The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-11/07/2019 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall Southold, New York November 7, 2019 9:41 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 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Phillip and Linda Kermanshahchi # 7330 3-6 Alvaro Martinez-Fonts#7332 6 - 17 Daniel J. Pacella and Catherine A. Pacella #7333 18 - 20 Steven and Jaci Osdoby#7331 20- 24 John and Kimberly Keiserman #7334 24- 29 Jean and Robert Rogers#7335 29 - 32 Elias and Jeannine Kassapidis#7336 33 -40 John McCall #7337 40-41 Gregory and Barbara Wood #7354 41 -44 Thomas Geise and Paulette Garafalo # 7339 44-47 Paul Pawlowski #7349 48 - 50 Susan and Timothy Milano #7293 50- 56 The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant# 7046 57 - 98 2 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING #7330— PHILLIP and LINDA KERMANSHAHCHI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Phillip and Linda Kermanshahchi #7330. This is a request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's May 17, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" second story on an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 60 feet located at 7213 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel. We don't have an LWRP on this but what we do have just so the record reflects, this is a front yard setback of 15.2 feet where the code requires-a 60 foot setback from a private right of way. PAT MOORE : May I hand up something? So what I handed up is the pre-existing or the map of pre-existing conditions from the seventies. It's a map that was prepared by Howard Young and this came from the town's records. It shows at the bottom that is was 1977 but the actual date is cut off but that's the period that we're talking about. This piece of property is part of a subdivision of three parcels at the end of the right of way and this used to be a camp ground I am told. Gerry Goehringer during one of the first hearings on this application was new as property just being a local from Mattituck and he remembered it being some type of a campground. So you can see that there is a structure there and that structure was very close to the road. That was the beginning of this house so the prior owners had taken the house and started doing renovations to it and changes. When you saw it, it came to you under Appeal 5986 for the garage you could actually see and Leslie was the only Board member at the time but if you looked in the garage the ceiling it was old doors that were used to finish the ceiling of the garage. It was quite an interesting house to say the least. So the original house is where it has been in this location since the seventies and it has been renovated and modified but, in place since that time. I gave you photographs because it's hard to describe precisely where this addition is. Back in Appeal 5986 1 came before the Board and the garage the first picture I give you is the front fagade that's the street fagade and that garage was being repaired at the time and the Building Department said no you need a variance because of the setback. The Zoning Board granted the variance at 14.4 because that's the actual distance shown on that survey at the time was the front yard setback. The surveyors I guess the equipment have gotten better and now the setback is showing at 15.2. 1 can't make heads or tails out of why the difference but there's been no change to the garage but that's the current measurement under the current survey. The addition that we're talking about is if you see the very front there is a triangular window, that was part of the variance application or that was part of the original drawing and the side view which is I give you a couple of different pictures it was tight taking pictures over there so I apologize my wonderful picture_taking. The second picture shows you the garage eave and then there's the specific dormer we're talking about steps back significantly and that's where the dormer had originally intended to be. What occurred is that during the after the variance was granted for the garage and the dormer the owners were 3 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting closing up or completing the building permit process and they were realizing that the room that was up there was very dark so they added the larger dormer with extra windows. The space was always finished space but it just was very dark. Not realizing that this modification would have been different than what the Board had seen even though it is further back from the street and dimension wise I don't have the exact dimensions if it's 15.2 and then the roof pitch is another 15 feet that brings you to 30 and then you have the dormer so it keeps going back, back, back. You can see from the pictures, this is very this is existing conditions and it was done right from the beginning under a building permit and apparently the Building Department were never called to close out the permit so they never saw the end result and when my client was in the process of preparing to sell the house they realized that through the title search process they realized that there was an open permit not realizing that the original permit for the garage work had not been closed out. So when they called the Building Department for the inspection the electrical inspection passed for the whole thing. The Building Department went back to the original drawings and said wait a second it's not matching and that's when they realized that they had to come back to the Board for a variance for the modification of the dormer that is stepped back as I said from the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat could I just interject for a second? You do all know that just the audience we've also inspected the property. We didn't do an interior inspection but we did inspect the property as we do with all applications. One thing that I want to question here is that the original ZBA approval which did not include that dormer also indicated on the determination that the plans were for a garage with a second floor which was to consist of unheated added storage. PAT MOORE : There are two parts yes. There are two parts of the garage, there is storage above the garage space and then behind the garage because the garage is you almost have the whole roofline being a garage. The back of the garage was space and honestly I will concede I don't know if that space that's behind it was a room originally whether I noticed that it was going to be finished or unfinished but it had always been sheet rocked and when they added the dormer it became habitable space because otherwise the one dormer let me go to the next submission because it will make more sense. So what the drawings were on the original variance I'm sorry I don't have enough for Mr. Duffy, so you can see that the dormer that was shown on the original drawing was a small dormer again it's setback from the garage and the plans and I don't have a copy of the full plans but it inside the center portion of the roof design there was the finished space. Again it's very possible that it was my lack of understanding what they wanted to do on this space above the garage and I did not realize that there was some possibility of even having any finished space. I was dealing with the garage and there CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All the variance refers to is a second floor attic storage, unfinished. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is just here say as to whether or not it was finished or unfinished. The bottom line is it was not legally finished. It, became finished space, a dormer was added. None of that was part of the original variance which is where the problem with the Building Department is because you have an open permit and additional work beyond the scope of the ZBA variance that was granted. PAT MOORE : Absolutely and that's why he had to come back and get this all cleaned up. What I do want to point out is that the height of the original structure did not change. It was always 17 feet and that's what it currently is. The setback again to the street side had not changed, the dormer is all occurring towards the rear and side yard and as I pointed out the setbacks originally granted were '14.4 and this setback is 15.2 but it's being measured from the same corner of the garage. The parcel itself is 2.9 almost 3 acres and in the prior hearing there was a record of the fact that Peconic Bay Blvd. this being a private road on the westerly side there are several houses, they front the opposite side but they are setback 3.1, 5.7 from the property line and on the east side which is the main house that'faces Peconic Bay Blvd. they are 25 feet from the property line. So you have a very tightly developed neighborhood. I happen to represent a buyer of a lot that's at the very far end and that's going to be constructed with proper permits and setbacks but that's one of the last houses I think that will be developed on this street. I have from my original file Nat Corwin's survey. This was oversized so I couldn't provide multiple copies but this shows during the last variance hearing that the setbacks of the other homes to the street so I thought that that would be helpful to the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if any have received variances or were they all pre- zoning? PAT MOORE : All pre-zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat you're not averaging the setbacks? PAT MOORE : No I'm not averaging I'm just pointing out to you the character of the neighborhood of the existing setbacks because honestly you can't use an average here since you have those small houses facing the opposite direction so it wouldn't give me the technical setbacks for an averaging. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you get a copy of the Engineer's report? There are no concerns other than the fact that the subject property has not ever undergone a formal storm water review under Chapter 236 prior to the construction so he's recommending that the plan be submitted indicating any and all drainage systems that have been installed on the site certified by a design professional and meeting the minimum requirements of 236 for the storm water 5 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting management and then any upgrades required to meet those minimum standards should be installed prior to submission of the drainage plan. PAT MOORE : We can address that through the Building Department process if the Board grants this variance as a condition. The Building Department would generally make a determination of whether or not you need dry well or not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to enter that into the record. Anything from the Board, questions from anybody? I think the issues were all covered. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? PAT MOORE : I failed to introduce Mr. Hermanshahchi who is here the owner. I also apologize,I failed to introduce Julie Stanburg, you may know Steve Stanburg that's his lovely daughter who works in our office and she's my assistant so thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING # 7332—ALVARO MARTINEZ-FONTS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Alvaro Martinez-Fonts #7332. This is a request for a waiver of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to ,unmerge land identified as SCTM#1000-111-6-5 which has been merged with SCTM#1000-111- 6-6 based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2019 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common ownership with the first,lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming 6 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting lots shall merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R40 Residential Zoning District) located at 2405 and 2495 Vanston Rd. in Cutchogue. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of Alvaro Martinez-Fonts. I'd like to introduce in lieu Mr. Alvaro Martinez-Fonts the owner could not be here however his brother ALFONSO MARTINEZ-FONTS': Alfonso Martinez-Fonts not to be confused with my brother.' PAT MOORE : and his sister. ALICIA MARTINEZ-FONTS : Alicia Martinez-Fonts. PAT MOORE : Thank you and I think that's it. For the record I provided for the Board back delivered November 1St additional documentation since I had a lot of information on this property, rather than spend all the time with all of this information I wanted to give it to you in advance as additional support for this application. So I will address any questions you have with regard to that but also just to point out some highlights with respect to this application. You could see from the single and separate search that these two parcels have remained single and separate up until Mr. Martinez-Fonts and John Andrew Ford who were married ended up getting divorced at which time the pool parcel was in the same name as-'the house parcel and that's when the merger occurred. So up until that time in 2008 when they were unfortunately the divorce occurred this parcel has been single and separate. There's also a very interesting history here as well in that the Zoning Board had granted a variance in order to put the pool on this property. That variance the Notice of Disapproval is a little funky but I believe that under our code it would have been an approval for the accessory structure without a principle structure. That is only applicable if the lot was considered single and separate otherwise it would have been a completely different variance. It would have been a variance for a pool in the side yard had the parcels been merged. So, right from the beginning this lot was intended to be left separate. I provided in the documents from November the Building submission, I pulled out the town's the index card the old fashioned this is Exhibit 2B and the good old fashioned what I used to have to do when I was doing variances and there was no computer or records of it. These were index cards that were kept by the Zoning Board to document all the variances under the tax map number. When older documents were scanned that was included and that notice there was specifically a notation that said that to be sure to retain that the pool when it was constructed had to be placed in a location where there would be room for a conforming house and in fact that's what and I apologize I gave you the wrong Exhibit'. It's Exhibit 3 the index card. So that's a photocopy, scanned copy of the index card it is the exhibit and I have highlighted the language that says future house must conform to all setbacks etc. and place pool in appropriate yard location. So -right from the beginning there was an 7 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting anticipation that this lot would and could be developed with a house and the pool where it was placed was purposely placed towards the back yard what would be the equivalent back yard if a building envelope was added to this property. What we did is just to verify that we added let's see which exhibit it is, a survey we outlined the survey I'm sorry I'm trying to find it. It's actually attached to the index card, we used the survey to show the conforming building envelope for a house. So that was my drawing but it was a notation with a setback 40 foot front yard setback, 15 and 20 side yard setbacks and the building envelope is a 55 x 44 building envelope for a house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is that located? PAT MOORE : That's behind you see the index card, that's Exhibit 3 behind the index card I actually show you as part of the exhibit that the building envelope is in fact when the pool was constructed the building envelope potentially was left for the house so they abided by the recommendations that the intent to maintain the single and separate buildable lot. There was also history here that when the pool application was made of the zoning variance for the pool application there was testimony at the hearing that it was actually to the left and the right I don't know if it's east or west let me see here we go, it's south and north cause the survey is but to the right and to the left of the pool'the application was being made by the owner to the right but the family the Squires family when the variance for the pool was submitted there was family on the left hand side as well and the Squires family wanted to put the pool between the two families and that was put in with the variance and ultimately that parcel was sold several times the house on the left hand side on the north side of the lot. There were multiple sales, sold originally 1986, then '89, then '94, then 2000 then finally 2017 to the Conklin family and you did receive a letter of opposition from Mr. Conklin but that was the parcel that was enjoying the use of the pool. Also and I provided again in my November 1 submission as to that parcel the Squires had done the same thing by buying the parcel further over one on the opposite side and in the event for whatever reason, whether it's as an investment or future home or whatever when the house parcel the Conklin house was being sold it was also being sold or offered with a lot on the opposite side. So we disputed, refuted some of the conclusions that Mr. Conklin wrote; clearly the lot that he now owns was being sold with another lot and had he just done some research it would have been very clear that this parcel had been always intended to be developed based on the documentation that I provided. MEMBER DANTES : Wait I'm confused by your submission. So Conklin is not merged with this property. PAT MOORE : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : We have a thing about can also be purchased with the lot. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes, it's actually they had a lot on the opposite side. MEMBER DANTES : Not including the lot PAT MOORE : Not this one. It did not involve this one. If you see the tax lot number CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually that is not materially relevant to the waiver of merger. What a neighbor does with the purchasing properties is up to the neighbor. It has no impact at all except that he objects to that lot being developed. What I want to look at is the actual variance itself okay. PAT MOORE : Which the original one? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The original variance which essentially conditioned this pool. If you look at the public transcript of that hearing the pool was conditioned upon being incidental to the principal dwelling on the other lot. So it was meant to be an accessory to that principal dwelling. You are right that there was a second condition but it seems to me that that condition is an afterthought. This property has been used continuously and developed way beyond the scope of what the original hearing suggested which was simply a pool. It was to be kept natural, very little surrounding the pool. A site inspection revealed that there was not only a very large pool there but there is a gazebo that straddles the property line right in the side yard of the subject dwelling lot. In addition to that there's terracing with railroad ties all over the place. There's a hot tub, there's hardscaping, there's extensive landscaping, there's grass and there's direct access from the back door of the residential property. I would imagine that that by far exceeds the scope of the development and it's maintenance as a separate lot this second requirement-for waiver of merger says "the lot proposed to be recognized is vacant and it has historically been treated and maintained as a separate and independent residential lot since the date of its original creation." Now we know that they had a variance to legally put the pool there that's quite unusual. It's a very unorthodox determination by the prior Board alright but it's there and it's in place and the pool is legal in that sense but I maintain that pool is essentially tied to the principal dwelling and that the lot has not been undeveloped. It has not been maintained as a separate. It was merged by force of law through you know a change in ownership PAT MOORE : By divorce. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But there is nothing in the code that exempts divorce as it does waiver by merger by death. PAT MOORE : I understand. I'll let you finish and November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those are I think the main points and the fact that you could put a dwelling there I mean look at the slopes on that property. They have to build that into the hillside because every one of those lots all along that part of Vanston are up high. The buildable envelope is up high whereas the subject residential house is along with the swimming pool on the adjacent lot and the front is very steeply sloped to the road so much so that you can't see the pool at all from the road. So to put a house on that part of the property is challenging to say the very least. PAT MOORE : Well I would argue that this parcel is no different than any of the other lots that are on Vanston Rd. as you point out they all have slopes, they've all developed and they are all ultimately either walkout basements because of the type of topography'that they have or they end up using some type of railroad ties or retaining walls. It is very common. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree with you but the problem is where you would want to put a house is where the swimming pool is. PAT MOORE : Well understand that this particular house the option for anybody buying the house lot is to continue to use the pool as and buy the pool lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is one lot at the moment and anyone who bought it would have to buy both of those parcels as one parcel because they are merged and there's a very beautiful swimming pool with lots of landscaping and lots of amenities including an outdoor kitchen. PAT MOORE : Well those amenities are very easily removed. It's really I think that the value of the lot as far as its appraised value would be clearly over $200,000 for this lot so if you had to weigh the removal of an old gazebo cause that gazebo was built about the same time as the pool, it's pavers around the pool, the hot tub is easily modified or removed; so we would certainly the applicant is willing to remove any structures should the lot be sold separately because they're relatively easy structures to remove. As I said the gazebo is a very easy structure to either pick up or demolish based on its age. It may be easier to remove than it is to pick it up and move it. There's a small wood platform, there's certainly fencing but the fencing has to be to the code. It has to be has to protect the pool. Clearly the lots were from the beginning intended to be used together by way of the variance application that was granted. Had the variance been for a pool in the side yard then it would clearly be the intention of that variance was to put the two parcels together and use them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it wasn't a side yard at the time. It was a separate lot. PAT MOORE : The house was there. 10 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was a separate lot they were not merged at that point. That variance was for a pool on a separate lot. PAT MOORE : Yes you're right.They had remained single and separate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it couldn't be in a side yard. It is now. PAT MOORE : It is now but that's not the variance we're asking for. We're asking to retain the independence of this lot. What I also provided is again in my November submission, I provided for you the tax map that shows the numerous lots that have been granted either variances or waiver of mergers. Most recently in 2019 two parcels that are waterfront parcels that were bulk headed straight across the dock was on the vacant lot, the house was on the other parcel so that is common in Nassau Point to have if you can if you can afford it to buy the adjacent parcel and retain them for some future date either selling separately or continuing to sell it together. So I've given you, it's not this waiver of merger we're not being consistent with what the Board has granted that's since October the most recent waiver of merger grant. