The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-10/10/2019 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK ' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York October 10, 2019 9:50 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES— Member, ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney 1 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Elizabeth Thompson and Marianne Fahs# 7328 3 - 10 Elizabeth Thompson and Marianne Fahs#7329 3 - 10 Richard and Siobhan Hans#7320 10- 16 Richard and Siobhan Hans # 7321 10- 16 William Harney# 7322 16 - 17 Joseph and Dana Triolo #7324 17 - 19 James M. Baker and Diane M. Baker#7323 20 - 21 William and Kerry Mogavero # 7326 22 - 24 460 Oysterponds Lane, LLC and Ffolliott # 7327 24- 27 Brion Lewis #7325 27 - 34 William Gorman #7303SE 35 -47 Robert Yedid # 7309 47 - 61 2 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING#7328 and 7329—ELIZABETH THOMPSON and MARIANNE FAHS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN — I'm going to open up both hearings at once. We have two applications for deer fencing, primarily because they are two separate lots. Elizabeth Thompson and Marianne Fahs #7328 and #7329. Request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-105 and the Building Inspector's May 1, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an 8 foot deer fence 'at 1) more than the code required maximum 4 feet in height actually it should be more than the code permitted maximum 4 feet in height when located in the front yard located at 1655 Old Farm Rd. in Orient and the same application is before the Board for #7329 which is lot number 27-3-4.1. The other is 26-4-1. Would you like to come to the podium? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Elizabeth Thompson the owner one of the owners of the properties. I have nothing further to add unless you have questions other than what I spelled out my reasons in the application. I have one more green card. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just clarify, I think the boundaries of the deer fencing you own the subject parcel adjacent to it. Both are very irregularly shaped with two front yards and it would appear the deer fencing is along Old Farm Rd. turning for a course of I don't know how many feet based on this scale, along King St. and then moving into the property of lot 4.1 right? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then going along what would be the side yard of the principle dwelling along that's back on to the lot 4-1 is that correct? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : It's running in a side yard of the King St. property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes okay based upon the orientation of the dwelling. The fencing on the curved road is set back to basically what is behind the dwelling slightly on one side on the other side it's the front. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Yea on the north side of the house it comes around along the property side yard and then cuts back in and connects to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, so your driveway is not involved in that fencing. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the purpose of the deer fencing? This is a residential parcel not a farm parcel so tell us a little bit more about it. 3 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Well I actually do farm and I have twenty four fruit trees and the fence is primarily trying to protect those trees and the crop and it's you know the deer destroying the crop and the trees it's just of course getting worse so I'm trying to surround that and then the rest of the fence really to have it be as invisible as possible that's why it cuts into the property and into the overgrowth in the side yard which is overgrown cutting through there and not impacting the traffic coming and going from the driveways. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The solar array that's on your property, is that on the same residential lot or is that on ELIZABETH THOMPSON : I have two solar rays on the south roof of my house and I have there's just been a pool put in, I have solar hot water for the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that on the residential parcel that you're living on or is that on ELIZABETH THOMPSON : That's on the adjacent parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The adjacent, it's hard to tell exactly where the property lines were. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : It kind of runs right through it but the pool has the 20 foot setback from the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You own that parcel where the solar array is? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you tell us a little bit more about your farming practice there? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Well I'm a landscape architect as well as an architect so I planted these trees when I got the property thirty five years ago, the first property and I've been pruning them and caretaking them. I now have a substantial crop from the larger trees and I've been approached by a fellow mid island who wants to buy the apples for hard cider press so I'll be selling those apples to him probably this weekend. He's coming out to take what's left of the crop. I just have an interest in agriculture and I guess it's kind of a side line to my practice. I'm also trying to plant a lot of other bushes and trees that I have not been able to do because of the deer and I want to plant more fruit trees too once I get the fence in. (,haven't been able to start young trees there for many years. The original trees were planted before there was a deer problem so they got large enough to survive minimally. MEMBER DANTES : Do you qualify as a bona fide ag operation do you know? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : I don't know the requirements. It's the first time I've had an offer for the apples. I know Latham's farm stand wanted to buy them one year when there was a October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting (inaudible) good crop maybe ten years ago. Together the two lots are nearly five acres so I don't know if that's MEMBER DANTES : It has to do with the revenue, for under for five acres I think you need to have $15,000 a year in revenue. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Oh absolutely not no. This is sort of a boutique situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we inspect every property that's before the Board and so we have based on your description about character of the neighborhood driven around and looked to see what other deer fencing was there. Very similar to what you're proposing however they are in fact related to commercial agricultural landscape architectural products I believe. I think they're residentially zoned but it would appear that they are enclosing landscape materials. There's a lot of trees and bushes planted right across ELIZABETH THOMPSON : That's a tree nursery and he has also enclosed his house as well. It runs all along the front yards on the street and there's another deer fence diagonally across the street, a small some you know grapes in there but that's maybe an acre property in there maybe even smaller. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and you're proposing to plant additional fruit trees in the area that you're showing on your I guess site plan? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's not the entirety of your property? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : No, no I'm not enclosing the whole property. I'm not going to plant fruit trees on the whole, I'm going to extend the existing orchard back into the property. MEMBER DANTES It's also not in the architectural front yard either. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : Two front yards do CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It kind of is in this corner here. MEMBER LEHNERT : On the east side it sort of is. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : I think it kind of is. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Well it runs along the property line on the east side not the front yard and then it cuts right in to the house. 5 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you something, can you just come up here for a second. I want to show you what I'm talking about. It's hard to know front and side yard. Is it possible without doing unnecessary hardship to (inaudible) this and this what's going on in this corner? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : There's a raised berm here so I'm just including the berm coming right around the bottom of the berm (inaudible) to the house. There are very large spruce's in here so I'm just hiding the fence in there. CHAIRPERSONWEISMAN : Can you tell us how many feet this is from here to here that corner approximately? Is this in scale? Could you move it to here or like that? I just want to know what the distance is here. 1 ELIZABETH THOMPSON : It's about fifty feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's almost a principle setback. We're just exploring options to you know to make it possible this could just (inaudible) but if this is just going to be you know topographically difficult and this is 50 feet that's why I wanted to know what that distance was to see if it's a significant setback. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : It's very difficult to get deer fence up over the berms about four or five feet high that runs this length (inaudible) adjacent house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if the Board has any questions if you just go back to the podium. Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : The existing four feet fence are you going to take that down? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : I'd like to keep that. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Some of it looked like it was in bad shape. ELIZABETH THOMPSON, : Well I'm waiting till the next fence goes in. It's been there thirty years so I (inaudible) myself. I want to get the other fence in and I'll repair the rails. That's sort of an ongoing project with the fence but the deer fence will be inside that. I think the property across the street across Old Farm Rd. has a deer fence around it. He added a split rail fence similar to mine recently so it seems to be working out well his way to try to mitigate the effects of the fence. L CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. 6 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I do not have any more questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Always a question. Good morning. Can you clarify one thing that I don't quite understand, the vacant lot, the property card illustrates it as open space, what does that mean? Is it a building lot or is it ELIZABETH THOMPSON : It is not a buildable lot, it can't be for a residence but you can do anything else with it like a tennis court or MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that's what I wanted to better understand. So there won't be a house and there's no proposed house on that site? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : I'm confused why is it not buildable as a residence? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Well around 1989 1 purchased it was part of a twenty four acre property. It was subdivided into four five acre lots and then the remaining four acre parcel which is the right of way to those lots. I was trying to donate it to the town as a park and they said they did not want any more parkland because they couldn't collect taxes on it but they kept it designated as personally owned parkland. I had to keep it and so I pay taxes on it every year but I can't build a house on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you ever thought about merging it? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : I have but then I have three or four front yards which I would be here regularly to do anything. It's complicated. So far it's not been a problem so I'm trying to leave it as is. I think I would rather have it as two lots. I could also I mean no I haven't done anything else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason I'm asking because if it's not a building site and you want to put the kinds of things you're talking about like well the solar array for example is already there but if you wanted to build a barn you know a storage thing something related to your agricultural practice they would be accessory to nothing because there's no principle use on them and if you merge the lots then the dwelling- is the principle use and all the other are accessory buildings. MEMBER DANTES : Right but Leslie undeveloped land is a very low tax rate and if you merge it then the whole thing becomes developed land and her tax rate is going to go October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it seemed to me also that if they were merged it kind of negates whatever was established. I'm assuming from what you just shared you did the subdivision so the open space that was created was part of that subdivision would sort of morph into a house as opposed to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No there's probably C & R's. The deed would show that it's not a building site. It's minor it's just a query it's really not about the deer fencing it's about the future use in a way that is most productive for you basically without any hassle. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : I understood that I could put accessory buildings there just not a septic well CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then possibly that (inaudible) under the subdivision ELIZABETH THOMPSON : I think so, it could be recreational things it's just MEMBER DANTES : I think it benefits the application can you give us a copy of whatever it says the (inaudible) the development rights on that piece? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Well that's with the Health Department. They're the ones you know they would not issue another septic system. MEMBER DANTES : It's not with the Planning Department here? ELIZABETH THOMPSON : It could be I don't know that they have the real records are with the Health Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, Nick anything else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No the only other thing I want to make sure that I was tempted to take an apple. The trees were just laden with fruits. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Well they're cleaned up now to about eight feet tall of apples and four feet tall of leaves. Help yourself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're not allowed, it looks bad but maybe if they've fallen on the ground maybe. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : They're never there more than an hour or two when they fall to the ground. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The deer have them. October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Please come forward and state your name. BURT LIEBERT : Hi I'm Burt Liebert we live opposite Liz and Mimi's house. I hope my remarks are appropriate, I just question as you mentioned earlier the need for this fencing perhaps I may , have missed something but I don't believe these apples have ever been harvested and their trees seem to be in very nice shape. The apples do fall to the ground and the deer certainly eat them. I don't think the wild turkeys eat them but I question the actual need for an eight foot deer fence even though a great deal of time and effort has certainly been put into this proposal. The trees themselves appear to be quite healthy. That may be a function of a rigorous (inaudible) and I don't see that these are affected particularly by the deer. I have two pictures if you're interested. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure if you'd like to submit them we'll take them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And Mr. Liebert while you are up here if you wouldn't mind point out your property on the tax map. So you're opposite the vacant lot or the open space lot. BURT LIEBERT : We straddle. Let's see where is Old Farm Rd? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Old Farm is right here. That's the subject property with the residence. BURT LIEBERT : The fruit trees are approximately here yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want us to keep these pictures? BURT LIEBERT : I beg your pardon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want us to keep these pictures as part of our file or do you want them back? BURT LIEBERT : No you may keep them they're very attractive trees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone else. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearings both of them and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? ` MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7320 and #7321 RICHARD and SIOBHAN HANS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Richard and Siobhan Hans #7320. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 2, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing accessory garage at 1) less than the code required side yard setback of 10 feet located at 2125 Pine Tree Rd. (adj. to Little Creek) in Cutchogue. I think Bruce it'll be easier if I open both up at the same time. The next application is for the same applicant, Richard and Siobhan Hans #7321 a request for an interpretation pursuant to Article III Section 280-13C and the Building Inspector's April 2, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an_existing accessory garage at 1) as to whether the "as built" construction of finished space in an existing accessory garage is a permitted accessory use at same location 2125 Pine Tree Rd. (adj. to Little Creek) in Cutchogue same subject structure. What would you like to tell us? BRUCE ANDERSON : Good morning Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant Richard and Siobhan Hans who seek to legalize an existing outdoor shower and finished shed. Just by way of history here, this property was a subject of a previous zoning proceeding in which the present owners sought to legalize an attached deck that was constructed by the previous owners. In the course of closing out that building permit for C.O. the building inspector required a zoning variance for the shed existing on this property for many, many years. The shed received a certificate of occupancy on December 13, 1982 as an accessory garage but in fact the previous owner of the property utilized the accessory garage as a workshop. The workshop was equipped with both water and electric. I believe the framed garage is best termed a shed because it was never been used as a garage in recent decades. There's an asphalt driveway which (inaudible) doesn't connect to it and there's an adjacent shed that would prevent this from being used as a garage in any event. So the current survey before you was prepared by Peconic Surveyors dated March 1, 2019 depicts the framed shed, the outdoor shower, the attached shed and asphalt driveway. The zoning application 7321 is a request for an interpretation as to whether or not the building inspector erred in his interpretation to the as built construction consisting of finished space in an accessory garage is October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting a permitted accessory use. The Notice of Disapproval directs you to 280-13C which is use regulations for this zone and what it says is that what is permitted are garden house, tool house, storage building, play house, wading pool, swimming pool or tennis court incidental to the residential use and not operated for gain. It goes on to say that (inaudible) shed contains no bathroom, no cooking facilities, no bedroom and is not insulated. The shed is not operated for gain. The shed is not nor can it be used as a separate living accommodation. The second part of this is application 7320 which is a request for variance of 280-15 which is to legalize the as built additions and alterations to the accessory garage less than 10 feet. The review of your survey will show that the outdoor shower is constructed off the back of the building 5 feet from the property line as is the shed. The shower and deck is raised above the grade by about eight inches although on the side yard because it slopes down it's somewhat closer to the ground than that. The neighborhood of course is residential in character and in fact garages and sheds are common throughout the town including the neighborhood. There's (inaudible) to a neighborhood claim about the use whether the previous use as a workshop or its present s finished condition by any neighbor that I'm aware of and so we would say that there would be no impact in the character of the neighborhood. The outdoor shower of course is no closer to the property line than is the existing shed itself. It's open to the sky and typically when they're open to the sky their even subject to zoning variances at least that's been my experience in this town. The benefit cannot be achieved without a variance to pursue because the shed exists and has existed in this present configuration for an extended period of time. I argue that the variance is not substantial in the relationship to what's already on the property meaning the existing shed and that the granting of a shed would not have an adverse effect or impact to the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood in which it lays. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me Bruce, you keep referring to shed but I think it's the framed garage. BRUCE ANDERSON : The outdoor shower thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause there is a shed there, I just want to make clear in the record that you're referring to the subject structure which is the framed garage. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yea I'm sorry you know there's a previous survey on file with the town that was done in 1995 by VanTuyl that shows the same configuration and it labels it shed on that survey. I don't know if you want a copy for your file but it's sort of been used I don't know if you have it. Do you have a VanTuyl survey? I don't think you do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I remember seeing it myself the difficulty of course is that the C. 0. states it's a garage. �1 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I think part of your problem is the architects plans says storage and changing area. Changing areas in a pool house if you have a pool so I think it'll be helpful if we had an architectural plan that says storage or something that's specifically permitted. BRUCE ANDERSON : That's perfectly acceptable. MEMBER DANTES : It cleans up our paperwork. BRUCE ANDERSON : I mean I really don't have much to say about this other than you know I don't think it's a problem for anyone but we can certainly revise the plan to show that it's just storage only on it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And Bruce this survey was in fact in the application it's in #7321 and it does illustrate the garage structure the C.O. garage structure as a shed but it doesn't illustrate the outdoor shower nor the deck. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. MEMBER DANTES : An outdoor shower with a raised deck and enclosure. Raised deck is why they're asking for the variance for the outdoor shower. BRUCE ANDERSON : Quite possibly. You know it's the deck is at the same elevation as is the floor of the shed which is 8 inches above grade as you walk up to it. I suspect that's why it was built that way. There's also drainage provided underneath the shower just so you know. I don't know if I have anything further to say about it unless there are further questions from this Board. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe just to address on that survey that you cited the actual shed not the garage structure, the application (inaudible) illustrates that it's supposed to be 10 feet from the lot line and it's actually 9.1 at its closest. BRUCE ANDERSON : What are you talking about? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the survey BRUCE ANDERSON : No, no, no that's not what we're talking about,framed garage MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I understand that I'm just asking for commentary. How did it get there you know'the proposal is for 10 feet. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well a building permit was issued for it and a C. 0. was issued for it back in it's in the application in '90 or October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I was thinking like'95 or so MEMBER DANTES : It might have had a different setback. BRUCE ANDERSON : Back then they just sort of drew it on a plan and the town approved it and then issued a C.O. on it so the best I can say is maybe they didn't apply the setback at that time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's possible the setback was less at the time also cause the code was changed relative to the bulk schedule and accessory structures after the mid-nineties so (inaudible) was changed BRUCE ANDERSON : That could be. I haven't really thought much about it because it was C.0'ed. If you look at the paperwork on it it's very loosey goosey it's not how we would do things today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So from the standpoint of the shed having a C. 0. in a non-compliant location but then the garage BRUCE ANDERSON : Also has a C.O. in a non-compliant location. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The garage but not as the use I think as proposed. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well as I explained it's really been used as a garage. I think it may have been conceived to be a garage cause there's that apron and there's that door there but the driveway never led to it. When the second shed was constructed (inaudible) but lot access to it and for many, many years that (inaudible) has been used as a workshop and whether it's a garage of a workshop or you know it's an accessory structure it's not prohibited as far as I can tell as to use. So maybe the best way to describe it is simply an accessory structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you want us to do a code interpretation I think probably what would be better here is if you can redefine what's going on there. I think they were concerned it was being used as recreational space and it's very benign but nevertheless that is not a listed permitted use. Play house yes as you described, workshop yes; certainly not changing room that would suggest a pool and there is no pool. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well we were advised that because of it that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's what stopped it in the Building Department I don't know did they go out to do an inspection do you know? r 13 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : Well what happened was when they went to inspect the deck to close out the deck the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deck on the dwelling or BRUCE ANDERSON : On the dwelling that faces the water and was the subject of the previous variance. The Building Inspector approached me and says, while I was there I happened to notice and I said alright. My interest really at that point was to close out the deck because we had a bridge loan involved and we were trying to close out the loan with the bank and we couldn't do so until we got a C.O. for the deck. So, what we decided to do was I said I'll apply for this variance and upon making the application you will the town agreed to issue the C.O. which they did which allowed us to close out the loan. So this is really an extension of that if you will. That's how it all sort of came about. At that time we were looking at the deck I didn't give it really any thought I just didn't. That condition existed at the time we were doing the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When was the deck on the subject I'm going to continue to call it a framed garage because that's when it clear BRUCE ANDERSON : I think shortly after they purchased it, I think they put it seemed they could do it because it had the water,there already and electric so and as I said in other applications that we do the best example being an outdoor shower in a required side yard. In other words a structure between a principle dwelling and a side lot line any structure requires a variance from this Board unless it's open to the sky which this is so honestly I don't think anyone this Board, me the applicant/owner really gave it much more thought than that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Did I understand you to say then the owner the applicant added the deck? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But not the outdoor shower? BRUCE ANDERSON : No, no they added both in but there was some form of outdoor shower there I believe but they formalized it and made it nicer. They made the garage which they made they just fixed it up is what they did. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And were there permits for the deck and is a permit required? BRUCE ANDERSON : Apparently because that's why I'm here. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) gray area those little landings (inaudible) showers October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it's not really a stoop. MEMBER DANTES : Sometimes it's attached to the house, sometimes they'll look at it and sometimes if it's just sitting there they won't it's a gray area. BRUCE ANDERSON : I mean put it this way in the prior application for the deck. Those improvements were already there so we probably could have addressed it in the prior zoning variance had I thought about, you thought about the no one thought about it and it really MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) the use of the garage during that public hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we did ask about it because we observed it while we did the inspection for the waterfront deck. BRUCE ANDERSON : It probably would have been more efficient to address it all at once I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else from the Board at this point, anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Anything else from you Bruce? BRUCE ANDERSON : No I think that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we're going to need an updated set of plans with the change in description of the subject accessory structure. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting, that'll give you two weeks to submit the requested update okay? BRUCE ANDERSON : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. IS October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7322—WILLIAM HARNEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William Harney #7322. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's April 24, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 50 feet located at 4015 Main Bayview Rd. in Southold. ROBERT BROWN : Good morning, Robert Brown architect. We're asking for front yard relief for an addition to the two story structure. The proposed addition encompasses the existing side yard kitchen entrance. It's a mudroom and potting shed for the addition, one story. It is located currently on our plan at approximately 13 feet behind the front most wall of the existing residence. It will be shielded from the street by landscaping. Other than that if there are any questions I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that was 13 feet farther from the road than the subject dwelling. ROBERT BROWN : The existing front wall is 15 Y feet behind the front yard property line and the proposed addition is approximately 28 Y feet behind the front yard property line. It would of course be in (inaudible) with the rest of the structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have your plans and your site plan and so on. As you know we've visited the property. Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob you want to start. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else down there? My notes indicate it's a 345 sq. ft. mud room addition and sunroom and dry wells be added is that correct for drainage? ROBERT BROWN : Yes. i6 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course the house itself has a pre-existing non-conforming front yard setback. ROBERT BROWN : (inaudible) of the house is pre-existing non-conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to get that into the record. 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 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 #7324—JOSEPH and DANA TRIOLO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph and Dana Triolo #7324. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 28, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet located at 420 Beachwood Lane (adj. to Goose Creek) in Southold. ROBERT BROWN : Robert Brown architect for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we're looking at here is this is proposed construction in kind to an existing residence, 33 no hold on this is a front yard setback of 25 feet where the code requires 35 this is for an addition. The application says proposed construction in kind to pre- existing residence and I don't know what that means. ROBERT BROWN : Honestly I don't either. 17 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then just tell us what you want to cause that was written in the application and I said in don't quite know how an addition is in kind. ROBERT BROWN : The applicant is intending a major renovation to the house and part of that includes extending because of the interior modifications that are going on because of some constrictions inside the house-we are shortening the garage inside the house and hoping to make that up by extending the garage towards the street. That's the gist of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you want to extend towards the street so that you still have a usable garage. ROBERT BROWN : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to take some of the existing garage area and make it habitable. ROBERT BROWN : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I guess the major question I have is, is this a demolition? ROBERT BROWN : A demolition? MEMBER PLANAMENO : Of the existing house. ROBERT BROWN : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : During the site inspection and obviously we weren't inside of the house but you can clearly see the entire interior has been gutted ROBERT BROWN : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and now you're proposing also a second story attic space even though there's a series of storage rooms. I'm just a little puzzled why wouldn't you work off of the existing footprint despite what you just shared as far as the garage? ROBERT BROWN : The southeast corner of the house is currently a unused, under used mudroom screened porch and the owner hopes to turn that portion of the house which is the most desirable view into the master bedroom and that pushed the interior space towards the garage in order to make that work and that required extending the garage in order to make that a usable garage. In terms of the second floor that's some of it most of it actually is cathedral space and what is not cathedral space is attic storage because of owing to its location :,$ October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting there's only a partial basement which is unsuited for storage so we're hoping to create attic space for storage for the owners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that answer your question? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : I have no questions., CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and 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) l 19 , October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING# 7323—JAMES M. BAKER and DIANE M. BAKER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is' for James M. Baker and Diane M. Baker #7323. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's May 13, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to permit a lot line change to create two non-conforming lots, 1) lot 1 proposed at less than the code required minimum lot size of 120,000 sq. ft., 2) lot 2 proposed at less than the code required lot width of 200 feet located at 1143 Peninsula Rd. (adj. to Darbies Cove) on Fishers Island. STEVEN HAM : Steven Ham 38 Nugent St. Southampton for the applicants. I have the original affidavit of sign posting and memorandum. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before we get started let me ask you if you got the Planning Board's comments? J STEVEN HAM : I did and the LWRP as well and I did receive the Planning Board comments on Monday and since then Dick Strauss the surveyor and I have been in touch with Erica Bufkins the Planning Board staff. Dick proposed as you know they like the straight lines and perpendicular lines in Planning and he came up with two additional iterations for them to review and at the end of the day they decided that our plan was the most desirable because the other plans created other zoning issues with the lot width. So let me read it's a very brief email response from Erica to Dick Strauss which I'll copy. Thank you for providing these Dick it was really helpful to look at all three iterations at once. After reviewing it became evident that the original design submitted to the ZBA and the Planning Board would be the best option for design as neither of the other two iterations meet the bulk schedule for lot width. We appreciate you working with us to find the most appropriate design. Please contact the ZBA to let them know we've reviewed the plan and found that the original design proposed is the most suitable for this site. This email is attached to the memorandum that I just distributed. That's the last page. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's certainly the only question that I had was whether or not you've received it and if you thought about it and done anything about it so thank you for that testimony. STEVEN HAM : So that's been resolved. So as you can see the purpose the main purpose of the r lot line change is to provide a direct rather than an'easement access for the existing driveway. believe the Bakers drove you around in August CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They did. STEVEN HAM : so you've been to the site. 20 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually it's a tough property given the topography it's a really difficult property to work with and it certainly makes sense to do what they're proposing to do. MEMBER DANTES : Steve did you give us a copy of that email from Erica? STEVEN HAM : Yes it's in the memorandum. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I look forward to reading your memorandum. STEVEN HAM : One benefit that my client actually pointed this out he says you won't have to worry about a dock now for another property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly, alright let's see if the Board has any questions. Pat anything you want to know? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience? Too bad you had to come all the way from Southampton. 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. 21 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7326—WILLIAM and KERRY MOGAVERO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William and Kerry Mogavero #7326. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 8, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the required front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) located less than the required side yard setback of 15 feet located at 11485 Sound Ave. in Mattituck. Good morning would you state your name for the record please. WILLIAM MOGAVERO : Good morning William Mogavero property owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is for additions and alterations with a front yard setback of 39 feet where the code requires 40 feet and the second is for a single side yard setback of 12 feet where the code requires 15 feet. WILLIAM MOGAVERO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a second story addition over a one story portion of the house, bedroom and bathroom. I had a question here, the second floor addition are two different figures at 37.3 feet or 39 feet?The front yard setback in the Notice says 39 feet MEMBER LEHNERT : 39 shows with the proposed deck underneath. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The second floor addition is 37.3 is that where that came from? Kim is going to explain the Building Department's BOARD ASSISTANT : Well we originally had the smaller plan here which was the site plan and I asked the applicant to and you'll see with the smaller diagram you couldn't see the 37 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was too small to read? BOARD ASSISTANT : Right so we asked for something to be a little bit more expanded so we could actually see the front yard setback and basically we received it after you know we completed the processing of the application so we saw that 37 then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I see so because well we have two different citations here, we have on this I'm seeing 39 feet at one corner on this and I'm seeing 37.3 on the other corner you know what I'm talking about? 22 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting WILLIAM MOGAVERO : From the house left to right CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah on the front of the house it's obviously Soundview goes on a slight angle so that's creating difference. Usually the Notice of Disapproval will site the closest to the road and in this case the Notice says 39 feet whereas this thing shows 37 closer to the road. So what I want to do I don't think we need an amended Notice of Disapproval but WILLIAM MOGAVERO : The existing house was the way it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're not changing the footprint of the house at all?, WILLIAM MOGAVERO : Not really. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the existing side yard is 12 feet you're proposing to keep that? WILLIAM MOGAVERO : That's the way it is now we're not enlarging it at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure that in our determination in our decision we site 37.3 feet as the closest to the road and not 39 feet cause that will cause confusion when you go to get a building permit. Do you understand what I'm getting at everybody? MEMBER LEHNERT : I know what they did, they did the 39 feet from the existing front porch which he's just carrying across that's where you get your 37. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. So is everyone clear on that? Alright. We don't want to make a decision that reflects a Notice of Disapproval that is not exactly what you're trying to do here. WILLIAM MOGAVERO : So that's in the new corner that we're adding it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :-Yea it's a little bit closer-.to the road. WILLIAM MOGAVERO : Alright I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Like 3 feet, 2 feet. MEMBER DANTES : If we don't write it they'll kick it back to us again. 4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So just so you know we've all been out to the property. We looked at the neighbors, looked at the neighborhood. It looks like the,house across the street actually has a smaller front yard setback than you do. MEMBER DANTES :' It's an-older neighborhood there's non-conformities throughout. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right. 23 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : And they're not really changing the footprint. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) has two front yards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it does it has,two front yards. There's nobody in the audience to address the application.Is there anything else you want us to know about this. No, anything from anybody? Okay 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 #7327—460 OYSTERPONDS LANE, LLC,ANN FFOLLIOTT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board of Appeals is for 460 Oysterponds lane, LLC, Ann Ffolliott #7327. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 15, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and move an existing accessory garage at 1) less than the code required side yard setback of 10 feet located at 510 Oysterponds Lane in Orient. FRED WEBER : My name is Fred Weber, I'm the architect for Ann Ffolliott, 460 Oysterponds Lane LLC. The existing house is a small plain cape style house consisting of only 840 sq. ft. of living space on the first floor. The owner is conceiving to add living room'or living and bedroom space to the house-by adding a small one story addition"to the rear of 250 sq. ft. roughly and adding second storage space contained under the existing roof and under two small front gable dormers and a rear shed dormer all projecting off,the existing roof ridge. Projecting the addition back to the existing house footprint allows the addition to be small, simple, compact 24 October 10;2019 Regular Meeting and traditional, clumsy offsets added crawl space and overlapping rooms are all avoided. However in the existing house at the point,of the addition is 8.2 feet off the property line, the 10 foot side yard setback is not achieved. Because the property line runs away from the house the side yard increases a little as you head to the rear increasing to 8.5 feet. I believe the side yard variance is not a substantial request. The houses in the neighborhood all exist'on relatively small lots. The lot was just expanded by merging it with a lot to the north virtually doubling in size. Also one of the two existing garages will be removed therefore even though the house is close to the south property line the overall impact on the neighborhood even with these proposed additions will be diminished. As a side note, new,roof drainage and new conforming sanitary system will be installed. I'd be glad to answer any questions about,the project. MEMBER DANTES : So the garage doesn't need any variances just the variance for the existing house? FRED WEBER : Correct. There's two garages there cause they were on separate-lots and one is kind of behind the house and difficult to get to but that's the nicer of the two garages so they're going to take down the one to the north and move the one to the south into that position so you can drive a car into it and only have one garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where'will the garage that's being moved be relocated,to? ' FRED WEBER : I'm not sure I mean the owner is looking to give it to somebody or have somebody use it. I think the contractor involved you know might be interested. It's not going to be moved onto the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's not going to be relocated on ,the site it's or demolished, offered to another site? FRED WEBER : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While the I guess northerly lot is approximately 50 feet wide do you know the distance on the side yard now that the two lots are merged from I guess it would be the north side of the house to the property line? FRED WEBER : Well there is also a mud room addition put on the north side from that point it's about 55 feet from the mudroom addition sticks out about 6 feet to the north property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I have a question Fred about the side yard setback. It was noted at 8.2 on both your site plan and the survey that we got here, the closest point is 6.8. FRED WEBER : That's the existing corner on the existing house. I was referring to what we were adding. 25 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : The house Leslie the house isn't parallel to the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right I see that:So the Notice reflects the'addition rather than the as built. FRED WEBER,: Correct. CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN : We'll let's start with questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO I had the question regarding the garage so thank you for the clarification. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No I mean this is a' -prev iously pre-existing non-conforming so . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? JOHN DISPENSA : John Dispensa I live next door at 580 and I have no objection to their proposal if it's the way it's written. There's no other changes and it doesn't get any closer to my property? FRED WEBER : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Dispensa are you to the north or are you to the south? JOHN DISPENSA : To the south. FRED WEBER :'He is probably the one most affected. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I noticed there's an evergreen screening, I don't remember what type of planting it is but there's some substantial screening in that area. FRED WEBER : Yes. JOHN DISPENSA : Where's that screen? MEMBER PLANAMENTO Where that proposed addition is between your lot line• and the neighbor. JOHN DISPENSA-: Can I see cause we talked about doing something there. 