Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/12/2019 Hearing { I ., 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 September 12, 2019 10:02 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 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting l INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Michael and Mary Heagerty#7308 3-6 James Kuhlmann #7310 6 - 9 Silvia Campo and David Hermer#7311 9 - 17 Joseph and Barbara Lazzaro # 7312 17 - 19 Karen Kraebel Ahlers #7314 SE 19 - 26 Karen Kraebel Ahlers #7315 19 - 26 Brian Keller# 7319 26- 29 Frederick Liguori # 7318 29 - 34 Robert Yedid # 7309 35 - 48 Kevin S. McLeod and Chun Y. Cheung#7313 48 - 53 Brad and Kathryn Piecuch #7288 53 - 63 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING#7308- MICHAEL and MARY HEAGERTY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board this morning is for Michael and Mary Heagerty #7308. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 5, 2019 amended May 6, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) located less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet, 3) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 15 feet located at 10550 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. TOM SAMUELS : Tom Samuels architect on behalf of Mary and Michael Heagerty who are here. Basically this is a very unusual piece of property if you visited you've seen it's long and narrow which has no proper rear yard in the conventional sense of the word. On waterfront parcels accessory structures can be located in the front yard but do not meet the setback. It's also very topographically active so to speak. It's a hill and there's a sanitary system behind the wall. There's very little level ground there and so we feel this is the only place to put a relatively small garage structure with a loft above. Basically I'm here to answer any questions and help you guys make a decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Everyone has a survey out? Let's see what questions the Board might have. Let's start down at the end with Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This looks as though it's partially in a front yard and partially in a side yard. I guess the Building Department made a determination as to what's front and what's side. TOM SAMUELS : It's a triangle so it's not a conventional lot shape at all. Yes it is within the required front yard setback. It's also I suppose in the side yard. We tried to maintain you know whatever we could for separations but it's really tricky because of the shape of the lot and the way that the topography works. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me enter into the record just so that it's clear that it's partially the location but here are also variances required for a front yard setback at 12.8 feet where the code requires 40 feet and the third would be for a rear yard setback at 9 feet 10 inches where the code requires 15 feet for a building of that height on that sized lot; the proposed height is 20 feet. TOM SAMUELS : Yes. 3 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I don't understand Leslie is why they wrote it as a front the garage partially located in the front yard at all cause isn't it a code conforming location on waterfront lots? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you have to meet setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it is one of the let's take the Notice out. MEMER DANTES : (inaudible) they'll need a variance either way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They said it had to be in the required rear yard but I agree with you, on waterfront properties accessory structures are permitted in a MEMBER LEHNERT : It has to meet the setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes but that's another story. I mean they could have written it a little differently to make it clear that the non-conforming location is non-conforming partially because of the setbacks. It doesn't really matter. The bottom line is they're looking at the road frontage because in a sense the house faces the road and the water is in the side yard so it's a very, very odd situation. TOM SAMUELS : It's an odd situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've all done an inspection and obviously you're totally correct, the slopes are really dramatic and there's only a very small level piece of level land, anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, Tom would you clarify, the application states no utilities, no bathrooms etc. but on the plans it shows a half bath. TOM SAMUELS : Yes, we went in originally with having any plumbing at all and it was in the midst of the process that Michael and Mary came to me and said it actually would be very handy to have a half bath in the structure to support the accessory uses that they intend to do them in the structure so we came back with a new drawing. To be honest I did not know this is (inaudible) we're still in the Health Department on that but it would be very handy to have that half bath in there. So I recognize that in my reasons for the appeal it refers to no sanitary but we actually would like to put that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And you are in the process of applying to Suffolk County Board of Health? TOM SAMUELS • Correct, yes we need their approval and then we'll require pumps and it's a complicated application to them as well because of topography. I mean to pump sewage uphill 4 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting to get to the sanitary system which is above, this building is kind of like in a hole in a way (inaudible) with all the retaining walls so it's tricky. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then your second floor in this garage structure is labeled as storage, is there any proposed finishing to that room? TOM SAMUELS : Yeah we do intend to finish it just because we would like to insulate this so we can keep out the heat in the summertime and you know just try to temper the space a little bit and if you insulate something you have to put you have to finish it just because it's code, building code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will you be finishing the walls on the first floor? TOM SAMUELS : Probably so, I'm not really sure to be honest. If that makes a difference or not we can again give you a proper answer on that but I would say yes we would like the opportunity. It just keeps it all so much cleaner and neater. It's a small structure but to have the open stud just you know breeds a lot of insects and stuff and would like to keep it clean. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So electric and plumbing. The next question you mentioned proposed accessory uses that this half bath would be handy for, a garage is essentially a place to store cars so what kind of accessory uses are you considering? TOM SAMUELS : Those which are permissible, basically some working on things just kind of the kind of things people do (inaudible) outbuildings I guess. Obviously it can't be habitable we understand that-or uses that are not permitted in accessory structures. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to address the LWRP in any way? They indicate that it's inconsistent. No I'm sorry it's consistent you don't have to address this. TOM SAMUELS : And we agree with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's way, way far away from the water. Anything from you Pat or Eric? Anyone 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 PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 5 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7310—JAMES KUHLMANN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for James Kuhlman #7310. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's March 14, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 635 Church Lane in Cutchogue. Would you state your name for the record please. PATRICK MICELI : Patrick Miceli Contracting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an accessory garage and the Building Department has determined it's a 31 X 24 foot in the front yard where the code requires a rear yard. The gravel well you sort of have a gravel road that's kind of almost grassed over in what would I guess be the rear yard. PATRICK MICELI : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Church Lane would be where the front of the house is located? PATRICK MICELI : Yes initially that's what we were told. This went to the Town Engineer and they determined that Church Lane is actually considered the rear yard cause it's not a legal town road and Zion Rd. is considered actually the front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that gravel road is a named road it's called Zion Rd? PATRICK MICELI : Correct, yes. We were told we have two front yards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that is correct. We did receive those comments from the Town Engineer and apparently Church Lane which looks like a proper street is actually owned by the town. It's not a road per say, it's only and legally deeded access for the subject property which is town property. It's not listed as a town road. The request is for the applicant to essentially start to use Zion is that what it's called as access to their property rather than Church Lane. I'm just entering that into the record. If in fact that is then determined Church Lane is determined 6 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting not to be a front yard because it's not legally accessible, if you move that garage closer to Church Lane you won't even need a variance. The problem is however then your existing driveway is going out to Church Lane. PATRICK MICELI : Are we allowed to continue to use Church Lane? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think not. I think legally there's T. A. DUFFY : This Board can't make a decision as to whether you have legal access to Church Lane or not. PATRICK MICELI : Would it be better for us to just say to seek to get it approved where it is so that we have an approval in place and then always move it back if we decide to do so? MEMBER DANTES : This is the engineer's letter it's not the Building Department's letter. They might still come back and ask for a variance anyway cause they might not agree. PATRICK MICELI : We prefer to just go for the variance and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we don't have the jurisdiction anyway to look at what is deeded with the town and what's a public. PATRICK MICELI : I think we prefer to just leave everything CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where it is? PATRICK MICELI : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Does that make sense to the Board, Nick, Rob? Does that make sense, let them be before us for as applied for and then they'll have to work it out with I guess whomever who do they go to Bill for that kind of information. T. A. DUFFY : They come to my office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you hear that? If you want some legal opinion as to how to proceed with straightening that out since we now have part of our public record from the Town Engineer MEMBER LEHNERT : Don't they need to make an application for a curb cut? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know. MEMBER DANTES : The house is pretty old. It looks like this has been used as a driveway for a long time. Z September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Zion Lane is almost grassed over. I don't even know how you would (inaudible) I'm sorry would you come to the mic and state your name. JAMES KUHLMAN : I'm sorry, hi I'm James Kuhlman. Zion is actually the right of way which the church has to provide cause they sold that property CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To the town? JAMES KUHLMAN : Right, right and (.,guess at some point when they altered the dump things changed on Church Lane or something like that but that was our confusion, which was the front which was the back and it appeared that Church Lane was the front yard that there was no back yard but apparently there's plenty of back yard. MEMBER DANTES : Does anyone plow that road? JAMES KUHLMAN : I guess the town plows the church, I guess we're responsible for maintaining Zion if it's a right of way. MEMBER DANTES : But if the town is already plowing JAMES KUHLMAN : I know they don't plow Zion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think this super cedes what jurisdiction this Board has. We can simply note in our record that these comments were made and that there is some concern about the legal access but if you do not legally have an access to Church Lane then in fact and the same is true for a right of way. If you can't drive over that road then it is not considered front yard. JAMES KULMAN : Oh it's usable. I do drive down Zion. You can get down Zion and some of the trees are (inaudible) over a little bit and they need to be trimmed up a bit but it is usable. It's not the prettiest road but it's usable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and you would prefer then to have a 43 foot setback from Zion. That's what is proposed a 43 foot. It makes sense if you're probably going to use that road more frequently that may be you want to consider some gravel driveway in from Zion. JAMES KUHLMAN : Yeah the only (inaudible) if we put the doors on the Zion side which is the sunny side anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that make sense to everybody? And there is to be no heat in the structure, no plumbing? JAMES KUHLMAN : No. September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Electric? JAMES KUHLMAN : Electric, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just going to make a note in here you indicated that the doors for the garage will face Zion. JAMES KUHLMAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, Pat, Eric, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? Hearing no further 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. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7311—SILVIA CAMPO and DAVID HERMER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Silvia Campo and David Hermer # 7311. This is a request for a variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's February 20, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish and reconstruct the existing retaining wall and two accessory decks at 1) retaining wall is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) deck is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) deck is located seaward of the top of the bluff, not permitted located at 3675 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. c September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. I also have Shawn Leonard here who is the architect so if we need specific answers he's my backup. I will address the retaining walls first just for hoping things make sense. The existing house was built in 1985. We have a C. of 0. for '85. At the time the house was built there were two wooden retaining walls they're landscape retaining walls that run perpendicular to the top of the bluff. For those all of you have been there to see it in the back yard those retaining walls hold back the soil because it's a full floor between the grade on the east side of the property and the grade of the west side of the property. So those two retaining walls are about thirty years old now. They should be replaced and to be consistent with the rest of the design of the landscaping, instead of wood it would be cement retaining walls. I have for you a cross section of the retaining wall I don't recall I don't think the plans showed it originally so I had the architects provide just a cross section so you can see the footing and the wall and I'll provide that for you right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just asking Kim if we received Suffolk County Soil and Water comments on this, I don't believe we did. We have an LWRP that's indicating it to be consistent. PAT MOORE : Sorry I thought I made enough copies but I only have one, it's pretty simple. The goal is obviously. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually we have this Pat. PAT MOORE : Oh you do? Alright, one of the issues was how far those retaining walls have to go to the top of the bluff. We believe that when they are replaced we can shorten them up a little bit and not go beyond the 10 foot buffer. So the retaining walls that are there now can actually be shortened up because as the wall extends towards the top of the bluff you get to a zero difference between the wall and the grade so we could shorten them up and we could if the Board will agree that we will just place a maximum distance of the wall to the bluff not exceeding the 10 foot buffer. That should give us plenty of room to adjust with the landscaper where the grade ends and the wall ends. So that was more of unfortunately when you're dealing with retaining walls and construction some of it is at the site and grading and so on so we know we have to replace them but they don't have to go quite as long as the wood ones extend towards the bluff. Any questions on the retaining walls? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just enter into the record what the variances are. The first is for a retaining wall at 7 foot from the top of the bluff the code requiring 100 feet. The second is a 9 foot 5 inch by 8 foot 3 inch accessory deck at 0 bluff setback. PAT MOORE : Well I haven't reached I haven't talked about that. 3.