the plan, if egress was put elsewhere the.garage could have been attached to the house. Regarding the garage doesn't fit in you know as discussed the garage doesn't fit into the community. You should see what the applicant was bringing to light but every one of the examples that she cited the lot size was significantly larger than the lot size of this small lot that this house is being built on. Again it could be attached to the house, the garage could be attached to the garage if the egress window was relocated. My other issue is the drainage you know my observations over the past six months since that property has been there since the completion of the'dwelling have revealed the existence of storm water discharge, pooling on Lakeside Drive in front of my property on several occasions. This was not the case prior to the construction of the dwelling. My concern would be adequacy of the proposed drywells and whether those proposed drywells be adequate to prevent this problem from occurring. In addition in the event the garage is approved regardless of the setbacks at a minimum I would propose that the dry well size be increased to a depth of four feet the one at the furthest side of the house. In addition based on my observations I would like to see the Building Department reassess the existing drainage on the property before a certificate of occupancy is issued.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN You're very welcome. Mr. McCarrick I think you want to say something. MICHAEL MCCARICK : First of all as far as the drainage, when I looked at this property before I purchased it, it was all woods and when it was heavy rain it was puddling in the street so that had nothing to do with me. We will address and have addressed the drainage. That's part of our C.O. So that's not really a matter for this Board. Second point I wanted to make, I've been in the real estate business thirty three years. I've never seen a neighborhood that has so many detached garages or garages as this one Iand that's fine but most of them overwhelmingly have July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting dwellings in them. I would agree to put a covenant in my garage that it would never be for living quarters and it's kind of annoying that the fifty some odd homes that I can't have a garage. People need a garage. It's punishment to me, it's punishment to the next owner. This is a resort type area they have things that they want to put in the garage for safe keeping. I've agreed to reduce it. I'll do what we need to do that's reasonable. Moving the access window is very difficult since we have to chisel down into a concrete basement that was poured and then redo it in the back. That could be a huge drainage problem that would live forever for me and the new owner. So if we can avoid that we certainly prefer and we agree to make it the garage smaller and the other thing the last thing I want to say, I want to be a good neighbor. I talk to the neighbor to my left a couple of weeks ago and he said why did you build a two story house. The footprint was only 900 feet. He said that he was unhappy with you know now that he sees this house I immediately went out and spent $7,500 and put eight foot Leyland Cypress totally obscuring his view of my house. That was not something the town asked me to do. I did it on my own and I did it right away. So I would ask the Board to consider everything. I'm a reasonable person and I would do what you ask me to do that's reasonable to get us a garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only thing that I would just want to be corrected in the record, this Board has purview over storm water management and drainage. It's a very important part of our environmental impacts and I think Ms. Wickham already addressed some of the things you're prepared to do. Any kind of approval that would be going forward from this Board will require adherence to storm water management Chapter 236. You have to do that for the Building Department and you're going to have to do it for this Board. MICHAEL MCCARICK : We're not looking to ignore any obligation. What I suggest and submit to you was that the problem that the person prior is not from us it's from rain. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you. GAIL WICKHAM : And if may just respond to Mr. Gerchak, I think we addressed all of the points that he raised but I do have to correct the lot size comment he made. This lot is very much in keeping as evident from the tax map from the other lots in the area. His lot happens to be larger but that's not true (inaudible). Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Concluding remark? RALPH GERCHAK : Yes as you can see from the diagram that was submitted, the last submission the size of the lots (inaudible) which you know the Board can decide for themselves. Also, the cost as far as I'm concerned the cost of placing the bilco door at the rear the premise would be a minimal cost and the egress window could then be sealed. Thank you. 271 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone? Gail do you need some time to submit stuff or did you already do that? Did you give everything you wanted to, to Kim? GAIL WICKHAM : I think we need to submit a revised map with additional drywells etc. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Yes absolutely so I don't know that We would benefit from any additional MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just wanted to ask Mr. McCarick a question. I understood that and please correct me if I'm wrong but when you purchased the property you purchased it with building permits for a single family house. MICHAEL MCCARICK : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you understood there was no garage at that time? MICHAEL MCCARRICK : Yes I did. I spoke to and engaged one attorney a Southold attorney spoke to two other attorneys from Southold. I counted on and relied on professionals and they assured me that getting a garage for this house would not be a problem. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Was the egress window in the original house plan? MICHAEL MCCARICK : Yes (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : Was there any thought anywhere through this process of attaching the garage to the house while you were under construction before construction? MICHAEL LEHNERT : Well when we applied for the permit for the garage for a variance they said it was six months which was January. We had the building- permit, we thought we'd start construction before the winter and as you know from the prior it was a detached so it was nowhere near the house. So hindsight is twenty/twenty. GAIL WICKHAM : That wasn't my advice first of all. Second of all to Nick's point, this was a sale from an estate. He was not given the opportunity to say I'd like to change the plans. He had to buy the house with the plans the way they had gotten them initially which is unfortunate but that's the position her was in. MEMBER LEHNERT : There's always an opportunity to amend the plan. GAIL WICKHAM : Oh I know but not-before he•bought it that was the problem: MEMBER LEHNERT : But before he built. GAIL WICKHAM : Perhaps yes. 2-8 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I'm going to poll the Board, do you want to adjourn this to the Special Meeting and review everything in case any last minute questions are in line with that or do you want to just close it subject to receipt of what Gail wants to submit, what's your preference? Do you think we have everything we need other than what you yes? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim did Gail get a copy of the neighbors letter? GAIL WICKH,AM : Yes I addressed all those points. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly addressed some of the house (inaudible) I think there's only one property that's actually smaller than the subject. The subject is .3 and there's one property that's .34 acres on this so you might have something different to submit based on your (inaudible) properties. „ GAIL WICKHAM : We have it all here.They're very similar. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim will scan the material and email it everybody so that we have it. Then hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date subject to receipt of an.additional survey or information ,regarding on site drainage proposed on site drainage. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : 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) July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING #7294— HARLIN SINHA and AUSTIN DOWLING CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Harun Sinha and Austin Dowling #7294. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's January 16, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a two lot subdivision on a non-conforming .47 acre parcel at 1) both proposed lots-will be less than the code required minimum lot area of 40,000 sq. ft., 2) both proposed lots will be less than the code required minimum lot width of 150 feet, 3) both proposed lots will be less than the code required lot depth of 175 feet at 195 Ninth St. in Greenport. FRANK ULLENDAHL ': Good morning, my name is Frank Ullendahl representing the applicants. Yes they bought this house, large piece of property, they got married, they adopted two children and it's becoming too much of a burden for them. In any case Kim submitted the memo from the Planning Board and I shared the information with my owners so they're aware of it and of course share some of the concerns. Now I live in the village of Greenport. A lot of Greenport is (inaudible) runs between the village and the'town. Wiggins St. is one of those examples where the applicants are going to have to (inaudible) the village border and the average lot size is about 8,000 sq. ft. and I consider this merely part of the village as far as the fabric of Wiggins St. all the way down to (inaudible) and I would rather compare the zoning to the village zoning which is different. The village has a different lot coverage of 30%. They also have a minimum lot size of 7,500 as 'opposed to 40,000 and the width of the property is 60 feet. In our case we are better on our counts, we have more than 10,000 sq. ft. existing subdivided but an existing structure the dwelling and approximately 9,300 sq. ft. subdivided lot which is improved by a swimming pool. So I had to do (inaudible) study which you see on my site plan where I actually you know just (inaudible) design which a 2,200 sq. ft. two story building and it would not require any additional variances because I can average the front yard and I have the two side yards the swimming pool is in the back yard there would be no garage. I feel and this design that I applied is actually one that would (inaudible) on First St. on the subdivided lot which was subdivided ten years ago and that lot is only I think 7,200 sq. ft. What I'm saying is there's a lot of small lots in this neighborhood and I would love to hear your concerns in addition to what the Planning Board had said. I think the traffic is not that much a problem on Wiggins St. because it's merely at the edge of the village facing the school and the co-op division and water quality of course is always a concern. We do have public water which helps. We do not have a sewer on the street so that's why I needed to make sure a sewer system could be installed and I'm showing this on my site plan. MEMBER DANTES : You mean a septic system. FRANK ULLENDAHL : I'm sorry I misspoke. 