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe to address the history of that particular application, I think the Trustees had granted a bulk head prior to the ownership of the adjacent lot. It would only have them later that the homeowner actually the property owner acquired the residential lot. The undeveloped lot was left literally in an undisturbed natural state with the exception of a small foot path that straddled the lot line between the two to access from the residence to water frontage. This is more of a unique situation just in that the granted relief for the vacant lot was a swimming pool which I don't think anyone is disputing. There's a question of the maintenance I think as far as how that property has been maintained independent of the house for the last forty years certainly thirty years. So to that point you had mentioned earlier the discussion about the ease of removing some of these additional improvements. Are there any permits or can you explain a bit of the history of how the hot tub was installed, (inaudible) decking, the outdoor kitchen, the gazebo that straddles the lot? PAT MOORE : No I don't have any permit history on those improvements. Many of those well the hot tub I'll have to defer to the family. I don't remember if it's a permanent or if it's a one of those prefabs that go in. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It seems to be built into the deck. A question that's sort of important. PAT MOORE : Anything that doesn't have a permit we'd be obligated to get a permit but we need to get the variance to separate the lot before we can pursue going getting permits because some of these things that the Board had said well we're only going to grant this if you remove X,Y and Z we would have been spending the client's.money in an effort to legalize a hot November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting tub and whatever other decking that might need a permit can wastefully if the Board says, well we'll only grant this if you remove the hot tub and remove the gazebo and anything else. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is there separate electricity or utility to this site or is the electricity coming from the residence? PAT MOORE : That I don't know. That's a good question. I can ,get the answer but I don't know that. MEMBER LEHNERT : Where's the pool equipment, where's the pumps? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat another question, this again speaks more towards the sense that the intentions that the lots were merged PAT MOORE : Lots were merged or were not merged? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That they are merged, there's a deer fence across the front of the property, it's not shown on the survey PAT MOORE : Right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it certainly straddles both lots. It actually encircles the property. Can you talk a little bit about the deer fence perhaps? PAT MOORE : That was apparently added a long time ago. I don't know very much about the deer fence. I asked about it but nobody could really give me any information. The deer fence I don't believe you could have deer fence in a front yard so ultimately that would have to be removed and most likely be part of any kind of contract negotiations with the buyer/seller. I don't see the Board historically doesn't like a deer fence in the front yard so to me it's not a variance I wouldn't even recommend a client go for a variance based on my experience with this Board's dislike of deer fencing in a front yard but that deer fencing has been there for quite some time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's like a nylon type. PAT MOORE : Yea I mean it's easily removed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know the age of it but (inaudible) PAT MOORE : I mean a lot of properties are adding deer fencing with or without permits just to try to prevent some of the destruction that the deer are creating as well as deer ticks so but it doesn't mean that it's legal it just means that you have to once the town notices it or a neighbor complains usually they're taken down. That's been my experience. I mean the Board 12 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting in other variances here have in fact recognized these separate lots and intentionally to keep them small because what has occurred on in Nassau Point is that when the lots are mergied you get these tremendously large houses that are being developed and changing the character of Nassau Point for sure. Nassau Point has always been a very lovely kind of it's been a high end community but the homes were proportioned to the individual lots. Now you're getting very large homes, estate homes because the lots are being bought intentionally and combined intentionally to be larger homes. So maintaining the separateness of the properties at least in other Board decisions has been recognizing that it does keep the character of the neighborhood intact. One of the variances that was very recently that you actually had some neighbors that came in that supported the variance asking please don't merge the properties cause you're changing the character of our community and that was in the last year was that variance I'm sure you remember. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you, going through the chain of title one point John (inaudible) as referee for Federal Home Mortgage Corp. do you know the circumstances behind that? Well first of all is there a relationship between Squires and Martinez-Fonts? PAT MOORE : No none. They purchased from Squires. MEMBER DANTES : So Squires got foreclosed on and then this (inaudible) bought the property and they have no relation it was clearly separate from Martinez-Fonts' and then Martinez Fonts was able to acquire both properties? PAT MOORE : Yes the property was purchased from well one was Martinez-Squires purchased lot 5 in 1999 and then the other parcel was purchased separately a different year MEMBER DANTES : The attorney who handled both of those transactions intentionally checker boarded the property and made sure that they were both in different names? PAT MOORE : Well if you recall the code didn't provide that there were that there was a grandfathered lists of lots those I believe that I'd have to look back in '99 there was a provision in the code CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They removed that's not an exempt PAT MOORE : Not now anymore but in '99 it might have still been in the code but in any case yes it was purposely put in a separate name with I think the husband he and his husband owned one parcel and then the other lot was kept separately yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what name was that? PAT MOORE : The merger (inaudible) only due to the divorce. 13 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What name was lot 6 in?' PAT MOORE : Lot 6 is the one with the husband, Forde was the husband's name. Let me double check that yes Forde, John Andrew. You see that in 2008 is when John Forde conveyed it to Mr. Martinez-Fonts through the divorce. MEMBER DANTES : When they changed the property name, how did they do it? A quick claim deed, a bargain sale what type do you have a copy, I don't see a copy of that deed in our file. PAT MOORE : Let me look and see if I have it. The single and separate typically does attach you have the deeds attached. MEMBER DANTES : I see the original deed from fifty something I don't see PAT MOORE : (inaudible) to Martinez-Fonts I have a deed here, it is attached to the single and separate. If not I can certainly provide it. You have it? MEMBER DANTES : I'm finding it out now. PAT MOORE : Usually you do ask so I provide it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do any of the Board members have any questions on this? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the application? T. A. DUFFY : Is your client able to answer the question about the electric? PAT MOORE : Oh the electric, I don't know because my client is not here it's the family. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Pat perhaps you can find out relative to water, electricity where it comes from. PAT MOORE : Utilities. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Utilities. PAT MOORE : I don't have answer for that. I can certainly ask the client. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would be a simple phone call. PAT MOORE : Yeah I can find out. I mean logically it would seem that you don't usually get a separate meter for a pool so it would have required a separate Suffolk County Water Authority connection. Here in Nassau Point you have wells so very likely unless it's a well that's connected it's still in place, typically the Suffolk County Water Authority wants you to connect any pools, 141 I� November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting anything that you're using to their water service but I will double check that. So I will make a note, utilities. T. A. DUFFY : I think that's the point the Chairwoman was trying to make that everything is coming from the house. The lot with the house on it is being used as one lot, that's one of the factors the Board has to consider so the electric and the pool are all coming and the water are all coming from the (inaudible) with the house lot as opposed to a separate and the lots have been treated as the same lot. PAT MOORE : Well yes that is certainly a point, an issue. The logic here though is that yes the two lots historically since the beginning when the variances were granted were intended to be used together. In fact the lot on the opposite side as I pointed out was the Squires family and they were using the pool as well. So somebody had to connect utilities and provide the services because you can't you need to have utilities to turn on a light or whatever. Generally you don't have I don't even know if the LIPA or Keyspan whoever it was at the time whether you ego and get a separate meter, a separate junction box. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I really doubt it, there is landscaped lighting on that property where the pool is so it's got to be all connected. PAT MOORE : I mean it would make sense that it's all coming from one source. That's my guess but I couldn't give you a definitive without asking. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think you know it's interesting is the testimony of the Squires when they received the variance was that they were leaving the lot in its natural state. They were asked if they would put any decking the answer was no, would you do any landscaping the answer was no and there's substantial improvements here that obviously should have permits that (inaudible) so things were done sort of discretely and quietly. Whether it's to the benefit or the detriment of the site I can't say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a very unusual'waiver of merger. It certainly would recognize a lot that's similar in size to others but that's about it. Everything else is really anomalous in this application. PAT MOORE : It was anomalous from the original grant of the variance. That was a very unique variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it was but I believe that it was done so that it was thie clear intent of making it an accessory structure incidental to the principal dwelling. That is what the condition says. Now I know you're arguing that it also says in future if ever to be solid as a separate lot, well that was because they weren't merged. 15 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes but they could have conditioned but I would actually the Zoning Board could have said to the applicants the Squires at that time, sorry we're not going to give you this pool unless you merge the properties and that was not the case. So to me it actually indicates the opposite, that the Zoning Board at the time recognized that there would be that this lot would remain separate and distinct again because it could have been it could have ,gone with either neighbors since either family member CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was also based upon the fact that it was to have minimal impact. It was meant to be a pool on a piece of property that essentially with the rest of the property was left as it was. That's what the public hearing transcript says and we can quote from it if you'd like we did the research. So clearly it is now a very highly developed, very sophisticated landscaped recreational area that's in an essentially a side yard because the properties are merged. So it's quite unique. It was done legally not necessarily all the other things that were beyond the scope, but what the intent was. So you know the Board will look at the standards and I think (inaudible) very clear I will tell you that the Board has denied a subdivision cause the applicant didn't qualify for a waiver of merger because on the other lot that they purchased they put a swimming pool. If we were to grant a subdivision we would have created a lot that had an accessory without a principal dwelling. So these things can get a little tricky. There's some similarity here but not (inaudible). We've also argued that lots that applicants have applied for waiver of merger on lots where the adjacent lot was cut the trees were cut and grass was put down and grass had been mowed that it had been maintained as a side yard and not necessarily as a separate lot. PAT MOORE : True but you've also granted variances I know from my own applications CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one with the garage because of a side setback. PAT MOORE : Yes and also it was all grass (inaudible) and it was developed intentionally again with a variance for an accessory without a principle. That was the Rempe file on Bayshore Rd. that granted the it recognized that it had a history by the Zoning Board of recognizing the lot as a separate independent lot. The Building Department they could have made it easier you know in this case also they could have made it easy by just saying being the.Building Department saying well merge the lots and I'll give you the pool. That would have been certainly a process that where the pool is, is actually I think far enough down it might even be I don't know if it's a side yard or it's in the rear yard kind of offset MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Pat, saying on this application if I can ask one last question to clear my head and I think one can look at the chain of title and see that the current owner when they acquired the property understood when they were buying the adjacent lot they did not want it to merge so they put it in a separate name. ---F- 1L6 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Absolutely. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They were guided well by their attorney, they had two independent parcels. How is it then that as part of this divorce that they didn't have the foresight to recognize that what they already knew was a single and separate lot that they put into an independent name or the owner name which thereby created the merger? I PAT MOORE : I can't explain bad lawyering. I mean it would have been a matrimonial',lawyer that was ,dealing with the divorce at that time. Very rarely do matrimonial lawyers now anything about zoning just like I know nothing about matrimonial law. I would you know bring in somebody that knew what they were doing. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The applicant already knew the benefits of having a separate names. PAT MOORE : Well yes and no. Most clients are guided by their lawyers and they say I'm putting it in a separate name just particularly when it's somebody locally. I don't know that they actually what the extent of a conversation is between the client and their lawyer so they lmay or may not have known that placing the lot in the same name would have created this difficulty. I don't think he knew that because they were kind of surprised by the fact that it was deemed merged and I had to go through this process or Mr. Martinez-Fonts he was you know this was kind of a surprise to him. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've spend an awful lot of time on this. We have a lot of other people so unless there's anything else from the audience or the Board yes, no, nothing, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) a7 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting J HEARING #7333— DANIEL J. PACELLA and CATHERINE A. PACELLA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Daniel J. Pacella and Catherine A. Pacella #7333. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 30, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize as built additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 25 Moose Trail in Cutchogue. These are as built additions and alterations with a rear yard setback of 38.4 feet where the code requires 50 feet. This is a three season room that was originally a screened porch that had windows put in making it a year round room. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of Pacella who is the new owner and the (inaudible) who are here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a question before we start, to save time I want to enter into the record what the variance request is. The survey shows 38.9 foot setback, the Notice of Disapproval says 50 foot and you say 40 feet in your application. What do we got here? PAT MOORE : I would stick with the 38.9 given that that was the surveyors measurement. It's that corner yeah I think we dealt with this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The Notice says 38.4 T. A. DUFFY : You want to go with 38.4 because that's what the (inaudible) then PAT MOORE : That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's assume that to be the case. You have a C.O. for a screened in porch and that was 1978 and you need a building permit for the as built replacement of windows done in 2007? PAT MOORE : No I believe that let me look, I believe that'91 when let me just back up a little bit sorry. I gave you this survey and I tried to do it colored,of all the different permits. So my client purchased this property believing that he had all the permits he could ever want alright or need. They went to contract, the Pacella's purchased or went to contract as well and then they were surprised that the one room, that's a three seasons room had somehow never been renovated at some point not by cause everybody here is my client, not by the Locks, the prior owners. So what happened is that just the way that we particularly I think in the early eighties and nineties I'm getting a lot of these which are renovations that occur during the renovation stage they may be additional work being done but nobody puts in or the Building Department asks for amended plans to match what has been built because here if you look at the 1$ November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting chronology of the permits and I'm sorry I ran out of room. On the bottom of this survey are the older permits that start from 1965 to 2013 and then at the top C.O. 31191 that's when the dormer the second floor dormer was added and based on the siding and the windows and everything it appears that in '91 when that work was done they renovated the whole house with siding probably replace the type of windows that were in that three season's porch and all that work never got documented as part of the original building permit because when you go looking for the paperwork you see from '78 the porch and a bay window, a slab thlat was poured itis a mishmash of permits that don't match up to what ultimately is there. Thai's part of the problem is that when they finally try to clean up and get a C.O. for pretty much everything an overriding C.O. the Building Department looked at this chronology of permits and just couldn't find the matching drawing because most of the older permits had no drawings. It just had on the building permit little diagram of oh we're adding this and we're adding this but no detailed plans. So when the survey was submitted and that's why I gave you the other survey that has identified the front and rear yards. This piece of property has three front yards. It has Deerfoot Path, Moose Trail and Beebe Drive and then the house is on a somewhat of a diagonal to all those streets and the way that we measure the front yard, we measure parallel to that street so what happens is if you look at Beebe Drive and you run the line parallel to the street it places the deck in the side yard and that had a C.O. so I didn't have to come before the Board for that but I puts the corner of this three seasons room in a rear yard and the rear yard based on the size of this property can't be met. You just can't you don't have 50 foot rear yard anywhere here. So it's a structure that was built originally in let's see in '78 as a 17 X 11,15 and then alterations made thereafter but when it was all renovated without having a permit for the renovated final state I needed to come to the Board for a variance cause the Building Department just didn't have enough paperwork to show that. In fact that porch has been there forever, it's just the windows and the siding that you know the alterations that have been added. So here we are' trying to clean up a very old portion of the property and I'm 'getting many of these. I do have three more coming to the Board because of just a permit history that is a disaster in the eighties and early nineties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we also should say that we have a letter from a neighbor supporting this. PAT MOORE : That's nice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? We've all seen the property. PAT MOORE : Yeah it's very straightforward. It's cleaning up the MEMBER DANTES : So basically the porch has always been there with a permit of some sort. 2.9 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : They did an interior renovation, now they (inaudible) Building Department to get an updated permit? PAT MOORE : It went from screened to a probably a (inaudible) window probably and then ultimately to a fixed window. It's still a three seasons so it's not and I checked with the client cause inside if you got inside it's still a separate room from it's not incorporated into the living room, it's a separate room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's a passage way through it. There's a pool table in it right now. MEMBER DANTES : So it was a covered porch and now it's an enclosed three seasons room. PAT MOORE : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Anything else, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER 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#7331—STEVEN and JACI OSDOBY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steven and Jaci Osdoby #7331. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 11, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to reconstruct a deck attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code 2t? November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting II required side yard setback of 15 feet located at 605 Bay Shore Rd. (adj. to Pipes Creek) in Greenport. BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting for Steven all d Jaci Osdoby who are here today to the right of me and they reside at 605 Bay Shom Rd. in Greenport. It's a half acre lot 20,408 sq. ft. It is in a R-40 zone. Previously there was a deck that was non-conforming with respect to the side yard setback of 12.5 feet where 15 lfeet is required. The existing deck which you saw when you went out to the property (inaudible) the building codes nor does it (inaudible) what I mean is the deck is deteriorating the strapping to the deck the footings are insufficient under the building codes so we are seeking to replace that deck. We are enlarging it although not in any towards the side yard where it presently encroached by 2.5 feet. That existing deck is measures 12 x 19 feet, 128 sq. ft. and actually it's 319 feet (inaudible) the stairs which would lead directly back towards Pipes Creek. The proposed deck measures 14 X 27 feet which calculates 328 sq. ft. It's a fairly straightforward application, we maintained that there would be no change to the character lof the neighborhood because the new deck that replaces the old deck would have the same setback as to the side lot line. Obviously the old deck didn't affect the character of the neighborhood i we never had a complaint about it. No one has I don't think cares about the deck. It's not obviously visible from the street. It is no closer to the property to the east which is vacalnt. The benefit that we seek can't be achieved by any other method by the applicant to pursue other i than a variance because if the new deck were located 15 feet away from the side lot line the exterior door would not line up appropriate with that deck and the deck stairs and the railing come off to the west of the deck would block the existing exterior windows. We maintain that the request is not substantial because there's no change to that side yard setback and the relief of two and half feet constitutes 16.6% of the requirement which is clearly not substantial with respect to the requirement. There is no impact to the physical or environmental conditIions to the neighborhood because the deck is of minor size and located distance from wetlands and requires no coverage or any other form of relief even as we move forward with this and eventually build a pool and some very minor accessory structures all of which would comply with zoning. While it is self-created we're simply replacing the new deck with the old deck (inaudible) of benefit to the applicant that being the new deck would greatly outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood. The benefit obviously to the applicant is that they enjoy a new deck that would be safe, properly constructed, comply with all building codes (inaudible) does not we maintain there's no detriment to the neighborhood whatsoever. I'm here to answer any questions you may have as are Mr. and Mrs. Osdoby. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a couple just quick ones that won't take long. Is the proposed pool as of right, conforming to the 1 'I i November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and does anything need Trustees approval on this or are you far enough away? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes it does but we can't go there until resolve this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need it for what the deck and the pool? BRUCE ANDERSON :They won't process an application for the pool until CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the variance for the deck. BRUCE ANDERSON : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood but I mean they have to approve the pool because of BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Within 100 feet of BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes and we filed our application with them I would say last May I believe. MEMBER DANTES I think he's over 100 feet from the wetlands so then you'd, be out of Trustees jurisdiction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He would be if he's over 100 feet but then MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Here it says 75. BRUCE ANDERSON : We're about 80 feet away. MEMBER DANTES : Isn't that the little dotted line is 75 and then MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would appear to be 2 feet so it's 77 feet. MEMBER DANTES : But then the deck is further back no? MEMBER LEHNERT : The deck doesn't need it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The deck doesn't need Trustees just the pool. BRUCE ANDERSON : They would not process our application. 22 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand that. I just want to have our record understand the full impacts of all of this.The deck to be replaced is a little bit bigger. Was there ever a side yard variance obtained, I didn't see one. BRUCE ANDERSON : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any C.O. on the existing deck? BRUCE ANDERSON : Well the C.O. goes back to 1976 (inaudible) to a gentlemen namedlShelby and it's in your record and it says private one family dwelling but what's interesting about it is it refers to the survey prepared by Suffolk County approval July 21, 1976 by R. Villa which is the survey attached to the C.O. It was prepared by VanTuyl and it bears the Health Department stamp and it is part of the building record for it. It does say porch but to my knowledge it never was a porch and it couldn't have been and if you look at the construction it couldn't have been a porch. i CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it was probably.always a deck. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes as far as we know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to get the history that's all. Anything from the Board, anyone in the audience that would like to address the application. JACI OSDOBY : Hi Jaci Osdoby co-owner with my husband of the property and thank you for, listening to our application. I just wanted to say that with our growing family we just we'Ire new grandparents and we just wanted to make sure we have a sound deck for our family who come out frequently and we just want to maintain the functionality of the deck and keep the status quo. We're concerned about blocking the basement if we were forced to move the deckll and as Bruce said the sliding glass door would be awkward to replace and we'd have less space for seating and (inaudible) if we had to move things over as well as losing patio space on thelfloor if we had to move the deck over so thank you again and hopefully we'll be able to move forward with this shortly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well again just so you know we have inspected the property. We all do that for every application. We see the adjacent lots are pretty wooded mostly undeveloped and the structures are substantially set back far away so all that bodes well for approval but I'm only one vote but we will see what happens. I don't anticipate much problems. That's ilt then, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. i November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7334—JOHN and KIMBERLY KEISERMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is,for John and Kimberly Keiserman #7334. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 19, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to make additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1170 Willow Terrace Lane (adj. to Orient Harbor) in Orient. This appears to be a lot coverage issue of 33.76%, the code permits a maximum of 20%. It looks like a small porch expansion of 211 sq. ft. adding 1.6% to the coverage and of course we've been out to look at it and I'll let you go on and say what you want to say. You're proposing to install a new IA sanitary system. ROB HERMANN : That's correct. So just as a quick point of reference cause I'll make reference to these things in my presentation. This is the existing dwelling, existing pool and pool deck and the reason I'm focusing on these is because they create a lot coverage problem that we have. There is a what I'm going to refer to is a deck overhang, there's a small extension of this deck that hangs over the slope which you can see which is where they have their dinner table and chairs and all that and this is in your file you probably can't see it well from here but it's a February 1988 aerial photo that shows that the pool and the deck and overhang, all of this was existing prior to-1988. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before the CEHA law was put in place. ROB HERMANN : Correct, exactly. So as I try to articulate in our 'application that the need for this variance stems from a relatively minor and simple proposal for a new front porch but a somewhat complex sense of zoning hardships. So in order to help the Board understand how we got here I'm going to try and summarize some basic facts which are described in more detail November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting in the application. The variance we're seeking is as Leslie mentioned is for a proposed lot coverage of 33.76% versus the existing 32.15% which reflects a proposed net increase in the square footage of the new front porch of 211 sq. ft. for 1.6% of what is calculated.as the 13,065 sq. ft. of buildable land between Willow Terrace Lane and the CEHA line. There are tworjeasons why the existing and proposed lot coverage calculation exceeds 20% to the degree it does and both relate to interpretations made by the Building Department in connection with the application and proposal. The first relates to the inclusion of structural areas that are located outside the CEHA line, in other words seaward of the CEHA line outside the buildable land are of 13,065 sq. ft. In the calculation of percent lot coverage with respect of what's inside the ; buildable land areas. So in other words we're being asked to count as a percentage of buildable land structures that are located outside what is the defined as buildable land. The lot coverage landward of the CEHA line is actually 3,163 sq. ft. or 24.2% but again it was the Building 'Department's determination that the structural surface is located seaward of CEHA and thus outside buildable land should also be included as a percentage which means that we have to add the 653 sq. ft. porch and the pool deck, the 128 sq. ft. deck overhang and the 256 sq. ft. portion of the swimming pool situated seaward of the CEHA line which increases lot coverage by over 1,000 sq. ft. up to 4,200 sq. ft. number that you see.on the survey.-As Leslie also just correctly assumed I was going to mention it's critical to understand that these al re not structures that were just recently added outside CEHA without a permit or something like that and we're here looking to legitimize them; rather the swimming pool was granted a building i permit prior to '88, it was issued a C.O. at that time and historic aerial photography in ; that '88 photo that I put in front of you shows that both the pool and deck were constructed in their current locations partially within the CEHA area prior to February '88 and thus pre-exist the passage of both the NYS Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Law in 1988 and the Town's CEHA law that was, adopted in 1991. Thus it was my argument to the Building Department that those structural areas really should not be counted against lot coverage here but since the determination was made that they should be we're not necessarily challenging the Building Inspector's determination but we're asking the Board to at least take not of the fact that they are legally pre-existing structures. This brings us to the second Building Department interpretation which was to consider what has long been believed to be a grade level deck around the pool as a raised deck addition due to its connection to that deck overhang. In other words what was explained to us was that if that because that section of overhang is raised then the area of the entire pool deck has to be counted against lot coverage even the portion of,pool deck that is clearly grade level is being counted against lot coverage which is 1,442 sq. Ift. So if ' you took that out, lot coverage would be 2,758 sq. ft. of 21.1%. So what ends up happening is once you calculate lot coverage based on both of the Building Department's interpretation one ; that the entire pool deck has to be counted as a above grade addition effectively and to count all the structure seaward of the CEHA line you end up with the 4,200 sq. ft. If you didn'i't have 25 I November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting those two interpretations you'd actually have lot coverage of 18.2% or 2,374 sq. ft. meaning that the 211 sq. ft. of porch could actually have been added without a variance. I understand it's a lot of what if's but this does relate to the interpretations here and I think it's important for the Board to consider that including as it relates to self-created difficulty because the applicants did do their due diligence with a (inaudible) attorney before they purchased this property and they had found that the swimming pool was constructed prior to CEHA with a building permit and had a C.O. and were led to believe by multiple sources that the pool deck which was constructed prior to February'88 did not require a building permit because it was a grade level structure and therefore would not have counted against coverage and the idea that there's this deck overhang over the slope was sort of a common perception that you know that's a Trustee sort of thing that's not really you know something that would be involved with the Building Department. In fact as a possible way of remedying the situation it was explained to us by the Building Department that if they simply removed the deck overhang or even just created like a physical space between the deck and the deck overhang that that might then allow the Building Department to discount that 1,442 sq. ft. of pool deck from lot coverage which would create either you know even if you still included the stuff that's outside the CEHA we would have a very, very minimal variance here mathematically but the owners and Kimberly Keiserman who is one of the owners is here, one of the main reasons they purchased this property was for that deck overhang and you know I was a little bit dubious when we started the conversations. I was like you know you can save yourself so much trouble just by getting rid of this but they were like this is where we spend ninety percent of our time, outside. This is one of the reasons we bought the property. So the idea of getting rid of it is a nonstarter and the idea of creating a physical space between them seemed silly because A. it's going to be dangerous, B. it's going to look bad and in terms of you know doing that or seeking a variance it certainly seems that having a physical space between the overhang and the deck isn't going to have any effect whatsoever on the neighbors or the character of the community or anything else. It's just going to allow you know sort of a mathematical (inaudible) of hand to occur with lot coverage. So instead of trying to do that the decision was made to take all of this, accept all of this and then approach the Board with a variance request. So with all of that as the background the question is you know can the Board be convinced that a variance meets the standards and as we explained the application we believe it does. There is an aerial photo from 1993. 1 have it I just took a blow up of it. That's also in your files. Basically what we're arguing is that most properties situated along this developed shoreline adjacent to Orient Harbor are substantially similar to the applicants with respect to the scope and proximity to the water and the structures because most were in fact developed either prior to the passage of CEHA and or prior to most of the recent definitions of buildable land and the majority of the relief we're seeking is to maintain the same conditions that have existed on the property for more than thirty years with the addition of this 211 sq. ft. in the front which is just replacing a small porch 26 November 7,,2019 Regular Meeting I of the roadside of the house with a larger porch and I don't think there's an argument to be made that maintaining the existing pool deck configuration or constructing this new porch would possibly impact the character of the neighborhood in general or any of the adjoining properties in particular. In our application we describe two cases where the Board granted lot coverage relief in the neighborhood including case 5436 in 2004 and 6922 in 2016. I'm not going to discuss these cases in the same level of detail here as. I do in the application but in short the lot coverage in those cases was very similar that which is proposed here when you compare apples to apples. What I mean by that is that in the 2004 case for example biildable land definition did not yet exclude the CEHA area of the property. So they approved lot coverage based on the entire upland portion of that lot was 23.2% much greater had they had to exclude the coastal erosion hazard area. In the 2016 case the CEHA area should have been included from buildable land but based on my review of the approved site plan it actually was not so the approved lot coverage based on the upland portion, that lot was actually close to 28%. 1 think the official number was 23.2 the same as the 2004 case but again based)on my assessment of that site plan the CEHA area was not excluded. So if you just take the lot coverage of this entire lot out to the bulkhead in other words if this was still in the days before CEHA was excluded our lot coverage would be 19.6%. So on par it's actually less than those other approvals. Finally as Leslie mentioned the proposed renovation we argue will have a beneficial impact on the environmental condition of the site and the adjacent Orient {Harbor waterway because proposed in connection with the renovations the interior renovations and the porch addition is the replacement of the existing sanitary system which is located as close to 60 feet to Orient Harbor with an IA system that's going to be located 100 feet from surface waters which is I think is noted also in the LWRP memo. Additionally a drainage system consisting of leaders, gutters and dry wells will be added to the property to capture and recharge roof runoff from the renovated dwelling which include the front porch. So in short, as I said this is a small renovation that we started talking about with the owners two years ago that ran into a fairly complex and unexpected set of zoning constraints which I hopeI've explained clearly and we hope the Board will take into consideration in terms of allowing the porch renovation and the proposed lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Rob, based upon this history I take it that there was no plrior lot coverage variance ever obtained on this property. ROB HERMANN : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and you're going to need Trustees approval for this? ROB HERMANN : We will need Trustees approval for the proposed porch addition and thle cellar entrance which is actually not I don't think a subject of your review because it's not included as 27 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting part of that. So we will have to go to the Trustees for that but the pool and the pool deck pre- date I think the time which a Trustees permit would have been required. They like to grant permits to existing structures but I don't know whether their approval would actually would legally be required for the existing pool and the pool deck cause there's no again they are pre- existing structures and there's no proposed action to those but the porch is within 100 feet of the'bulkhead and the IA system is right at the 100 foot setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from the Board? MEMBER DANTES : More of a comment, I think what the Building Department calculated that any sort of deck is lot coverage, only a stone on grade patio would not count, in the current iterations I don't know what they did in the '80's. ROB HERMANN : It's my understanding and I certainly stand to be corrected but it's my understanding that whether it's deck or mason raised, as long as it's grade level I guess Mike says literally grade level not like eight inches above grade it's sitting on grade but at grade level then it is not counted against lot coverage because it's not part they don't include it then as a so called raised addition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that interpretation is not consistent because we have seen applications where there's wood on sand you know without any kind of there's almost understructure whatsoever and they're still counting it cause it's the same if you can't get a lawn mower over it then it's not on grade. That's their standard so I don't believe their interpretation has always been consistent. ROB HERMANN : I wouldn't argue that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This deck does step up a little bit. I mean it's got an elevation. ROB HERMANN : Particularly toward the seaward side but that was the question, based on that could you basically massage that's why I was careful to say might be discounted because the impression that I got was that we could sort of massage,the grade and the lawn to a point that it was that the grade of the deck level was flush but basically the answer was but don't waste your time trying to do that because with the overhang included I'm going to consider the whole thing raised. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 28 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. -I MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7335—JEAN and ROBERT ROGERS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jean and Robert Rogers #7335. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 9, 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 rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 420 Schooner Drive (adj. to canal connected to the Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. It looks like a proposed rear yard setback of 20 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet. STEVE AFFELT : Good morning members of the Board, my name is Steve Affelt, I'm the agent for the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you like us to know about this application? STEVE AFFELT : This property was built and developed prior to the zoning code and all the properties in this neighborhood are very close to the side yards and rear yards. The applicant prefers to enlarge the size of their house so they could have their grandkids over for vacations in the summer time and then you know just kind of leave it to them once they pass. Their entire house (inaudible) within the setback line as it stands today,fifty feet would cut it in half and any additions and any extensions are probably subject to this setback requirement no matter what. We decided not to go anywhere past the existing (inaudible) of the house or delck and everything at this point has been approved by the NYS DEC and we just received our LWRP approval yesterday. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN It's exempt. What are those little small lots land formally I don't know between subject property in that part of that i 29 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting STEVE AFFELT : There's a little bulkhead that was built prior to the DEC's jurisdiction and those are lots for other residents within the Harbor Lights Community to dock their boat. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a situation where we have to be very careful about whether or not this will eventually constitute a demo. We have many applications that are for additions and alterations and because they're older and they may not be all structurally sound, there may be some rot and suddenly they're gone all new framing and then you wind up with a stop work order and we don't want that happening if we could avoid it so tell us about the STEVE AFFELT : The existing foundation is a ten inch poured concrete foundation, it's well built. The first story is completely up to snuff I guess is the best way to put it. It's been recently renovated I think in the late I want to say late August and it's in great condition as far as I'm concerned. We are maintaining the entire first floor as best we can. We're just rearranging a few interior rooms and then we're building from the second floor up new floor joists, new walls obviously for the second floor. Right now it's more like an enormous attic conversion and we're just going to actually make it a second floor. So currently it does have three or four bedrooms upstairs. We just want to make them full height instead of attic style. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Is this going to need a Department of Health permit for the STEVE AFFELT : No we're going to be maintaining the number of bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So no upgraded sanitary is required? STEVE AFFELT : No. MEMBER DANTES : What's there now? STEVE AFFELT : I believe it's full septic system with two leaching pools but please don't quote me on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So my only thought was relative to the ,existing sort of terracing on the second floor. What is the rational between by having the covered porch, you have a covered porch on the sort of living space level, is it necessary on the bedroom level? 