® September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I'm just going to put these all on the record that's all. The third one is for a 9 foot 5 inch by 9 foot 5 inch deck located seaward of the top of the bluff. Now you got Trustees approval I gather for this. PAT MOORE : Well, no we couldn't get a Trustee approval until the Zoning Board granted this so we have to go back. We got Trustee approval for everything that's there except the retaining wall and the stairs because once we get the approval here we'll go back and amend our permit to include these two structures but part of the permitting process of the Trustees was the 10 foot non-turf. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that's why that's on the survey. MEMBER DANTES : You said stairs Pat, I don't think we have anything to do with the stairs. PAT MOORE : Generally you don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we're talking about retaining walls and decks. PAT MOORE : No just the landings. MEMBER DANTES : Oh the landings. PAT MOORE : Yeah and I was talking to the architect and the client and sometimes I've had landings be Board review and sometimes they're not and I don't seem to have a really clear understanding of when they do and when they don't. In this case we were coming here for the retaining walls so I didn't fight it too much but it's really confusing and when you're ready we'll talk about the landings if that's permissible. So the landings it appears that the Zoning Board had granted permission for the house when it was first constructed for the decks cause at that time you had jurisdiction 75 feet from the bulkhead. I don't believe the stairs were a part of that proposed at the time because they were beach stairs and usually don't build them until the house is ready to be occupied. Those stairs were built about that time so they've been there the entire time. My clients when they bought the property those stairs were there. When they bought also I don't think the Trustees had the interpretation that if it didn't have a permit you couldn't repair them but since they've now changed the code so we would have gone in and that's what prompted all of this was when we went in to the Trustees to seek a permit for everything that's existing in order to be able to continue to maintain it and that's what then brought us here because those stairs with the landings. The landings the Building Department said well you know they're decks. I don't agree. I don't believe that they're decks. I think they're landings and actually LWRP made a recommendation or they said it's inconsistent with the top one. Let's talk about the top landing or the top decking as the Building Department describes it. It is somewhat cantilevered where the top of the bluff is and that's the way it was constructed n September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting and the stairs run and the run of the stairs is based on that landing. The client actually only intends to do a replacement of the boards. They don't want to spend the money to replace the entire stairs but I put in the language of replacement just in case you end up with a fifty percent repair when you start taking the boards down and you find that there's a structural repair that's needed. I didn't want to get into a position where oops we went one more board beyond what should have been allowed. So my description has a replacement. That is not what they're trying to do. They are just trying to resurface the boards because those are thirty years old and they are in need. Now she asked well can I paint them, yeah you can paint them but you know that will only last a certain amount of time. So anyway, the goal here as I said is, if in fact we have to replace the boards it's going to be in kind and in place of the structure so if a post needs to be replaced we replace the post. The boards on the top obviously need to be replaced. So we would prefer not to disturb the bank any more than is absolutely necessary. For us to remove what is the top platform and reduce it in size the alternative I had the architect provide for me what could be a design change that would reduce the top of the cantilever portion to essentially a ramp because we have to get from the top to the bottom without changing the angle of the stairs. We don't want to reconfigure the stairs at all. I have a design and then we have a platform going on the landward side of the top of the bank. I have a drawing of that for your review and that is an alternative. Again our goal here is not to replace everything. We want to keep it in place. Worse comes to worse we got a design. So as you can see if we were to try to make that upper landing conforming you take the upper landing reduce its width to the same width as the stairs which are 3 feet and then you push the landing back. That's an alternative. Again that's only if we were to replace the whole thing then it would make sense to replace it in a conforming design. So if the Board is willing to provide a decision that allows us a repair which is what we wanted to do with the Trustees we can minimize the amount of disturbance if it's a replacement than we're willing to make it conform as far as the top landing. The lower landing is very common again I don't understand the Building Department's interpretation because that landing is essentially a little platform landward of the bulkhead. You see those all the time. It's a place where people may put a chair or put their kayaks or whatever and ultimately get down to the beach. At the high tide you sit there, if you're at low tide you're on the beach. So that I don't have an alternative for that. That's just a little platform and I didn't really know if the LWRP really had any comments about it. I think his comments tend to be about the top of the bank the cantilevered portion not really discussing the lower portion. Again it's a very minimal platform no different than any of the platforms that are typically found along this water body. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you thought about at all seeing this alternative design if that was patio on grade instead of wood that variance goes away you know stone. PAT MOORE : A stone patio yeah slab. J,2 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's because it's wood that they have an issue with it. PAT MOORE : I think just the amount of disturbance it's just a lot more digging at the top of the bank and we prefer I think it's less disturbance on a property just putting some posts and then the decking on top than actually digging in and placing stone at the top. It's a matter of you know amount of disturbance and again we're trying very hard not to disturb this property if at all possible. Certainly that's an alternative and which is better I don't know. SHAWN LEONARD : Shawn Leonard I'm the architect for the project. When my client came to me as Pat had mentioned in the beginning all she said I just want to replace some of the deck boards and that's what led us to what we need to go to the Trustees and we went to the Trustees and what led us to you. Her goal really is to leave as much structure alone and all she wanted to do was just replace the deck boards that are splintering as you go up and down and then that's so as much as she can just leave everything alone and we looked at the structure that's there all the posts look like everything is in good shape. All the from what we can see and observe so far the joists are in good shape so we thought well what we'll be doing would just be replacements and that would be the least evasive of everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if you were to do the alternative you'd just give it to us you know just connect the location-of the existing steps with a little walkway and then put that 9.5 X 8.3 we'll call it a deck cause it's bigger than a landing legally so if you were do you think there's less disturbance by putting wood on that top of the bluff than putting down some pavers? SHAWN LEONARD : I believe so because then at that point all they have to do is just for this size just dig four post holes and put that in and then they can frame right on top and can be done with it as opposed to try and dig and create a footing or anything like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. IL 3T September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions just a comment. To my understanding you're allowed to repair these structures without really getting any permit. PAT MOORE : No the Trustees say that you can repair a permitted structure and if MEMBER LEHNERT : Oh okay. PAT MOORE : (inaudible) and only we know what it means yeah so that's what prompted us to go to the Trustees. MEMBER LEHNERT : It wasn't permitted. PAT MOORE : Exactly it was pre-existing (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : Cause I repaired a lot of these things and PAT MOORE : Exactly constantly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One thing that I'll note is that if you do look at character of the neighborhood there's not a home along that stretch that doesn't have something very similar to this. PAT MOORE : Exactly and I know we've repaired them and they have Trustee approval and MEMBER LEHNERT : I've repaired countless of numbers of these things up and down that whole strip. PAT MOORE : I just don't understand. It would be helpful at some point either the code is modified or you guys send a little interpretation that way that says, guys if it's you know if it's a repair truly a repair you know you don't need a variance from this Board, we don't consider it a deck. Since the code the Trustees (inaudible) allows you to have up to}200 sq. ft. why are we MEMBER LEHNERT : I think you got caught in that non-permitted loop hole. PAT MOORE : I guess yeah but the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to consider you want to call this an amended if the Board wants to take a look at this you want to call this amended relief? PAT MOORE : Alternative relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alternative well alternative would be if we told you what to do. If you submit it to us then it's amended. September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I want to amend it only if we're getting rid of this. I don't want to amend as really our preference. We don't want to do anything. We want to just do the maintenance the repair that is the (inaudible). If we are to if by chance and you know as well as I do that all of a sudden you find out you've got more rot than was evident above grade you're replacing so I don't since we're here on a variance the only actually interestingly enough the replacement is really not the stairs. So if the stairs have rot no problem we can replace them because the Trustees permit is going to be part of the maintenance program. It's really just the deck and we already know the deck is pretty much fine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So, Pat has anyone investigated the footings of that deck? SHAWN LEONARD : Yes we've actually looked at the posts that are in and the posts are all in good shape that go down into the ground currently so we didn't see anything that was alarming to us or we felt like there was anything that would require us to even have to replace those at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Board will have a discussion and see which direction. PAT MOORE : Just one issue with respect to the non-turf buffer. I just asks that you leave it to the Trustees cause when I go back to the Trustees our landscaper suggested that we not pull out the grass, we let it grow be non-mowed rather than pull it out and (inaudible) just sand because that may cause more disturbance. So that would require the Trustees conversation but if you guys add it I'm in two Boards and I'm discussing that with both Boards. MEMBER DANTES : You want a vegetated buffer? PAT MOORE : Well in order to make it 'vegetated we'd have to remove the grass and the landscaper is saying he doesn't recommend actually pulling the grass out just let it grow do it as a non-mowed. It's not really those wetlands grasses it's standard no, no we don't want it non- disturbance because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That means you can't dig. PAT MOORE : I'm just asking you don't need to deal with it, it will be dealt with the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience please come forward. JEAN MOORE : Jean Moore 3485 Nassau Point Rd. and I'm adjacent to the work that's being done and the only thing I have a real problem with is the retaining walls even the lengths that have been put up are totally out of character with the rest of the area and I personally maybe it doesn't matter to anybody would not want to be looking at a cement wall because it's right next to my deck. So that's the only comment I wanted to make. 15 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ms. Moore you live to the north of the site? JEAN MOORE : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So which walls are you referring to the proposed retaining wall that's in discussion or these large sort of concrete blocks that were put below the driveway for I guess a tennis court? JEAN MOORE : I'm not those are there so I'm just stuck with that. I just don't want that type of structure if it's possible directly next to my deck in the front on the bay side. Is that the retaining wall they're talking about? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the proposed application is for a retaining wall that's sort of the midpoint of the property and your property TALKING BETWEEN JEAN MOORE AND PAT MOORE (inaudible) JEAN MOORE : The front of my house is right next to the deck. PAT MOORE : I'm just trying to help. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but I'd like them to have a moment to talk without closing the hearing in case there's some PAT MOORE : Oh do you want us to go into the hallway? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you can I'm just saying do it quickly and do it here so that we don't have to (APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY IS, CONFERING WITH THE_NEIGHBOR TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED FORrvT,HE RETAINING WALLS)", CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you understand now what's being proposed? JEAN MOORE : Yes it's where the propane tank used to be. SHAWN LEONARD : It is further. EXPLAINING TO JEAN MOORE THE LOCATION. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is there anyone else in the audience? Hearing no further questions of comments 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? 16 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7312—JOSEPH and BARBARA LAZZARO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph and Barbara Lazzaro # 7312. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's February 8, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 400 Legion Ave. in Mattituck. Please state your name for us. JOE OLIVIERI : Good morning my name is Joe Olivieri. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you got a Stop Work Order because apparently according to a letter of support from the I guess Pastor George Summers this house burnt and JOE OLIVIERI : Yes they suffered a fire. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the construction exceeds the scope of the building permit it looks like. You're proposing a second floor interior construction to expand the living space with a non-conforming footprint on the first floor and there's a new deck under construction but it doesn't decrease the non-conforming front yard setback of the existing house. It's a corner lot. JOE OLIVIERI : It's a corner lot that's the biggest problem with the lot. If it wasn't a corner lot we wouldn't be standing before you. We did not change the envelope of the house. Basically we're finishing an attic and when we finish that attic because that second level is too close 19 foot 1 instead of the required front yard setback that's why we're here and yes we added a rear deck to mirror the front existing porch but we did not go closer to the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has questions, Nick. 3.? September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I want to just inquire about the sanitary. The existing house would appear to be a two bedroom home. You're now finishing the attic area and it will become a three bedroom home. Have you made application to Suffolk County Board of Health for an expanded waste water system? JEREMY DAVIS : Good morning I'm Jeremy Davis, Josephs' and Barbara's son and it was a three bedroom house actually. There was two bedrooms on the first floor and one bedroom on the second floor when they bought the house and what we did was we made the first floor a single bedroom and the upstairs a bedroom and a bathroom and the room to the right originally wasn't even going to be finished. It was just going to be storage but when I spoke to my architect he said that it would be considered a bedroom. So it's a three bedroom home and it stayed a three bedroom home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the septic is designed for a three bedroom house? JEREMY DAVIS : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have a septic certification or JEREMY DAVIS : (inaudible) Suffolk County Board of Health on any level. Nor did the Building Department require us to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions? MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at and it looks like the property card has a building permit for demolition so I guess the demolition was done by permit then? JOE OLIVIERI : Yes we did pull a permit, we did do a set of drawings after the fire (inaudible) from a previous architect and there was a set of drawings done for the renovation after the fire but it did not include the renovations of the second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the permit was issued for the first floor renovations? JOE OLIVIERI : Exactly and then we had a Stop Work Order and then my client hired me to take over the project to do a more detailed set of drawings an accurate depiction of what was actually going to be constructed and we received a temporary building permit to do the first floor work to get the owner of the home to move back into the house. He's been living in a trailer behind the house for a year. I think that's some of the reasons why we've gotten such support from the neighbors. They want to see this gentleman back in his house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. 