30 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I guess what the-Board needs to actually, come to grips with at some point is the`very thoughtful- comments that the Planning Board has given 'us. I mean here's the irony,'you go ahead-and grant something and then you have to go before Planning and they,deny it. FRANK ULLENDAHL : Thanks for actually submitting this request and you know we still have to go back to the Planning Board? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you Would because any you know unless it's a waiver of merger which this is not. If you're talking about the creatibri of non-conforming lot sizes then we do the variance for the insufficient lot area but they have to do the subdivision. I think we're sitting on a kind of a (inaudible) in the town in general particularly with bluff setbacks and with small lots and we're getting to clearly a saturation point where I think the town agencies need to sit down with each other and just say look let's try to be as gracious with property owners as we reasonably can be but where-are we going to draw the line in the sand and say this is simply ,going to -be an irrevocable problem if we continue to grant these small-lots or these non- conforming setbacks from fragile wetlands and so,on. So it's just timing it's a timing issue I think. We will certainly take your comments carefully into consideration. I do agree that•this particular area though part of Southold town certainly feels in character with village lots. Is that sufficient, I don't know. I mean obviously it's a greater density in the village. FRANK ULLENDAHL : I would like to add if it helps for the'Board to make a decision, the example that I gave you on First St., ZBA granted the subdivision but with restrictions on this lot..As far as coverage is concerned they were actually we were limited to a maximum 1,600 sq. ft. coverage and brought the 30% coverage down to approximately 20% and so there are ways to actually make the building they could have built smaller or more manageable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want,to submit that decision to the Board as part of this :application? FRANK ULLENDAHL : I can do that, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember it. FRANK ULLENDAHL : Yes it was deliberated exactly ten years ago in 2009. 1 will give it to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address' the application? Anything from the Board, any questions or comments? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sort of a few if I may. There's another or a similar application for a similar subdivision. When' you look at the tax map I'm not familiar with all of the individual 31 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting properties in this unincorporated part of the,village it just begs the question whose next and there are many houses that are on large lots that certainly prior to zoning one could have created what was then correctly permitted. A second home or a lot which could have then been sold and whether it was never developed or not could find a house there today or as Leslie pointed out a waiver of merger if it remained in the same owner since 1983. So I just have kind of a hard problem with densities cause it is dense. The other application is actually right by the railroad tracks which I think creates a different type of challenge from' safety issues but you know we're not supposed to personalize these applications. You did mention at the start that the applicant found themselves with a burden of this property and I don't understand how, subdividing resolves or relieves FRANK ULLENDAHL• : Well they would sell basically the main house and then build a smaller house where the pool is located. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : An alternative way and I'm not suggesting somebody should move but there are plenty of small houses on small lots 'in Greenport. Again we're not supposed to personalize it I just don't understand where there's a burden. Most people want a larger yard especially if'they have guests or,a growing family. FRANK ULLENDAHL : They told me they can't handle the larger yard so everybody is different and I totally understand what you're saying what the Planning Board is saying and you know I'm a little bit torn because it's still you know I would love for him to compare it more to the zoning code in the village cause it is to me the village., CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we just don't have the jurisdiction. It's rational but I don't know if we have the jurisdiction to do that but it's an interesting argument. Well we'll take all of it into consideration and I think the Board has a lot to digest with this and with the other application as well apropos (inaudible). Thank you for your transparency. I also appreciate the fact that what you're proposing is at least shown demonstrating that you can put a house on this lot that conforms to all the bulk schedule. FRANK ULLENDAHL : I needed to do this (inaudible) and subdivide. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Frank there's no proposal or any thought of ever having a garage or a car port of any sort? FRANK ULLENDAHL : No. The pool is' there already. I mean the I guess the coverage of the zoning summary the lot coverage it's still under 20% including the existing pool. 32T July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you know cause there's that extra expansion is there any possibility that the owners would again covenant the size of the house and not seek ever a garage structure or other? FRANK ULLENDAHL : Well I mean there's something that you can put into your deliberation Uut don't see where a garage could be because the pool is there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it could always be attached but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) the leeching'field FRANK ULLENDAHL : We're not going.in for another setback or area variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think it's ,the most reasonable proposal you could make. Whether or not how that works with the concerns of the Planning Board are but we will operate within what our jurisdiction is and then Planning if it goes that far Planning will have to do what it has to do. FRANK ULLENDAHL : I appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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 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), 33 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING #7295— RACHEL MURPHY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rachel Murphy #7295. This, is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's February 14, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling and an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed swimming pool located- in other than the code required rear yard, 2) proposed construction is more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) proposed construction of the single family dwelling is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff at 21695 Soundview Ave (adj.'to Long Island Sound) in Southold. Hi Pat. PAT MOORE : Good morning Patricia Moore on behalf of Rachel and Michael Murphy. I have everyone here with me today I will introduce them. I have Rachel and Michael the owners of the property. I'm sure you recognize them. I have Fred Fragola who is th'e contractor on this project and I have Michael Macrina who is the architect/design professional who I will rely on both of them for technical information if there are any questions that you have. This application as you can see and from your own inspections there's an existing house on the property and an existing garage. The proposal is to demolish the existing house and the 'existing garage in order to-then build a new house. The smaller garage and the pool which we purposely kept out of the coastal erosion, kept away from the top of the bluff to the extent feasible and the patio around the pool is all on grade in order to minimize the lot coverage. It would have been 'nice to have a patio that's elevated so that we don't have a side yard variance with the pool but then it would have kicked our lot coverage into much higher numbers so this was a practical approach in providing for a pool and maintaining as greater setback as we could from the top of the bluff. The existing house has been in the family for and I corrected my notes, I had fifty five years and Rachel corrected me and says sixty two years because I'm going to disclose her age in that she was born there so this property has been in the family for a very long time. It was a very difficult decision for them to demolish the existing house but overall it's a better plan. It's away from the coastal erosion line, it's away from the top of the bank. It will be a house that conforms in all side yard setbacks, front yard setbacks. Obviously we cannot conform to the setback to the top of the bluff given the size of the property and where the bluff falls. The lot while it's large is a one acre parcel. As you know we can't count an y•of the area that is seaward of the top of the bluff so that cuts the size of