2f October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting 'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're talking about what's already there': JOHN DISPENSA : In fact I'll,be trimming them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there's no other questions from the Board 'and no one else in the audience I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.- CHAIRPERSON econd: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 #7325— BRION LEWIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Brion Lewis #7325. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXII Section'280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 1, 2019 amended May 31, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an as built" accessory building, legalize an "as built" accessory garden shed and an accessory deck, and construct- additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) accessory building located less than the code required front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) accessory building located less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) "as built" accessory garden shed located less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, 4) "as built" accessory deck located less than the code required 100 feet from the top ofthe bluff, 5) single family dwelling located less than the required side yard setback of 20 feet and 6) single family dwelling located less than the required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 62615 CR 48 (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Greenport. Would you state your name for the record please. 27 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON : Hi Brooke Epperson I'm the architect for the owner Brion Lewis. I'll start with saying my client bought the property in spring of last year so all the "as built" structures are something he is trying to legalize. He did not build any of those himself. I'll start on the first r page of the set of plans you all have. The proposed house addition the existing house as is, is a two story more so a one and a half a cottage style home. The dormers on the second floor don't give much head room for the existing bedrooms that are up there so he wants to pop out some dormers and add an additional,master suite on one side of the house. All of this would be staying within the existing footprint that is already there. The lot is narrow so the side setbacks are to maintain in that sense and then the distance from the bluff as I said it's an existing footprint so we're trying to stay within that to give him the headroom that he would like on the second floor. Now for the other items I'll start with the existing garden shed, we're requesting a side setback for that. It's existing, he's trying to legalize it. There is nothing structurally wrong with it. He'd like to keep it if possible. Then going on to the wood deck at the bluff, he did have (inaudible) come out and she analyzed the deck as well as you guys had someone come out also to take a look at the deck. They both recommended that the decks remain as is as it is not impeding further into the bluff and at this point all of these items date back to at least 1980 so they've all been there for this long'and at this point they mention that the bluff it might be detrimental to take(anything away from that deck and to lessen it in square footage to get was is allowed. The accessory buildings towards the front of the property is actually two separate buildings as is and we are proposing to keep one of the sheds and take the other one out and make a larger area. It would be an unconditioned, unfinished space. He would use it as storage. He has a boat he would like to put in there and again he would,like to keep it consistent with what already exists and that setback is already existing non-conforming. Did I miss anything? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It seems like there's six variances a lot of odds and ends to clean up. So the "as built" garden shed I'm just going to enter into the record, the additions and alterations to an accessory building are with a front yard setback,of 39.3 feet, the code requires 50 feet. The side yard setback is at 2.9 feet, the code requires 15 feet. Then we have "as built" garden shed that would be the additions and alterations to that accessory structure that we saw that is part of a horse trailer at the moment,that one. BROOKE EPPERSON :-The very front one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The very front one that.you want to take a piece away and add an addition. BROOKE EPPERSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN So that one requires two variances. Then there's the "as built" garden shed with a side yard setback of 3.6 feet, the code requiring 15 feet. Then the third. 28 i October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting structure we have "as built" accessory deck, the bluff setback at 0, the code requiring 100 that's the large deck that's right at the top of the bluff. BROOKE EPPERSON : With the wood stairs going down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just stop for one second. You're before the Trustees now with'regard to those structures correct? BROOKE- EPPERSON : Yes we only had to go;to_the Trustees for the wood deck. Any proposed work to the house is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No.I understand that's within their jurisdiction but they're not ruling on that. It's all on.the existing decks, landing and steps down to the beach. So how far along are you on that? BROOKE EPPERSON : We were'on for the hearing last month but we got it postponed until the next one and I am going to check after this if we're on for next week but I haven't heard back from them yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically the Zoning Board would go first but should-we grant this application as applied or slightly amended we will do so just so you're aware, based upon approval by the Trustees and any changes they may wish to impose. I don't want to have property owners coming back and forth between both Boards. It makes no sense at all and when you have to be before two Boards we want to make sure we're on ,the same page. So I just wondered where you were in that process. So we left off with that structure. Then we have proposed construction to the existing single family dwelling with a side yard setback of 12:2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 20 feet and we have a 32 foot bluff setback where the code requires 100 feet. It's only because you're expanding the pre-existing non-conforming dwelling that that plugs in. Did I miss anything anybody? I only read the application ninety times. BROOKE EPPERSON : I'd just like to add we did look at other properties along that,road and that bluff area and there are houses neighboring his properties that were granted reliefs for similar situations. One of them being the addition to the home less than 100 feet from the'bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have those priors? Can you submit them to us? It's always very useful to have prior variance-relief in a neighborhood as part of the record. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How many prior,-s are there? BROOKE EPPERSON I found two for the 100_ feet from the bluff and there's a' couple of accessories as well. 29 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We had several variances all along that side of 48. MEMBER DANTES : Question for you, the two front sheds it looks like the property is about 80 feet wide so if you move the sheds then you'd have to be right in the middle of the front yard basically? BROOKE EPPERSON : Pretty much and the existing driveway he would like to keep and as I said he would like to use this for storage, small storage for his boat so we move it closer to the driveway it would be hard to get it in-•and we don't want to add another driveway to get access to the front, if we move the whole thing back it we were trying to start out at this point working with what exists on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so.the record•reflects the fact that as you probably know and certainly Mr. Lewis knows, we were all out to visit and inspect the property which we do on every application; so we were able to figure out what's next door and we had a look at the setbacks and so on. Do you want to enter into the record the information from Soil and Water and from the private company that Mr. Lewis hired? BROOKE EPPERSON : (inaudible) but I have another copy of it here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh we all have copies of that. BROOKE EPPERSON : Oh okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you get the LWRP? BROOKE EPPERSON : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : Is that Soil and Water or is it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the private, that's Sea Grant. Soil and Water came under our request, Sea Grant was there's as a result of the applicant's request to analyze the condition of the bluff. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why don't you tell us a little bit about this, summarize what those two documents say. BROOKE EPPERSON : They both summarize it, the deck is built upon substantial footings that appear to be in good condition. Removing the footings could potentially result in major shifting and possibly slumping of the internal sediment and composition of the bluff. Then it goes on about the bluff face and that it's steep, it's well vegetated. i `October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER-DANTES : I think it also says that if you plant new plantings it'll take them years'before they take effect does it not? BROOKE EPPERSON : Right. MEMBER DANTES : So I think that's kind of your strongest argument. BROOKE EPPERSON : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to read into the record -because again this is an LWRP inconsistent determination. Now as you may or may not know the Board cannot approve anything that we can't find consistent With the LWRP. Now we can do that by basically saying the record reflects additional information and based upon conditions imposed herein such as Trustees approval and so on we can render it to be consistent. I'd like to read why this is determined to be inconsistent with LWRP policies. Policy one is to foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of .a Coastal location and minimizes adverse effects of development. The comment is the "as built" accessory buildings were constructed without obtaining required review or permits. "As built" development is not minimized adverse effects of development, sets precedent and reinforces a traditional land use pattern of the Town-of Southold that's not supported. The proposed action does not meet this policy. Do you want to make a comment about that or no? r BROOKE EPPERSON : It does not but again this is something that was done years`ago before my client bought the property and he's trying to work with what is there and keep anything that he can to not detriment anything to the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we appreciate that fact that you're coming in you know with a new owner to try and legalize everything that wasn't legally done prior to his purchase but I just wanted to ,enter into the record that,that was the objection because we have strong evidence to indicate that the environmental impacts will be more severe rather than lessened if we proceed to require a removal of a lot of the existing decks and structures down to the bluff. The home is where it is, it's been there for years. There's no way to move it back. So any additions are going to require a variance. Let's see if the Board has any questions' here. Pat anything from you on this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEBMER DANTES : I do not. 31 i October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While we're at it let's just clarify the fact that the existing garage has a C.O. and it was granted relief by a prior Zoning Board and for being a two story garage essentially and we all observed that there's a deck there, that was okay. I believe it was meant to be storage and it certainly would appear that it's finished space and that it is not necessarily by this applicant but that it previously had been used for purposes other than storage. I think possibly home office or some sort of thing like that. Do you know anything about that? BROOKE EPPERSON : It does have drywall but it's still an unfinished. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not conditioned space? BROOKE EPPERSON : It's not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if there's any plumbing in there, is there a bathroom? BROOKE EPPERSON : There is not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's easy enough. Rob any questions from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have one question, the proposed closed storage building in the front of the house, you're basically moving the existing shed and you're starting out with a blank slate; Is there any way to make one of these variances go away? I mean I understand it needs to be close to the side yard, can we make a front yard variance go away? Can that be moved? BROOKE EPPERSON : In considering we wanted to keep so right now it's the two sheds, one's here and the one in the front we're going to move and (inaudible). The door to the shed we want to keep faces the back of the property so MEMBER LEHNERT : No I get that but•is there a way to take the whole building and make that 37 feet into 50 that's required? BROOKE EPPERSON : We would have to move the existing shed that we wanted to keep or we can move it to the back of that and then we would have to move the door which wouldn't (inaudible) touching that existing shed. MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay that was just my question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why you're making an L shape out of it. BROOKE EPPERSON : Correct. 32 October 10,2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it doesn't intrude too much 'into the front of the house area. Probably if they went and put it on the opposite side of the existing shed they would have to move the door they'd need a side yard variance. MEMBER LEHNERT : They need a,side yard no matter what. I was trying to see if we'can make one go away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand that's a good question. Sometimes you can sometimes you can't, Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was my question. So I'm still a little perplexed why you couldn't make it more of a rectangular structure adding on to the existing shed but you've answered what your interest is. I would just Like to see one of the variances potentially go away'myself. BROOKE.EPPERSON : I mean that's something I can discuss with our client perhaps there is something we can work out getting rid of the front yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : just moving it 13 feet.'So you would still have a bit of an L but it wouldn't be to the same degree. BROOKE EPPERSON : I can just we'll discuss that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to do that then? BROOKE EPPERSON : Yeah. E CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? I think what we'll do then to see if there's any possibility of redesigning that proposed addition to the existing shed building which is separated from the' part you're removing why don't I adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks BROOKE EPPERSON : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and that way you can give us an alternative or say well we looked at it and it didn't seem feasible and you can explain why it wasn't 'feasible. Otherwise you could perhaps come up with a way to remove the front yard setback and so I'm fully prepared to close the hearing, I don't believe we're going to need another hearing on this. I just think what we need to do is to see what your alternative might be and if we receive the information in a timely way and have no further questions we'II'close it and we may be if we get it soon enough we may be prepared to vote on a decision that same evening. So we won't delay the applicant any more it just depends on when you get it to us. The sooner the better that way we can write up a draft and discuss it that evening. , 33 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting BROOKE EPPERSON : I'll definitely-get it to you before you said two weeks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. BROOKE EPPERSON : I will definitely get it to you within then. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other question if I could ask, during the site inspection the sort of greenhouse potting shed building I noticed there was a drain that just existed, there's an actual sink that you could see. BROOKE EPPERSON : In the garden? MEMBER PLANAMENTO ': In that garden shed and it just exists I guess it's the west side property line so it's not going into a dry well or anything that could be addressed, or incorporated into and it doesn't appear I th'ink it's just cold water coming from the house just so you could rinse off something or whatever but I think that probably should be tied into the dry well with the leaders and gutters. BROOKE EPPERSON : Okay I'll address that'too with what we bring back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that it? Good alright, I'll make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on October 24th. 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) 34 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7303 SE—WILLIAM GORMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William Gorman since it was adjourned from the August 15th meeting .I will not read the description of the relief requested into the record again. Last we left off we were in the process of atterripting.to get a Special Exception Permit for a two family dwelling and let's see where we are,with that.' MIKE KIMACK : Good afternoon, Michael Kimack on,behalf of the applicant who is also present. I understand that at your last Special Exception meeting in the letter you suggested that you had some additional questions: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've since have gone back and inspected the+'property and one of the concerns that we had was ongoing construction not only on the two family dwelling which I informed the Building Inspector he should not put a Stop Work Order on because you are before this Board attempting to obtain,approval. However there's construction going on the additional building that's on the east side of the property and.we also had him investigate the garage the "as built" garage'and discovered from his point of view although it was locked that there is no question that it's being used as an apartment. There's new electric, there's propane, there's an air conditioner and there's evidence that someone is living there and'has been. We also wanted to let you know I believe you entered into the record at one point that you were going to figure out later on what you wanted to do with that. It was at one point the vacuum cleaner place and an antique place after that. I checked through the records with a fine tooth comb on both the Building Department and the Zoning Board. I see it.at one point there was an application for a use variance. That application was withdrawn it never came through with fruition. We do know that people had been living in that building and we,really can't approve the Special Exception two family without addressing the entirety of the property. So we're going to have to,deal with that now in order for us to render any decision about this two family dwelling. The variance is not complicated. That's the other thing having to do with that building. If we're going to intensify the use, first of all for one thing; from what I can 'see there was there's a long history on that vacuum cleaner structure. The commercial use has long been abandoned therefore extinguished. It received a Zoning Board relief way back in the day which' allowed for more than fifty percent expansion of what was a previous building that no one. could find a record on but this was a new building anyway but it limited it strictly to vacuum cleaner sales which I know is problematic because no one is doing that anymore. So there was an attempt to4igure out if anything else could be done but it's a very small lot. Even though it looks like two properties because of a hedge row and two driveways, it is one property. The survey that you submitted shows a proposed second floor addition to that building. That's what it says. So some of these other.things we have to clear up because the only thing that we can do ,in granting a Special Exception Permit this is why we wanted to talk to you to just make.sure 35 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting what you are thinking in a public forum where you had an opportunity to address any comments is some storage on-the property because you're going to be doubling,the use with two dwellings basically on the,property and by the way we did get your letter indicating that you would delegate one of those units for affordable unit which is a very big benefit to the town and which basically it is very favorable in terms,of granting relief for the Special Exception. Do you want to say something? Bill Gorman speaking. WILLIAM GORMAN : Sure so hi, the building the commercial building the old vacuum cleaning store is I put a little bit of additional storage in there. I moved out of storage space shop space in Cutchogue over by (inaudible). My whole shop and I put it in that storage building. If you were there you saw that it's just now it's just my construction equipment and it's really is just storage. I have ladders on'the side and that sort of thing so it's,storage. There were several we had several possibilities for that space. I was either going to build a second floor and do an office for me a private office above it. That was the original intention for the second floor. We were going to go and see if kind of commercial application could be presented to the Board perhaps or and most likely what I'm going to do as I've gone to the Planning Board; a year ago we talked about splitting that piece off taking (inaudible) and selling it to Mattabella Vineyards. That may be What happens. I would say probably, ultimately,that'll be the final disposition of that although we have to come to an agreement about price and we have a little bit of an antagonistic relationship right now but we've been talking about selling that building in one Way or another or renting it to them or one way or another for eight years, ten years so it's very much on the realm of possibility. As long as we have a corresponding amount of square footage on the opposite side of the property they would certainly look at it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that would require a lot line change that you know that's going to require a lot of different things. I think the Board was concerned with why ongoing construction on that building was taking place without benefit of a permit or without any designated agreed to use because right now you go ahead and get a two family dwelling on there, all the accessory structures are going to be have to be accessory to that dwelling. WILLIAM GORMAN : Understood and it is now you know I put the place is kind was nasty`after people had been using it for many things and we just took off the sheet rock put plywood up on the walls. I did do a little partial loft and on the inside just hanging from it's got its own structure that hold it up and admittedly we did that needing-a little bit more space and rather than go up]just kind of dropped part of the ceiling down. MEMBER DANTES : So you're saying it's storage/workshop? WILLIAM GORMAN : It's not even if you look inside there really isn't space for that. It's jus storage. It's all our equipment 36 October 10; 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any plumbing in there. WILLIAM GORMAN : There is but it's all disconnected now. There's a toilet and sink. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So at the moment it's a disconnected toilet and sink? WILLIAM GORMAN : Well the toilet is still there, the sink is out. We did do an enclosure for it in thinking we ,would ultimately put the sink back in there and toilet so it had an operating (inaudible) our septic system already so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the toilet functioning? WILLIAM GORMAN : I think I would yeah flush it Would. It's' been thereAt was there with the original building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any conditioned space, any heating at all? WILLIAM GORMAN : The whole thing has a heater. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the vagueness of the future and the present of that structure is problematic. It's just,troublesome because as I said you're not going to be living in those apartments I presume. WILLIAM GORMAN : It would be nice to stay there though and have that place where I keep my equipment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I'm sure it would be. WILLIAM GORMAN : So how do we make it non-problematic? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean the fact that it's storage is an appropriate accessory but it's accessory to a two family dwelling and neither family of which is using it. The way it might work would be if it became a garage for one ,apartment and then you have a garage for another apartment. They're not apartments they're dwellings okay. So that I could see but they should be related to whoever it is using that'property and not somebody else even though you are the owner and you're going to rent these I presume or are you going to sell these units? WILLIAM GORMAN : I'm going to rent them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going,to,rent them. Well I don't know, perhaps there's a legal opinion. T. A. DUFFY : Well the problem is if it's not related to the single family dwelling you're creating another use on the property. You're already receiving a lot area variance for the two.family 37 October 10,'2019 Regular Meeting house correct? So then when you're putting another use on the property you're not meeting the bulk schedule you need further variance relief if that building is not related to the two family dwelling. ' MIKE KIMACK : Bill the other building had already had a C. 0. T. A. DUFFY : What was the C. O. for? MIKE KIMACK : The C. 0. was for something which is no longer feasible. T. A. DUFFY : So it's nothing then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the C. 0. is extinguished. . T. A. DUFFY : You don't get to keep MIKE KIMACK : So the building basically is a floater. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. T. A. DUFFY : That's why it's problematic. WILLIAM GORMAN : A floater? MIKE KIMACK : It's there but it,doesn't have a C.O. of any particular a legalized use factor attached to it. Well an accessory building without legality. MEMBER DANTES : The building is legal it's the use. You need to come up with a code conforming use. T. A. DUFFY : Not just a code conforming use you have to conform to the bulk schedule. You're way out of proportion to the bulk schedule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a little lot that's what we're concerned about. MIKE KIMACK : If the building is going to be used for anything at all (inaudible) not a garage not a storage'area then there would be absolutely no concern or nothing anyway. If you're going to use it for storage or if you're going to use it for a,garage or future office or something like that. What the Board is suggesting is that they want some clear direction for that use so that they can incorporate that I would imagine. T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) agree because didn't you said it was a C.O. but isn't it a pre C.O. for that building? MIKE KIMACK : Pre C.O. 38 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : So it's a pre-existing non-conforming use if you abandon that pre-existing non- conforming use you don't even have that use for that building anymore. All you have now is a non-conforming bu-ilding, that we don't know the use of it. You have no rights to use that building for anything and you don't meet°the bulk schedule. The only way-you can,ever legalize that I see without further variance relief is somehow make it,accessory to,a two family dwelling which we're hearing right now is not what it's being used for. MIKE KIMACK : Well it's being used for his construction material. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could it be used for a garage? WILLIAM GORMAN : Could I put a second floor on it so I have some space there on the property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really. See the point is you're moving off that property in granting a two family dwelling. What we're saying is you have the right, as the owner of the parcel and the owner of the structures to rent them but all the buildings have to be accessory to ,that dwelling and the uses have to be accessory to that dwelling. So it's a heck of a big building for just ordinary residential storage which is why the better use would be to say one of the dwellings gets the existing garage which will have to have the removal of a lot of things to storage to its original garage purpose. It cannot be used for habitation. It can't be an accessory apartment. It's just going to have to go back to storage, general storage or storage of cars relative to one of those dwellings. T. A. DUFFY : I don't know where you are with where it's situated on the property'as far as setbacks but youre probably going to have to come back here and I don't know if the Building Department is going to issue a building permit for it. MIKE KIMACK : We talked about that. Even if he sold it Bill basically and we move the line we reestablish the line whether the next door,neighbor bought it they'd come in and do a variance anyway because it's only (inaudible) ', T. A. DUFFY :.You're going to use that an accessory the Pre C. 0. is not valid anymore'. If you're going to change the use to accessory to the two family dwelling you're going to have to get a variance relief for that building then to get a C. 0. for that accessory building. So I don't know if you want to do that now come up with the use now, amend your variance application to do that because otherwise you're going to have to wait and come back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean the thing is the Board is favorably inclined to grant what you're asking for but we have to clean up and legalize everything on that property and it's a very small parcel. You can't have more than one principle use there, it's that simple. Now if you October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting want to sell it that's a whole other story-but I think that would allow you to preserve that building but then you're going to have to come back for a lot line change ,probably for insufficient lot area for a two family dwelling because it's a very small piece of property. WILLIAM GORMAN Well [ know I can't increase the level of non-conformity that's why we would swap it for the corresponding (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be for that lot but it would also impact the residential lot that you own that you're putting this two family structure on. You might need a side yard variance, depends on-where that line goes. You would need a variance probably for the lot area because it's already too small a lot in the zoning so now you're going to make 'it even smaller and you're going to need an even bigger variance for a reduced lot size. I mean to me the simplest way to do is, if you need that storage move the building to another place and use it any way you want that's allowed, we're done. We can do the restore the garage as,a condition of approval. I don't know is there a kitchen in there? WILLIAM GORMAN : You're talking about moving the commercial building? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah. How big'is that a two garage or a one? WILLIAM GORMAN : One. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a one car garage. Well the point is it can be accessory to the dwelling as a garage. It's standard and ordinary but you're going to have to restore it to a garage. Whatever habitable space is in there, if there's a kitchen, if there's a bathroom; you are allowed a half bath in ,an accessory garage but that's it. No conditioned space, no air- conditioning that's gotta go. It's got to be back to a garage and not an apartment. WILLIAM GORMAN : Just to be clear it's not an apartment now nor will it be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't confirm, we know,someone was living in it that's-all we can confirm. I don't know what's in there because the Building Inspector told me that it was locked, he knocked and there was no available access. So' he couldn't really go in and tell us exactly what's in there except to say that I've observed this, this and this on the outside which you know that's it. So honestly what we really wanted there weren't (inaudible) questions as a discussion for you to understand where the Board is with this. It's a big ask but it's an ask that seems reasonable given the fact that you can now legalize everything on this property which has been problematic for a long time and you know go forth with two rentable nice rentable dwellings one of which will be affordable and with a garage on there.The sheds have Pre C.O.'s MIKE KIMACK : He was going to do both, affordable. 