1 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? 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) HEARING #7314SE & 7315—KAREN KRAEBEL AHLERS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Karen Kraebel Ahlers #7315. This is a request for a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner of the subject property requesting permission to create an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 255 Sixth Street in Laurel. I'm going to open up the second application at the same time so that we can talk about all of it together. It makes sense to do it that way. The second application for the same property owner is # 7315. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 8, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct additions and alterations to an existing accessory building and convert it to an accessory apartment at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) more than the code required maximum height of 20 feet located at 255 Sixth Street in Laurel. Please state your name for the record please. KAREN DINIZIO : Karen Dinizio. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Nicholas Mazzaferro. I'm the engineer for Karen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let's enter into the record what we're looking at here. Tell us a bit about who is going to be living in this proposed accessory well let me start with the other one it's easier. You have an existing garage right with an existing height of 21.83 feet is that correct? 19 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting NICK MAZZAFERRO : That's the proposed height.The existing height CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the proposed right you're going to open it up for head clearance yeah and it has a 5 foot 8 inch setback where the code requires a 10 foot setback for structure over 20 feet high. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The garage was built in about 1986 NICK MAZZAFERRO : C of 0 is'86. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So those setbacks are in place probably pre-dates what the required bulk schedule was at that point. NICK MAZZAFERRO : That's correct. When the C of 0 was issued for the structure that's there now the setback distance to create a height over 20 feet was 3 foot and at that point and time where the code read it was at the height it was the average of the gable break and was also again a 3 foot setback. So if you took the current structure they're proposing and compared it to the original code it's conforming. So the fact that the code changed (inaudible) the physical property is really the need for the variance. Two things changed, one is the setback distance which changed from 3 foot to now it's (inaudible) depending on the different structures and also the way the ridge height or the building height is calculated has also changed for accessory structures. It used to be the average of the angle of the slope on a sloped roof and now it's the full ridge. So in lieu of changing, the updated code is what we (inaudible) what we need for a variance not the structure itself and the height is required just to generate a minimal 7 foot 6 inch clearance on the inside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we went inside and you know inspected the property. You're not proposing to change the footprint in any way? NICK MAZZAFERRO : Not at all as a matter of fact we're saving the entire ground floor structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the property is on a very small street and it's sort of at a dead end. The impacts are negligible. Let's talk a little bit about the proposed occupancy. As you know the owner has to be ;in the residence. You can either occupy the accessory structure or the dwelling it doesn't matter and your son is going to be living there? KAREN DINIZIO : Uh huh. NICK MAZZAFERRO : And the plan is to renovate the main dwelling. My client's intention has a large piece of property currently in Cutchogue and they're heading towards retirement age so 20 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting they anticipate plans to build the accessory apartment, her son w�l occupy that. The house will then be able to be renovated and then they're going to move into that house. It's much smaller a`much easier place to take care of and then-sell their main place in Cutchogue. So that's the master plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good to plan ahead. We don't have in our record at least I didn't find any in my application package any kind of documentation of ownership. Not that we're mistrusting that you own the property but we need.some sort of deed to indicate that you're the owner of the property and we need some information on proof of residency of your son. It can be a birth certificate, an affidavit indicating that the son will be the'occupaint. I don't think that we have anything in our record. Usually we require some sort of proof not because we don't believe people but because it's better for our decisions if we can enter into the decision that we have that evidence that they comply. NICK MAZZAFERRO : I have the deed. I did go to the county office and pull it. We did write a letter regarding that overall project and the intent of the occupants and basically the sequence. MEMBER DANTES : If you don't have the deed on you, you might just walk down to the Assessor's Office and they might be able to NICK MAZZAFERRO : I have it right here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you currently' occupying this structure or no you're in Cutchogue? KAREN DINIZIO : We're in Cutchogue. We're going 'to down size and move there. That's the whole thing is downsizing. MEMBER LEHNERT : Who is currently residing there? KAREN DINIZIO : My son (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's living in the principal dwelling? KAREN DINIZION : Uh huh. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN It's a little bit out of order simply because usually people are already residing on the property. So we have to figure out how to handle this perhaps an affidavit of intent to renovate and move in. Do you have,some timeframe in mind? NICK MAZZAFERRO : No it's a matter of getting the permits cause'-we can't lock down time frames until we get the permits toI start because the accessory has got to get built. Once that's done the existing principal residence is from the 1950's and it was originally seasonal and then September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting work was done to it recently converted into an all,year round residence. So we got the pre- existing C. of 0. for that so you know a certified heating system was added so now that's considered an all year round residence but it is in need. of major renovations to be. able to occupy for the long term and also you know setting everything up on one floor, three foot doors in the bathroom the whole thing to be occupied as a senior citizen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this going,to be a demolition or are you going actually be able to repair this to your satisfaction? NICK MAZZAFERRO : We're not sure I mean the size is going to be able to be maintained the same as they desire, they're not going to build a very large house but-we have to get in and evaluate the structure and then 'do the economics 'behind it. So what we have are all possibilities open. There's a good chance that if the renovation is going to be that extensive and there's not enough left of the existing structure then we would probably do a demolition and you know make sure everything is totally code conforming and all the setback and everything is met cause currently the house I think only has a small setback on one board of the principal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well personally and I only speak for myself, I don't have a problem with your proposed plans. Certainly it's appropriate to have additional housing for.family members. It's just a little unorthodox that the plans are before us before you're actually in occupancy and we know whether or not you're occupying the dwelling or that's being demolished and you will be rebuilding and you know so NICK MAZZAFERRO : Well the reason we got here is because of the height variance. That's where it all starts. If we did it both, applications together just to be yery,upfront and if the height variance was required then we would have been able to get issued a building permit we would have been able to build an accessory structure without a variance and then you would make the application (inaudible) and then we would come'here for the Special Exception. It's just kind of funny the way it fell with the required height cause you can't get enough height to be make it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I was in there you need to put in dormers, you need head room that's code conforming and so on. Let's see anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT ,: Is there an application'to the Health Department for septic for the two structures? NICK MAZZAFERRO : No we know we definitely have to do the septic. I called Suffolk County and started that process and they said until you get approval for the accessory apartment you can't put an-application in because they were going to restrict the size of the septic system to j just the house. So they said they won't address it until they, i 22 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's habitable space in the other NICK MAZZAFERRO : It's like almost a catch twenty two you know but as soon as we've already contacted them, we had that all ready to go. We know that's going to take a little bit of time but they have to be addressed at the same time and the septic system has to upgraded no matter what it's from the fifties. MEMBER LEHNERT : Do we also have any documentation for your son as (inaudible) copy of the driver's license or something like that as a primary? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll need to have some documentation that he's living in the dwelling and an affidavit that MEMBER LEHNERT : Utility bill, driver's license something like that. NICK MAZZAFERRO : So the response is going to be set in like the height variance is A and the other response is B, is that how it's going,to come back as one? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll write two separate decisions and as I said this is what's happening to this Board all the time now, nothing is coming in straightforward anymore. I'll just tell you what Kim said, this is just dproperty card in our system from the Assessor's Office it's down as a seasonal residence NICK MAZZAFERRO : That's been updated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We probably should go over to the Assessors and let them know. NICK MAZZAFERRO : We have brand new C. of O.'s issued in April for all year round residence because we got CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have that updated C.O. NICK MAZZAFERRO : And they have an electrical C. of 0. also April of 2019. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you submit those copies. MEMBER LEHNERT : We got it, it's in the package. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You should take this to the Assessors and tell them to update their record because they still have you listed as a seasonal and you should get that corrected. MEMBER LEHNERT : He's got the C. 0. it's in our packet. 231 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but the Assessors information is not correct. Of course they'll do it you just want to legally correct it in the record. So we should have some documentation of residency and a driver's license with that address listed, the utility bills; those are the things we normally get from applicants. Indicate through an affidavit that's notarized that the intent is to renovate and or build another single family dwelling on the property that you will be occupying. This will not be transferred to another owner, that there is this family relationship perhaps birth certificate, this is my son. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Is that not in the package cause we wrote that, a letter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a letter but NICK MAZZAFERRO : You want it notarized. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : We need to have yeah we need to have a notarized intent and ; probably a lease of some sort. A lease agreement, you can get them•(inaudible) form nobody cares what it looks like as long as it's a lease indicating that the occupant will be your son and you could put the start date on it anytime you want. Right now it's perfectly legal for him to be in that principle dwelling it's just a dwelling but when you start to look at the Special Exception permit now you simply have two dwelling units on one property and that's allowed as long as the occupancy is for affordable unit or for a family member and we approve it. Just submit whatever you can to document thoroughly the current conditions and your future plans. NICK MAZZAFERRO : So we'll submit this and that's in regards to Special Exception. Now as far as the height thing goes cause the height thing allows us to get a permit and allows us to start the construction process which we want to get done before the season changes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can start the construction process but you can't turn it into habitable space until you have the Special Exception to do so. It still needs to be NICK MAZZAFERRO : A shell. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : An accessory. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Right cause the type of the work we have to do we have to do the whole second floor and if we can get it enclosed before the season changes then it becomes very easy i (inaudible) the inside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? ii 24 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting RUTHANNE WOODHULL : Ruthanne Woodhull. I have lived next to them for forty five years and would trust anything they do and I'm happy to support them. I wanted to hear about it and see if they needed my help which I don't think they do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? I think what I'm going to propose is to close the area variance application and to adjourn the Special Exception to the Special,Meeting in two weeks so they will have time to submit the things we talked about. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Couldn't we just close it subject to receipt? CHAIRPERSONVEISMAN : Well we could but-if we had any questions or further things that we require then we would have to reopen that so it's we'll close it in two weeks if we have everything we need and no questions,whi'ch is most likely going to be the case but I think we're it's just clearer and cleaner to leave that option open in the unlikely event there's a question or something else we want. If we close it subject to receipt of just what's in the record now and we forgot something then we have to reopen it which is just a waste of time really. I don't anticipate another public hearing on this, that's not,what I'm saying even if there is something else,we wanted we can adjourn it without a public hearing and just close it. Do you see what I'm saying? We're not going to discover anything else so there's no point for-another public hearing. Everybody all right with that? I'll do these as'two separate motions. With regard to -application #7314SE I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this,to the Special Meeting on September 26th. 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. Motion carried September 261h. Then I'm going to make a motion on application #7315 to close the, hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER-LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We'll have the determination for the variance in two weeks. That's our next meeting that's the soonest we can do it. I'll put it down to possibly close'this Special Exception and then we'll see what we manage to get, we'll discuss it and make sure we have everything we need and then close it in two weeks and then have.a decision the following two weeks. We have sixty two days but we work very hard to make things move quickly. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7319— BRIAN KELLER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is,for Brian Keller #7319. This is'a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March i 26, 2019 Notice of Disapproval,based on an application to,construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the code required total side yard setback of 35 feet located at 3300 Reeve Rd. in Mattituck. BRIAN KELLER : Good morning my name is Brian Keller. As you are aware I'm seeking a variance to add to the north-side of my house a 12 foot garage. It will be following the,same rooflines and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me enter into the record what the variances are. You need a single side yard setback of 15 feet but you're proposing 8 feet and then a combined side yard setback of 28 feet is what you're proposing and the code requires 35 feet. This is for a 12 foot by 29 foot attached garage on the side of the house. You already have a garage there. You have a one car garage. The lot size is 571 sq. ft' that's over,just over the 20,000 sq. ft. which would 'then only need a`10 foot side yard and 25 foot combined. I believe that was in your.application. ` The other thing you indicated was the rear yard has a swimming pool and it's a there really isn't any room to put another garage an accessory garage in the rear yard where it would be conforming. So just so you know we all did site inspections, we've all visited the property and noticed that you have a rather large kind of canvas container now. 26 1 ;September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting BRIAN KELLER : 10 by 20 enclosure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO Will that. be remaining somewhere on the property after construction? BRIAN KELLER : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that will be going away thank you. BRIAN KELLER : That's correct. I'd just like to say my plan,is to have the building have a front 9 foot entrance and also barn doors in the back to give me access to the rear yard. Additionally there's a wall there's a slate wall that runs on the north side of my driveway, that will remain and that should give me approximately 2 feet'of access to the north of the proposed garage extension. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So.you're proposing there will be a 2 foot wide walkway along the side of the proposed garage addition? BRIAN KELLER : Yes that will remain there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Can you make that 3 feet? BRIAN KELLER :-I have to reduce the size of the garage or I have to redo the wall to,do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well redoing the wall is a big rigmarole seems to me. BRIAN KELLER : The reason I'm requesting the 12 foot garage is because I also want a car. I have a classic car which is indicated there. I would also like access alongside to go through the garage whether to store a bicycle there and bring it out without moving a car or equipment; a lawn mower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you do have room on the other side yard for some degree of access for emergency equipment and so on but a two foot wide walkway is hardly enough room to even put a ladder up against it for maintenance. BRIAN KELLER: No I would have to bring the ladder out another foot on top of the wall for maintenance.•I mean that would not be a problem to me but if that's something I have to address I will address it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we also look at emergency access not that you're going to get through a 3 foot wide even but at least it gives you a certain amount of breathing space to be able to drag something back and forth even a lawn mower would have to have enough room to push that. I don't know let's see what the Board thinks. Nick what about you? 27 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You know I didn't think about reducing the size of the garage. Just having seen the car that's in storage it's an older car, the two'foot didn't really bother me. There is a grade change there north of you where you've got the retaining wall so I don't know how feasible it is or isn't. Certainly you've got 6 feet from the lot line or the tree line to the top of the-wall. I didn't really consider that so it might require some more consideration. What I do think about and the day that I was there I noticed there is a retaining wall on what would appear to be the property line that's like buckling. It looks like it's falling into your property. Who owns that wall? BRIAN KELLER : That wall is owned by the (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The neighbor to the north. BRIAN KELLER : and that wall is actually one foot onto their property. It's not on my property. i MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that gives you a little I should say extra room for you. It's their loss. BRIAN KELLER : Well yeah it is and I appreciate that. As far as the fact that it does have a little bit of a tilt on the top it's been like that probably for fifteen years. I'm not saying that"that makes it right but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just from a repair standpoint that if it was within your ownership I think it's something that needs to •be addressed, I don't know how it can be addressed otherwise so maybe just as a neighbor you might remind them but BRIAN KELLER : No I've already spoken to them about it and if need be they'll take care of it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't have any further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have a problem with the two feet. I mean he's got room on the other side here to get machinery back there if he needs it. k, MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Plus he suggested the barn door so it will be like a drive through garage. BRIAN KELLER : That's the plan. I will find wood in the back yard whatever needs to be done I can get through to the garage. MEMBER LEHNERT : No other questions. 28 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :,How about you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just you live in that area which I happened to live and most of the lots are very narrow so I have no problem with the two feet and I think he's providing the barn doors as a way for God forbid emergency equipment might have to get through or they just break through the other side of the property if necessary so I don't have a problem with the two feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application?Anything else from the Board? I'm going to o make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7318—FREDERICK LIGUORI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Frederick Liguori #7318. This is a request for a variance under Article 11 Section 280-9A and the Building Inspector's March 19, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on a determination of lot recognition at,1) less than the code required minimum lot width of 100 feet located at 5600 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard (adj. to the Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. ROB HERRMANN : Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. Do you want me to start? 29 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see, ROB HERRMANN : While you're thinking I'm just going to hand up a survey so everybody has sort of an enlarged version of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is essentially a lot with a non-conforming width. ROB HERRMANN : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says 79 foot .85 feet the code requires 100 and ROB HERRMANN : Right and I can walk you through first a little bit of history of the lot and then the variance which hopefully shouldn't take long. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. ROB HERRMANN : You have to listen carefully because it's a little bit of an interesting case. I've been working with the property owners and have had several meetings with Mike Verity on this over the past I don't know year plus at this point. The survey I just handed up is a good point of reference for the early history of the lot. Basically the subject property is improved with a two story framed building that was characterized as a "apartment over garage" on the survey that you're looking at which is dated September 18, 1957 and last revised July 16, 1958. We established with the Building Department that the northerly property line represents the front lot line which is what we're here for relief for. So the existing building actually conforms to all required setbacks under 280-124B as does the under construction deck and the proposed patio addition. Beneath the deck there were actually the subjects of the applicant's building permit application to which the Notice of Disapproval was issued and the reason for that was because it was explained to us that unless we can demonstrate that the width was legally pre-existing 1957 the Building Department couldn't issue a permit. I mean it's also Trustees permit required because it's in their jurisdiction but that's really not particularly pertinent to what's in front of you. Even if that was attained or wasn't required Mike couldn't issue a building permit for this because of the insufficient lot width. We spend a lot of time we got a single and separate title search and spent a lot of time looking at the old deeds which were a little bit hard to follow from back then. Basically based on a single and separate search we have in October of last year and the deeds for the property that were recorded originally in 1940 and then in 1958 it was close but no cigar because we determined that the lot was created by deed on September 27, 1958 by which time the minimum lot width of 100 feet would have been required in what was the former A residential district. If you're looking at tax map there's a series of lots that run from the boulevard to the bay and those are tax map numbers 1000-128-2 and lots 10, 11, 23 and 24. They were all originally part of one parent property that's described in the 1940 deed that was submitted with the application and then the owner at that time began to start deeding 3o September 12;2619 Regular Meeting out these lots starting with'the subject lot and lot 24 in 1958. We did a lot, of work, a 'lot of research, a lot of conversations with Mike but figured out that we still had to get this lot width recognized because we were clear about a year or two late in the fifties when they established a lot width. Our position to the Board is that the granting of the relief necessarily will not cause an undesirable change to the neighborhood or to the neighboring property•or the character of the community because the lot width less than 100 feet is actually typical of the majority of the properties in the surrounding neighborhood. As we present this application I have to make a correction cause I had a number wrong so I'm going to correct that now for the record. Not including the adjacent lots 23 and 24 which are these very narrow beach access right of way parcels from the road and basically a shared beach access owned by the applicant and the owner of lot 10; fifteen and I incorrectly said sixteen in the application, fifteen of the twenty three tax parcels located in section 128 block 2 have lot widths less than 100 feet which is about sixty five percent of the lots in this block. I'm just going to hand up this graphic which I think helps illustrate it. So looking at block 2 all of the area in green all ,the lots shaded in.green have non-conforming lot widths less than 100 feet and the lot shaded in yellow is the subject parcel. So of the fifteen lots of the 15 non-conforming lots nine appear to be pre-existing non- conforming, five of them which, are lots 18-22 were actually created with the benefit of relief from the ZBA all the way back in 1964 under case #669 and two others which were lots 9.1 and 9.2 were also created with the benefit of variance'relief granted in 1975 in case #2067. It's also worth noting of course and if you look at that graphic that the subject lot which has been developed and occupied without harrrl-to neighboring properties for more than sixty years is separated from the public roadway by lot 10 which has a lot width of 9.1 feet. There were a couple of comments, I know that you received one from the Town Engineer who has noted that the proposed drywell which again`is not directly related to what we're asking you for but we wanted to go ahead and address that. So I do have revised plans prepared by Mullman•Sei'dman Architects and Dave Mullman is here that just shows a repositioning of the drywell so we just wanted to let you know that we had you know gone through the effort of addressing that through a modified plan just simply by moving the'drywell farther landward into higher ground. So again that's not directly related to the relief we're requesting but will eventually have to deal with it once we get to the wetland and Building Department stage so we wanted to deal with that now. The only other thing there was] understood there was a recommendation from the LWRP Coordinator that the project was inconsistent and there was a fence and something that he directed to but I didn't quite understand the context for the review. I sent Kim and Bill an email on September 3rd, I'll just quickly read it for the record. It should be noted that the variance application before the ZBA requests recognition of a non-conforming lot•width and pursuant to Section 268-5 review of actions and the corresponding definitions of action minor action by 268-3 Definitions-such relief should be considered a minor (inaudible) that's exempt from Chapter 268 review. It specifically defines minor action F is the "granting of individual 31 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting setback lot line and lot area variances except in 'relation to a regulated natural feature or a bulkhead or other shoreline defense structure or any activity within the coastal erosion hazard area" because the,property is not located within the coastal erosion hazard area and the lot line relief is unrelated to regulated natural features or bulkheads., Proposed action should be determined by the Board to be an exempt minor action pursuant to code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me tell you what Mark's response to that was. This action is not an individual setback lot line or lot are variance. It involves the creation of a non- conforming lot that did not meet the minimum width,and does not meet the exemption. A lot line reference would apply to a recognized lot and the adjusting of a lot line to form a new area. The LWRP CCR applies to all land waters within the jurisdictional limits of the town of Southold. So you see the distinction? It's not a lot line change it's a non-conforming lot width. So he says it does not fall within the definition of the section. 1 ROB HERRMANN : I'll agree to disagree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. ROB HERRMANN : I mean we're going'to have to get Mark's opinion and an LWRP review once we go through Trustees anyway. So my position is not that'he shouldn't be involved just my belief my understanding of the code and just ,as a back drop, having been involved with some towns that were creating these LWRP's traditional zoning variances are almost always intended to be exempted from these LWRP reviews.'That's my understanding and I don't see in the code, is to me this is asking for a• lot line literally a lot line variance so how that would be interpreted to not be part of the exemption I don't know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not a lot. ROB HERRMANN : It's the front lot line that's narrow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right but it's the width. It's not the property line per-say it's the width of the lot okay. However let's just move on because the bottom line is there are many instances in which the LWRP indicates inconsistency and if we can find a way in our ; decision to say based upon the following circumstances we determine it to be consistent, it is only a recommendation. So it will not preclude approval. ROB HERRMANN : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We of course as you can appreciate have to pay'very close attention to the town's expert. 37 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : Sure.and I would say that the testimony that I just offered and the evidence of the number of lots in that neighborhood that have non-conforming-widths would to me speak to the concern. We're not here today asking to create this lot. We're asking the Board to recognize the conditions that has been in existence for sixty years and but for a number of months would have been recognized without a variance. Nothing they can do about a lot width at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really. Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not really. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. It looks like this is just a variance for a subdivision? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's a lot recognition for a lot that has a non-conforming width. MEMBER DANTES : Right but usually when we do these we use ,this as a variance for a subdivision. J CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : No they're not subdividing anything. It is already a single and separate lot. He got stopped because they were building a deck. ROB HERRMANN : Right without a building permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Without a building permit and then this all came up. 1 ROB HERRMANN : Just to add color Eric, there was originally some discussions with the Building Department that there are a couple of different ways that this could have been handled. If you change the designation of lot lines then you might have a setback variance for the structure but the front lot line here makes sense it's the front lot line cause it's the line that runs parallel,with the Great Peconic Bay Blvd., it's the line through which you enter the front of the house from Peconic Bay Blvd. So for all intense and purpose it is a front lot line but the problem is when it was created in 1958 it was created at 80 feet or whatever the number was or 79. something feet instead of 100 feet but our position is that so too were fifteen other lots over the course of the years including-seven of them that were actually subdivided that were granted variance relief to be subdivided and created a new by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now that's in 1964 in 1975 it's not your Board but it created the precedent and it created what for our arguing the character of this neighborhood where basically you have you know almost seventy percent of the lots in this section and block are (inaudible) 100'feet for lot width. 