the property in half. In addition a provision of the code that I've always complained about is that while the lot coverage is calculated on the size of the parcel'it is not calculated on the buildable area of the parcel so all of our setbacks are based on one acre rather than what would be a 20,000 sq. ft. portion of buildable area. I've always complained about that but it goes on deaf ears to the Town Board. The property is the house is presently pre-existing non-conforming in its location. It is only 10 feet from the top of the bluff July 3,-2019 Regular Meeting and the existing house is in fact over the coastal erosion Iine..So in any efforts to renovate the house certainly all those things would be considered but overall it is a better plan-to move the house away from the top of the bluff. The parcel to the west that's the Lapas family they pick up'the house which was similarly located where the Murphy house'presently is and that house was pushed back. So over the years any when it is financially feasible for the family or,there's an opportunity that a major renovation would occur the alternative of a new house is seriously considered and that was the case here. So the new house is proposed at 26.1 feet and that's in fact the closest setback is the covered porches. So the foundation itself is further back. So when - we're talking about excavation and activity the foundation is much, much further back. It's at least 8 feet further back at its closest point because the covered porches are 8 feet in width. So we are actually the excavation is further back than any,of the setbacks as ,they are;proposed. We do have some flexibility if the Board,wanted us to move a little bit further towards the street. We did do a calculation of what an average setback would be in this for this house. The average setback that we got from the surveyor from some of these situated properties was 25.2. we are at 33 feet from the front property line so there'is some-flexibility if the Board wanted us to move forward -but obviously-moving forward just pushes the house forward it affects driveways and so on. We do have room with the sanitary system, it will not affect the sanitary design. We' actually have the Health Department three quarters of the way through they're just waiting for the wetlands and Trustees permit and this variance,before they will issue. We've gone through this six month wait while we're waiting to appear here the process 'has continued. There is a letter of non-jurisdiction from the D.E.C. and I can provide that. We received that at the end of the hearing I,will provide that to you for your file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat it looks like you can increase the setback by 8 feet. PAT MOORE : We could. I would suggest five feet,just to give a little bit of you know flexibility. You obviously have.steps that generally do not count into a setback so the porches again I think just 'for aesthetics a five foot to me would be. a very easily adjusted setback. So that would increase 26.1 by 5 feet which would be 31 do I have that,correct? So there is some flexibility there and we can certainly discuss it if that's something that the Board will consider. As we move the house forward the only concern I have is.the side yard setback cause as we move forward 5 feet I see that we have a setback of 15.7,and that might impact the side yard setback because of the angle of the property line, so that be the only caveat on setbacks. We have on the opposite,side we have a 22.7 so-we have again whether or not when we move forward that 2 foot,extra on,the east side can be adjusted;on the west side. If you want us to show you the 5 foot extra forward we can do that but I would want,to make sure we don't end up with a side yard variance cause right now our setbacks are conforming. MEMBER'DANTES : What is it 15 singles and 35 July 3, 2019 Regular-Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You-need 35. PAT MOORE : Yea 35 right now we're conforming however if we move forward you can see that the garage would be slightly into the angle and that would be my only concern just making sure numbers wise that we've adjusted for that. We've already reduced the size of the garage to a one car garage much to Mr. Murphy's dismay but we purposely work very hard to keep the lot coverage,to the minimal possible at 22.2% 1 think it was 22.2 which is only 2.2 over the 20% lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know let's explore this a little bit because when you're building from scratch this is a very large house that's being proposed. There's I want to see if there's some way that the architect can figure out how to make this a conforming lot coverage. That's what the LWRP recommends and in addition to that I also would like to have you address bluff remediation. PAT MOORE : Yes I will address that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a copy of Soil and Water's concerns. PAT MOORE : I do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did a site inspection we see that there are some significant areas of erosion that need to be remediated. PAT MOORE : Which issue would you like•me address first? You want me to deal with the bluff? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea do that and then into the' lot coverage. PAT MOORE : Sure, I actually I am the attorney for Vasilakis so that made it very easy because I know what happened there. The erosion that's occurring here is primarily on the west side. That is the area that is adjacent to Vasilakis. What, happened in January after the storm the Vasilakis property the existing bulkhead which was a vinyl bulkhead at the time was damaged it was not so, much the wave action as the tree limbs and the debris that broke the vinyl bulkhead. So the vinyl bulkhead'on Vasilakis failed completely and there are some amazing pictures I'm sure you've seen it. It was even in the press because it 'was such shock so the Vasilakis bulkhead went out to sea and that impacted the Murphy's property. Their bulkhead is fine. It was built ten years ago very well built. It has withstood storms. It doesn't need any work. The only thing that was noted and it's more, I'm going to say it's a little more than cosmetic in that it does protect from wave action but there is a cap, it's called a bulkhead cap on top,of the Murphy's bulkhead. The way that ten years ago they designed it were short boards that went one next to the other and you can see many of them like teeth were popped out. That's the 36 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting wave action-that in the ten years popped those out. That's all going to be replaced -and repaired. The bulkhead has a permit so it will all be it can be done automatically as part of the Trustees repairs to a permitted structure but since we're going to ,the Trustees on this application anyway,1,didn't want to address it with the Trustees-as far as (inaudible) cap should be and`it might be like the Vasilakis, have which is I'm not sure it's'a pre-fab plastic or some metal on Vasilakis because it is protecting the new metal bulkhead steel pardon me steel bulkhead. So what happened is when Vasilakis bulkhead went out it took some of the soil from the Murphy's property.,Costello was out there doing work. He actually was on the (inaudible) cooperatively as good neighbors should be cooperative with each other; the equipment for Vasilakis was positioned on the Murphy property. So what happened is that there is disturbance to the vegetation there,-there's new sand that was brought in -when'Vasilakis property was restored. So what you see there is the sand without the vegetation. It's actually a correction or restoration caused by the'adjacent property owner. That is definitely going to-be vegetated. You can see as you get away from the Vasilakis property 'that it's very well vegetated. You've got the original cement wall that then turns into a bulkhead. So that area certainly when the inspections were done they don't know the history here. They did not realize they thought it was relatively new erosion that's been caused primarily by the Murphy's, in fact it's restoration that hasn't yet been completely restored. The vegetation has not been planted yet. Timing is everything and whether or not I 'mean we can certainly vegetate now or vegetate as part of an ove'rall' plan when this project is under way and I think' that the recommendation by everyone is let's do 'it as a comprehensive vegetation plan because we know that generally the Trustees want to see a non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff'and they'll be'plantings associated with that:AII'of that Will be'incorporated and'it will address the erosion or the' condition of the bluff which Js the 'restoration as I said. 'it's not new erosion it's restoration. That I believe answers the issue there Soil and Water certainly pointed that out is something we knew about and something we will address for sure. With respect to lot coverage, the house I gave you in my submission the existing versus the proposed. The existing house,is 2,220 sq. ft. The proposed is 2,099. There's a difference of the 200 sq. ft. more or less 200 sq.-ft. my math is off 'it's a little less than 200,sq. ft. but'the proposed house is actually smaller. The covered porch is in the old house is 613 sq. ft., in the new house it's doubles and that's really where our lot coverage is impacting us. This house you saw the elevations the architect is here. It really is a beautiful stately house. The size of it again is comparable to what is there. We have a two story house there, we have a,two story house being proposed and the design of the covered porches is really'a beautiful feature that the Murphy's would hate to lose but that's the only place we-have because we really can't make the house much smaller. They have two children that are going to ,hopefully'get married soon and then grandchildren. This is the house that just like their old house was there for'sixty two years for the-family to enjoy they would like this house there for many years and many-generations to come so again it's only 37 - July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting 2.2% over the lot coverage and it is non-bulk area, it is covered porches. So I'm hoping that the Board could see to granting the variance for only 2.2 which generally considered de minimus. It is a very small variance request and again we're comparing the footprint itself'is not it's maintaining reasonable size and the volumes of the house are very reasonable in size it is the covered porches that lead to the lot coverage. Certainly we have a pool and unfortunately pools are considered lot coverage even though as you all know you don't see a pool it's all on grade and if patio is on grade.