401 October 10; 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's even better. WILLIAM GORMAN : 1 know my septic system will handle six bedrooms and if I do it was certified to handle six and if I do two three bedrooms then I would be quite happy to do both affordable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's wonderful. I mean we need them badly in this town and that again bodes well for the granting of this you know Special Exception Permit but I want both of you to be really clear about what we see are the history and historic problems on the property and how we can go forward with legalizing everything and cleaning it yp,. The property is little, it just can't bear any more than what you're asking for and that's a good,ask but you gotta be reasonable about what you think you can do on this property. WILLIAM GORMAN : So I can make it storage an accessory storage building for the two family right that's one of the uses? o T. A. DU'FFY : Yeah the only thing you're probably going to need variance relief for the location. - r MEMBER DANTES ' It's a side yard location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a side yard. It's actually in the front yard I think. It's in the side yard. So an accessory see it was put there when it was a different use and the footprint stayed there and you've used it and renovated it now and but the bottom line is it's in a side yard location and accessories are required to be in a rear yard. You can move it back then you would need a rear yard setback. MEMBER LEHNERT : I think the setbacks are the least of the issues. MEMBER DANTES : So Leslie you're asking him to get an amended Notice of Disapproval, come back CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's one way to go. WILLIAM GORMAN : Can we do that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can amend the Notice of Disapproval. WILLIAM GORMAN : Amend this one and come back next month with the setback variance under the building? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and propose get rid of the second story MIKE KIMACK : And propose it as storage. 41 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and propose it for storage as an accessory to the two family dwelling and the restoration on the garage to a strictly garage and storage for the two family dwelling. I don't care who gets what. r WILLIAM GORMAN : You're talking about the building in the corner the little barn? MEMBER LEHNERT : It's put down as framed garage here. No one can be living there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Ao habitable space and it should not be heated either. Cars don't need heat, storage doesn't need heat. MEMBER LEHNERT : There's an air conditioner in the window. MIKE KI MACK : So it has to stripped down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do know what a garage looks like I know you know. We don't have to describe what a framed garage is. WILLIAM GORMAN : No I know, I know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Restore it to what the survey and the C. 0. says, come back for variance relief for the side yard location for a storage building as an accessory to the rental unit. MIKE KIMACK : The conversion of that back building to only a garage with no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN The survey currently says proposed second story, that's when you didn't know what you'wanted to do and you were just put it down MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we also get plans for the accessory building what's going on inside of it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I think so. You know if you're going to do any renovation on the framed garage we should probably have plans for that. That's easy enough for you to do. MEMBER LEHNERT : And the vacuum store. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's storage the Building Department will be required no partitions it's just got to be open. WILLIAM GORMAN : For the garage. MIKE KIMACK : No for the vacuum building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's call it the vacuum building. We all know that one. October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting WILLIAM GORMAN : A little toilet CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can have a half bath. You can have a sink and toilet in there. WILLIMA GORMAN : There's windows, there's no partition. I understand what you're saying. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I can also a point of clarification also relative to the pre-existing building the former vacuum structure, I think you suggested the possibility storage as an accessory to the two family house or it can also be used as a garage. You have a'lot of storage for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean frankly you'd probably better off since you have two Pre- C.O.'s on two little sheds in the back you'd probably be better off using it as a second garage because you're rental value is going to go up. If you got each of those units having a garage a one car garage that certainly will increase the value probably far,more than saying you could put all your stuff there. WILLIAM GORMAN Included in our 'amendment application I'm going to put two three bedroom units instead of one three bedroom, one two bedroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's up to the Health Department and the Building Department. We want to make sure we stamp whatever plans you want so make the amendment. We're only looking at a Special Exception for two family a two family dwelling. How many bedrooms you have is dependent upon the Health Department and as long as in fact we should probably get from you, Health Department.certification on the septic. MIKE KIMACK; It's coming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be great. Then we'll have that cleaned up and you want to amend it to three bedrooms that's fine. If you'd like to submit information that both would be on you know the eligible for someone on the affordable housing registry that's perfect and think you know if they were both wind up garages, one car garages I think the Building Department and this Board will be very happy and I think the town would be too. MIKE KIMACK : We will resubmit the site plan and relabel the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Label as accessory garage in a side yard, amend the variance for an accessory garage in a side yard. MEMBER LEHNERT : And plans for the old vacuum cleaner building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Show it as a garage. I would just submit it as a garage you know.an accessory garage with a half bath you know 43 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting WILLIAM GORMAN : As storage. r CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the vacuum cleaner building MEMBER LEHNERT : Show us what's going on inside of it. MIKE KIMACK : The vacuum cleaner building. MEMBER LEHNERT : Clearly there's partitions in there. WILLIAM GORMAN : Okay understood. r CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob seems to think that there's partitions in there. MEMBER LEHNERT : He testified that there's partitions in here already. WILLIAM GORMAN : What's that? MIKE KIMACK : The vacuum cleaner building could be either a two car garage or storage clean with no partitions. The garage in the back section has to be cleaned up to only be a garage-with no heat and no air conditioning system (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct. MIKE KIMACK : And that has to be so indicated CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I mean the second floor of the garage the second story can certainly be storage but you need to show it just as storage. MIKE KIMACK : So we'll do some elevation shots on that and also on the storage building. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe while you're at that one other thing that just came up just 'as I'm thinking about it, if you're choosing to use that, building meaning the vacuum the former vacuum cleaner store as a garage maybe you show part of where the driveway access is or if you're abandoning. Just cause it's tough road there and I'm just wondering how people come and go. If your driveway is on the west side of the house so maybe MIKE KIMACK : Not very easily. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right well that's what I'm saying. WILLIAM GORMAN : You can totally pull in straight. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) whenever I drive by and there's like a large cab or something. I don't know just maybe I'm living in my memory but maybe just since you're going 4 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting to the effort to document everything you show where the driveways, the curb cut or if you're abandoning one so there's only one access point that's up to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be part of the survey. I mean that's one reason why I think it would be an excellent garage cause you have the curb cut. You have the driveway and the unit dwelling unit on that side could easily walk through just make a hole through your hedgerow or just pull in the car walk through to your house. I'll let you think about it. Either one would be you know fine because they're permitted uses as long as they are accessory to and I think I would probably deem if you want to use it as storage I would designate the garages or the garage storage to dwelling unit A and dwelling unit B. It's going to be totally clear. In other words the one with the framed garage that unit well actually yours is upstairs downstairs isn't it. MIKE KIMACK : I know what you mean. (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So actually it's a good creative time to think about the parking and where you want people to park for one unit and people to park for the other unit so you know I think this could be productive to you and also when you do the final layout of everything and figure out how ingress and egress is going to happen and where people's cars are going to go and I think you're going to have a very viable project when it's all over with. Pat any comments or questions or Eric anything further. You guys want to talk about it? You're the only ones in the audience. Here's the problem, we were disturbed by the fact that people are waiting we're so back logged people are waiting like four months to get on the calendar and we didn't like that so what we chose to do of our own volition is to move from January and February and December a whole bunch more hearings forward. We're doubling up on hearings plus we have that huge Enclaves project we're going to do a special meeting in November at 5 o'clock a Special Public Hearing so November is just nuts. MEMBER DANTES : Do we need another hearing on this? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we probably do. I mean I want you to be able to present what you've done and MIKE KIMACK : We've got a little bit of work to do obviously CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Surveyors don't move that fast you know anyway so December is nuts too but not quite as'bad as November. MIKE KIMACK : I would suggest time wise December would probably be almost a better time just to get it together. 45 October 10, 2019 Regula1r'Meeting WILLIAM GORMAN : You know what the problem is, the Building Department won't do any inspections now because I don't have a two family designation CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. WILLIAM GORMAN : So I'm like on hold. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but that's the way it is. I mean you proceeded without benefit to redesign that building without benefit of the permit anyway. You didn't have the Special Exception Permit when you started this construction. So the good news is their not going to mess with you because we told them lay off they're trying to legalize everything. So you're not going to get fined but yes indeed they aren't going to do inspections until we straighten this stuff out. MIKE KIMACK : We will do our best on our side with the architect and the surveyor to get the information back to you, submit it to the Building Department and get an amended Disapproval letter and submit that back to you and that hopefully we'll be able to fall,within a reasonable time schedule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good I think we're all on the same page. WILLIAM GORMAN : So are we going to go into December? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MIKE KIMACK : Most likely we will•only because it's already the middle of October by the time we WILLIAM GORMAN : They just said November is full. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's full but it will also take you quite a while to get all the stuff together. MIKE KIMACK : December is realistic to put our information together. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And if you need to adjourn to January you'll let us know if you're not ready. WILLIAM GORMAN : I'll be ready. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That'll be on you not us. Anything else from the Board, anybody want to say anything else? I think we really understand the full, so I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to December 5th. Is there a second? 46 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting 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#7309—ROBERT YEDID CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The application before us now is for Robert Yedid #7309 adjourned from September 12th so you're before us for the same reasons as previous so I won't read the Legal Notice in the record, there's no need to do that. We did receive and reviewed your letter dated October-8t I h just so you're aware we've all got that. So what would you like us,to know now? ROBERT YEDID : Well thank you very much we appreciate the opportunity to address the Board again. I think a few items I just want to 'emphasize from the letter that I provided to you, number one is that an undesirable change to the character of the,neighborhood, I would say that the pool is substantially screened from all my neighbors and from the street level where there are six foot high very attractive vinyl fencing, solid so that works quite well.,Number two, would also say that I've gone to a few of the residents including John (inaudible) who's the president of the Beixedon Estates and he basically said that he thinks that the pool is a positive addition to the home and to the neighborhood as well as some other residents in the area including Jeff (inaudible) who lives right next door to me has complimented us on the pool as a positive addition. The other thing is the Board had asked for us to do sori-me'research on the other pools in,the area. There are nine pools along the four streets that I stated in the letter. There are many homes that either face,the creek, there are nine homes there all face the Peconic River along the waterfront and there's five there. So the'density of the pools that I can't do this with any huge precision but looking at various maps etc. from satellite view it does seem like the density of pools is higher in Beixedon Estates than it happens to be in other neighborhoods nearby. So that's the first item. The second item you can't can we make achieve 47 October 10,,2019 Regular Meeting the basically the variance by some other feasible method, we have made the changes that we talked about at the last meeting. First off the shed has been reduced in size. Bill corrected me today, we've taken it from 10 by 12 foot shed down to an 8 by 10 foot shed. So I'm sorry that was incorrect I wrote 10 by 10; so it's 8 by 10. We also now have a five foot clearance from both the back and the right hand side of the property so basically the shed has been reduced in' size by approximately 33%. Then finally Long Island Pool Care has installed a substantial additional dry well on the property 5 feet by 10 being 4 feet deep and that will provide drainage both for the pool itself as well as for the biweekly back washing. I think this addresses your point that you made last time we were here that it should not be dumped on water should not be dumped on the property so we've you know at our expense reduced the size of the shed as well as added this back well so it would be properly drained. The other question is, is the amount of relief whether is it not substantial, again this pool has been installed by a local pool builder from Long Island Pool Care. It's not visible to my neighbors and hasn't imposed any hardship on them in fact again as I mentioned a number of them have complimented us on the pool and it really doesn't have any impact on the neighboring properties because of the placement of the pool and the substantial screening that's in place. Then finally is there any impact on the physical or environmental conditions. This is a self-contained pool with regards to a brand new pump filtration system etc. and also we added both drywells in the spring 2018 and then more recently last7month so we believe that this is very much meets all•the code with regards to the necessary drywell containment.,I would also submit to the Board and I'm sorry I ,don't have more copies but in (inaudible) the Board asked last time for you know a new survey. I have two copies sorry I don't have more maybe that could be shared. With regards those surveys show the location of the septic system, the cesspool and at (inaudible) in bright red the (inaudible) new dry well on the side of the house so that's the new survey. Then finally I believe there has been an application made for an outdoor shower that has been submitted to the town. Then the fifth point is was thi's allegedly difficulty self-created and obviously it was self- created but we believe that you can understand the you can go through the language I Won't go through it in detail but it's one that you know we tried to ameliorate as many of the other four conditions and hopefully that because of other case law in this area it's hopefully we ask the Board respectfully to provide us for this variance. Those are the majdr points. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We asked you well first of all let me just comment on this, this is not a new survey.•We can only accept things that are stamped by a licensed professional. This is just a hand drawing you know over a copy of your original survey, that's the first thing. The second thing is, if you have reduced the size of the shed and now removed two variances because you moved them to a conforming setback you probably reduced the lot,coverage also. Although you did so without finalization from this Board so even though you spent considerable expense r doing it that was sort of our priority. I mean we may have required that you remove the shed in 48 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting order to reduce the lot coverage.'-I'd like to know exactly what the,lot coverage is now because if you reduced the size of the shed, it may not be significant but it will be something right. So at least we need to know what the current lot coverage is now with the smaller shed on it. T. A. DUFFY : Do you have that number? ROBERT YEDID : I would say that I can come back to you with an exact number. I would say probably in the neighborhood of 25% but it's not going to be below that. I'm just,saying that -we've reduced it from you know,, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 25.9% 1 guess is what ROBERT YEDID : Yeah I would say it's probably 25.5, between 25.and 25.5 would be based on a rough estimate that I can make but I can doubt it's below that because we've reduced it only by 40 sq. ft. so it's not substantial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not going to be consequential. ROBERT YEDID : Rut that also increased the variances to the back yard, back fence and to the right hand side fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's start with Eric do you want to ask,questions or make some comments? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions or comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, two points that you mentioned earlier in your discussion. First you sort of polled the neighborhood relative to the pool and you indicated that there are several people that supported you (inaudible) that you're verbally sharing with us. Do you have any evidence in writing, letters or submission, anything to support that these comments are actually true and valid? ROBERT YEDID : Sure I'm'happy,to get,those from John Wren and Jeff (inaudible) who are the neighbors who are closest to my property and submit those. I don't have,those with me today but I spoke with John and with Jeff and happy to make those available to you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the other point is you mentioned that the neighborhood has many pools in it and you said nine, I'm not familiar with the location of the pools, lot coverage etc. in,those situations or even if like your if they have a valid permit. Did you do any research relative to prior variances granted in your neighborhood for similar hardship? October 10, 20,19 Regular Meeting ROBERT YEDID : No I have not done that, happy to do that research. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think one of the biggest problems here was the lot coverage. If you had built this without (inaudible) and had gone into the Building Department and had in a conforming rear yard and had no lot coverage problem or no shed setback problem you wouldn't be before the Board. They would have issued you a C.O. So the lot coverage is the primary concern and the removal of the shed was one way to reduce it but we also had asked you-to see if you can find other variance relief-in your neighborhood for excessive'lo.t coverage. That will help your case. If everybody that put in anything on their properties all conforming no greater than 20% that weakens your case. If this Board has granted you know 22, 23, 25% lot coverage to other properties in your neighborhood then there's a precedent that we can look at and that's how we define the character of the neighborhood more fully. Also`by looking at variance relief because if we granted a whole bunch of similar variances for. lot coverage then why would we deny yours, on what grounds would, that make sense. So, that's the kind of information that helps. Meanwhile we will require a survey that you can wait on it if you think you're going to be doing anything else on this property but at the moment this is the surveyor who is more likely to calculate the lot coverage for us and stamp it with an update date and showing a conforming setback for the shed. If you can I think probably before you go through that I would see if you can make the argument for lot coverage because rather than spending additional money on something that may not be so viable because it's too much lot coverage I'd come back and find out if you have a case there. Then submit a final survey showing what the lot coverage is. The priors can say yes this is similar to other prior variances that have been granted with lot coverage. The shed is now conforming in location. I don't have to remove it because we have other variances that show similar lot coverage relief and then you can put it on a survey that we can stamp and that's that. Mostly it's very tough for us as you can imagine because we're very respectful of property rights and the amount of money homeowners spend but when people don't come before us with clean hands you know, if you had come in and asked for this before you built it the likely hood is we might have said make the pool a little smaller, don't put in the shedand-we would have granted it because it's in a conforming location. You're right about the fact that there's other pools in the neighborhood. It's a common accessory to a dwelling. You would have had a strong argument. ROBERT YEDID : Right. Can I just make one'point? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. ROBERT YEDID : I mean the lot I don't think my wife and I were aware that the home, the home had' already existed on the property was 19% lot coverage. Had we known that.we were so close to this 20% limit we probably would not have bought this home because the size of the 4 SO October 10; 2019'Regular Meeting pool that we could have built was so de minimus to stay within 20% you'know it wouldn't have been viable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm not suggesting that it would have been.] am suggesting that knowing that you could have come before this Board with a proposal for a pool and taken your chances. ROBERT YEDID : Obviously I did not T. A. DUFFY : You would have gotten some relief but not all the relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you might have gotten 23%, 24% relief. We would have been able to talk to you about it. Now when you come with a done deal, this- makes it very challenging. ROBERT YEDID : Again I'm very sorry that we did that.] did not understand the regulations and went forward with the thought that I'd get a permit at a future date which I was incorrectly led to believe. So that was my mistake and I'm again very sorry about that. The shed also I mentioned was a pre-existing shed on the property. That was not something we installed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right I got that. It probably didn't have excessive lot coverage at the time. The shed was probably included with the house as part of,the lot coverage and it might have even been a conforming setback because it used to be 3 feet is, all that was required, now it's 5:So it could have been just totally kosher. Rob do you wantto make any comments? MEMBER LEHNERT : My comments are these drywells you installed. Did you guys get a permit or anyone from the Town to look at what's there, what's required, do they conform to the setbacks for drywells from both the town and Health Department or did you just go and install a drywell? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Dry well for the pool? MEMBER LEHNERT : You're-showing three pieces on.what you call a survey. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : No those are cesspool and septic. l CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you just lower the mic and just state your name again. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Bilal Antintoprak. Those two circle holes, one's for the septic, one's for MEMBER LEHNERT : For the drywell? October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : No cesspool and septic. Drywell is the little rectangle. MEMBER LEHNERT : Was this just recently installed all this? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : No, no septic and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says located there. MEMBER LEHNERT : So you know there's setback requirements between septic, drywells, leeching pools MEMBER DANTES : And the swimming pool. 4 MEMBER LEHNERT : and the swimming pool, property lines, foundations you know all about that from the Health Department? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : I didn't do that so this is for the MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay so you've got septic and,the cesspool. So now where is the overflow pool you guys installed? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK,: Fo'r the drywell. MEMBER LEHNERT :-Drywell for the pool. ROBERT YEDID : lt's,quite far from the MEMBER LEHNERT : How do you put it right next to the property line? There's a setback from the property line that's required a minimum of 10 feet. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : For the drywell? MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct.That's why I.was asking did you guys get any permit from the town for anyone who designed this thing cause you can't just go out digging holes and putting drywells in. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Plus the pool needs to be I think it's 25'feet from the septic. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I,don't think it's 25 feet. -MEMBER LEHNERT :'It's probably not. Most likely if you went to Health Department the septic would have to be'-replaced to the front. y October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unfortunately there are legal regulations for these things for a reason. It has to do with health and sanitation, has to do with drainage, has to do with protecting your neighbor's property. T. A. DUFFY : The bottom line is you have to stop doing work without permits. MEMBER LEHNERT : I've been in the construction industry a long time and I've never seen a square pool drainage. Do you have pictures of what went in the ground? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The last thing we want you to do is go through all this rigmarole and then find out that you're going to be denied by the Building Department because you put the drywell in the wrong place, your septic is in the wrong place cause you didn't know it needed to be separated from the swimming pool by a certain and you would have probably found that out had you gotten a permit to do the pool. MEMBER LEHNERT : In the first place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They would have said no you're not allowed to put it there because your septic is there. It just gets worse. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Did you also say that you had you were asking the Building Department for permission for the shower? MEMBER LEHNERT : What is this? ROBERT YEDID : An application has been made at this time for the outdoor shower to be made. MEMBER ACAMPORA : So that's something else to be added on to it. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's flex pipe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is this supposed to be? BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : That's the drywell for the backwash. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's not a drywell. MEMBER LEHNERT : That's not a drywell. That's not a precast concrete drywell. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : Everybody is doing that. MEMBER LEHNERT : You might do that but that's not what the law says. I've never seen that. 531 I October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know. This is the kind of thing people put underground in order to drain it out onto the street basically, illegally. It's MEMBER LEHNERT : A French drain on a good day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On a good day it's a French drain not a drywell. Well you know some of this is going have to be taken up with the Building Department it looks like to me because no matter what we decide they're going to get you on this stuff. I think the best thing to do at this point is to go in there and talk with them and talk to the Health Department and find out exactly what's on your property and where it's located, what they will require you to do what the law is going to allow before we do anything and see about the lot coverage. Meanwhile we're not holding up anything it's sitting there it's too cold to swim anyhow so I wouldn't worry about it at the moment you know what I mean. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I want to add if I may when you're talking about the lot coverage, lot coverage specific to base it on not in New Suffolk or in Orient CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea we're just talking about in the neighborhood it has to be in context. You did that well with swimming pools, you basically said well its characteristic in this development that there are swimming pools in back yards alright but we need to see many of them may not have required variances at all because if it's in a conforming location without excessive lot coverage then they wouldn't have needed any relief. ROBERT YEDID : So I have a sample set of nine because my question to the Board respectfully is (inaudible) meaningful sample set that really I mean (inaudible) for me to find out about variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. ROBERT YEDID : It is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You might basically say, okay in the estate there's nine swimming pools. It would not be that difficult because you've identified property tax map numbers and so on. We can look and see on Laser Fiche if any of those properties received variances. I mean I know the Wren's received variances but that was not for a swimming pool. We have instructions that the office can provide you as to how to go on Laser Fiche and do this research because you're not the first person that has to do that and nobody necessarily knows how. That's why they hire expeditors and so on who do know how and they prepare that case for you. If you're going do it yourself we'll do whatever we can to help you to find out you know if any of those swimming pools got lot coverage variances or any other kind for that matter. 