33 1 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES,: The thing that,I'm confused by I mean I've seen the lots before that were created were too small I've never seen a lot with a structure on it that was created that was too small that they send back to us. Does the other,one have a structure on it? ROB HERRMANN : Yes. So the original parent lot from 1940 again never minding the little beach access, right of ways and things. Basically you have two developed lots, the one that's adjacent to the road and the one that's adjacent to the bay. What Mike is saying is for the purpose of addressing a building permit for the existing structure he's saying he can't issue-a building permit because the lot width is less than 100 feet and that has never been formally recognized by the town. So basically the conditions that you're looking at CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't get a Pre C.O. because it's off by less than a year. When the code became effective prior to that date the lot would have been recognized. The width would not have mattered. So it was created just about the time when the lot when the law got changed they got caught in the middle. f ROB HERRMANN : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they're here- for that reason. Anything from anybody else? Anyone in the audience? I'm ready to,close it a're you? 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) f 34 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING #7309—ROBERT YEDID CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert Yedid #7309. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 22, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize an "as built" accessory swimming pool and an "as built" accessory shed at 1) accessory shed located less than the code required side yard setback of 5 feet, 2) accessory shed located less than the code required rear yard setback of 5 feet, 3) "as built" construction is more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 230 Hippodrome Drive in Southold. Is there someone here to represent the applicant? Come to the podium and please state your name and spell your last name please. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : A-L-T-1-N-T-0-P-R-A-K CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Are you here representing the applicant? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Yes and Mr. Yedid right here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're here as well. So first of all how is it that the accessory pool -was built without a certificate of occupancy without a permit? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : We did file the permits at that time in the Building Department and after the calculation and Mr. Yedid had just purchased the house we did it illegally so I have nothing to say about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me enter into the record what the issues are that the Board is faced with here. We have a total lot coverage as a consequence of the shed that's built and the pool that's built. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : The shed is all the way at the end of the property we didn't build the shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay but the problem is that with the house, the shed and the swimming pool we have lot coverage of 25.9%, the code only permits a maximum of 20%that's one of the reasons why you're here and the other is that the side yard and rear yard setbacks for the shed need to be 5 feet and not 3 feet. Now usually when there's an application submitted there are reasons submitted along with it that address the variance standards that we have to use in order to make a decision. What is the character of the neighborhood, is the relief substantial, are there environmental impacts, there are six of them. Is there an alternative to the variance that's feasible and none of those were addressed in this application. So what is it that you would like us to know about this application that supports the requested variances? 35 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Repeat that again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In order for us to make a decision we have to understand what your argument is for granting the non-conforming variances. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : For the shed or the pool? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Both. We're looking at lot coverage and we're looking at the location of the shed, rear yard and side yard. The lot coverage is a consequence of what's on the property structures on the property. There's a house, there's a pool, there's a shed; driveways don't count. The fencing doesn't count. So collectively that constitutes a lot coverage that's greater than the 20% of what the code allows. So the Board is inclined to grant variances is required by law to only grant the minimal variance possible. The smallest possible deviation from the code. So my question is how do you reduce the lot coverage on the property. What can you do to reduce that lot coverage. You're looking at a request at it now of 26%. What can you do to eliminate make that number smaller? MR. YEDID : I apologize for being dressed so informally. Just for the (inaudible) my wife and I bought the house and we've summered at rented homes in Southold for three or four years prior to this in Beixendon Estates. It was an existing house with a pretty substantial you know hot a big back yard. We built a pool that we thought was a very reasonable size. I guess in terms of you know at the time we worked with Bilal and his company were not aware that we were going to be at a variance. Obviously had we known that we would have scaled back the size of the pool. The shed was an existing shed and it's built on a concrete pad. I don't think it's a very large shed. We store some bikes in it some other garden accessories etc. Our preference is to not knock down the shed because it does there is no garage part of this house. The prior owners the Pintos I guess they had taken the garage and made it into living space so this was the existing house as constructed. The distance from the shed and there is a substantial fence that was already in place from the time we bought it. It's a very nice looking fence made out of (inaudible) PVC or whatever the proper terminology is. I think it's (inaudible) presentable, it's relatively new. The pool is completed hidden by that fence. It's quite high, it's probably I don't know about 6 % feet high so it's not visible to our neighbors. We've installed very nice landscaping around the side without being obtrusive so it goes all around the edge of the pool. So we try to present the pool in a way that's very unintrusive to our neighbors and also Bill in terms of the placement of the pump etc. has minimized any noise or concerns to one of our next door neighbors whose house is quite close to ours which obviously has been there for years. So I think we've tried to make the placement of the pool the appearance of the pool etc. as unintrusive as possible to our neighbors and to sort of blend in to the neighborhood. Our next door neighbors also have a relatively sizable pool but they do have a larger lot I'll admit September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting that. So in terms of the environmental impact we worked very'substantially with Bill and his teams in terms of installing a new cesspool and a new I think new'cesspool to make sure we get proper and installed another drainage are to make sure that all the drainage in the pool and in the surrounding area all was contained within our lot and did not cause any problems for any of our neighbors. So we went to further substantial additional expenses. Part of building this in- ground pool to make sure we address'those items. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So did you just then begin construction of the pool without going to the Building Department or you went to the Building Department. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : I went to the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what happened there? BILALALTINTOPRAK : They said we can only build a 200 sq. ft. area. I guess for that building size cause I had the old survey that Mr. Yedid had given me first when he purchased the house it was an old survey. The old survey doesn't show that 1-guess did some kind,'of extension on the house and I did some calculation at that time and put in permits to the Building Department and the Building Department find out and they did extension on the house and get back to me and said you can't'build a pool in here (inaudible) maximum 200 sq. ft. pool which is 10 x 20 like J a little hot tub. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They probably did that because you were going to exceed' the lot coverage. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Right because they have I guess they have that on the record in the' Building Department and the existing owner of the house and did an extension to the house it doesn't show it on the old survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So did you take'an updated survey in? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Yes we did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that's when they said you could only,build this little small pool? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : No before we took this new survey so did survey afterward with the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see, so they were looking at a survey that didn't have the pool on it to begin with MR. YEDID : Right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : but it didn't have the additions on the house. 7 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MR. YEDID : Yeah it did have the,additions of the house because this house was in 1981 there was some existing-extension in '95 1 don't know if that was pushing it out and then I think they added a second floor in 2006ior 2007. So that was the those were the extensions on the home that I was told about before I purchased-it. T. A. DUFFY : It doesn't really'-seem to make sense because you were saying that you brought them a survey thaLshowed a smaller house but then they would have granted you a permit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's right is there a permit or is there no perm,i,t? ; MEMBER DANTES : Well Bill then they would have known about the extension because they had a permit for the extension. T. A. DUFFY : It sounds like somehow they're trying to blame this old survey but they had a survey that didn't show the full size of their house—They would have brought that if it wasn't picked up they would have gotten a permit but if it was recognized by the Building Department that it was an inaccurate survey then they would have said you gotta come up with an accurate survey. There's a,reason why you didn't get a building permit at some point,right or did ; MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have a permit? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : This is the old survey (inaudible walked up to the podium too much side talking happening) the Building Department told me that I guess (inaudible) lot size and I can't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh even with this old survey BILAL ALTINTOPRAK,:Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you see this come over here. MEMBER,PLANAMENTO : This is the old survey that they based the-pool on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right.rThis is the old survey, here's the existing. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : That's the new survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right but the point is that even with the smaller house-they said that you would need a variance to build this sized pool? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : No, no, no because Building Department somebody at the Building ; Department they told me they saw this survey on their files and I said it's right here 16 x 100 feet long that doesn't tell me I have to add the numbers 38 !i September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : It doesn't matter. You brought this survey to talk to them and they told you it was inaccurate (inaudible) BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : They told me they-already had the extension on the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so they had a record of that? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Right they had a record of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And therefore they didn't look at this they looked at this and this. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they denied it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But based on this was there or was there not a building permit? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : For the house? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Cause here you could put a pool with a building permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No they're saying this was already done. They took that in but this had already been done. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But they showed the wrong survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But Mike had a copy of this. They didn't have this. It was apparently filed was that by the previous owner? No it couldn't have been. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : No Mr. Yedid filed it. MR. YEDID : I filed it. T. A. DUFFY : How does this help them their explanation why they built a pool without a permit. MEMBER LEHNERT : It doesn't they still don't a permit for the pool. It doesn't mean a thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the bottom line is you went ahead without permission from the Building Department to build this pool. Now how is it that you're before this Board? How did we get this, how did we get this Notice of Disapproval? Is there a Stop Work Order, was there a complaint how did this happen? Did you try to get a C.O. from the Building Department for the pool? I just want to understand sequence of events that happened. That is what you had to submit to the Zoning Board that the Building Department wrote. You don't even have a copy of this Notice of Disapproval? 39 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MR. YEDID : I personally don't, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well somebody got it. It was issued to you the property owner's name and that's what's saying that's what's telling me that the code'requires this and you have on this survey that. You have too much lot coverage and the shed doesn't have the proper setbacks. Now it's possible when that shed was put in place the code was a 3 foot setback. That code changed to 5 foot setback. MEMBER LEHNERT : Also the shed is too big, it would need a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 12 x 12. There should be a C. 0. for the shed because it's more than 10 x 10. As soon as you get above that then it's a structure that requires a permit. MR. YEDID : Okay I guess I assumed buying the existing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That it was all okay. MR. YEDID : Yeah. I had bought the home I was told that there was a C.O. over the home and assumed that also covered the shed that was on an existing concrete pad that was there. didn't change it and I would also point out that the houses directly behind mine just added a shed. I think it is smaller it is not 12 x 12 but it is the setback is 3 feet it's not 5 feet from the fence. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They might also have an issue. MR. YEDID : I'm just putting it out. So you know this and this continuation was it is what it is there's no doubt about it. In terms of a you know we do have a pool in place. In terms of MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So question with the pool in place but why is the pool in place. If you needed a building permit where's the building permit to put the pool there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you buy this from the Taylor's? MR. YEDID : I bought it from the Pinto's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in 1981 our files show that there we have in our application maybe you submitted it I don't know a certificate of occupancy for this property for an accessory storage building. Now that maybe the shed, I don't see any other storage buildings unless there was something that was demolished you know what I mean. We have no way of knowing. We can look at the files and 40 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MR. YEDID : The house was pushed back and I understand it but'I don't think it was pushed back all I can tell you is I don't think it was pushed back substantial (inaudible). This in the far corner of the home lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the patio doesn't count cause it's at grade so that's not a lot coverage problem but you see if this had been done in a sequence that allowed us to discuss this before it was built we might have said maybe you put in a slightly,smalier pool maybe 36-x whatever and you know reduce the lot coverage and maybe you were (inaudible) shed and maybe we would have something more viable. It's very difficult to figure out what to do after the fact. MR. YEDID : All I can tell you is obviously we try to be sensitive to our neighbors and try to be sensitive to the environmental factors and yes we are over the percentage that is permitted. We think that it's done in a very tasteful and sensitive way and so if the Board grants us this variance I would (inaudible) permit.'The other alternative which is my wife and I would knock down the shed there would/be a considerable expense in order to reduce the size cause we do need some kind of shed to store you know bikes and even on the pool pump and things like that over the winter time cause we have no we do not have a garage so that would be an alternative that would be you know pretty costly. T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) understand the permit process. Essentially your contractor said he went to the Building Department .and,was told that the pool was too big and then you just decided to build it. MR. YEDID : No, no, no that was not my understanding of it. T. A. DUFFY : So what is your understanding? MR. YEDID : My understanding was he went to the property department filed for a permit and then started construction with the understanding I thought that the permit was being considered by the Building Department. I didn't know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That it had not been issued. MR. YEDID : That it had not been issued. Listen I'm not lawyer by training I'm not involved with real estate and so I don't really understand how these processes Iwork. So you know my assumption was I bought a beautiful home, I can add a nice sized pool. I didn't think it was overly overdone. The pool size is 20 x 40 and that you know that would provide for a nice you know a nice pool and also would provide something nice for the subsequent homeowners that would you know buy the home for many years to come: 41 _J I ; 'I September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's look at the variance standards. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Before we do that do you mind if I ask you a question? Long Island Pool Care Bill I guess, have you built pools in Southold before? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How many? { BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : (inaudible) probably about eighty. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And have you gotten permits for all of them? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So what's different in this situation? Were you instructed to put a pool in without'a permit? Did you advise your client that they should have a permit? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : I'm sorry I didn't understand it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you know that you needed a permit did you explain this to the property owner Mr. Yedid? Were you told to put the pool in without a permit or'did you just decide on your own even though you knew that you needed a permit to (inaudible) BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Why (inaudible) need a permit that's besides the point so I T. A. DUFFY : It's not besides the point. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the point. I need to understand the circumstance of why there's a-pool CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you need to go back to the podium. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : When I applied for the permits the first time after Mr. Yedid purchased the house and I went for the old survey apply for the permits to the Building Department they denied it and I called Mr. Yedid and I said Mr. Yedid we have some-issue with that Building Department they denied it because the lot size situation and they purchased the house because they wanted to enjoy it for the summer which 2018 summer. They purchased the house in 2018 and they said what do we have to do and I said we have to go before the Zoning Department, Building Department we have to file for this. It's not enough time in that spring we filed all this paperwork and I said let's do something excuse my language stupid fet's build the pool and fight for this we can go to the Zoning Department (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it was your choice not Mr. Yedid's? 421 - :i September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MR. YEDID : Well it was something that was explained to me but Bill and I had talked about it and he said Bill did explain that -to me (inaudible) be very clear but he sort of said this is something that you know you go through the normal process and you know.the permit would be issued at a future date. I guess I didn't understand in our conversation that a permit needed to be granted to start the process so it's my misunderstanding of how the process worked. But it is something that Bill discussed with me at the time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just jump here, I think we understand what happened. Let me reasons for appeal;-these questions these what we use they are state statutes. That's what we use to make a decision, the answers to those questions. The first one is, will an undesirable change be produced to the character of the neighborhood or will it be a detriment to nearby properties. Yes or no or because. Now what we have in here does not address character of the neighborhood at all. It says swimming pool has its own filter and pump which will circulate water within itself. That might be something that has to do with you know the impact to the environment but it is not character of the neighborhood. Character of the neighborhood would be well there are ten lots on my street and all ten of them have excessive lot coverage. So the character of the neighborhood is small lots with too much lot coverage,of a consequence of being small. That would then you'd have to look for prior variances to say well you know all of these other lots were too small they all got variances from .the Board for excessive lot coverage. That's how you answer that question. The benefit can't be achieved by some (inaudible) feasible for the'applicant to pursue other than' area variances because space is limited. That's r , not an answer to that. It's'because I can't move it. It's in the ground okay. It's not feasible to remove the pool. It's not financially feasible and soon. It is feasible to remove the shed. It's certainly feasible to take the shed and get rid of two variances by lifting it up and moving it over two feet in each direction so that it has conforming it doesn't solve the lot coverage problem but it solves the setback problems for the shed. So it may not be feasible for the pool but it certainly is feasible for the shed. Is the amount of relief request is it substantial? It's 6% over what the code permits. So what's a 6% relief from the code what percentage is that? MEMBER DANTES : 6% CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 6% beyond what the code T. A. DUFFY : 25% CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's about a 25% variance roughly. That's substantial. We can grant substantial relief but we have to have reasons that will mitigate the relief that we're granting and I right now I'm not sure what those would be. So number'four was the adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions the neighborhood, I'd say no there aren't any bad impacts but you have to explain why and then has the alleged difficulty been self- 43 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting t, created?,You say no because the space is limited. That's not an answer either. The answer is yes, you did this•without a permit and the applicant purchased the property as is and he has no defense against not understanding what the law permits him to do with the property. So you can say the shed was there but he purchased it with the shed. Now whether it had excessive lot coverage he probably didn't because the pool is probably what put it over the top but we'd have to get those calculations but it certainly had setback issues. MEMBER DANTES : Before the bool Leslie is was at 18.8 looks like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay did you hear that prior to putting a pool in. So the swimming pool the size of the pool is what put you over the top. Has you come here with a Notice of Disapproval which says you can't do this because it's too much lot coverage we would have talked to you about it. We would have discussed the size of the pool, we would have looked at ways to make sure the lot coverage/ was as small a variance as possible and we would have been able to grant a variance that was reasonable or possible. It's very difficult now I mean other than the shed I don't see what alternative you know which is somewhat flexible though not desirable. I don't know what else you can do, you know removing that pool is a big deal a really big deal or cutting it down. I mean that-is not a really feasible option. MR. YEDID : Yeah that's a very big deal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I don't know let's see if the other Board members have any E questions or you have any other comments, we'll try to figure out where we go from here. Is there anything you want to ask Eric or say? MEMBER DANTES : No I think you guys covered it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob, Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have a couple of questions. So you mentioned in earlier testimony that you put in dry wells all kinds well a new septic system I believe you said, on the survey you're not illustrating the dry well for pool de-watering. Where is that located? Pool de- watering, when you drain the pool where is the dry well to receive the water from the pool on the property? Is there a dry well? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Yes there it is. ,. September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Mr. Yedid said there's a septic but the septic drain is not where the you would drain BILAL ALTINTOPRAK :'No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the pool does not have a dry well? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : They have what they call the cartridge filter that you don't have to back wash it every week or every other week (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you drain it over the winter? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Yeah but any dry well is not big enough to drain (inaudible) I mean the septic MEMBER LEHNERT : You're required to have a dry well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : You drain like 6,000 gallons water the minimum every fall when winterizing the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And where do you drain it? Where do you take the water? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Right into the yard the back of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's illegal. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was also going to ask, the day that I did the site inspection from the filter there was a flexible blue hose which went under the fence to the front yard and you can clearly see the drain being drained onto the front lawn at the corner of the house instead into a dry well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That does not comply with Chapter 236 of the Town's Storm water Management Plan. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : I live in the town of Southold and I have (inaudible) so let me ask one simple question. Every pool has to have a dry well? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All water must be drained into a conforming there's a section in the code that describes exactly all of those drainage issues. Roof run off, gutters and leaders; gutters and leaders are not supposed to be spilled onto the ground either. They're supposed to go into a drywell. The law requires that no drainage from rain fall or any other source, 45 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting sprinklers and so on, that all has to be contained on site. It may not go into roads. Back in the day before that people just put a hose out and drained it right into the street. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Even the pool that has to have a dry well that whole water has to be going in to the dry well? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep and if it's too much water it has to go into two dry wells. The Town Engineer would have to be the one who would actually look at these plans, look at the capacity of the pool an engineer could tell you what size the dry well would be in order to conform. Yeah cause we did observe that there was drainage on the surface water was just draining onto the property okay. So I hate to be the bearer of bad news but there's a series of issues here that need to be looked at. I think the proper thing to do here is possibly to just adjourn this to the next hearing so that you have an opportunity to absorb all of this to maybe find out a little bit more about the mechanics of what's required here or maybe talk to your wife see what you think consult with each other. Are you clear on what's involved here? MR. YEDID : I think I need to get a copy of the application and we can you know consider the issues that you've raised, think about a very thoughtful response, think about you know look at the application consider the issues that you raised and try to be as responsive as we can to them. We'll try to get the details with regards to septic system, dry wells etc. and come back to the Board and apply with additional information and action items. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) save you any expense and additional time. We're going to adjourn this so you can come back without having to go through an entire rigmarole all over again. You don't need another application, you don't need another fee you just need to provide let's say amended relief. In other words now we're going to try and maybe get rid of those two variances for the shed so that you would be amending the relief that was requested. Right now you're requesting two setback variances, 5 foot and 5 foot. Those could go away if you decide to try and amend your application and move the shed or even still if you look at it and say gee if we got rid of the shed we reduce the lot coverage and then we only need one variance and we'll tell you where the dry wells are and we'll install the drywells those kinds of things. So let me give you the time to think that through. MR. YEDID : Okay we appreciate that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And if I could add actually just a couple of other requests; if you can give us any information specific to the Beixedon neighborhood of other properties that have both excessive lot coverage. MR. YEDID : Where do I get that information? V September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's something you need to research. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well all of the yeah the Building Department has (inaudible) which will show you all the lot sizes in your neighborhood and it will give you a tax map number and do we have instructions that they can follow is this all on Laser Fiche. BOARD SECRETARY : Yes I can send you instructions on Laser Fiche. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can they access Laser Fiche? BOARD SECRETARY : Yes they can but not Building Department only Zoning Board and I can send it to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we would have in our records on Laser Fiche which we have prepared instructions for applicants to do research to help their cases. You will be able to look up any variances by tax map number and let's say you know other houses in your neighborhood came in for variances for lot coverage. Some of them may be pre-existing non-conforming where their lot coverage was excessive but it was before the code was put into place before 1957 cause Beixedon is fairly old. MR. YEDID : Yeah there's some very old homes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's possible that you can say well there is excessive lot coverage and yes they pre-dated zoning but that is characteristic of the neighborhood. So some time to research what the character of the neighborhood really is, how many people have swimming pools. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly pools understand how many pools in Beixedon. MR. YEDID : There are a fair number. I can CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can Google Earth it and find out.] mean all you have to do is go on an aerial map and you can see which one of the properties has a swimming pool. MR. LEHNERT : And how about revising the survey to show the proper drainage? MR. YEDID : We'd be happy to do that because we want that to be corrected and you know eventually someday when we sell the home we want to make sure that that information is correct not only for now but in terms of the future because (inaudible) I got it I'll do this I don't want that to happen to other people in the future. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good,.good enough. When can we adjourn this to, is the question. 