(inaudible) not lot coverage why is the pool but greater minds will have to think that one through. So again I've given you the two the existing versus the proposed and also the garage the existing garage is 717 sq. ft. the proposed is 576 a one car attached garage. There is a shed on the property that gave another 101 sq. ft. and that is not that is being removed so we've eliminated that lot coverage. And again we're dealing with a property that is one acre in,size but being treated as if or excuse me it's one acre in size With a 20,000 sq. ft. area of buildability that is being treated with penalized in a sense because we're affected by the 20% of the buildable.area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know you hate that law. PAT MOORE : I hate that law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But let me tell you something, it is a direct consequence of,the fact that when.land underwater which is not buildable_was calculated in lot coverage, people were literally able to put a structure on their property that went cheek to jowl without compromising lot coverage. In other works people driving by would say-don't they have any front yard or side yard or what. It's the whole obviously visible part of the lot and it was simply because a lot of that calculation had to do with land under water,so the.town wisely changed it. PAT MOORE : Yes I understand the philosophy behind it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I don't believe they're being penalized. They have always lived on that property and they have seen where the bluff is and where the road is and they,.know they're not building in the water. I mean Jt is what it ,is. So what's happened here is that in addition to extensive porches on the front on the one entire side and along the waterside a swimming pool is being added and that calculates into lot coverage with approximately the same size house. So I'm simply asking if there is a reasonable solution where we can allow them to have their home but to reduce as many of these variances as possible. I would like to seethe maximum bluff setback possible. Take a look at the side yards and see what will -be changed there if it's moved forward. You were talking about five feet. Frankly I'd rather grant a side yard variance than have a new home protected to the maximum extent possible from any future storm, event. I mean,it doesn't make sense to spend all this money on a'beautiful home and then have another Sandy come by because we're,looking at flood zone maps. It's great that it's 38 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting coming out of the coastal erosion hazard area but it's for,the property owner's protection-as well what happened from your neighbors. Their bluff blew out and the bulkhead blew out and the next thing you know all the way down the Sound it's all affected you know. So there are lots of things that can happen on this property and this Board is going to consider all of them very carefully but I'd like to-see if the architect and the homeowners can figure out a way to create less of a variance for lot coverage or make that lot coverage conforming and increase the bluff setback as much 'as possible and propose a you'll have to do this for Trustees a bluff remediation plan which I believe they know,they need to do. PAT MOORE : Oh they're absolutely doing yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And last but not least is the new septic system being proposed as an IA. PAT MOORE : Well that is already been no it already been approved as a standard system and keeping in mind that the old system was within about 10 feet within the top of the bluff that's where the old system was so the new system is I want to say more than 100 feet from the Long Island Sound which is the important thing.for that for the Health Department. So we. are providing a standard system but this is with a 2,000 sq. ft. septic tank and leaching pools all conforming to current regulations so that process is already well underway and been approved so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have an approval? PAT MOORE : We have the most recent it was the architect was just showing,me we got a notice of incomplete that required Zoning Board and Trustees so that's where we are. He resubmitted based on some additional comments so' all the technical has been' resubmitted to the Health Department. Now they won't release the permit until we show them that Trustees wetland permit has been issued and Zoning has been issued so it's sitting in the town's lap to be'able to release the permit,but the design, the application is all in and it would just need hopefully be released immediately upon issuance the Zoning Board and Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if anybody else has questions at this point, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : What was the damage during Super Storm Sandy? PAT MOORE : To this house to this property, none. This property is pretty high, it has a very good sturdy bulkhead and there were no issues and again the only issue was as a result of the 39 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting Vasilakis bulkhead and it wasn't that I mean the Vasilakis bulkhead was not that old. The problem was that all along the Sound vinyl bulkheads were being were replacing the old marine bulkheads alleging that they were adequate but in fact they really aren't and it's not again the storms because the vinyl will withstand the storms it's the problem is all •the debris that the storms bring and that really crunches the vinyl. You know a good marine bulkhead with the heavy duty either steel or wood can withstand that kind of debris pounding but (inaudible). In fact Vasilakis, (inaudible) on the other side (inaudible) they all replaced their existing bulkheads \ with steel and I know that personally.because I participated in all those applications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've discussed a range of issues and I'd like'to give the applicants and their architect an opportunity-to talk to each other and discuss what we discussed here see if there are any changes in setback from the bulkhead from the bluff based on what we talked about in averaging front yard setback and any way to reduce lot coverage primarily. So why don't we just do this, why don't we simply adjourn to the Special Meeting in two weeks and then you can consider all of this and tell us what you think and why and then we will close the matter and we'll make a decision. Did you have any questions or comments that you want to make or anything from anybody? PAT MOORE : So the question is as far at the 20% lot coverage if we agree to meet the 20% however we have to design it would that I think that's what you're asking. Right is that what you're.asking, everybody is in agreement. I just want to make sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can grant alternative or we can just simply deny. PAT MOORE : Well we don't want a denial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the lot coverage. If you're saying that you're agreeing to make it 20% then what we would have to do would be to deny a request for 22 point whatever and then you just make it conform that's all. That is technically the way we would have to handle. It's not a denial of the application it's just saying we want you to make the lot coverage conform. I'd like to see what you can do with that setback. You said you got at least 5 feet, 5 to 8 feet �0 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I'll double check the average setback cause here they have several lots listed to come to the 25.2, 1 want to make sure technically they've used you know it's 300 one way 300 the other way so I know to the east the houses are like right on the street. They're pretty close. Vasilakis's is now I mean it's probably more conforming so I just want to be sure that when,I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your numbers. PAT MOORE : That my numbers are right— CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN': Fair enough. PAT MOORE : So I think that two weeks is actually a good idea because that's a short enough time that we can come back to you. I don't know that we can,give you architectural drawings and everything. I think that we can give you the footprint, the architect can provide us with that. MEMBER DANTES:Just so I understand, our goal is to (inaudible) bulkhead setback? PAT MOORE : I'm sorry what was the question? MEMBER DANTES : The goal what you're talking about with the revision you'll come back and all you'll need is not the bulkhead the bluff setback and that'll be the only thing? PAT MOORE : Correct, assuming that the side yard can be met when we move the house forward. That's my only numerical confirmation. MEMBER,DANTES : I think that's reasonable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep, well no they still have to have a pool in the side yard. PAT MOORE : Oh yes but that is a very common variance. 4 :CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean that's the property place to put cause you're going to have a pool that's where you want to put it,on this property and I certainly have no issue with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just going to adjourn this to the' Special Meeting and give you a chance to make some revisions. PAT MOORE : Are you,actually having a hearing at the Special Meeting or just CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no the meeting is just for deliberation that way we can talk about it whatever it is that we received. I don't suspect we're going to need any more hearing on it. 41 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It's pretty straightforward. . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This way we can look and see what you can come up with. PAT MOORE : When is that date? ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :,The 18th of July. PAT MOORE : Alright very good. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on July 18th 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#7296— LEWIS TOPPER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lewis Topper #7296. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 1, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling, legalize "as built" trellis addition over patio and to legalize the "as built" accessory shed at 1) proposed addition to the single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) proposed' addition to the single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) proposed construction is more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 4) "as built" shed is located in other than the rear yard at 3605 Camp Mineola Rd. (adj. to the Great Peconic Bay) in Mattituck. 42 July 3, 2019 Regular,Meeting FRED WEBER : Good morning hi my name is Fred Weber. I'm the architect for Lewis Topper the owner ,of the-,property. The 'Topper residence 'is located on a waterfront lot in the Camp Mineola neighborhood,in Mattituck. The houses in this neighborhood tend to be close and lots tend to be non-conforming which is the case with the Topper lot being about 18,000 sq. ft.'in an R-40 zone. The location of the house on the Topper property is consistent with the other houses along this beachfront. However the existence of a private right of way,Reeves Rd. which runs down to Peconic Bay ends up flipping what would normally be the front and rear yard to a front and rear yard there on the east and west side not the north and south side. So this is one of the major things, it creates a hardship for the property. The first component of the zoning variance is what I've been working on which is the second floor addition to increase the existing two bedrooms, bath and closet areas on the second floor. The lot is approximately 90 feet wide with 35 foot side I'm sorry 35 foot front and rear yards so it leaves a swath in the middle of the house that would only allow second floor additions. That swath of area actually is open to the living room with a bridge and a cathedral ceiling so-that would all have to be in a sense taken apart where the two sides are where the standard ceilings are and where the additions are proposed. We're trying to maintain the cottage look of the house. The impact of building on the property is reduced again by the fact that there's a 25 foot right of way on the east sidle of the property and as for the other side of the property which maybe doesn't matter and is actually owned by family members. So the second major component of the,zoning request is the as built structures, there's an as built storage shed on the site which is used for beach toys -and miscellaneous storage as there is only a one car garage, no attic or basement due to the flood plain and due to the fact that the second floor is built into the attic. There's a real need for storage. The shed was called out by the LWRP as being constructed without a-permit but as less than 100 sq. ft. actually 97 sq. ft. it did not need a permit and also according to the owner it did not flood during Sandy. It is setback 8.1 feet from the property line where 5 is permissible. Again because of the flipped yards it's located in a code defined side yard. However it is probably located where it has least impact on the surrounding pro,perties up against a privacy hedge and finally there is a C.O. for a shed actually dating back to 1983 although I believe the exact size and location may have been different. The second issue I guess is an as built entry trellis, the entry trellis is not (inaudible) structure and provides a green covering over the entry patio. I think these pictures might be in your files but I just want to show winter and summer view of the trellis. MEMBER DANTES : I don't understand why the trellis is being called out. FRED WEBER : Well because of the way that the building code establishes the fact that it has in the code something, "and other structures". Then you go to the definition of structures MEMBER DANTES : They're defining it as an accessory structure rather than 43 July 3,2019 Regular Meeting FRED WEBER : When you go to the definition of structures it talks about things being attached together and that's the reason. It has no roof like I said it's a fairly white it supports Wisteria, it's not connected to the house but it is 176 sq. ft. you know if you took the footprint of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I assume it's freestanding it's not attached to the house. FRED WEBER: It's not attached it's freestanding. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why they're calling it out. FRED WEBER : The final I guess .is the lot coverage. Again, they bought the lot in 2005 and you know that was what Pat was just referring to that the change in how I guess in 2007 the town changed the way lot coverage was calculated.' The surveyor on this particular' lot did the building area and lot coverage calculations. He actually and came up with 23%. He actually included a trellis which is what he defined as,a trellis which is'located on the west side of the house and the Building Department actually reviewed that and considered it a decorative fence and that was 86 sq. ft. They also have included second floor bay overhang windows and things we don't normally see but you know whatever. The constructed it's hard to reconstruct the exact square footages that were built over time but the shed and the front trellis did not add up to 3%. The trellis is approximately 1% and the shed had a C.O. dating back to 1983 1 think. So we would actually ask that these structures be allowed to remain in place and I would be glad to answer any questions.- CHAIRPERSON uestions.CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to confirm-that the, existing front yard setback of 18.1 and rear yard-of 17.2 are as built and it's-the footprint and you're building those additions on over that footprint. FRED WEBER : Yea we're building over the existing footprint. We're not cantilevering, we're not going out in any way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they're remaining the same. FRED WEBER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's start with Rob questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just for a point of clarification, I know that you said that the Building Department considered the trellis on I guess what is the west side of the house as being some sort of ornamental fence where that (inaudible) from a front yard setback because we're not 44 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting calling Reeve Rd. the front yard. I'm puzzled as far as why that isn't being called yet'the wood trellis is being calculated for lot coverage. To me it makes zero sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It makes no sense. MEMBER DANTES : The other one is smaller right? FRED WEBER : I think they consider when they whenever you have cause I've- been through it before, whenever you have a big postage structure and whatever it's called 'a pergola or whatever it's called a trellis they always cal[that an accessory structure cause Yve been through it before. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I'm saying I'don't know why the one on the side is being called out. FRED WEBER : Well because it's more of like it's like little fence posts that come across the top and its more little pieces of structures as opposed to you know larger timbers. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I get that it covered the generator or whatever other the air conditioning condensers it's just puzzling to me that one could not be counted but then you got the setback issue and the other one is counted. So it's something to we as a Board need to wrestle I get the decision it's just puzzling. FRED WEBER : I sent a picture and the site plan I think it was Amanda I think in the Building Department that reviewed that with me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? MEMBER DANTES : I just think maybe we can get some I believe there are prior variances in this neighborhood at least the lot coverage I think that would be helpful. FRED'`WEBER : I could look those up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See if you could find some priors around the Camp Mineola area. FRED WEBER : I can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I just think you know (inaudible) problem here is the addition to the house rather than the trellis and the shed. 4.51 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're quite benign in my opinion. We can only address what a code enforcement official tells us we can address that's thus the appeal. Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Please come forward and state your name. LEWIS TOPPER : My name is Lewis Topper and I would just like to say a couple of small things. First of all our cottage is very much in keeping with the neighborhood as you probably noticed. There are a series of large homes that have been.built and we really chose to not to go that route but I will say this,from a purely humane point of view, the dormer that takes place in our upper bedrooms requires me when I'm on the commode when I get,up I constantly bang my head and I'm just concerned about my welfare. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Instead of the health, safety and welfare of the community we'll be talking about the applicants is that what you'd like us to do? Anything else from anybody, okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORAT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Oh that's right Eric asked for some priors. I'll close it subject to receipt of any information you can find out�about lot coverage in the area. 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. 