5 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but I think it's also while this is a specific application for a pool and we're looking for lot coverage perhaps there's someone who put a sunroom on or an extra garage. We want it for lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick is absolutely right thank you for pointing that out. We don't care whether the lot coverage was for a swimming pool or for the house too big, or for putting on an accessory garage. All we care about is what is the lot coverage, what properties in that neighborhood have more than 20% lot coverage and received relief for it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And what percentage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what the percentage is cause that'll be right in the legal decisions that we deliberated on and you're absolutely right self-creation is not the only standard we apply but this is really self-created in way too many ways. ROBERT YEDID : Absolutely I don't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It just appears it's getting more complicated and convoluted for you which we're sorry about. We're not attempting to make your life miserable but you know the law is the law and we have sworn an oath to uphold it so we have only so much leverage when it comes to granting relief. The Board is obligated legally when we do grant relief to grant the minimum possible relief. In other words if you come before us with 26% lot coverage we probably wouldn't have gotten it down to something that's closer to the conforming number because that's what we're obligated to do. So we're not signaling you out but I want you to go away with a clear understanding of what the issues are so you can have an opportunity to address them. T. A. DUFFY : You have to understand that as an observer I am not speaking the law I'm watching this Board, people who have come in with 20 X 40 pools applications and got them denied or reduced. They might have gotten some relief but they didn't get them all. So now because they did it the right way their pool got reduced. So you have to justify what this Board has to justify what it does here with your application to all these people who did it the right way cause otherwise they can say well if I just build my pool I would have gotten it but because I did it the right way I got a smaller pool. So they have to look back but we also have to look forward to the future applications and say are they ever going to be able to control the size of a pool again or what type of relief because it sets a precedent for what they do going forward so you're worried about yourself which of course you should be but they have to look at a bigger picture and what the implications of a decision from this Board would do and that's like they said numerous times have reduced it to a smaller pool give them some relief not saying totally deny it but give some relief and that happens quite regularly. So now that's why it's such a fight 55 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting for this Board from what I can see that to grant (inaudible) previous applications and possible applications in the future. ROBERT YEDID : I understand your point Mr. Duffy. Just to be clear so I can lay out the things that I need to do so I can come back to this Board and the right way. Number one is to talk to the Building Department and the Health Department with regards to the distance from the septic pool to the swimming pool itself. To get the proper permitting for the dry well and install a (inaudible) regulation cast iron T. A. DUFFY : Don't (inaudible) ROBERT YEDID : No just getting an understanding what needs to be done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Obviously don't invest any more money just invest in information. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can he get a surveyor to show us what's underneath? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I mean that would be useful. It would be useful no matter what the outcome to have your survey.updated to show the current lot coverage with the smaller shed and to show exactly what's underground and it has to be stamped by a licensed professional or the Board can't take it. ROBERT YEDID : We had this survey updated as of September 2018 so we should go back to the same surveyor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would sure he's got it on auto cad or whatever. MEMBER LEHNERT : Any of the drywells, add your septic, anything underground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you have an irrigation system whatever plumbing you got over there we need to know about it because you should be able then to take that to the Building Department and Health and they can really then give you definitive information about yea that's permissible, that's not permissible and so on and then you can let us know what the outcome of that conversation was and if you come in with some additional information about lot coverage even if it's I couldn't find any. That's possible but we don't know, we don't know until we look. ROBERT YEDID : Right, understand and then the last item is to understand the lot coverage in the other homes that have pools within the Beixedon Estates. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't have to be pools. ROBERT YEDID : Other buildings. 56 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look at the properties in your neighborhood, how many of them have more than 20% lot coverage and how many of them got variances for it. Sometimes they have more than 20%, it's not recorded because it was pre-existing, pre-zoning before 1957 so some of the it's an old subdivision. ROBERT YEDID : No I can tell you I look at certain homes and I can tell you they were greater than 20%just based on the size of the lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you might knock on their door and say help me out I'm your neighbor. Do you have a survey showing you know what you're conditioning may not but ROBERT YEDID : Wouldn't that be on file? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It should be. Even if they don't have variances, if they pre-date zoning I mean the fact that they're still a bigger footprint than what the current code allows is important, it's important information. It talks about the substantiality, it talks about character of the neighborhood. Alright, any questions for us? ROBERT YEDID : No you answered my questions, I very much appreciate it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I can add one more item, if you would take photographs of the reduced shed and its location it would be helpful for our file too and if you do that today to show the movement I'm sure the grass isn't growing yet etc. since it was recently moved. ROBERT YEDID : We have those with us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be great. The surveyor will come and have a look (inaudible) but again as I said don't jump the gun we don't want you to go spend money that you may or may not find productive. If you have to change anything else or you have to put a drywell; the surveyors take a long time they're busy and I'd ask to do it all at once. ROBERT YEDID : We cut away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What happened? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They slit, you can see the concrete pad they slid the bar the shed they just cut out a part of the shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I don't know, if that's the roof hangs. 57 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the overhang is part of a side yard setback. That roof is still and they're going to include that lot coverage too. This is why you need to ask before you do stuff. ROBERT YEDID : Okay let me ask one question. Is there someone if I buy a completely different shed I will not do anything until I come back to this Board. Is there someone mentioned to me if we have a movable shed Mr. Wren asked me to ask this question MEMBER DANTES : It doesn't need a permit but it does get into the lot coverage as long as it's under 100 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 10 X 10 or less doesn't require a building permit but it will be calculated in lot coverage and setbacks. I mean certainly frankly at this point given the expense of that pool I would seriously think about getting rid of the shed altogether. At least that's one thing you can do to cooperate to reduce your lot coverage. Don't take it off until you know what that means. In other words, if I remove this shed and at this point the lot coverage is the same because you cut, the roof is still there. If you ask the surveyor if I took that off what would my lot coverage be. Then you'll know, you can come back and say if I remove the shed I'm down to 24%% whatever. ROBERT YEDID : There's no garage (inaudible) so that's the only issue for not that I have substantial you know it's a place to put bikes and beach chairs that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I totally understand that but we're in a predicament. MEMBER PLANAMENTO But I think that also speaks to you when you said that when you bought the house you were aware that it had 19.6% lot coverage. ROBERT YEDID : No I was not, V had no idea that (inaudible) and I did not there was a 20% restriction. Had I known this I would not have bought this house. Honestly and I was misinformed by several people, real estate agents, by pool companies etc. and it's unfortunate that I'm here to talk to you about this now (inaudible) in a completely different situation. I love being in Southold. I've rented here for four years, my son has been coming here for twenty years (inaudible) and I love this house but I would not have bought it and bought another home had I known I was going to run into these problems. Just want to be respectfully clear to what I ran into about my pre-existing knowledge (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unfortunately the standard legal comment on self-creation is that summarizing it, the buyer purchased the home and it is assumed that he had legal knowledge of what he was getting himself into more or less. ROBERT YEDID : I understand. 58 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what your obligation is. Well at least you understand what the issues are. MEMBER LEHNERT : I just pulled up the setbacks from the Health Department for the leaching structures and you have to be 10 feet from a property line, 20 feet from a swimming pool and 8 feet from a building with 10 feet from a building with a cellar. You have 12 foot side yard setback. There's no way this can go over here. BILAL ALTINTOPRAK : I understand. MEMBER LEHNERT : Look it up on Suffolk County Health Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Give him the website. MEMBER LEHNERT : SuffolkCountyHealthDepartment.gov. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What does he go to? What's the drop down the menu? MEMBER LEHNERT : It's not you have to look through the sanitary code. MEMBER DANTES : No I know but there's variances you can get from the sanitary code so I don't know what's actually under the ground. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah this is just a bulk schedule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, one of the things you may wind up having to do and it's not impossible that he can do, you might have to get a variance from the Health Department for what's already there. It was probably just fine until the pool went in. It may not have been I don't know how he got a permit I mean (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The house was built (inaudible) '57 or'58. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it might have been the code was probably different then that's the problem. MEMBER LEHNERT : The new Health Department code would make you put it in the front yard anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep. ROBERT YEDID : You're saying that if the septic tank, the cesspool etc. was built back in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Prior to zoning. ROBERT YEDID : Prior to zoning 59 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It may have been legal at the time because I don't think there would have been a C. 0. issued on a house at all without a legal Health Department ROBERT YEDID : We have a C. 0. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah so it has to have been legal but today you know by today's standards it isn't apparently, the code changed. That doesn't mean you wouldn't be grandfathered but having put the swimming pool there it, might have a different impact. That's why we're trying the Building Department will help you with that and they really should help. Just say the Zoning Board asked me to ask for your help because you clearly (inaudible) to things that you had no clue you know problems with this property. I'm sorry it appears that more problems are being created than solved at the moment but at some point it will all come together and we'll know exactly where you can go with this. ROBERT YEDID : I very much appreciate the guidance that you've given me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why don't we, we really can't do anything in November. ROBERT YEDID : Well I think it's going to take me some time to do the research etc. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the earliest we could you know have you come back before us would be in January. It's the one meeting that we're going to have not in this room because this room is so overly used and the Town Board is going to meet here. We're going to meet at Peconic Rec. Center on Peconic Lane. We'll have microphones set up and everything and the podium and whatever. We hate to have to do it but there's no way we can change our date it's too complicated. ROBERT YEDID : What date is that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :January 2"d ROBERT YEDID : And is there a meeting in February in the event I can't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes absolutely. ROBERT YEDID : And what's the date in February? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe it would just be easier all the way around cause we're pretty booked is to just adjourn it to February. Does that work for you or, why don't we just adjourn to February. We try to double up because people were waiting so long, we're so busy and I certainly was not satisfied with people waiting four months to get on a calendar so what the Board has graciously decided to do is to kind of take January and some February and just push them all into November and December so we can get through them and we'll just spend you October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting know we'll be here through the night if we have to but we're going to get all caught up so that people won't have to wait so long to get before this Board. So that's why we're so really boggled up for November and December. February 6th MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If we're adjourning to February the property is as I understand it at least by memory the outdoor shower doesn't have a C.O. or a building permit on it, so is that something then that can be achieved between now and then so he can show progress to clean things up? ROBERT YEDID : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. ROBERT YEDID : I don't see why not. We've already applied for it which is what I thought I stated earlier. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you did. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So at least that shows some movement come February. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alrighty, everybody good? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to February 6th, 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. We'll let you know what time. I didn't make,a specific time, I have to see who else is on the calendar and how many people are scheduled. Kim will let you know. 61 October 10, 2019 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. ,a - Signature : 4,1"� gk6 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : October 21, 2019 �92