47 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only other thing I was going to add, it would appear that in our package you don't have a C.O. on the outdoor shower (inaudible) my understanding that a C.O. is required for the shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright we're going to have to adjourn to October because what we talked about for the November, December calendar is going to get pretty overcrowded. So anyone else in the audience wanting to address this application? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the October 10th Regular Meeting. 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 # 7313— KEVIN S. MCLEOD and CHUN Y. CHEUNG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kevin S. McLeod and Chun Y. Cheung. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 208-105 and 280- 116A(1) and the Building Inspector's March 29, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct a pergola addition to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize an "as built" six foot fence at 1) the pergola is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) the fence is more than the code permitted maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard located at 605 Sound View Ave. (adj. to the Long Island Sound) in Mattituck. MIKE KIMACK : Good afternoon Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicants and Jeni McLeod she goes by her English name is here rather than having to go through the Chinese (inaudible) but she is in the audience. You're correct, the disapproval letter was in two parts. The first part with those particular structures (inaudible) fall within the 100 foot setback from the bluff which is within your jurisdiction and I've done a summary of the variance request if I can ask you to go 48 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting to that. There are two components there, one is a roof over the two car garage which we placed a lattice which had been in place and that was roughly I think about 76 sq. ft. the extension of that was 78 sq. ft. for the garage and the other is to replace an existing pergola that had been approved on the existing upper deck that was attached to the house. It was knocked down and subsequent to that it became subject to the 100 foot setback and that particular pergola would be extended over to the deck that was extended behind the sunroom that you had approved in a prior application. That particular pergola would be about 238.2 sq. ft. It's an open pergola. I will basically also make some comments about you received from Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District a fairly lengthy letter which basically the relevant components of that basically was their concern was that the pergola basically be roof structure be open so that it wasn't subject to any kind of runoff or so. The real concern encapsulating it was that whatever was being done did not add or contribute any runoff to the slope which they wrote a lengthy dissertation on in terms of it being well vegetated and concerned about the vulnerability of it. I will point out that when we went through Trustees the Trustees basically approved or required us to do a ten foot non-turf buffer from the bluff but from the contour point of view the bluff sits at 66. All of the land slopes back away from the bluff. The property has received Storm Water Management approval for everything on the property so all of the impervious areas are under Storm Water Management permit. The fella who wrote this obviously didn't know, he pointed out some of his concerns and I thought I'd at least address those to the Board to understand that they have been taking care they have been looked at and in terms of the runoff the pergola itself would not create any (inaudible) have a solid roof on it but they were concerned that anything being done would not contribute in addition to what may be and obviously because of the way the land slopes and because of the types of dry wells in place for all of the impervious areas that's not going to occur. That's it for the two areas that for both the pergola that we're asking for. Are there any questions on that? MEMBER DANTES : Mike where's the, the one pergola is on the back of the house on the deck there's two pergolas? MIKE KIMACK : NO, well the pergola basically it's one pergola but it extends over that section behind the sunroom Eric and it also extends partially over the front door. MEMBER DANTES : Okay I thought you mentioned garage before,so there is no MIKE KIMACK : There is a roof over the garage, you might be able to see that if you went on the property there's a roof over the garage that replace a lattice. It's about 78 sq. ft. I think it's roughly 26 x 3 or something like that and it's a cover for the two car garage. Then there's one pergola on the top. The original one being on the existing deck, that deck was expanded behind the sunroom and then they designed the new pergola to expand behind the sunroom and then 49 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting also (inaudible) over the front door. A pergola it's not open it doesn't have a roof on it and that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay why don't we address the fence. MIKE KIMACK : Okay let's go to the fence. We are requesting it's an "as built" fence that the best I can tell you is that it had been in existence when the property was purchased thirteen years ago. It's along the front, it's a wire fence which I would imagine you had a hard time seeing. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's in the bushes. MIKE KIMACK : We didn't even know it was there for the most part but obviously the bushes are not going to be touched and then it turns that corner and what it does now it's the adjoining property is Mattituck Salt Air Association. There are forty five homes that use that piece of property. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's a recreational piece of property. MIKE KIMACK : But it's an undivided interest for all of the homeowners I would imagine in essence and all the home owners can actually use that piece of property and I suspect then the reason that we are requesting this is for two reasons, one for security and one for privacy because it's and it's not a normal circumstance where your next door neighbor happens to be contributing to forty five homes people coming and going. I do know that in the past that the association has had difficulty with other people using it too and they were trying to limit that. If you look at the fence on Salt Air side they have planted a privet row all the way along the fence and it stands up about four foot so what you really see is the other two feet of the fence itself. We're requesting when I asked for it in the variance basically I had measured from the front to the front of the house which is 155 feet of course from there back it's legal to have a six foot fence but there was something that I just checked and I wasn't quite sure, the Building Department (inaudible) you got a deck attached to the house that comes out to the front they measure from the deck not from the house. So it's really not 155 it's about 125 feet which would be roughly from your perception about half from the road to the bluff it would be about half of that that would be subject to the variance rather than going back to the house. It doesn't matter cause we're requesting the variance. The privacy point of view is that and I may ask Jeni to talk to that, when she first bought the place and she indicated to me that her neighbor across the street walked her up that strip of property there and they said well if we sat here we can see your pool even though (inaudible) just barely over the fence. They have obviously planted substantially on their side also and I will point out something there was some concern from the Conservation people and I wasn't quite sure how to actually interpret it 5® September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting because I've been before you enough to know I always try to shoot straight and objectively at this point (inaudible) you shouldn't touch the fence cause you're going to hurt the vegetation. Well that's not what we're asking for, we're asking for the maintenance and perhaps the replacement of that fence at sometime in the future if in fact it gets to that. But that would be true whether it's a four foot fence or a six foot fence. It would have to be done from the owners side to the other side from the Salt Air side primarily. So whatever is done with that fence whether it's six or four would have to be done making sure that that vegetation.that's already existing in place is protected. It's going to be by hand and very carefully done all the way through there anyway. I did want to address that cause I did read carefully the Conservation letter in terms of what their concerns we're. I didn't want to necessarily come to you and say well they said it was okay because that's not what they said. They basically said taking it out may damage the vegetation but that is true whether it was a four foot or a six foot fence there and, taking it out is something the owners are very cognizant of. I'm not quite sure of the condition right now. I think it's probably got some years to go before it has to but inevitably they would have to do a replacement and it would have to be done from their side and it--would have to be done from their side and it would have to be done in between piece by piece by piece and all hand labor obviously to take it out and to put a new fence in. For them basically the privacy issue is large. It's not as if it's unusual only because there aren't that many circumstances where you have something where you got this strip of property owned by an association as your adjoining property owner where there's an awful lot of traffic going back and forth and a four foot fence just doesn't work in that situation a six does. Jeni would you like to, any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :I mean just so you're aware Mike you already know this, we've all been out to the property well of course we've been out to the property more than once. In this instance we did go there specifically looking for a fence and to see where this pergola was about to be located. So we're aware of what mature vegetation already exists and thank,you for bringing to our attention that the neighborhood association actually accesses and uses the adjacent property. MIKE KIMACK : I guess pretty actively basically. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Obviously it's not that active. Not that many people use it. We have once a year'we have our meeting on that property and I can tell you that about the,thirty homeowners that show up to the meeting maybe five of them use it. They like to walk around to Bailey Beach and they just come up through that property through the stairs and go out. As far as security you have to have a key to get into that six foot gate that allows you onto that property. So there really isn't a problem unless someone is breaking in from either side of the other houses that September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I know before the gate there was an issue about the people using it though Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : There was but that was many years ago. We've had that gate up there for at least eight or ten years. v ii MIKE KIMACK : Look people do let's put it this way more than a normal course of people using that and we'll still contending that. From their perspective it really is a privacy.probably more privacy than security in terms of MEMBER ACAMPORA I mean I can definitely understand why you wouldn't want people looking into your back yard. MIKE KIMACK : And they have a pool right on the other side. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I know and you do have a lot of vegetation there. MIKE KIMACK : That's the interesting thing I'm glad you had a chance, a very small section of that fence is actually visible because of the pergola because of the privet line you've got on your side primarily and then of course theirs on the other side doesn't cover it all they've got a fair amount of vegetation around the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was all of that fencing in place along the side yard as well as the front yard? CHUN Y MCLEOD : Yes it was in place when we purchased it in 2007. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that was already there. I don't know if the cyclone 'fence it doesn't look like it's six foot high. It's higher the stuff that's buried in all of their green along the front road. MIKE KIMACK : I thought it was six. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe it is. It's just difficult to determine because it's all buried in all of the vegetation. MIKE KIMACK : The vegetation is probably more of a fence than the fence itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it is there's no question about that. Does the Board have any questions about this?Anything else from you all? MIKE KIMACK : No I think we've covered our points. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have an inconsistency in the LWRP for the fence but the pergola. is exempt. 52 a� September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I saw that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess cause it's non-conforming you mean it's not a naturally regulated feature? The deer actually regulate it basically. Alright, I guess that's 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. 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 #7288— BRAD and KATHRYN PIECUCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The final application of the day is for Brad and Kathryn Piecuch and this is an adjournment it's a carryover so there's no need for me to read the Notice of Disapproval again. So where are we from the last time we met? BRAD PIECUCH : You guys wanted us to do a couple of things, revise the survey, get the plans redrawn to show it as just a one story and we did that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see did we get copies of that? BOARD SECRETARY : No not yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to give us copies? BRAD PIECUCH : Yea just one or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we should all have one, how many copies do you have? BRAD PIECUCH : I think I have four with me. 53 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's take those and see if we need BRAD PIECUCH : Also we had the plan redrawn eliminating the second floor upstairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so you are submitting then the do you have just the one copy of this redrawn elevation or do you have more than one copy? BRAD PIECUCH : The blueprint only one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The floor plan and elevations of the structure. Do you have more than one copy? BRAD PIECUCH : Just one I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This isn't a big size we can make copies alright so Kim will make copies for us. I'm going to pass this down there and then pass it to the end. Now let's see about the location. So you didn't change the proposed location. BRAD PIECUCH : Yes I did. MEMBER LEHNERT : He did. He made it comply to the front yard setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm saying is what we just got a copy of is what we already had. In other words he's moving the garage BRAD PIECUCH : We moved it so at least CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I had in my file what you just handed me are the same surveys basically. MEMBER DANTES : No the one that he just handed here is different than the one he MEMBER LEHNERT : It's different than the one we have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mine is the same for some reason. Yep I don't know why but it is. MEMBER LEHNERT : They probably had an old one in there cause the one he just handed in it complies to all front yard setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but I had that already. I don't know why. MEMBER DANTES : He submitted this a while ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah this survey was submitted before. 54 i September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting BRAD PIECUCH : That's the revised survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes the revised survey has'been submitted before. Yes remember we said show us what trees have to be cut and you know make it conform to the setback so that we have. What you've done though is you've drawn it's now being proposed as a one story accessory garage. There are no dormers in it. Would you like to see this, I presume you're here for that. Why don't you come forward. THERESA MCCLASKY : Is that considered a one story? CHAIRRERSON WEISMAN : One story is well this is 22 feet high to the ridge and there's a storage and two garage doors basically. We have attic stairs but wait a minute is that a pull down? BRAD PIECUCH : I think he put in there attic pull down to be determined CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean we're not really seeing a second floor on here okay. THERESA MCCLASKY :That should be clear (inaudible) a staircase or a pull down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is drawn as a ladder. MEMBER LEHNERT : There's no staircase shown. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no staircase showing." THERESA MCCLASKY : To be determined is that what he said. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not on here,that way. There's no second story no. That's it if you have a pull down stair it's because you want to access what? BRAD PIECUCH : I mean mainly'it was just going'to be storage just above the rafters to put stuff but whatever I have to do to-appease everybody I'll do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we just eliminate•that that's it. It's just an open rafter one story, no stairs garage. Now let me show you this survey I don't know if you've seen this. This is the newer one. It's been pulled back so from the corner it has a 35 foot which is what the principal setback of the dwelling would be. You could put a house here and this is the size, it's 26 x this is 39 feet this is 35 feet. This tree would have to come down. There's a drywell, there's a small tree here and they're proposing a dry well in this gravel driveway and at least these two trees would come down. This is 45 feet, 31 okay. If you want to talk that's fine but we have to record it so you gotta go back to the podium. I just wanted you to be sure to,be able to see okay. So there are no it's not showing anything than the ones that have to be removed. That's 55 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting - t ' all we asked them to do. Just show the ones that you have to take down. So anything else that's on his property is not being-cut. Is that correct, is that your understanding? BRAD PIECUCH : We tied ribbon around them as well as we were told to and obviously put the new sign out front. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pardon me, for the record would you each state your name. THERESA MCCLASKY : Theresa McClasky. r PERRY HINDON : Perry Hindon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you are neighbors? PERRY HINDON : Correct directly across and she's directly next door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, would you like to say anything at this point? TERRY MCCLASKY : Yes I still have concerns about the tree removal cause I was under the understanding that that survey would have all the trees on it for the purpose of it so that the propeety would not be striped and very specifically because of as we discussed at the last Zoning Board meeting the pitch of,the road down towards my property is very high and as it is I'd like to present to you a picture of the runoff off,their property right now based on their CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have been out there a couple of times already so we do know what the slope is. I ' THERESA MCCLASKY : So that's the slope of their property and with heavy rains as you can see a lot of the shrubbery has been removed and therefore is now eroding and that sand basically comes down towards in front of my house. So there have been some other shrubs that have been removed but again going back to the survey I would understand that if all the trees on that portion of the property were labeled and it's,as if those trees do not exist. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not necessarily. Approving this survey would be to say you are ' only allowed to cut down three trees as shown on this survey. Everything else must remain on the site. PERRY HINDON : I think that there's mature trees, very mature trees and at the last'meeting that we were at in July you Had asked that possibly'the shed be moved closer to the house so that,the driveway wouldn't be at the high end of the way that the property goes is.there's a pitch at the curve and where the house is it's more level and so where this garage is proposed he's right at a high level so that it taking up those mature trees will leave a bare area. If the driveway Were to at least curve toward the more level area at least then you wouldn't have all September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting that runoff coming down it's a sharp pitch. I think that the picture doesn't really I guess you can tell I mean it's like four feet five feet MEMBER LEHNERT : He would have to comply with the Storm Water runoff codes no matter what and contain all the runoff,on his site. MEMBER DANTES : He's got a dry well and the dry well will address that problem and it's on the plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN There's a dry well proposed right in the driveway to catch runoff and would capture runoff,from the driveway. PERRY HINDON : Well what about the lower I mean he can put a drywell in the street] mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's in the driveway. PERRY HINDON : Across the whole driveway? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no the driveway will have to be pitched so that runoff goes into the drywell.,Look the town has a Storm Water Management code and all drainage is supposed to be retained on site so none of it goes into the road. It's next to impossible everywhere in this town to do that. We all know that we know these neighborhoods and you know stuff was constructed long before any of those things were issues. However we'do everything we'can to make sure that any kind of storm water or well water everything that sprinklers all that stuff is supposed to be retained on site through, dry wells, through various means, gutters and leaders and so on. So meanwhile the real question is, now we have a one story structure okay with no habitable space in it, no heat, no bathroom, no, plumbing we're just talking about electric. We have at this point three trees proposed to be moved. We have a,conforming front yard setback alright. Now I'm going to ask the applicant-one more time, why you feel you need 44.7-feet from your house to locate this garage, why you do not want to put it closer to your house? BRAD PIECUCH : Basically there is that whole corner is unusable unless I put something on it and to construct that garage closer to the house is going to be you now a lot more money. There is irrigation in `there that would all have to get changed. There is a side lot there's a concrete little wall that is there. There's just doesn't really make sense to put it there and then even if we did slide it closer to the house there's,a big pine tree in the front that would have to get removed`you know as well so it's kind of THERESA MCCLASKY : And my comment on what Brad said is still, it's a very dangerous curve and it's if you,have'not come down that road CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have. '57 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting THERESA MCCLASKY : As Ms. Acamp ora had seen with kids riding their bikes, there's other kids on ATV's those kids come up that corner and start from the top-of the-hill in front of her house riding their bikes straight down the road and any bus or'any you know large equipment coming by we have gas deliveries, we,have you know any lumber, the town trucks come through you know it's a sharp turn and to have a structure I understand he's conforming now and I do appreciate the effort I want to make that clear but I'm just I'm stressing the safety concern about that particular corner. So I think if they're interested in putting a garage it still,needs to be brought in closer to their property you know 'or else put it on the opposite side of their house which thehi (inaudible) piece of property that has their garage on their side so like garage to garage per say and it's a full road where it's visible for anyone backing out or pulling into the t; area it's visible. It's not on a blind turn. Basically this is on a blind turn so that's the safety aspect of this of my concern about this garage again. BRAD PIECUCH : Understood. Can I-say something? So be that it's meeting the setback now it's 40 feet off of the corner, before I bought the house it was all•brush that whole corner so it was a blind corner before I took all the nasty brush and garbage out of that corner. Being that it's 40 feet off the corner there's no way that it's going to be a visual block. ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's 35, 45 and-39. MEMBER DANTES : What's the clearing when you have to have that triangle for the highway? It has to be 30 feet so he would meet the triangle that's required by code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a cone of vision for intersections and curves that says that you know to avoid blind spots and things like that you need 30 feet and he's conforming with that. I have a feeling that and I totally,understand what you're saying, I think you're concern is runoff more than anything else at this point. He's got a drywell there, I still don't understand why moving it a little bit closer to your-house would cause a hardship because frankly what are you going to put between the garage and your house? BRAD PIECUCH : That's the yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a whole huge back yard with a swimming pool in it. It's a side yard. BRAD PIECUCH': Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are you going to use that side yard for? BRAD PIECUCH : That's my front lawn, I mean that's you know that's a beautiful yard. September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I'm satisfied that the safety concerns are essentially addressed and that it's now a one story accessory garage. He's going to have to cut down three trees and no more because that's all you're showing me here and approval will condition that and anything more than that will be a code violation. Now if the Board you know I see if you moved it over another five feet I don't know exactly how much would be gained and how much would be lost. BRAD PIECUCH : I'm meeting the setbacks I don't understand why CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are, no I'm just exploring. I'm just attempting to explore reasons. I'm not necessarily agreeing with everything. I asked to do the setback of what you could put a house on 35 feet. You've done that but it's important that the record have information in it that all issues were addressed. That's why I asked you what are you going to use that for. Now do you have a sprinkler system there? Do you have underground things not shown on this survey located there? BRAD PIECUCH : Where the garage has to go? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Between the house and the garage. BRAD PIECUCH : Yes correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and what would those be what utilities are there? BRAD PIECUCH : The sprinkler system is there. Like I said there's a concrete like retainer wall. It would have to come down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it wouldn't. Concrete walk. BRAD PIECUCH : Wall. There's like a little CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where's a wall I don't even see a wall. BRAD PIECUCH : It might not even be on the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not on the survey. THERESA MCCLASKY : Again that's inconsistencies that information should be on the survey then. BRAD PIECUCH : Well Taft just came out and redid my survey so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe he didn't think it was important to put it in. .59 September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting BRAD PIECUCH : Maybe. THERESA MCCLASKY : So that means it may be small enough to have it removed so again if it can be moved back a little bit more I think it would just would be more neighborly and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look the bottom line is we've asked him to put in what the code requires. BRAD PIECUCH : Right not what they want. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to be very polite and fair to everybody. The bottom line is we asked him to meet those setback that would be required if he put a house there, a two story house would be allowed to be there. He's got a 26 x 26 foot what's the height? It's one story but 22 to the ridge. Now the roof is way down here. We go by the ridge. It's going to be an open rafter structure. There will be no apartment, there will be no habitable dwelling, no bathroom. He's going to use it as a garage. BRAD PIECUCH : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know I can understand why it would be in some ways logical to put it on the other side but I can also see the argument not to. He has a right to enjoy his property also and he's got a swimming pool there and who wants to look'at the back of a garage. So you know this is what happens, this is what's great about a public hearing. People who have concerns come in and you look at what's reasonable and if you can find something reasonable and keeps meeting the intent of the law then we grant it if we can or you don't you deny it. THERESA MCCLASKY : But you had mentioned as well who wants to look at the back of a garage. (inaudible) on my particular side of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He has a right to put an accessory BRAD PIECUCH : Besides that's (inaudible) there's trees there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to say the trees (inaudible) are not being cut. THERESA MCCLASKY : That's why we (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Screened and it's buffered. THERESA MCCLASKY : But again the leaves fall off the trees and so for the balance of the year we're not talking Christmas trees you know so that buffer is not going to be there so my other 6® September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting question would be about the lighting. I'm hoping that there would be some sort of law in place to prohibit like night pollution. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They have to be dark sky compliant. THERESA MCKLASKY : Dark sky compliant oh that's the term. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All lights now have to be. You know he can put in one of those timer things that light up you know that turn on and off,at dusk and dawn that gets bright from motion and goes back to dim but you know all of the lighting on exterior buildings now in the town have to conform to that. No more great big flood lights lighting up the sky even though they might look pretty in the trees we don't do that now. Anything else from the Board? THERESA MCCLASKY : I have one more question,,will he be able to if you could possibly address the drainage on your portion of the property that's forming now, is that something you could BRAD PIECUCH : It's covered in the building plan I believe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to address the Board. You can talk to each other.out there but in here you have to talk-to us. BRAD PIECUCH : So actually what we plan to do after the garage is actually is plant more vegetation to help with drainage and erosion and you know. We have a beautiful property and we're going to keep it beautiful, we're not like you know defacing the neighborhood and we can't even you know like I said there's woods basically,between our properties so you really can't even see the garage. THERESA MCCUASKY : But those are woods that are (inaudible) behind so thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The new set of drawings that you brought in showing the one story structure. Since the survey says to be determined about the stair what we're going to condition that it will be an open rafter unfinished structure with no stair BRAD PIECUCH : I don't know why he did that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe_it was a carryover from the previous it might have been left from the previous drawing. This is all done on auto cad and this happens. BRAD PIECUCH : All I told him'was we have to,take the stairs out and take the dormers out which,he did. JL September 12, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN . Right and he dust left that vestigial thing hanging, what does not show on here and it typically doesn't but will be in the decision is that you're going to put gutters and leaders on this building. BRAD PIECUCH : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there would have to be drainage. BRAD PIECUCH : It,still has to meet town code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has to meet town code. BOARD ASSISTANT : What was the other condition you were mentioning? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No removal of the trees'other than the three that are on here, gutters and leaders on the subject thing and the interior shall remain as an open raftered structure with only one slab, garage slab, no storage above, unheated, no plumbing and only electric non-habitable and have to put gutters and leaders on this thing that is discharged on site into a drywell. BRAD PIECUCH : So there's no way I can put like a little heater in there if I work in my garage in the winter? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if you want to stick an electric space heater BRAD PIECUCH : Yeah some sort of heat. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's an appliance a portable appliance. That's not like you put in in the wall a heating,unit. BRAD PIECUCH : No a garage heater,or a space heater. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A space heater is fine as long as it meets fire code or you might burn yourself to death. MEMBER DANTES : Like a little (inaudible) heater? BRAD PIECUCH : Yeah something like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's not a problem. MEMBER DANTES : I think it's permitted by code too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's like putting a microwave., 62 September 12, 2019,Regular Meeting BRAD PIECUCH : What I'm just trying to do is put a garage to store my cars that's it. I'm not going to move people in, I'm not building bathrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I think we got it. There is no one else in the audience to address the application and no other comments from the Board members so I'm going to 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 ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 1 63 .. 0 1, September 12, 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 : September 23, 2019 A 641