46 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution), HEARING #7297— PHILLIP B. CAMMANN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application, before the Board is for Phillip B. Cammann #7297. This is a request for a variance ,from, Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's March 5, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on. an, application for a building permit to construct an accessory swimming pool.and raised patio at 1) located in other.than the rear yard at 1500 Deep Hole Drive�(adj. to Deep Hole Creek) in,Mattituck. Would you please,state your name for the record please. ROB HERMANN : Hi, Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Cammann is here as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a pool-in a side yard where the code requires front yard on waterfront or rear yard. ROB HERMANN : It makes me feel like I actually have sort of a straightforward' application than what I've been used to, I'll go through it quickly.-As you just stated normally the pool here would normally have to go in the rear yard but the presence of the tidal wetlands relative to the position of the historical existing house it's just impossible,almost physically impossible in addition to environmentally undesirable. We should acknowledge that the lot is technically deep enough to situate the pool in the front yard but due to the angling of the existing house the pool would need to be pushed so far toward Deep Hole Drive that it would actually become more conspicuous from the public -roadway and really more out of character with the neighborhood we believe. If you look at where the pool is proposed 1- put some photos up on that board, you can see that relative to the actual angle of the front of the house the pool really does sit in the applicant's front yard but because it is not located completely to the roadside the nearest point of the house it's deemed under zoning by the Building Department to be in a side yard. With respect to the impacts of the pool in the neighborhood in the easterly neighbor which is on the east side so it's really the east neighbors the only directed affected neighb'or. Where we have the, pool- located it would be largely obscured from the road actually by a proposed code conforming two car garage that's proposed in the front yard between the house and the road in between the pool and the-road. It will be heavily screened from the view of the adjacent neighbor to the north by a row of existing evergreen trees and hedging. The pool will be set back 20 feet from the northerly side lot,line which is actually 5 feet farther than the required 15 foot side yard setback for-pool (inaudible) in other words if we move the pool closer toward the road we could actually move it closer to the neighbor to the north so it's a July-3, 2019 Regular Meeting little bit farther than we're allowed in the code and actually to ensure against the northerly neighbor being bothered by the sound of the pool equipment we are actually going to cause I know the Board is always looking for the equipment to be in some sort of sound deadening materials. We're actually going to propose a change to this doesn't affect the application but we're going to propose to change the dimensions of the garage to 24 by 24 so that the pool equipment can be put inside the garage structure rather than outside where it was proposed in the site plan that's in front of you. Again the garage isn't before you and that change won't create any 'new non-conformity but with, respect- to your potential concern about sound deadening we want to make you aware of that. Where it's proposed the position of the pool allows it to be located 100 feet from wetlands and we've obtained a wetlands letter of non- jurisdiction from the Southold Trustees for the construction of the pool so it is being located outside Chapter 275 jurisdiction. The pool is proposed to,be elevated at least 18 inches above natural existing grade to avoid the need for any pool de-watering and pool discharge will be captured by a permanently installed pool dry well. Just off of Eric's comments at the last hearing I guess (inaudible) for the record that,the Board's granting of a,requested variance here would not be unique to the neighborhood. There are lots of similar size with similar wetland constraints who have similarly needed to seek relief for a pool in a side yard in this neighborhood including two properties on Willis Drive which obtained such relief in cases 5239 that was in 2003, at 350 Willis Creek and also case 7043 that was issued just a couple of years ago in 2017 for 130 Willis Creek Drive. So we hope we've covered all our bases here but if the Board has any questions again I'm here and Mr. Cammann's here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am pleased to say I have absolutely no questions, anybody else? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you going to replant the Christmas tree? ROB HERMANN : I'd have to turn to Phillip to answer that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a beautiful spruce. Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? _ MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON'WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 48 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7298SE—TIMOTHY and NATALIE HOUGH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Timothy and Natalie Hough #7298SE. This is a request for a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicants are the owners of the subject property requesting authorization to construct an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 275 Alois Lane in Mattituck. Would you state your name please. NATALIE HOUGH : My name is Natalie Hough. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have a Certificate of Occupancy for a new accessory garage which we inspected and you're proposing on the second floor an apartment which has not yet been built but we have the plans for it. The proposed livable floor area is conforming is at 743 sq. ft. and we have some proof of residency. This is your full time year round home? NATALIE HOUGH : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are proposing that is it your mother? NATALIE HOUGH : My mother-in-law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mother-in-law be the occupant of the apartment. NATALIE HOUGH : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it your intention to live permanently year round in your home? NATALIE HOUGH : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it the intention of your mother-in-law to live there permanently also? NATALIE HOUGH : Yes permanently forever yes. 49 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well permanently forever would be permanently yes. You have plenty of parking spaces available on the property. Let's see if anybody has questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO I just wanted to ask one question regarding the interior of the apartment. The vaulted ceiling in the living room when I was there for the inspection I see that the knee walls where I guess the ceiling comes down to meet the rest of the house it's opened, right now obviously there's no sheet rock I suspect that the Building Inspector might see this but do you have any proposed loft area above the what would be the attic area or a ship ladder proposed? NATALIE HOUGH : Whatever is proposed is whatever is on the proposal and in the floor plan is how it will be. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My colleague just said that I'm perhaps looking at things that aren't finished. The plan just shows that the living room as the vaulted area. When I was physically there it looked like the way that the knee walls were designed went back beyond the wall to the area so NATALIE HOUGH : I know that we submitted the floor plans to you guys so that how it's supposed to be what we submitted as the floor plan. Any construction I mean I'm not really a hundred percent sure you can call my husband he's on standby at work that he could MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it's okay like I said it's just a reminder that there should be no ships ladder to or a stairwell to a loft. NATALIE HOUGH : No, no stair I don't think there will be a stairwell being built except for the one that's from the downstairs garage up to the but that's there already so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, Eric? Moving right along you have all the documentation submitted everything is in place. You know with these permits if you follow what the standards require then they're pretty much straightforward. You've done what you have to do, answer the questions of the Special Exception permit that requires, I think what we have on our record is a birth certificate indicating that Nancy is Timothy NATALIE HOUGH : Timothy's mother. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Timothy's mother okay. You're currently residing NATALIE HOUGH : She lives with us. 5® July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. That means we meet again in two weeks and we will have a decision to deliberate and vote on in two weeks. NATALIE HOUGH : Do we get something in the mail? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will get it in the mail, you can call Kim in the office if you want to know what the decision is. You can sit in at the meeting if you want to if you're fascinated with the deliberations of the Zoning Board. It's an open meeting and you're welcome. NATALIE HOUGH : So we hear from you guys in a week or two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As soon as we have a decision this will go to you and it will go to the Building Department so that the Building Department can then allow you to go forward on building the apartment. NATALIE HOUGH : Thank you. Have a happy July 4th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, you too. Do we have a second? Pat has now seconded the motion to close reserve decision. 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) SI July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING #7289—905 9T" STREET, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have 905 91h Street, LLC#7289. This was adjourned from June 6th so I don't need to read the Notice again into the record. I think really basically the one thing that come forward Mr. Lark, I think probably that we had a similar discussion as to what we're going to have to talk about with you which is the Planning Board's comments that we were waiting for. We had an application this morning that was right around the corner from your applicants and we had the same conversation about their proposed subdivision. Do you know that application, are you familiar with that one? MR. LARK : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll just let you know where it's located. This one is on 195 91h St. in Greenport, 9th and Wiggins right in the same area. So you had a chance to look at their comments that's what we were kind of waiting for at their request to see is there something you would like to tell us from your point of view about their comments? MR. LARK : Yes I would. For the record my name Richard Lark 28785 Main Rd. Cutchogue. I represent Mr. Savits who's a sole member/manager of the applicant 905 91h St. LLC. who is the owner of the property. Mr. Savits is still in Chicago on business so he couldn't be here today although I did talk to him on the telephone several times. Again, I would like to thank the secretary of the Board for forwarding me the Planning Board comments. I read the June 20th memorandum several times and the commentary and I realized in reading it involved two files. I don't know anything about the other file so I'll just comment as to the one before you. I just wanted to cover that the Board of Appeals I was pretty much surprised by it because I just want to repeat for the record the Board of Appeals considers every application on its own merits depending on a particular circumstance that are involved with the subject property which in most cases have unique features that the Board has to consider as well as to the property surrounding neighborhood and circumstances. Not to be repetitious but for the record the Town Law 267B requires the Zoning Board to engage in the balancing test in determining whether or not to grant or deny a variance application. The Board does this by weighing the benefits to the applicant against the health, safety and welfare of the community where the subject property is located. In its deliberation the Board must consider the five statutory factors set forth in 267133 of the Town Law. The New York Supreme Court in its numerous Article 78 decisions regarding this point starting with the court of appeals and a well written case called (inaudible) which did a complete analysis of the new law when it was adopted by the legislature and governing specifically area variances and the courts decisions have been consistently clear of that court and it's following decisions of the appellate division have been completely consistently clear in requiring the ZBA when performing the balancing test and utilizing the five 52 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting factors they must apply them in consideration of the surrounding circumstances and the community-where the property is located and the courts further emphasized, that especially applicable with the factor of substantiality. The purpose of Mr. Savits application as-well as any other application that appears before you and applying,to the Board of Appeals for variances and obtaining relief from the Zoning Board as the applicant obviously-cannot comply with the strict application as interpreted by the-.Building Department so they,come to you for relief and the .courts have consistently stated that after the ZBA or the Zoning Board has evaluated the application considering the statutory factors and if it decides to grant-a variance,it's merely allowing the land owner to use.his•property for a permitted use equal to all other neighboring lots. If th`e Board denies the application it is finding that,the application will have a severe,or a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood or the community. It's really as simple as ,that so I was astounded that the Planning Board memorandum,submitted in response to your request does not-discuss any of these requirements or issues as to the neighborhood, this particular neighborhood., The Planning-:Board's memorandum commenting on this variance request before you as a theory that the granting of this application for a variance would have a serious impact on the Town of Southold by establishing,a bad precedent. The Planning Board insinuates that a variance would have if it, was granted would have an impact on future variances concerning say Nassau Point they point out the map of Nassau Point which is an old filed map and trying to compare this area and a zoning application for a variance with Nassau -Point defies my imagination as well as the two areas in Hogs Neck in the Town.of Southold. As the Board is aware this is totally irrelevant to this application which is before you'as'a Board to consider because you have to consider it on its own merits applying the five balancing the five factors in the balancing test applicable to the surrounding neighborhood. Parenthetically I must say from a personal point of view and reading the Planning Department's memorandum I was a little embarrassed 'not only as to the Board's syntax but more importantly by its (inaudible) approach and content. I had to read .it several times to get the drift of what they were doing and in my opinion they would have been better off for the staff in response to your requests for comments for at least to this file to, say that it's our recommendation that you deny the application period. At least send the staff with giving their opinion and ,not demonstrated their 'lack of knowledge of the law as to the statutory requirements to grant or deny variances for which this Board is bound to comply with. We have to follow the law. Further, if,the Planning Board's staff is going to claim that this variance is a precedent for other areas of the town then they should at least be factually correct. They mentioned the average size of the lot I, least I took it to mean (inaudible) they said it was 8,000 sq. ft. but if they took an effort to calculate it they would find that it's actually as the map was filed in the County Clerk's office it's about 58 plus or minus 5,800 sq. ft.. For some reason the Planning Board memorandum comments on hamlet density�and affordable housing district and how it applies to the variance before you 'is truly questionable because it ignores the fact that the ZBA are required to follow the law in' 53 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting reviewing each and every application in relation to the zoning ordinance as well as to the requirements and determining whether or not to grant the requested relief. I would like to point out also that another inaccuracy in Figure 1 of their memorandum they depict an existing sewer line running from Corwin St. southerly underneath the railroad,tracks and it used to be along Linnett St. in the subdivision. There is a sewer line on Corwin'St. yes there is they had to put it in because of the brewery but it doesn't run underneath the railroad tracks nor does it run in this subdivision along Linnett ST. Lastly.the memorandum makes vague assumptions as to the negative affect of water quality, traffic problems and when you allow small building lots unless of course they say if,they're for affordable housing then it's okay. When you apply the balancing test and'what you're required to do you take all these factors into consideration anyway that's part of your job., So I don't understand why they were trying to have social engineering and trying to tell you what you should be guided in doing when you're supposed to follow the law which you do. In,all things considered I would ask you to disregard the Planning Department's memorandum in considering this application before you because they do not stay within the confines of the law that they (inaudible) on a dissertation of social land use and their views of it and so very quickly'with your•patience I just want to review the five factors as I think they apply. One, I don't believe in anyway or stretch of the imagination there would be an undesirable change or reduce in the character of the neighborhood or,a•detriment to nearby properties by allowing this variance to in effect create another building lot.•As pointed out in the initial application the record before you the applicant has no other alternative but to get a variance so I won't dwell on that. In considering the size, the width, the length and the majority of the improved lots in this neighborhood the application for a requested variance is not at all substantial and I did the mathematics so I won't dwell on them. I submit to you there would be no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of this-neighborhood which would allow,the applicant to use this property in the same way that the,other neighbors have used their property. I have to admit like I did in the application that the applicant's difficulty,was self-created in purchasing this lot but that the courts have determined does not prevent the variance from being granted if there;is no public purpose to deny the variance as applied for. So in reviewing the criteria again I respectfully submit that you grant the application and I want to thank you for your time and again I'm,a little embarrassed at their (inaudible). They didn't answer the question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the Planning Board probably, addressed town wide planning standards MR. LARK : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : did not necessarily address very,circumspect ZBA jurisdiction but I understand why. I mean because there is from their point of view and from ours, I mean we all 541 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting live here it's not like you know we can't talk as neighbors. There's (inaudible) pressure for development out here. Property values are soaring and there's a lot of people who'd love to live here and there's a lot of people who would enjoy making a profit off of extra land that they bought and it will ultimately incrementally add up to all of these adverse potential impacts. We're already bulging at the seams and I understand where they're going with this but you are quite correct that the ZBA has to look very specifically at the application that's before us and apply the state statutes that we have to apply and we'll see where it goes but it is of concern. I mean we talked to Frank Ullendahl is the architect who is representing the applicants around the corner from you and his comment actually was even though these two applications are not part of the village of Greenport the standards for zoning in the village are rather different cause it's MR. LARK : They are very much so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's denser, it's a 30% lot coverage, the size of the lots are smaller for good reason because it's village zoning and it's not town wide zoning and his point was he understood what the Planning Board was getting at. He lives in Greenport, he knows what the impacts are there but he was basically saying these lots are more characteristic of the village than they are of the town of Southold because they were all part of this MR. LARK : It's actually considered Greenport, the post office the school, everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know there's a lot for us to absorb and think about because think what of course you do realize you will have to go to the Planning Board should an approval for the insufficient lot size take place and then they will have to grapple with it from their point of view whether a subdivision is justified so I just think it's a timely conversation that internal to the town we should be having as one agency and another agency because we are faced with a future that we have to make sure that we plan for wisely and that we don't wreck what we've got. At least we have to have some balance between reasonable property rights and the welfare of the whole town and we tend to look at that more than Planning does. I think they have looking at the town wide impacts and cumulative impacts so we're in kind of a nexus here somewhere I suspect but certainly I thank you for your very thoughtful as always comments and you know guidance and case law reference and so on. These are the things that we do grapple with so, I don't know if anybody has Bill do you want to say anything? T. A. DUFFY : Mr. Lark we discussed the matter on the phone and just based on your experience and your research of the case law, (inaudible) the town law talks about a surrounding area what distance are we talking about that the ZBA should be looking at as far as how far out do they go and July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting MR. LARK : Say that again. T. A. DUFFY : How far out should the ZBA go based on case law and your experience, how far out should ZBA be going as far as distance wise when we talk about surrounding area? Like the Planning Board is saying town wide, obviously it's not town wide but is it a half mile, five hundred feet, a thousand feet? MR. LARK : Well yeah you have to consider yes I agree with you and I thought about that after I read that and even anticipated the comments from the Chairman, when you look to the east looked at all of those lots going all the way over to the fire house and everything is pretty much the same. It's Greenport, do you follow what I mean, and then when you went to the west you're starting to run into wetlands and everything else so you're going to have a far different criteria that will apply if there's any you know if there's any impact on building and stuff like that. So in this one you're stuck, you've got the Main Rd. on the north you know the high school right across the street and then you run all the way to the bay but that whole section is basically small, moderate low income originally housing there and it was done for the a lot of it the building was done during the war for the shipyard workers the construction workers and everything else and so I think that's the neighborhood to answer your precise question that we're focused with. Yeah I don't think you have to just do Greenport Driving Park the subdivision from the railroad tracks to south. I think when you look you can't go anywhere west well we had west of the property we have it used to be called cardboard city which was a place they particularly for the construction worker so that's the area that I guess you could go as far west as 7-Eleven. To answer your question, you've got the water on the south and then you got the Main Rd. which is all business area basically on the north. T. A. DUFFY : I think to put it another way, if you looked at some of the case law like if a neighbor let's say wanted to challenge a determination and he lives like say a thousand feet away it's very well that a court would say that they don't have standing (inaudible) MR. LARK : The courts have said that, yes. There have been cases where they have literally been around the corner and have no relationship to the property at all and are not impacted as T. A. DUFFY : So the ZBA is supposed to be looking at smaller areas as opposed to MR. LARK : Yeah. I hope that answers your question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Bill if I may, doesn't that create also the situation of the need for like transition because it is the Town of Southold not the village or incorporated village of Greenport that these lots had they been developed at an earlier time or subdivided would make sense but from a transition standpoint to allow that Segway into the rest of the community? 56 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : I don't think that's your charge though. MR. LARK : I agree I don't think it is. T. A. DUFFY : I think you do the five factors and MR. LARK : I think the point I was trying to make, you're all familiar with Nassau Point size and shape of the lots and how it's developed, you can't equate Driving Park and it's postage stamped properties with Nassau Point and I banter Fisherman's Beach and those other places do have some postage stamp you know lots but one going in for a variance trying to split something up first of all in the immediate locust and not only would the neighbors raise the devil if you follow what I mean it wouldn't be appropriate for the area and that's one of the things that you consider in the courts that you must consider the community what's going to be its impact. If it's going to have a negative impact you deny the application or you go for some alternative relief but you don't grant it. If it's not going to have an impact than what the applicant is (inaudible) the neighbor next door has well okay that might be alright. That's what I think but I don't think you can compare Nassau Point with this area that's what I'm trying to say. So I don't think there's a precedence set what you do in Orient with a variance I don't think has any relevance to what you would do in Mattituck. I mean just to carry it to the extreme. I think you have to confine it to that little (inaudible) there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me ask you let's just expand this discussion for a moment. One has to do with lot size, recognition of lot size that's a major thing and then Planning will have to pick up should an approval be forthcoming. The other are the variances being requested simultaneously for the construction of a non-conforming dwelling well the dwelling may be conforming but the bulk schedule is not all conforming. You're talking about some setbacks a lot coverage MR. LARK : That only on the one lot but the other lot the new lot would be conforming as to lot coverage but where the big deal is, is on the cause it's a corner the front yard that's the front yard variance you have two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay wait, yeah hold on so we're talking about variances for the as built dwelling as a consequence? MR. LARK : Only as to the area not as to front yard or any other it's there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to review that because I know there were two things, one was the lot itself MR. LARK : One is the area it does exceed. It does exceed the area. 57 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so we have variances on each lot, one based on what's already there and then the other is so you know my question is, if the Board were to seriously contemplate recognition of the small lot perhaps the fact that you could put a conforming dwelling on the new lot where there is nothing right now would be more helpful than if in fact you were not only asking for a small lot recognition but also to allow something to be built that was not conforming strictly to the code. MR. LARK : And it would be except it's a corner lot that's what messes it up because you have a front yard setback on either side. So that's why you have to use the average of three hundred feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right which you did on one. MR. LARK : And with the other one too, the Building Department said you don't have to it's already established there. They got like a 15 yard setback going up all 9th St. we don't care. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right but what about the other front yard setback, that one MR. LARK : It comes to about I forgot the number don't quote me it's like a 5% difference when you do the average. There was one that was way out of whack but if you did the whole street it would be in because as you go further east you get down to the corner they're right on the street because for some reason they took one of the approved subdivision lots and cut it in half and put two houses literally right on the street right on the corner. They might have a ten yard all along Linnett St. on the other side on the street on the other side borders on the railroad tracks. Every one of those houses is right on the street ten, fifteen feet so and the reason for that is the railroad tracks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wanted to revisit that because you know that's part of what you're applying for. MR. LARK : Yeah because when I looked at the neighborhood and rode around and this was a balancing act that you did locate the house there it would have the most least impact of all places that you can do. And even when he wanted to do a I talked to their building man their architect but even when they wanted to do a garage I said you're better off since you're in the twenty percent to have a detached garage and have it go out on Flint St. not on 91h St. you follow me that would just further impact it would be better traffic control having in and out on Flint St. rather than the other one because it (inaudible) the position of the darn railroad there. That's what makes this (inaudible) ,58 July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Anything else from the Board, questions comments whatever? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing 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) July 3, 2019 Regular Meeting CERTIFICAT10N I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : July 12, 2019 6®