3 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting I ' STEVE AFFELT : We're going to end up with a second, right now it's not covered on the first story. On the second story it's covered because that's what my client requested. It's kind of an aesthetic thing that they prefer. It's really just use and aesthetics, personal preferences. Having a covered porch it's more of a balcony, it's kind of nice especially when you could look at the water. Also if it didn't have it I think it would feel very flat and uninteresting to look at from the water. i CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. {I MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application?I Please come forward and state your name for the record. LENA FOROSICH : My name is Lena Forosich. My property is directly behind this property. We've been there.since '82, '83. We (inaudible) beautiful view of the bay. We were not right actually on it because we were behind and we were weekenders and when this house was built the foundation was already in before we were aware that they were building and we t;�hought that we would fight it because it was (inaudible) it's too close to (inaudible). With the foundation already there it seemed like a cruel thing to do these people they spent a lot of money already. So we lost complete view of the bay. Taxes did not decrease of course.)Now if the second story goes up we lose the little bit of sky that we see over the house as it exists now. Again taxes won't decrease in our favor. It is (inaudible) no view for us with a big house in front of house. No objections to the family, to the people, they're lovely neighbors (inaudible) big structure in front of us (inaudible). Thank you for listening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you seen the plans? LENA FOROSICH : I have nothing I have just what you sent me. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just the notice that there was a hearing. STEVE AFFELT : (inaudible) that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a copy of the plans with you? It might be helpful to show the neighbor what you're planning to do so she knows what's going on. LENA FOROSICH : How much taller will this be? STEVE AFFELT : Nine feet, would you like to see? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come up to the podium. 3:1 � 1 I i November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting STEVE AFFELT : I've got two sets would you like CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the plans but I wanted you to look at them so'you'lI know for you to have an opportunity to look at what your neighbor is proposing to build so that you can just see what it's going to look like. LENA FOROSICH : So from here to here, how many feet? STEVE AFFELT : It's about 11 feet and then it increases to about 20. LENA FOROSICH : I mean I understand what they want to do: They want to make the best of it and enjoy their property with their family but it's all negative for me and that's all I have to say. STEVE AFFELT : This is the side you will be seeing from your house. LENA FOROSICH ': The garage. STEVE AFFELT : Yes exactly the garage. LENA FOROSICH : That's what I see now. I just want to say thank you very much for this meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. 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) 3z i November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING#7336— ELIAS and JEANNINE KASSAPIDIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Elias and Jeannine Kassapidis #7336. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 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 side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the code required combined side yard setback of 35 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at i 1055 Sound View Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Orient. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody. Martin Finnegan, Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin, & Quatararo 56340 Main Rd. Southold for the applicants. I am here today on behalf of Elias and Jeannine Kassapidis the owners of the premises who (inaudible) Kassapidis had intended to be here today but had a patient emergency and asked for you to forgive his absence so I'm going to try and take it from here. So we're seeking as you know side yard setback and lot coverage variances to construct a two story home on the property. This is at 1055 Sound View in the Orient by the Sea community. All of the construction will entirely within the existing footprint with no new grand disturbance. This is about a 21,000 sq. ft. parcel in the R-40 zoning district. This is a (inaudible) case obviously so the proposed new construction will constitute an increase in the degree of the existing non-conforming side yard setbacks as well as lot coverage. Specifically the single side yard setback is 8.4,feet where 15 is required and combined is 27.1 where 35 is required and the lot coverage is 33% where 20 is required. As you know this is all the existing setbacks and coverage. Just to hit briefly on the criteria as to character, in the Orient by the Sea neighborhood there are many similar sized one and two story dwellings many of which are constructed on substandard lots prior to the limitation of the existing setback regulations. Again all the construction is going to take place within the footprint of the existing structure, no new ground disturbance. While the second story addition will increase the height of the house it's not going to we're not increasing any other non- conforming setback so we don't believe that the proposed construction is going to have any impact whatsoever on the character of the neighborhood nor would it be a detriment to the nearby properties. The property is actually heavily screened as you may have notice if you went out there so it'll be substantially sort of invisible to the neighbors across the street when it's all done. As to benefit sought, obviously these have been non-conforming setbacks since the house has been built in' 1960 originally before the implementation I mean we're here obviously because of the Waltz interpretation which again anything we do to this house is going to require us to come here. So there will be again no increase in the degree of non-conformity of the setbacks or lot coverage. Obviously you've heard many of these cases that similar relief was required and granted-by this Board and I'm just going to throw a few out there. There'was Roesenbaum application #5938, the Sweeney application #5865, Manfredi #6188 and Annello ; $3 i November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting #6370 which are pretty much similar applications in the terms of size and scope. As to substantiality while we're seeking to go up not go out, if we were on the ground these variances might seem substantial but in light of the fact that we're just going up to create a house that's going to be similar to the character of the neighborhood we would submit that these are not substantial under the circumstances. As to adverse impacts the pre-existing non- conforming setbacks were established years ago. Again there are plenty of other two story houses up and down Sound View Rd. there throughout the Orient by the Sea community and again with the screening in the front that would to the extent that there is any such adverse impact there's no evidence that there is but that would assist in mitigating that so. Self-created difficulty here obviously it's not a determative factor but it really just stems from the desire to put a second story on the pre-existing non-conforming setbacks so we submit that under the circumstances here the record establishes the Kassapidis' entitlement to relief under 267. 1 did just want to briefly comment, I know in the record there was a report from Soil and Water with no problem with the maintenance measures that are suggested in that report. I do however not surprisingly have a little issue with my friend Mark's LWRP review. Again there's no new ground disturbance here. The existing septic is approved for four bedrooms, what is proposed is a four bedroom house. We're not increasing bedrooms it's just a reconfiguration' so with the number of bedrooms remain the same all of the construction is significantly landward of the coastal erosion hazard area so I don't believe that there's any call for removing and,replacing the septic system which will in fact cause more significant ground disturbance than construction. However we have no problem with the drainage for the pool,.outside shower that's all actually all part of what was going to happen in here for the outside shower and storm water control. If there are any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah there's actually one thing that kind of concerns me on here. The survey that you submitted, it says existing one story framed house and garage proposed second story addition, existing bedroom count to remain four bedrooms to remain, existing walls and floor to be removed to existing floor deck. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That sounds like a demo. Existing walls and floor to be removed to the existing floor deck, that means all the first floor walls will be gone. That's a demo. MARTIN FINNEGAN : And? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're here for additions and alterations and what's going to happen is if we proceed with variances which are simple enough and then suddenly all the walls are gone then you're going to get a stop work order from the Building Department cause 34 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting they're going to say you exceeded the scope of the Notice which was for additions and alterations. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't build a second story on top of a first floor that's gone. You have to rebuild the first floor so you're proposing a new two story house. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay but the relief here would be the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes but when we look at a demolition we don't view it the same way j as if you were actually building a second floor on top of what was already there. So I just want to clear this up right up front so that we don't have any problems in the future, MARTIN FINNEGAN : No I appreciate that cause I know this has been an issue CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : cause they're going to look at this and they're going to say whoa and here we go again and this is not the first time it's happened but here it says so right here on the survey. i MARTIN FINNEGAN : I know but this is of course one those situations where this was submitted to the Building Department and we were sent here for whatever we were sent here for so you know as far as the applicant is concerned it was never this didn't change since we applied for the variance relief. I mean it's always been that we were going to replace the house in kind essentially on the same foundation so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the best thing to do would be to go back and say we need an amended Notice of Disapproval for a demolition. I don't understand they called it additions-and alterations, it's going to come back to bite us, I know that. I'm trying to avoid that. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Bill I know you're familiar with this issue, Chuck Thomas had this on another project I can't remember the name of the applicant MEMBER DANTES : I'm sorry there's no way this could be additions and alterations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They screwed up. I just said that on the record I'm sorry Mike. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No I appreciate you bringing it up cause we certainly back in this other situation where this occurred with the same architect just had this discussion yesterday. i CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to delay and it's going to cause a mess. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : I mean what do you do if you're going to raise the height you're going to add MEMBER LEHNERT : You're going to get a framing inspection and they're going to shut you down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I would go back to the Building Department-and say that the Board noticed that the entire house is being replaced on the existing foundation based upon the survey but your Notice doesn't say demolition. Your Notice says additions and alterations. That means you're keeping what's there. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I completely understand but what I'm saying though is in terms of why we're here and the relief that we're seeking here, I'm going to come back for the same exact relief so I'm okay to clean this up with Mike cause I don't want that to happen that would be but where does that leave us here. Do I have to start from scratch and come back in six months to'see you guys? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I wouldn't do that. We're just trying to avoid the problem and if you come back with an amended then we will consider the variances without having to re- notice or whatever but it will be for a demolition. We'll just carry this over, we'll just adjourn it so you can come back and then we can address it as a demolition. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So are you more concerned about the jurisdictional issue with you doing this or what's the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm concerned that we don't have apples to apples here. T. A. DUFFY : We've had situations it seems like while reviewing these in the Building Department they're not calling demolitions and John Jarski goes out and does his inspections and it's a demolition. So I think Leslie's concern is if it is a demolition and you still want to build in the same place you're going to have to tailor your variance cause why would you want to build in the same spot because it's a foundation you're keeping the foundation so you're going to make your argument that you're still building on the same foundation and the reasons why you should be allowed to continue in the same spot when it really is a demolition. Like I said why can't you be conforming if you're knocking the whole thing down anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You just make your argument slightly differently. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I know in this other situation Mike looked at it and said well the ZBA didn't say anything about it in their decision and I'm thinking well what would you say in your decision 36 i I November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting i that would make that okay, we're okay with it being a demo but you're saying really it's outside of your purview right now because your only jurisdiction right now is over this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We only have the right to address addition and alteration. ; T. A. DUFFY : What they're doing it's a little frustrating is going out and putting a Stop Work Order on the construction saying this is a demolition CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the variance relief was for an addition. i MARTIN FINNEGAN : The conversion with the architect just yesterday cause he's like that's what we're doing it's on the plans but I think that happened before. T. A. DUFFY : They want the ZBA for Leslie to say oh that's deminimus but it's not de minimus. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and how in the world is a demolition a de minimus change from additions and alterations. It never will be. 1 MARTIN FINNEGAN : Which is another story. MEMBER DANTES : Here's the other thing Martin, we don't technically have the expertise to determine what's a demolition and what's not. That's something that Mike and T. A. DUFFY : No you can overrule them but it has to come before you which is a six month process like you said. If you want to overturn their determination, you get a-Stop Work Order and it says your additions and alterations changed into a demolition whether you changed anything or not then you have to come you have to make a separate application and have them overrule the Building Department. It's better really to iron it out now and say okay it's a ' i demolition, get your relief, variances for a demolition as opposed to get stopped later on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think this is the quickest and safest way to proceed. We'll just adjourn it to next month. We're crowded as all get out but we'll certainly do that in this instance because we just need to get the paperwork right. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So I need to just I'm going to get an amended Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRPERSON WEIMSMAN : Yeah just go back and show them the survey and just say the Zoning Board requested that you amend the Notice of Disapproval to a demolition. T. A. DUFFY : Or if Mike can explain to us how it's not a demolition. There has been a change since you left the definition changed so i 37 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not 25% it's 50% . This is iri fact 100% well the foundation is there that counts for something. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So in terms of well I guess we'll come back, are there any other questions in terms of the actual Waltz issue or anything like that that? MEMBER DANTES : Do you know what's under the ground as far as the septic system goes? Has it ever been upgraded or is it the same since 1969? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't know that but I'll get that for you before I come back. It's just a conventional system as far as I know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know the pool has a C.O. 1974, Z6134. Was there any a variance for lot coverage on this property? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Not that I was aware of. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, you can propose exactly the same setbacks and lot coverage and everything else but you need to be then making the argument that's why it needs to stay there cause it's a demolition and then we're clean. If you go ahead and write a determination and you'll get a permit and you'll be able to knock it down without having to come back here or be stopped because it's exceeding the scope of an addition and alteration. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay. Let me do that and hopefully CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anybody have any questions at this point or things that you want to mention to Martin? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only other thought that I had and I caught this in comment that Leslie brought forward, the rear deck where you've got the single side yard setback that's less than 15, it's 8.4 1 thought it was unusual that the house was basically a demolition that this existing multi-level deck would remain. Perhaps there's a way that you might remove one of the requests, whether you deemed it a demolition or not. It just seems unusual, you've got the corner of the house is what 12.3 feet? So that's existing so I argue by right that is your foundation wall but the deck it's just unusual. It's a tight lot, you've got all that (inaudible) paver around the swimming pool, maybe there would be some review of the actual design to take away one of the variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it won't remove a variance because the side yard has to be 15 feet and the house foundation is at 12 but it will lessen the variance. If they can put something at grade that's pavers instead of you know decking since they're rebuilding the whole thing. 38 i November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting i MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I thought was strange. I CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will lessen the variance. So that's something maybe you want to talk to your client about and see what they think. i I MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN It would reduce the lot coverage also which is you know I don't know if it would make it conforming but maybe they don't need the multi-level deck. They've got a big pool with a lot of patio around it and if they can keep everything at grade they'll reduce the I lot coverage substantially it might even be conforming I don't know. So I would suggest looking into those two things and then just get the amended and we'll adjourn this. STEVE HAM : I'm just curious when I was here for the Fire Department earlier this year, we had applied for alterations and additions for the second story and-found out right before the hearing that they might demolish and you allowed me to amend my application orally in front i of you and gave me alternative relief for demolition or alterations and additions. Would that not apply here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No because this is clearly a demolition. This is not a maybe. Your situation you wanted to cover both bases and said you were upfront about it and you know it's perfectly reasonable and the bottom line here is that it is a demolition. No one is disputing that, it was just wrong cited in the Notice of Disapproval that's the difference. I would say that the Fire Department does get some consideration. i MEMBER DANTES : He wasn't demolishing the entire building. I thought it was just part of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was not a total tear down either so those footprints made some sense you know so I would definitely distinguish between the two. MEMBER DANTES : This is the entire building yours was part of the building so technically it's not even a demolition anyway. i CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN It depends on what percentage but that was a way of saying (inaudible) process so that we didn't have to wind up coming back. STEVE HAM : It was for my own education that's all. ! i MARTIN FINNEGAN : Let me go back and any other questions or concerns? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not at the moment no. Alright I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to December 5th. We'll let you know what time, we have to look at the 3, November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting calendar and see what else is already scheduled but it will be next month. Did we vote on that I don't think so. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh Eric seconded it. All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7337—JOHN MCCALL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John McCall #7337. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's April 18, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required side yard setback of 10 feet located at 1073 Montauk Ave. on Fishers Island. STEVE HAM : Stephen Ham Nugent Street Southampton for the applicant. I'll be very brief. The argument is in my memorandum, it's not legally relevant I know, my client bought the property in 2016 and was not aware that this deck was illegal until he went for a building permit for some interior work to the house earlier this year but I would ask you to consider if that deck were not there at this point and we're coming in here for a variance to build it that the same arguments would apply and there's very little room on two sides of the house to put a deck and the logical place is where it is coming forward to Montauk Ave. The only alternative that might work would be to the east a bit but that would have an impact on two other houses whereas the owner of the property that would be most affected by the existing deck is in support of the application and I believe he sent it as an email, he copied me on it. It's attached to my memorandum as an exhibit where he is the owner of the Pequot Inn and states that this has no real impact on his property and the rest of it I've addressed the other criteria in my memorandum. It's a very small lot and 401 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an oddly shaped lot. STEVE HAM : It's tucked into the corner there. I think Jim Baker took you there when you visited there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. STEVE HAM : So the topography if you notice is pretty steep as well so removing the deck and putting it into a conforming location would be problematic and it has been there since 1978 and I understand he was able to find the contractor who built it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At last an application that's easy. Does anybody have any questions, Eric do you have any? MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, Rob, there is no one else in the audience and you have already addressed the application so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7354—GREGORY and BARBARA WOOD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Gregory and Barbara Wood #7354. This a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 3, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a patio roof at 1) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 840 Marlene Drive in 4� November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? Please state your name for the record please. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good day Board my name is Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture and I'm representing the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it looks like you want build an unenclosed structure, roof covering with a rear yard setback of 39.2 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 50 and lot coverage that will go up to 21.8% and the code allows a maximum of 20%. So I guess this additional structure I guess your current lot coverage is conforming at 20%? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Current lot coverage is 20.1%, the increase would be 1.7% and in regards to rear yard setback I just want to indicate that the existing home has a sunroom that's towards the rear of the home and we're keeping in line with that sunroom so the building line isn't changing. Again the covering is open completely, it's just the roof structure will have two columns to support the girder to hold the roof and we're just putting a few-skylights in there and you know the covering there's a pool in the'back, there just isn't any patio covering at all currently and that's why the application is in and what the owners are looking for. I did a little research, there was a couple of approvals on similar situations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay these are prior variances for lot coverage or setbacks? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes prior approvals for lot coverage and setbacks. They are Marlene Lane so I have application #5961, 780 Marlene Lane. They were granted lot coverage they were granted at 21.29% lot coverage and they had a side yard 21.16 where they were required 25. We also again on Marlene Lane 1400 application #5497 there was a relief granted for 22.5% lot coverage and that was for a porch covering. I'll just give you one more example of a lot coverage approval for variance granted on Marlene 445 Marlene Lane application #6647 and they were granted for 23.51% lot coverage. So if feel our application is somewhat in line and pretty minor increase in lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob let's start with you. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'd just like to better understand a little bit more of the need, I don't know the specific ones that you cited where relief was granted if it was for living space one I heard you just mentioned was for a porch. The house has substantial exterior porches already and covered spaces. There's an existing whether it's electronic or a manual awning that covers 42 I November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting this site, can you discuss a little bit more of the specific need for extra covered outdoor living space? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure I'll say my two cents and maybe for the owner to say something but basically again the pool is in the rear. There is really no such there is an awning that they have been using but there is no porch covering over their existing, patio. It's a small overhang let's say about 3 % feet outside the patio doors and that's it and then you walk out onto the patio but maybe Barbara would like to say a few words about that. BARBARA WOOD : Barbara Wood. We just want the covering because we do have the electronic awning as you had mentioned but you cannot use that when it's windy and we have like a wind tunnel that comes through there so a lot of times it's not put out. When we're there we're outside all the time so we do need the covering. That's you know and also when it rains you cannot go outside when it's raining so we just we would just like to have a covering over it. I mean it's you know and the sun the whole day the sun is on you. So that's another reason why. At least with the covering you know it would not be standing in the sun the whole time or sitting in the sun the whole time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let me ask you a question then, you're proposing a structure that's 11.9 inches by 30 feet. BARBARA WOOD : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 30.7 feet. BARBARA WOOD : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's pretty long, that's pretty big 30 feet. What's the reason for that? If you made it a little smaller you could possibly reduce the lot coverage. The setback would be the same. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So honestly it's the aesthetic of the home, there's a deck that's outside and the doors are symmetrical on the rear of the home and if you were to just put a small awning there it really would throw off the architecture of the home to be honest. It wouldn't even fit correctly. So there's a small deck that's also on the second floor and that's centered on the existing roof overhang and again we're staying in line with the building in the rear and we're basically staying in line with the side of the building. Again we're not going outside of like of any existing building line and so really I would say it's more of an aesthetic than trying to get more coverage so that's the real reason. The architecture would look wrong if you didn't bring it all the way to the end of the house. 43 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, Nick anything else from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm making a motion to close this 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#7339—THOMAS GEISE and PAULETTE GARAFALO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Geise and Paulette Garafalo #7339. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 20, 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 side yard setback of 15 feet located at 2195 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Hog Neck Bay) in Cutchogue. Pat this is for I guess a one story addition on the north side of the house remove as built deck and replace with the same sized raised masonry patio and that would be a side yard setback of 8.2 feet the code requiring a minimum of 15 feet. This is a deck replacement right but it's going to be a raised masonry patio? _November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Let me clarify, there was a variance granted for the same deck, let me back up. My client purchased this house with the deck. We came in together I was representing Geise in September 2015 we made the application for the pool and the existing deck when they purchased apparently was missing a permit for that so we cleaned up an old permit problem from when prior to theirpurchase. So the deck that is presently there at 8.2 feet received a variance. Part of this application was the kitchen addition that's what the space is around the front and side of the house and the Building Department said well you're replacing the variance granted deck with a same sized again the deck is elevated we're replacing it with stone to match the stone work that's being done to the front stoop and whatever other areas patios so aesthetically they wanted to make the wood deck match what is being renovated. They added the .2 deck setback even though we already have a variance for it. I think there's always some disagreement on whether or not once you get a variance for a structure if you replace the structure do you have to go back and get a new variance or as long as you're maintaining the same size, shape and height of the original variance whether that runs with the land and should be honored. CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN : They usually have an interpreting that if something is demolished then the relief or the C.O. is extinguished and you're starting again so I suppose that's why they PAT MOORE : Yeah I think it's a matter of law I would suggest that if the Board doesn't want as many applications as it'gets that we should recognize that a variance runs with the land and even the removal and reconstruction which often times happens. Let's say you have a deck and it's deteriorating just out of age needs to be replaced all the standards of the original variance would hold true. It would be helpful if that would CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That may be an eventual code conversation with the Town Board along with another long list. PAT MOORE : Well put it on your,list. MEMBER DANTES : But the problem is when you get bluff setbacks where the slope is constantly changing if they keep replacing in the same place you might have 100 foot bluff setback one year and fifty years later it might be 20 feet. PAT MOORE : But that's a change to a setback. So that would be a different scenario because from the bluff if the measurements keep changing then your variance granted at 15 feet if now the setback is 12 feet because of the,erosion of the bluff you definitely go to the Zoning Board for that. That you can at least justify going in for a new variance it's just I'm getting several of these which are the exact same place, side yard or whatever and in kind and place; in this case not in kind because it's stone but in place, same size having to go through a six month, eight 45 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting month process to get a variance. It would be very helpful if that were the case but anyway I want the merits of this application regardless are that it has a variance for the 8.2. The house is existing, this is a renovation to the existing house and you can see from the floor plans of the plans that were submitted this is a kitchen addition for what has been there is it a year round house yet for you oh for you, he's retired and is here permanently. So the house is being renovated for their full time enjoyment and since the deck is at 8.2 the 10 foot setback is within the same area. It's actually less than what is already an encroachment. There's also from the plan you can see it has a bilco door. The Building Department doesn't consider bilco doors a setback issue but the bilco was facing the front door and that's been relocated to this general area as well so I want to clarify that. It's in the notes but it wasn't that clear to me. Fortunately my client clarified that for me. If you have any questions, it's a pretty straightforward application, it's renovation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'll just remind you that you mayor may not know that all the Zoning Board members have already visited your property as part of the process. We do for all applications before a hearing so we've seen the adjacent property and we know exactly what it looks like and what you're proposing. Let's see if there's any questions, Pat any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Just a clarification, I was told when I was there to view the property that you were removing the septic system because there was a concrete cover on that side of the property where the deck is. PAT MOORE : I don't know the details for that. TOM GEISE : Tom Geise. The current cesspool is currently on the northeast corner. It doesn't come into play with the new foundation of the bump out on the kitchen. Our intention is to replace it and upgrade it. Our cesspool guy has been telling me for the last couple of years that it's probably on its last legs. We'll address that at a later date just for cash flow purposes but it is on that northwest corner but it shouldn't affect this project as it stands now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Similar housekeeping sort of article, tell me a little bit about your garage. Is the garage used as a garage? TOM GEISE : Just mainly for storage, all my toys. 461 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Storage. TOM GEISE : Yeah it's part of the basically just sided and re-roofed in this'process. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I saw that but it's also the landscaping sort of blocks the doorway for the garage so I was just curious. TOM GEISE : The landscaping MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The large evergreens. TOM GEISE : Oh yeah those bushes will,be coming out and the garage door will be centered. Those I don't know what they are hemlocks or whatever are they never really survived after Sandy so we have to replace them anyway so they'll be coming out so there will be access into the garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The use will be again for storage. TOM GEISE : For storage yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? 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) 4.? November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING #7349'— PAUL PAWLOWSKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Paul Pawlowski #7349. This is a request for variances from Article X Section 280-46, Article XXIII Section 280-127 and the Building Inspector's August 7, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to alter an existing single family dwelling into offices with an accessory apartment and for the pre-existing accessory cottage to be converted into a single family dwelling at 1) more than one use proposed upon a lot measuring less than 20,000 sq. ft. in area not permitted, 2) single family dwelling located less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) single family dwelling located less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 715 Pike St. in Mattituck. Would you state your name for the record. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Hello, Paul Pawlowski owner 715 Pike St. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's look more specifically at what the variance requests are. First of all the lot is 17,870 sq. ft. in the HB Zone. It needs a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. per use and now with the proposed conversion of what was an accessory to a single family dwelling and the single family dwelling becoming offices at the bottom and one apartment on the top. You're going to need a lot area variance for the size of the lot with two permitted uses. Secondly, the cottage to be converted to a single family dwelling has a 5.6 foot side yard setback where the code requires a minimum of 15 and third the rear yard setback on that structure is 18.3 feet, the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. Did I get all of those, yes I think so. We have a letter of support from the Mattituck Fire District. We have a letter of support from the Planning Board. These are all permitted uses in the HB zone. We understand that the apartment in the let's say principal structure although there'll be now two principle structures but the one closer to the road is going to be an affordable unit and they are certainly more than needed in this town. Let me see if the Board has any questions, Pat anything from you? We all just so the record reflects, we did an interior inspection as well. MEMBER ACAMPORA : In the cottage behind the two and a half story dwelling, how many rooms are in there. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : So on the first floor there's a kitchen, living room and basically it's two rooms plus the bathroom. On the second floor it's basically two rooms one of which is a bedroom. MEMBER ACAMPORA : So you're presently have a tenant in there anyway? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Correct, yes. 48T November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a market rate rental I take it? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Correct, my sister is in there so it's not market rate. It's well below market rate but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) call it an accessory apartment if yo'u lived in the other building you can have your sister living there. Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions but I did want to point out, I didn't have the benefit of the interior inspection I wasn't around but the leaders and gutters on the front structure, it seems that they just run to the foundation. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : So the one so there's two, one to the west is fake just for aesthetics and the one to the east runs into the lawn area. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the one that's on the west is the one I was seeing visually. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes I just did it there, so it's capped it's just fake. If you look at the upper gutter it's pitched to the east the one that runs into the lawn area which was replaced in kind. Just a little history, we bought the property and every structure there is exactly the original footprint and we just cosmetically renovated the exterior and renovated the interior as well. the big thing we did for the exterior to be conforming for the eventual Planning Board aspect is made sure that the driveway will have the adequate parking spaces. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need two for the cottage to be converted and then you will need how many spaces do you need for the offices? PAUL PAWLOWSKI : We need eleven (11) total which we have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to have some guest cause of the office nature you need to have non-residence parking. So you will require site plan approval after these variances are in place. PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. �9 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7293—SUSAN and TIMOTHY MILANO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Susan and Timothy Milano #7293. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's February 11, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and construct an accessory swimming pool at 1) swimming pool located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) additions located less than the code permitted side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) additions located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 745 Aquaview Ave. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in East Marion. Hi Frank would you just state your name for the record please. FRANK UELLENDAHL : Hi my name if Frank Uellendahl and I'm here on behalf of Susan and Timothy Milano. I just want to clarify, Susan and Timothy are siblings and this if granted the renovation project and additions will become her primary residence and back sixty years ago their grandfather bought the adjacent property and one across the street so that's why I only had to contact three neighbors. One of them actually hasn't come back yet but I did the tracking. So yes it's been in the works since February when the Notice was issued and Kim said listen your survey doesn't quite it's not sufficient for the application, we need a new survey. So this was all based on the old Young & Young survey back then which of course didn't show any elevations, didn't show any coastal hazard erosion lines and in the meantime because the coastal erosion hazard line was what is missing I actually went to your office and looked at the S0 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting map and determined based on what I saw that the coastal erosion line goes right through the one story structure behind the deck which is actually cantilevering over (inaudible). So I know I received a letter from Kim yesterday that from Mark Terry and there was some confusion about the site plan that I submitted earlier and the new survey which was issued back in May. So I don't see this as an issue because it doesn't really affect the existing structure where both surveys, my site plan and Young & Young survey are very close. I believe actually my line is actually more to you know the correct one because the coastal erosion line goes right through (inaudible) exact angle but may that as it be you decided to send the application first to the Trustees so you didn't want to deal with this because it was close to the bluff and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the bluff. FRANK UELLENDAHL : So we went through the process, the Trustees got involved. Mr. Corey Humphrey from Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District and I think.you have a copy of the report which shows his concern or the Department's concern about erosion and recommendations how the possible construction could be conducted. I took into consideration and we decided to table the application at the Trustees and I had a separate meeting with them where we decided to actually remove the one story structure, the existing structure entirely. That put most of the portion actually or,falls beyond the coastal erosion hazard line. So now we're actually adding the new one story structure to the 25 foot line so we are landward of the coastal erosion. I was not issued a coastal erosion permit. They denied this. So we changed the design, we pushed everything landward and the variances of course are what they are. I mean the existing building is approximately three feet or two feet (inaudible) property line but then again the Milano's own the adjacent lot as well so the 100 foot line obviously take construction almost into the front yard and I didn't see any other solution other than using of course the two story structure cause this is where the kitchen is going to be located and bedrooms upstairs and then continue with an addition one story addition for a new living room because we're losing this now (inaudible) a new massive bedroom. So we (inaudible) already have two bedrooms but there's a possibility to you know put the third bedroom above the garage because it's attached. So in addition to the renovation and addition project Susan Milano also would like to have a pool and in considering the letter from Corey Humphrey we decided to move the pool back even more so it's now 74 feet off the bluff line and so that's basically the scope of work that we're trying to achieve here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have well aside from the fact that we need to stamp an architect's site plan with your license attached to it is always accessible as correct information but it is a little concerning that the survey is not consistent with your site plan. FRANK UELLENDAHL : I revised the site plan according to the survey. .,1 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we have is so this one that the Trustees used and stamped as approved, is that the one? FRANK UELLENDAHL : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's make sure, let's see the date of last revision. Here you go this says 2/2/2019 and August 14th is when it was approved by the Trustees. FRANK UELLENDAHL : I added the wetland, coastal erosion line and this is the most recent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have the correct one. FRANK UELLENDAHL : Cause here it says this portion of the existing structure is going to be demolished. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah so what we have is okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This one is dated which day? FRANK UELLENDAHL : Well I revised this let me see Leslie I can reissue this exact site plan with a more recent date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But this is the one that's approved by the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's okay. This one was last revised June 4th it looks like right? FRANK UELLENDAHL : I added this line but then later on after we got the wetland permit I took out (inaudible) building so I can actually (inaudible) I will reissue this with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay with MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just don't put in (inaudible) FRANK UELLENDAHL : That's new based on the deliberation from the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the setback for the pool is FRANK UELLENDAHL : I cannot do anything within the 25 feet coastal erosion area. They don't allow me to even have a deck because the deck is too large according to our (inaudible) code so that's what the owner decided that's fine. If the deck goes the deck is going. BOARD SECRETARY : This is the one stamped by the Trustees, this is the one we're going to be relying upon? 52 November 7, 2019,Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah he's just going to change the date. I mean I think that's okay it's fine. FRANK UELLENDHAL : This is it but I'm going to change the date. BOARD SECRETARY : So what is the date supposed to be? FRANK UELLENDAHL : I'll let you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so a couple of things, when Mark sent a memorandum Mike Domino for the Trustees he issued it as consistent but he had concerns about the location of the sanitary system and also well I see you now have a drywell that's for the pool. FRANK UELLENDAHL : The dry well is basically for all roof run off and for the pool. I have the calculation for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now he's suggesting that an IA system ought to be installed because it's so close to the you know to the CEHA. FRANK UELLENDAHL : And the owners are fine with this. We're going to install a new IA system as per code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: Now there's really only one other question. I mean obviously moving everything out of the CEHA and making it more landward all perfectly sensible but you know we did the site inspection and that convinced us that that two story structure is not going to wind up demolished. FRANK UELLENDAHL : No it's not going to be demolished. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it's for additions and alterations but I'm probably going to have to tell you how many times this Board has gotten notices from Building that says additions and alterations, then you tear into the walls of an old structure especially when anything that's close to the water, there's rot, there's all kinds of stuff going on you didn't anticipate. Then the builder takes it down and the architect blames the builder and the homeowner says I didn't know anything and we wind up with a Stop Work Order because it's now a demolition and it's exceeded the scope of our approvals for additions and alterations. That is exactly what we want to be sure we want to avoid. FRANK UELLENDAHL : You can be assured because it's a beautiful, it's an older structure, it was built in I think the sixties and there's some nice details that we want to preserve and you know me a little bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know you're confident that this is salvageable. S3 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting FRANK UELLENDAHL : Yes, yes, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to ask it because when you look at just the outside, we didn't do the inside and you see there's quite a bit of deterioration, the windows all have to be replaced you know. FRANK UELLENDAHL : At this point they have to turn the water off because the well is you saw this probably, it's actually marked on my site plan and the water tank is sitting (inaudible) and of course the floor system the existing floor system is not insulated and that's why the decision to actually demolish the major part of the structure. This is a right one cause we couldn't even have put in a foundation there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to do any work on the foundation of the as built part the part you're salvaging? FRANK UELLENDAHL : That is a crawl space, so we do need a new foundation if you look at the (inaudible) we do need a dining room and we want to have the dining room facing the deck. So there is a new one story addition to the second. The second story addition is not changing it's just going to be renovated and extended. We're working with the structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I know and I mean that's often the case. It seems sometimes people want to retain them cause it's cost effective, other times it's really not cost effective at all; you're better off taking it all down and starting from scratch but there may be nostalgic reasons FRANK UELLENDAHL : You might have to move the whole thing back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you have to make a significant argument as to why it should be that close to the top of the bluff that's for sure but you know the Board is trying very hard to be very diligent about catching these to avoid problems. To go through all this rig amoral and then have everybody Stop Work Order and held up and it's a mess and then there's no way I can ever say that a you know they come in for a de minimus, a demolition is not de minimus and never will be. So I just want to be upfront on the record with you so that we can FRANK UELLENDAHL : Put it in your deliberation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so you're going to improve put some new foundation underneath the existing two story portion of the structure. FRANK UELLENDAHL : I don't know I think I know that there is a crawl space under that building because it was constructed later. The one story existing building that we're taking down was the original cottage and then they added to the two story structure with two bedrooms upstairs .4 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting and the master bedroom down below and this is staying. We're just changing some of the interior, the kitchen is moving into the two story structure and then extending from there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the pool actually everything that's on this site plan is approved by the Trustees at this point. FRANK UELLENDAHL : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a 74 foot setback. Originally it was 60 feet FRANK UELLENDAHL : It was 60 but when I (inaudible) I knew it's heavily wooded the bluff which is good stabilizes it but I was very close to the trees already so sometimes it's difficult to see when you're looking at a site plan so there was no question to move it back because the pool also has a lot more sun exposure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did they I got the permit here some place, did they require a non- disturbance buffer, the Trustees? FRANK UELLENDAHL : No because the buffer is actually not going to change, it's there. It's you know a lot of bushes and I mean the erosion actually is happening at the,toe of the bluff so that's a different project entirely, we may have to go back to the Trustees for (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we do have a letter of support from a neighbor just so you are aware. We just got it,James Wilkens, David Wilkens and Susan Fox. FRANK UELLENDAHL : Oh this is very interesting, this is the one that hasn't come back yet which I gave to Kim and I when I looked at the that's the neighbor the direct neighbor to the west Which Bessie Wilkens passed away a few month ago. These must be her family. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me enter into the record precisely what the variances are, we have additions and alterations at 25.2 feet from the top of the bluff, the code requiring 100 foot minimum. Additions and alterations with a 7.5 foot side yard setback, the code requires a minimum of 15 feet and a pool in a side yard where the code allows a rear yard or a front yard with a principle setback but the rear yard (inaudible) 100 feet from the top of the bluff. FRANK UELLENDAHL : Let me just correct you in the 25.2 feet because this was the original submission that I filed back in February but since we're taking this building down the it's basically 25 exactly 25 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 25.2 feet that's what the Notice says. So that's alright then. That's okay that's fine. I don't think I have any other questions, let's see if anybody else does, Nick any questions from you? November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not really, I think it was pretty much addressed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're very pleased to know that an IA system will be installed with this. It's pretty major construction whether it's additions or FRANK UELLENDAHL : And it should happen in other places (inaudible) waterfront. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Especially so close to the CEHA. Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, Pat? There's nobody else in the audience to address the application. So, I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we need an updated, the survey we have is accurate. We're going to stamp the site plan. You want to just change the date on that?' FRANK UELLENDAHL : If the date is important to you then I would. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure what we stamp is accurate and this is accurate what we have so I don't know we're not going to get a survey we'll just stamp the site plan. FRANK UELLENDAHL : As per Trustees approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's fine. The record now reflects that there were some corrections to where the coastal erosion hazard line was setbacks and so on. Alright it makes sense. All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) '56 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7046 — THE ENCLAVES HOTEL AND RESTAURANT (Request for Special Exception and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a hearing there's actually two hearings this evening. I'm going to go over because it's technical and it's complicated and I want everybody to understand exactly what's going on so I'm going to read a little introduction that explains precisely what all the legal and technical things are that the Board is dealing with and what we're going to be doing this evening. That will be followed, by a presentation by the applicant and then your questions and then questions from the Board. First I'm going to read the public notice. This is a request for Special Exception Permit and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for the Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant #7046. It's a public hearing on both of those. The project is 6.75 acres and is located on the north side of Main Rd. +/- 90 feet west of the intersection of Main Rd. and Town Harbor Lane. The property address is 56655 Main Rd. in Southold. Plans include the conversion of an existing two story home into a 74 seat restaurant and construction of a 44 unit hotel including four detached cottages upon a parcel located at the address I just read particularly known as Suffolk County tax map #1000-63-3-15. Normally I don't read anything but I'm going to do this because I don't want to meander and I want to have plenty of time for all of your comments and for the applicant to present their application. The purpose of this meeting is to receive input from the public on a Special Exception Permit application and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant. I already mentioned where the property is located. It is west of the intersection of Main Rd. and Town Harbor Lane across from the 7-Eleven convenience store. It is in the hamlet business zone district. In review of this proposed action the ZBA assumed the role of lead agency classifying the project as a Type I action under SEQRA, that's State Environmental Quality Review Act and found that the project the potential to result in one or more potential significant environmental impacts if not properly mitigated. As a result a positive declaration was issued by the ZBA on November 16, 2017 requiring the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We're here this evening to receive input on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Special Exception application. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was originally submitted by the applicant in April 2019 and was reviewed for completeness by the Board and our consultants revised by the applicant and accepted by the ZBA on October 7, 2019. The Notice of this hearing and acceptance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest and the Draft EIS was made available through the Town website and the ZBA's office. You may have noticed this handout, I'm not sure if you did but in case you haven't had an opportunity to review the full Draft Environmental Impact Statement it's very lengthy, it's very complete; we would urge you to go to this website where it is published and made available to the public. If you want you can pick one of these up and we'll tell you how to get to the link and have you 57 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting find that statement. The Board has decided that the public comment period will be extended from a ten (10) day minimum which the law requires for written comments received after the close of tonight's hearing public hearing until December 9, 2019. Comments made in writing carry an equal weight as comments made at tonight's hearing. As a result you're encouraged to provide written comments in addition to or in lieu of any comments made in this hearing and if there are people that you know that are interested in this application and were not able to come tonight they certainly will have an opportunity to submit written comments. After the close of the comment period the ZBA will provide all written comments and a copy of the hearing transcript to the applicant and will request that the applicant prepare a response to the comments on record from this evening also referred to as the Final Environmental Impact Statement. All substantive comments on this Special Permit and Draft EIS will be addressed in the final EIS. The ZBA and its consultants will review this document to ensure that it is complete, accurate and responsive to the comments prior to its acceptance. Once the final EIS is accepted it will be available through the Town website, it will be circulated to involved agencies and will be made available for public review at the ZBA office. The Final EIS will be made available for a minimum of thirty (30) days before the town can adopt a findings statement on the EIS. The minimum is actually ten (10) days sorry but we may have the option to extend that. The Findings Statement weighs and balances relevant social, economic and environmental issues, looks at identified impacts and assesses the adequacy of identified mitigations which establish the basis for a decision on the project. After the Statement of Findings is issued the town may render a decision on the Special Exception Permit application. In other words what I'm saying is that although we're going to they had very different standards we're going to be looking at the Special Exception Permit application which has its own set of standards that have to be met but we cannot make a determination on that until a SEQRA finding is made. So we're going to do the SEQRA first, that will be the Final Environmental Impact Statement. We will hold open the Special Exception Permit application until SEQRA determination is made. After the Statement of Findings is issued by the ZBA the town may then render the decision on the Special Exception Permit application, the Planning Board will then be responsible for final site plan review, that will be the next step. I'm going to go over very few ground rules for this evening. And we'll ask the applicant to make a brief presentation of the proposed project. Then I'm going to open up the meeting for public comments. If you wish to speak please raise your hand and once recognized you can come forward to one of these podium and microphones. Please state your name and address for the record. It's all being recorded and then tell the Board the specific comments that you have on the Draft EIS or the Special Exception Permit application. Please speak clearly as your comments are being made part of the record and will be addressed in the Final EIS and again are being recorded. No decisions will be made this evening on this project and there are additional steps in the process that the law requires us to follow as previously just described before a decision November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting can be made. I want to stress that all substantive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will need to be addressed in the Final EIS and therefore while everyone is welcomed to speak tonight, I do request that speakers refrain from making the same comments as preceding speakers (rather you may indicate that you agree with what the previous speaker said. So just for purposes of being efficient and making sure we get everybody's comments but without being repetitious. We'll provide an opportunity for the applicant to address the Board at the end of the hearing if they chose to. After tonight you may still provide written comments to the ZBA or anyone else might and again those would be due on December 9th following the close of tonight's public hearing. I told you how you can get to view that Draft Environmental Impact Statement. There's also a copy that the Town Clerk has, a hard copy and then there's on in the Southold Library and in our office also. They're all FOIL able if you want to see them. The Board also has some questions. Tonight we're here to listen. We are not necessarily going to get answers to everything but if there are some things that need clarification we can ask the applicant. The public needs to address the Zoning Board and not the applicant. If you have a question about anything you can ask us. If we think it's relevant we can say please answer it to the architect or whomever alright that's how that works. So let me invite now the applicant to provide a project overview to all of us before we open up the hearing for public comments. Please go ahead. CHARLES CUDDY : My name is Charles Cuddy. I have an office at 445.Griffing Ave. in Riverhead. I represent the applicant. Tonight I have with me Andrew Giambertone who is the architect, Tammy Cunha who is working for the Engineer/Planner, I have Ron Hill who is the Traffic Engineer, Sean Harkin who is the Sound Engineer. Also (inaudible) Gennaro is here who has worked a great deal on the DEIS that's just been mentioned by the Chairperson. We will speak briefly, we're not going to take up a lot of time but I just wanted to touch upon what the Special Exception is about. In the hamlet business district a hotel is permitted as long as we get approval for the Special Exception. A Special Exception is a permitted use but it also has to have an overview by the Board to determine if they're reasonable conditions to mitigate any significant impacts. So that's our application tonight to say to the Board that all of these people will testify, you can hear what they're going to say about this particular site and they can explain it in some detail. In connection with the hotel use there is standards which must be met and they're set forth in the code in Section 280-35B and that is relating to the hotel and the density and the type of use that'you can have. We also meet that and again that will be spoken about by some of the people that follow me. When we get all through tonight we still have to go and people should know this, we still have to go to the Planning Board in this town and get site plan approval so we're only partly finished and there will still be another hearing as a matter of fact. The applicant here has to show that it complies with certain standards and requirements and in the town code Section 280-142 and Section 280-143 there are standards.' 59 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting There are special matters that the Board considers, there are sixteen (16) of them. I'm not going to read all of them to you but I have written them down. If you want a copy of it I can give them to you and there are also seven (7) general standards in making their determination. I'm going to hand those up to the Board so that they have them in the record and so it's part of the record and then I will ask some of the other speakers to follow me. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Cuddy was addressing what the State statutes are that the law requires the Zoning Board to review and the applicant to address for the permitted use to be effectuated through a permit and you have actually addressed them in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and I believe it's page eighty (80) approximately AE and again if you want to see how they've answered those standards and what that standards are we use them as part of writing our decision because we have to address them, they're available on line. Anything else you want to say about them? MR. CUDDY : No I would at this point ask Mr. Giambertone to come forward. He is the architect. He has a model here by the way that I think is worthwhile for everybody to look at cause I think it shows this site in particular done very well so they can understand how it's going to look when it's finished. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Since we all have copies of those elevations the renderings, why not turn then around so the public can see them. If you need to move that table that's fine. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Good evening, my name is Andrew Giambertone, I'm wearing two hats tonight. I am both the applicant and the architect for this particular project. Myself and my partner Mr. Jonathan Tibett came across this property some time ago. Mr. Tibett has been living in Southold for some time now. He's made significant investments in the area as a demonstration of his commitment and belief in the Southold community. Most recently he was partnered with Glen Heidtmann who is here this evening as well, purchased and renovated the Einstein Square project, restoring the buildings and providing the community with a new gathering space in the square itself paying homage to one of the Southold's most historic residence. Together John and I want to take the opportunity to do something relatively unique in the world development. We feel that we wanted to develop this property with the best possible design solution as opposed to the maximum yield which is a rare commodity today. We feel that our design is respectful in terms of the matter in which it's been designed and where it's sited and I'll go through that in a few moments. As Mr. Cuddy said this is a permitted use in the zone. The building and grounds fully comply to all the regulations in this zone district. The uses in this building are relatively simple. The existing Hedges Bed and Breakfast building which is a late 1800's Italian Victorian structure will be repurposed as a restaurant to provide food service to the public as well,for guests of the hotel. The proposed building will be a two �4 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting story forty four room boutique hotel focusing on service and quality. It will feature interior lounge spaces, a reception lobby, a small coffee shop and an exterior pool and terrace. It is designed to accommodate guests, small business functions for local or visiting businesses, a meeting hall on the second floor and the grounds will feature nearly a three quarter acre meadow which will form as a display ground for visiting artists and local artists to display sculpture in the setting of a meadow as your entrance view of the hotel as you come up. The operations are relatively simple; the restaurant will be open in season from Monday to Thursday for dinner only, lunch as well as dinner on both Friday and Saturday and potentially brunch on Sundays along with an early dinner seating in season. The restaurant will also offer hotel guests a limited breakfast menu via room service and during the off season we may limit the hours of the restaurant from Wednesday through Sunday with lunch available on the weekends only. The hotel will be open year round focusing on weekend stays but available weekdays as well. In the prime season any special events such on functions focusing on the arts for local interests and culture will take place during the week in the hotel itself. In the off season we will welcome corporate functions during the week to help maximize the occupancy in the off season months. We anticipate the opportunity to do up to twelve catered affairs on site per year. Likely in the meadow under a tent with small affairs within the hotel itself. All catering will be provided by an outside catering service. The food will not be developed on the grounds. So in terms of the basic use and the overview that's (inaudible)-from an applicant's standpoint. As the architect and if it's okay with the Board I'd like to use the model as can the Board all see the model? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE So Main Rd. is here, the existing Hedges Bed and Breakfast that mauve colored (inaudible) building along the road there will form the restaurant CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, we need to have you speak into the,mic because we won't be able to get the why don't you just pull that forward a little bit so you can speak into the mic or move the model closer. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : The idea is that as you're walking down Main St. your vision of this property has really not been changed significantly from what you see now. The Hedges Bed and Breakfast was, the previse was that there was a hedge row behind the property that actually screened the bulk of the 6.75 acres from `the view from the street and the concept is to reinvigorate that hedge row to create an effective veil of the building from the street view. The idea is that there will be a one way in, one way out. There will be parking (inaudible) for the restaurant use at the restaurant itself and you'll have to traverse along the hedge row to a traffic circle not really seeing the hotel itself until you hit that traffic circle. The premise of the 61 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting hotel is that the building itself buffers the activity of the noise from the surrounding neighbors. We have to the north the Long Island Railroad, to the west we have the Witsky boatyard, to the south we have Main Rd. and there are three residents to the east. So we strategically placed the building in an L-shaped fashion with all the activities all the balconies, everything that happens on a daily basis will happen within that courtyard.,On the back side the east side of the building is simply a mirror glass fagade that will reflect the screened planting there. There will be no balconies, no access at that point. The concept is to have forty four rooms, you're coming through reception on (inaudible), you'll be brought through a lobby and when you come through that lobby space if you go through to the south you'll see the courtyard and the meadow where there will be sculptures displayed, there'll be a deck floating on a pond that we're going to build there. If you look to the north you'll see the activity at the pool area. There is a rooftop terrace on top of that lounge area and we're talking about the lounge area here, this is a roof so the only activity on the roof is this lounge area here where it's screened effectively by the only building of any height. The building was specifically designed to be a flat roofed structure relatively low profile to help mitigate the view of the building from anywhere and in fact the only building you might possibly see would be what looks to be a restored (inaudible) barn which is actually the meeting center and forms the backdrop to the lounge area in the hotel. We have some photographs we prepared. We were asked by the Board to provide an idea of what the view to the public might be as well as the neighbors to the east so what we have here are views from this is view number one which is taken from the neighboring property directly to the east here along the drive. So when you currently stand there and look across the property this is what you see. Once the screened planting is installed, as I said what this neighbor is likely to see is just the roof of that building and the rest of the building more or less disappears. From the Main Rd. this is the view of what the bed and breakfast currently looks like and what we've done here is superimposed the landscaping that is proposed to be installed on the property an,d you can see that the landscaping as well as the hedgerow again effectively screen the view of the hotel. This view has the hotel superimposed upon. So you can see that if you're walking by or driving by it's going to be very difficult to see the building at all because the height of the building is relatively low (inaudible) the extent of the landscaping. This is a view of before and after the screened planting from the Long Island Railroad property and these are the views from the two neighboring properties again prior to construction, after installation of screened plantings, prior to construction and after installation of screened plantings. It is our intention that once we've garnered approval from all the requisite Boards and the Building Department, as we break ground on the project we're actually going to install the screened plantings immediately so it has the benefit of the construction period to grow and mature. It also helps mitigate the noise and disruption of construction from the neighbors during that period of time. The materials are all intended to be natural field stone on the barn and alongside the reception area natural limestone, wood and then there'll be some glass 62 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting panels. The four cottages to the far back of the property are across the courtyard where the pool resides and they provide privacy in a setting for those people who are requesting a little bit more privacy than they get in a hotel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually let me just ask you a quick question because you're right by this model. One of the things the Board noticed in evaluating the site plan that you submitted was, the code requires a 15 foot wide landscaped buffer between the residential use and your property and we see that you planted some trees along that edge that property; according to the survey the site plan that you generated there's very little space between the 18 foot wide driveway and the adjacent residential property line. You might have 10 feet maybe but we're not quite sure, so if you can't realize a 15 foot buffer there you will need a variance. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Part of that will I imagine will come up during the Planning Board process in terms of road alignment and whether or not we can comfortably move the driveway over to (inaudible) and we're willing to do so. It's going to be a function of proper site planning, turn radius and that type of thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I just wanted to mention cause we are aware of that and we work hand in hand with the Planning Board so okay thank you, anything else you'd like us to know at this point? ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Not unless you have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I want to hear from the public before we get to ours, Mr. Cuddy. TAMMY CUNHA : Good evening everyone, I'm Tammy Cunha from P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer at 630 Johnson Ave. Bohemia, New York. As the site engineers the proposed application complies with all of the bulk dimensional requirements of the district. The proposed site is actually significantly under the maximum coverage permitted. The maximum coverage is 40% and our proposed site plan is only 16.3% coverage. The proposed plan also exceeds the minimum landscaped area requirements of 25% having a 58.62% proposed landscaped development. Also our proposed site also has significantly greater lot line setbacks than what is required by the code, so in all areas of setback requirements and area coverages our application meets and or exceeds the current town zoning code. The total site parking also meets and exceeds the current zoning code being that the total site is proposed to have 160 parking spots on site comprised of 123 paved spaces and 37 grass paved spaces. The actual total required number per the town's zoning code regulation is 94 spaces on the site itself being 56 for the hotel and 38 for the proposed restaurant. For special events we have come up with a special valet parking plan that I believe the Board has had the chance to take a look at. This 63 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting actually increases the hotel parking to a total of 140 spaces for the hotel being that it is a valet situation. This special event parking would be broken down to 38 non-event parking spaces for the hotel itself, 12 employee event valet parking spaces, 75 guest valet parking spaces and then another additional 15 parking spaces as overflow. The total site itself during a special event would host 178 parking spaces including the restaurant. So we have pretty much exceeded what the zoning code requires. Now relevant to the hotel a minimum lot area that is required is 3 acres by town code. The site obviously exceeds that. The zoning also restricts the minimum number of units to one unit per every 6,000 sq. ft. or 49 units. Our proposal calls for only 44 units for the hotel. The code also restricts the size of each individual units to 600 sq. ft. and we are below that by being 594 sq. ft. so we're five less permitted and we are undersized for the maximum units available. As far as the landscaping plan that we have proposed we are preserving many existing trees along the buffer areas providing that natural buffer but we're also proposing to plant a lot of native species as well as some ornamental species to increase our buffer area as well. Also by planting these species that are all suited to the site, we are eliminating the need or potential need for pesticides and fertilizer. The plantings were selected by know regulatory agencies and organizations including the New York State D.E.C., the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County and the Suffolk County Water and Land Evasive Advisory Board. The landscape plan consists of maintained turf grass with deciduous trees spread out, trimmed privet hedgerows, proposed evergreens, Leyland Cypress at eight feet on center to try to thicken up the border along the driveways and access ways and also to thicken up the border with the neighboring properties. The landscape plan will comply with the town zoning code, the landscape screening and buffer regulations. All proposed site lighting fixtures are dark skies compliant with LED lamping. All outdoor lighting is shielded so that the light source is not visible from adjacent properties or the roadway. Proposed lighting fixtures focus indirect lighting as to contain the light within property boundaries. Lighting fixtures are proposed at 10 feet high being 4 feet less than what is allowable by code as 14 feet high. As we said the general site description is a 6.7 acre site located on the north side of Main St. approximately 90 feet west of Town Harbor Lane. The site is proposed to maintain a one way egress that is an existing curb cut on Main Rd. and that would be to the east of the proposed restaurant. Also we have a one way means of egress and that would be to the west of the proposed restaurant. The proposed site calls for the conversion of the former bed and breakfast now a residential structure and a shed into a 74 foot restaurant along the frontage of Main St. That restaurant has a setback of 17.6 feet from the front yard which is in excess of 2.6 feet from what the town code requires as a minimum of 15 feet. The proposed restaurant includes 38 parking spaces as per code requires. We have 27 paved parking spaces and 11 grass paved parking spaces to be a little more eco-friendly. The proposed site also calls for the development of a 40 unit hotel within that L-shape and then we also have 4 detached cottages to the north of our hotel. The facility also has a swimming pool in one area and a recreational 641 _November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting area that is kind of hidden in between the hotel area so it's a bit shielded. The proposed cottages are only 594 sq. ft. which is less than the required code. The proposed hotel facility is situated to the north of the property and it's also setback an approximate 369 feet from Main Rd. The proposed hotel has 96 paved parking spots under normal circumstances and we also have another 26 grass paved parking spots. The proposed development includes a sewage treatment plan. It's located to the northeast corner of the property by the Long Island Railroad. The proposed sewage treatment plant will be designed to all Suffolk County Department of Health Services codes and regulations also allowing for a hundred percent expansion of the plant and a hundred percent expansion of its leaching pools. It's all well within the required Suffolk County Department of Health Services required setbacks and code requirements and the sewage treatment plant design flow for the development is 8,820 gallons per day and I think I covered most of it. Does anyone have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if I have, I may have some in future but right now let's leave that I want to let you finish. MEMBER DANTES :The sewage treatment plant, is it all underground? PAUL GROSSER : Paul Grosser of P. W. Grosser Consulting 630 Johnson Ave. Bohemia. There's a small building that's 10 x 23 but the rest of it is below grade. MEMBER DANTES : Where is it on the can you point where it would be on the model. PAUL GROSSER : It's in that corner. There's a small shed (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) biologically engineered system, can you just tell all of us a little bit about what that means? PAUL GROSSER : It's EESST system, it's a biological system where waste water comes in and essentially bacteria within the waste water is used to break down into the waste water and there's a sludge involved and through a process of both in aerobic and anaerobic areas with air and without air it removes nitrogen as well. The Health Department requires the discharge from this of nitrogen of less than 10 milligrams per liter and it meets that requirement and usually much better than that. Does that cover it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep that's fine. MEMBER DANTES : So basically this is the next step up from an IA system? PAUL GROSSER : Yes. The 'IA system takes the nitrogen down to about 19 milligrams per liter, this is essentially a full blown sewage treatment plant that will be required, meets the 65 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting standards of any of the other major treatment plants that are out as nitrogen removal. It's about twice as good as it (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Someone here to address traffic impacts? RON HILL : Good evening, my name is Ron Hill. I'm a principal of the firm of (inaudible) Engineering Associates 66 Main St. Westhampton Beach, New York. We were asked to prepare a traffic impact study for the project. We started by collecting data at four intersections that the town (inaudible) to look at, Main Rd. and Hobart, Main Rd. and Locust Lane, Main Rd. and 7-Eleven and Main Rd. and Town Harbor. We collected the data in July of 2018. We then ran existing capacity analysis using the highly capacity manual software and then we added some background traffic to account for growth and we ran a no build analysis at each one of those intersections to form the basis of our comparison of the impact. Next we went to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (inaudible) trip generation manual that provides estimated trips for a myriad of land use. We selected a full service hotel and quality restaurant as our uses to look at. Basically with that we found that during the a.m. rush hour the site would generate less than forty total trips and forty total trips in the p.m. hour on a weekday. On Saturday the generation is higher and it will generate slightly under fifty trips. As a note because we did counts at the 7- Eleven across the street, the 7-Eleven generates about twice that amount of traffic. We took the traffic generation, we applied that to those four intersections and we ran the analysis and comparing the results of no build. We didn't find any significant deterioration level of service of service and no changes well minor changes in delay but no level of service changes. Because we're having a special events eight to twelve times a year. We ran an analysis in the same fashion for a Saturday for a special event of about 250 people. We ran those numbers at each of the four intersections, we did not find any deterioration on Route 25. There was some increase, more significant increase in delay at any of the four intersections and more so at the 7-Eleven driveway because our exit is directly opposite it and that has some impacts. Our driveway will have delay coming out of it for special events but it will work. MEMBER DANTES : What's the difference between a level of service and delay? RON HILL : Delay is number of seconds average delay at the intersection. In this case because they're un-signalized intersections the delay all occurs on the side street making left and rights or through movements out or a left turn into the side street that's where the delay is clocked. Level of service is when you look at the delay I forget what it is over fifty or sixty seconds A, B, C, D, E and F the delay a ten second average delay is (inaudible) level of service A, a sixty second total delay is what the service will be and that's essentially how we grade the intersection analysis all based on intersection delay. We also looked at the parking I think we've already gone over the numbers. We're providing significantly more parking than required for the hotel 66 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting and the restaurant alone to service our special events. We've added valet parking further increase that so we have significant more parking on the site on a regular basis to accommodate that peak flow our peak parking demand. Does anybody have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll reserve them for later. RON HILL : Okay thank you. SEAN HARKIN : Good evening members of the Zoning Board, my name is Sean Harkin. I am here with Sound Sense LLC an office at 39 Industrial Rd. in Wainscott, New York. Sound Sense was brought onto the project in order to analyze the existing site plans in place by the applicant for and as well as the traffic study in order to assess potential disturbance to nearby neighbors. The Town of Southold does have an existing noise ordinance found in Chapter 180 of the zoning code. The noise ordinance stipulates that properties are limited to during the days of Sunday to Thursday from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., 65 dba at the boundary line from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. for 50 dba. From Friday to Saturday from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., 65 dba and from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., 50 dba. Utilizing the traffic study we collected data at the site for existing noise conditions at one second intervals and were able to manipulate the data in order to insert additional car pass byes as a result of any increased traffic. The result of the study found that there were no significant impacts as a result of increase in road noise. The study also showed that there would not be any significant impact to nearby receivers as a result of day to day operation. Regarding special events, we completed an analysis utilizing standardized levels for speech that are found in a scholarly article published in 1977 entitled Speech Levels in Various Noise Environments. This article presents different sound levels with different levels of speech stress for individuals, for men, women, children. So utilizing the sound levels in this article we were able to put together an analysis for groups of fifty and two hundred and fifty at a fifty, fifty split of men and women. The analysis showed that with speech that there would be no violation of the town of -Southampton noise ordinance. As far as any amplified sound is concerned the site plan is proposing to use movable sound barriers in order to utilize for any amplified sound public address and in addition sound limiters can be placed on the system in order to limit the sound to the 65 dba at the property line. If there are any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There will be but we'll wait till we hear from the public, the Board has some questions. SEAN HARKIN : I apologize I said town of Southampton. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all know where we live. I think that pretty much covers the scope of the presentation that we asked the applicant to be prepared to do this evening for the Board and for the public. What I'd like to do now again as I said the Board has some questions 67 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting because we've been living with this DEIS for quite a while and pouring over it but before we do that I'd like to open this up now for public comment. If any of you would like to ask questions or make comments, voice concerns please come to the microphone and state your name and give us your address. ABIGAIL FIELD : Hi I'm Abigail Field I live at 27525 Main Rd. in Cutchogue. My first comment is to thank the ZBA for extending the written comment period as you have because I'll be honest I have not had a chance to read in detail the DEIS and there's a lot here and so I very much appreciate the opportunity the time to do that thoughtfully so thank you. Also I wanted to say thank you to the applicant who although I have some concerns and may have more after reading the EIS. This is quite clearly a thoughtful application. I appreciate the renovation of existing buildings, I appreciate the visual buffers, I appreciate sewage treatment plant. There seems to have been some real thought put into this and community consciousness I appreciate that. That doesn't mean there's no issues and it's all fine but sometimes people come in without any regard and I don't feel that this is that and I appreciate that. So now comments, One of the people mentioned that everything complies with every code. That raises a credibility issue just having read it because as you already pointed out there's a screening violation as there is a site plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we don't know there's a violation but it's an issue that we need to ABIGAIL FIELD : Well it's an issue that might require a variance. So okay I'll read the thing carefully. Second, the traffic is obviously a major concern and it sounded,like a very thorough study right, I mean you did it in July and I appreciate that it was July they didn't do a February study. I appreciate that they took in account special events and things like that but when I hear a comment about the traffic trips to the 7-Eleven as being a relevant metric it's problematic to me because a 7-Eleven I mean I live here, I go to 7-Eleven in Cutchogue or Southold, I'm not generating trips because of 7-Eleven necessarily any more than these people are people who are coming here to be here. Those are new cars do you know what I'm saying, it's different. These trips that are generated by a hotel are different than trips generated by a convenience store as though being more people. So I'll be looking very closely at the traffic study. I'm not sure how traffic analysis really factors that in cause that is just fundamentally different. Another thing when I was very quickly trying I mean I learned about this today, trying to get up to speed and the special purpose exemption in itself had a comment about noise not being audible at the property line and that sounds like a different requirement than the one we were hearing about the overall noise ordinance. So again I'll just look at it. I don't know what there is there but there are it sounds like multiple noise standards to be considered. Then finally one of the other things that jumped out to me from this presentation and I don't know that if it's 6$ November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting something that needs to end up in the other agreement to allow this or if there is any way to deal with it. How do we know that it's eight to twelve special events like in a year? Where does it say that? I mean it's maybe their current intention. This is a business right and so I mean I'm just saying. I don't know that that is a reliable data point unless there is some way to make it a reliable data point. To the extent it's not a reliable data point what is the upper limit or is there (inaudible) law. I mean cause special events they understand are categorically different in terms of traffic impact and noise impact right. So eight to twelve, what does that I mean anyway how do I trust that number. Then I'd also like to make two bigger picture comments that are less about this particular proposal that they tied (inaudible) proposal so they're relevant. The first is, this is going to create like sixty four jobs or something based on the proposal, great. These are not high wage jobs. You're talking about maids, servers things like that. Where are they going to live? Quite seriously is there any way to tie housing to this somehow? I don't know. I mean I just feel like and so that's part of the bigger picture crisis Southold town faces right and I just think that should be that's part of the bigger discussion that needs to be happening. Another thing, I noticed that they threw in this exhibit to show us as of right that they can paint paradise and put up a parking lot basically on this 30,000 sq. ft. you know office building that's not commercially viable so it won't get built but that's neither here nor,there but the fact that that was an as of right plan right flags that the hamlet business zone may be wildly inappropriate for present day. It reminds me of how unfortunate it is that. we don't have an updated comprehensive plan and we haven't really looked at our zoning law. As a Cutchogue resident right this makes me particularly nervous because there is hamlet business zoned property that is vacant land like this that now there are high end condos that have been built very near. It might start bringing in all sorts of big proposals on that land. So hey you know I express frustration as a Southold resident at the situation that we're in that the realm of the possible is pretty extreme such that something this big can be presented as an extremely kind and very you know like oh _my goodness we're being such a very light footprint when we're putting up this massive project but compared to the as of right it looks like a very light footprint. So why is that the as of right? So anyway that's the bigger picture comments that I just want to say as well. So I look very much forward to reading the Draft DEIS in detail. I will submit written comments when I can do that thoughtfully and I thank you for your time tonight. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Who else, please come forward. CHARLES GUELI : Hi I'm Charles. I'm with the Mattituck Laurel Civic Association. I live at 470 Laurelwood Drive Laurel, New York. I came tonight to make a pitch for affordable housing. I understand the development process. I spent fifteen years of my previous life in development and for the last twenty years I am a part owner of a Motel 6 in Pennsylvania. So I know what drives these kinds of projects and I know that the projected numbers for something like this would be higher than the projected numbers for twenty four to thirty affordable housing units November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting but the character and environment of the North Fork is more greatly impacted by a project like this and the traffic use would be more than the traffic use by an affordable housing. The septic and water use also more than affordable housing and more than some of the culture would deteriorate. I think that the culture now on the North Fork is one of neighbors being willing to help neighbors and look out for each other and I think that the people who come to a facility like this would be looking for who could help them. I spent twenty five years in Manhasset and that environment changed greatly over those twenty five years to something that was congested with traffic, horns honking, people in stores getting impatient because they had to wait on line and I understand that the situation there has deteriorated since I left which was in 2003. 1 believe that twenty four to thirty affordable housing units could generate stable year round income in the range of $800,000 to a $1,000,000. 1 know that something like this could probably generate twice that but something like this won't hit projections if the overdue recession hits. I think the community needs the affordable housing. The community does not need a hotel. I believe that a series of mistakes that I made during my career in working through them I can conclude that building something that the community needs works out the best for everyone involved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. ANN MURRY : Hi I'm Ann Murray. I live at 300 Southern Blvd. in East Marion, New York. I've gone through a lot of the DEIS and there are two issues that I want to bring to the Board's attention. The first one is community character which is very hard to define and I also want to bring up the fact that we've just been through about ten years of a comprehensive plan process and although the plan has not been formally adopted by the Town Board, every single hamlet in this town has met numerous times and given their thoughts to the Panning Board which has put everything into our Draft Comprehensive Plan which is on line. The applicant has not referred to that at all probably cause it doesn't have to legally. However I do think the Board should take that into consideration for the following reasons; the applicant has used historical references from the 2005 Hamlet study and an update in 2007 as well as a Southold Sub Water Shed Plan from 2013. To my mind those are old and outdated. The Comprehensive Plan although it has some of the same things that Southold hamlets (inaudible) was wanted back then it's a little stronger now and the Comprehensive Plan overall for the entire town says that the residents here want to maintain and enhance our communities sense of place. A residential rule on historic character by encouraging mixed small scale commercial on residential development in our hamlet center. To me this project exceeds that because it's too dense that's one issue. The other issue is the traffic that will be generated. In the Comprehensive Plan the people who live in Southold hamlet express a great desire for the town to somehow divert truck traffic to Rt. 48. 1 think that this complex will add some truck traffic on a weekly basis and maybe even a daily basis to service the restaurant which is not great. Also the location, I think November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting that the exit being right across the street from the 7-Eleven is going to be a really huge problem I patronize a lot of the businesses just west of this site and I can tell you I've had numerous near misses with people coming in and out of the 7-Eleven which often does not have enough parking spaces for that store. So that's going to be a big issue and I think that the traffic study may not have caught that. I noticed that the traffic study was done in July of 2018 and that traffic study consisted if I read it right, manual turning movement counts which is fine but a lot of the other data included reports from 2015 to 2017 not 2019. So I would urge that maybe a traffic study be done in August when there's more traffic. The conclusion that the applicant made overall is that there would be no undue increase in accidents on the Main Rd. I hardly disagree with that. I think that's impossible with the size of this project and if you figure in special events on weekends I mean already if I go to the Southold IGA on a Saturday or Sunday in the summertime I could be waiting past the 7-Eleven for traffic to move. So traffic is the number one issue on the North Fork next to affordable housing. I think we have to think very seriously about putting a project in this location at this density. Eight to twelve special events and the parking I have issues with that. I think it's going to bring a lot of cars and the applicant talks in the DEIS about you know most visitors would probably walk to the hamlet to use the businesses, I don't think that's going to happen. I think people are going to be driving. There's going to be a lot more in and out traffic from this hotel than they expect. In terms of the community character issue I also have some environmental concerns. One is the traffic and one is the water supply. This project give me a second to find it, is going to use an enormous amount of water and it includes a pool. The water demand would increase and this is in the DEIS by approximately 8,520 gallons per day right now it's using 300. Recent report done by Peconic Green Growth shows that Southold's aquafer is in danger. If we have a future drought we could be looking at real trouble with our water system. So this would use a huge amount of water every day from our aquafer and I think that could be an issue. Water demand is going to be very high. Overall one of the conclusions the applicant comes to is that the proposed hotel would service a catalyst for existing businesses to extend evening operating hours and encouraged the development of new business, well I'm sure it would but I'm not sure this is the type of business that we want to see in the hamlet. To my eyes it kind of looks like something that might be in the Hamptons and I think it's way too big for Southold hamlet. Thank you. ANTHONY FORGIONE : Good evening guys, I'm Anthony Forgione, 56863 Main Rd. This is my house at the back end of this property but before I just need CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You just need to speak into the mic I just want to make sure you're recorded. 7:1 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting ANTHONY FORGIONE : I just had eye surgery and I just need somebody to read, I put a letter together but I have a couple of questions. I just need to know can I touch this? Can you tell me where CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you have to ask the Board. ANTHONY FORGIONE : I just need to know where this picture was taken from since it's the property that they're saying is mine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then we'll ask the architect. I guess he addressed the ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : That was included, view number three was taken approximately here at the property line without trying to trespass on to neighboring properties as best we could. ANTHONY FORGIONE : That is halfway down not even on my property to show that that's a very inaccurate picture. He took the best possible picture of the debris and trees that are behind that property line. If he or the crew had taken a picture from my side it is all bare open and dead just to point that out. I do have another question, the code for the sewage plant system the Board of Health requires a distance code especially from to a resident can you please tell me what's the distance code requirements from your supposedly little house for sewage to my property line? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please answer that, I guess the site engineer. Can you just speak really loudly. PAUL GROSSER : It's 75 feet from a dwelling. ANTHONY FORGIONE : 75 feet. PAUL GROSSER : Right, this is for this type of treatment plant where it (inaudible) ANTHONY FORGIONE : Which means it will be just if not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on let him answer. PAUL GROSSER : It's 75 feet from your property line to the treatment plant. ANTHONY FORGIONE : 75 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the property not your dwelling from the property line not your dwelling. ANTHONY FORGIONE : And the dwelling is to code? 72 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting PAUL GROSSER : Yes it's dwelling on your own property line. ANTHONY FORGIONE : Can I ask more questions? This is a purified system as well it's biodegradable which means there will be an aroma in the air because I've been in the food business and involved with this right now so there's going to be odor in the air. PAUL GROSSER : There's an odor control system as part of it. They never smell. ANTHONY FORGIONE : I always wanted one in my back yard that's why I was asking. I appreciate your answer. (inaudible) forget about the character of the town of Southold which is most important that we can't replace once we get rid of (inaudible). Also with the Special Events cause was also a caterer for thirty five years, owned delis we know that the noise levels (inaudible) a lot of people understand that if you throw liquor, noise, music the amount of the people (inaudible) in a room it gets louder and louder that is in my back yard as well so we know between the traffic, the noise, people enjoying themselves whatever that noise thing is going to well exceed what they're proposing because I do it all through the summer for a caterer and we get constant complaints from the neighbors that are acres away not next door acres away. So this is a constant problem we have as caterers. So imaging that being in your back yard as well. I not here but this buffer zone twelve feet those trees (inaudible) forty to fifty feet tall are not going to block the view that I'm going to see. The mirror shine that might come through these trees are (inaudible) until they're well developed that cause an issue. I'm not sure about the aerial with planes, helicopters flying around that's going to cause an issue but I guess that's something else you guys are going to have to see what but I'd like to call somebody up to read this for me. Sorry I just had surgery. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure absolutely that's not a problem ANTHONY FORGIONE : I'll address it again if I have to. CONNIE LASANDRO : Connie Lassandro 128 East Meadow Rd. in Baiting Hollow. I'm reading this on behalf of Anthony and Barbara Forgione of 56655 Main Rd. in Southold. I'm not going to read everything but ANTHONY FORGIONE : I wish you could. CONNIE LASANDRO : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can also submit that by the way in writing so that we will have it. CONNIE LASANDRO : We understand that Southold tax increases are $13,031 to approximately $125,000 is obviously beneficial. However at homeowners this proposed development will have an adverse impact on the quality of life expected when purchasing our home not to say a 73 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting decrease in value should we want to sell. Associates of the owners represented Mr. Tibett have contacted them on behalf of them regarding our property. We're further concerned now that the property to our east which is 56905 Main Rd. in Southold just currently zoned for R80 a low density residential and agricultural has been purchased by Mr. Tibett on February 19th. This is 5.7 acres with a one acre front resident minimum two acre lots. This unknown going forward will he apply for a Special Exception for this property with the Town of Southold Zoning Board? My understanding Glen I think is Heidtmann is the construction company also a resident of Southold has recently demolished and rebuilt the barn and cosmetically made improvement to the fagade of this home. What are the plans for this site? How will this affect my property and quality of life?'Since Mr. Heidtmann and Mr. Tibett's are partners in the recently,restored former Rothmans on Main Rd. Einstein Square leaves us additional concern on what their intentions are. They're obviously invested in the community. Will we be sandwiched between two commercial properties? This unknown lends us to greater opposition. The following are some concerns and questions with regard to this proposed development. Construction period is said to be eighteen to twenty months. Our bedrooms are on the east side of this development of the property and during the summer, summer enjoyment of outside living with our pool etc. will no longer exist challenging to say the least with the equipment noise and dust etc. The advance on the site sewage treatment facility to be constructed on the northern extent of the subject property odor adversely impact the quality of life and very close to their property line. The roof top terrace now brings the proposed two story building to actually a three story privacy and noise concerns. Meeting rooms, conferences proposed twelve events per year which we all know will be many more, weddings, fund raisers, community events with an expected two hundred to two hundred and fifty guests and that's what's written in their DEIS. Noise will certainly exceed that town noise code. Traffic increase, now during the summer and fall it can take anywhere from fifteen to twenty minutes to get out of our driveway. The lighting is obviously going to be increased over there. It's going to be very lit up that whole area. Photos referred to in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement never not once strangely or better yet on purpose refers or shows the two residences occupied homes adjacent to the property line except I see it now in the model. The front home is vacant so there's really only two occupied dwellings there. We have an actual aerial photo that shows the proposed site and it shows the actual homes. We will be submitting written comments further and should the Town of Southold Board of Appeals grant this Special Exception and for a hotel, cottage, restaurant our Attorney Ron Harrerri will be filing an Article 78 challenging actions of said decision of this government agency and (inaudible) officials in court. I'm sure if this was being proposed next to any of your homes you would concur. Thank you and I hope you will deny the Special Permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? 74 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting JOYCE BARRY : Joyce Barry 305 King St. in New Suffolk and I'm also the former owner of the (inaudible) Bed and Breakfast. So where do I begin? You all live here. I don't need to tell you do we need a forty four room hotel in the middle of our town? I don't think so. The architect referred to the front building quite a few times as a bed and breakfast referring that it was already lodging and it is not. It is a rental and I believe it's still being rented. So it is not a bed and breakfast and it's not transferable to the new owners so just to clarify that. Help, I know as a bed and breakfast owner that was my biggest obstacle in my business was finding help. Good luck fellas. There isn't enough help out here because we do not have housing for these people who need to work and they're not commuting. Where are they going to commute from for a salary of'a housekeeper or I don't know what else you need, your kitchen help? You ask any restaurant, any bed and breakfast, any lodging industry where they're getting their help. They're all short. It's not here. So you're going to bring people in and where are you going to put them? I don't know cause we don't have the housing for them. This is a massive project for a little quaint little North Fork town. I don't want it. We have mom and pop businesses which are bed and breakfasts that open their businesses so they could live here and continue to live here and retire here. We went through the Air B&B nonsense. I had a little cottage I rented. Guess who followed the new regulations that were put in place for that? The only ones that follow it were the B&B's nobody else followed it. So we were the only ones that suffered from it. This is going to affect that whole industry, forty four rooms. You're not going to have little quaint bed and breakfasts, which would you prefer? Would you prefer a hotel with forty four rooms or a residential home who acts as an ambassador for the North Fork and that's what we do. We refer people to local businesses, to quaint little wineries; that will become obsolete because we're going to entertain this and there'll be more and more of it and what are we going to have here, what are we preserving? I can go on and on and I'm not going to cause some of the topics have already been covered but I oppose this project. It's too much in this area and it's just not needed just not needed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anybody else? LAUREN BARRY : Hi I'm Lauren Berry. I live at 56755 Main Rd. next to the project site. MEMBER DANTES : Can you point out your house on the model. LAUREN BARRY : My house is this one here. So to go back to the buffer, as the plans currently are there is not a significant buffer between the proposed driveway of the Enclaves and my property and what's there now is a deciduous hedge which in the winter there's nothing. So there's no dust barrier, there's no noise barrier, there's not enough room. To stick to that point in the DEIS summary it does say in the traffic section, forty six new vehicle trips per hour will be generated at peak hours. Forty six cars per hour passing my living room window that's several 75 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting feet away from this un-buffered zone. So I'd just like that to be taken into consideration if they do change the plans or need to modify that driveway. I'd also like to speak about the groundwater use. It said that they're planning to draw 2.5 million gallons of fresh water for use for irrigation only from our Southold aquafer. The sanitary flow is estimated they're using the numbers of 8,800 gallons per day. On a yearly basis that's 3.2 million gallons per year of sewage treatment water that goes into their treatment facility and then gets pumped back out into the leach fields where it goes back into our aquafer. So what's happening is they're drawing 2.5 million gallons of water a year out of the clean aquafer to irrigate their new landscape of hedges and lawn and then they're putting back in their sewage water which yes through the treatment process it does you know take some of the nitrogen out but there is still nitrogen in there. What we also know from other similar treatment systems is that what's left in that affluent that treated affluent is pharmaceuticals like the number one chemical is caffeine, number two is birth control hormones and what happens is with that it goes into our ground water. It produces endocrine changes in not only humans when they drink it but fish and wildlife and we know that aquafer water is going to end up in the bay. So now you've got nitrogen and pharmaceuticals plus there are certain microbes and microorganisms and bacteria that don't get processed out of that treatment process. With the nitrogen the statement says that 278.9 lbs. of nitrogen per year are leached back into the ground water. So that's a 560% increase of what is currently estimated to go into the ground as is. That's the house that's there now and that's assuming they fertilize their lawn which I don't believe they do. They're my neighbors I never see them do it. I'm not saying they don't but I'm pretty sure it's unirrigated. It's mowed they don't fertilize it. So again that's 278 extra pounds of nitrogen per year that's leached back into the groundwater. So what I think the environmental impact statement is missing is what does that mean for us? What does 278 lbs. of nitrogen do to the groundwater? There's no deductions made, it's just there's numbers in there but I think for like the general population (inaudible) scientists we don't know what that means. What are the effects of that? I'd also like to point out that this statement says that there are no invasive species being introduced to the site, so they have introduced the pond and they list the species as being both plant and animals; coy gold fish, water lilies and water hyacinths. The pond has the footprint of essentially the building that's existing on site and this new pond all of the species they listed are invasive. So I was wondering if the applicant can explain the purpose of introducing a foreign eco-system other than for decorative purposes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll ask them to address that. They will have to address everything that's said this evening in their next iteration of the Environmental Impact Statement. Just so you're aware of everything you're bringing up the applicant is going to have to in writing address. But if you'd like them to comment on that now we can. Would someone like to do that? 76 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting WILLIAM BOMAN : Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Board, my name is William Boman Senior Scientist at (inaudible) Ecological Services. I'll briefly address that comment. The statement about the no use of invasive plants was based on the terrestrial landscaping. Some of the water hyacinths would not expected to spread to nearby areas. Obviously there's no nearby freshwater wetlands. Similarly we would not expect coy to propose any risk in nearby freshwater wetlands or waterbodies that's (inaudible) so all the other landscaping species are native or naturalized. It's specifically designed (inaudible) landscape plan to include any species that would be on the Suffolk County do not (inaudible) LAUREN BARRY : I'd like to comment on the coy. I think as a local everyone's experienced that random blue fish in your back yard and where does that come from? That's one Osprey hungry picking up the fish, dropping it out of his mouth and it goes somewhere else. So there are ways for species like fish to come out of a pond and get somewhere else. There are freshwater wetlands close by that water hyacinths, bird comes in pollinate not pollinate but bird comes in takes a seed, drops a seed it ends up somewhere else. This is how these things happen and that's why they're listed as invasive species. I have another question about dust control that was a big section of the Statement. It said that you know there's contaminants in the surface layer of the soil and they are expected to become airborne as traffic moves throughout the site and that the dust mitigation plan is to have an environmental technician on site who is monitoring,the dust but the problem with that is that to monitor dust there has to be dust. So when dust is kicked up and this person says okay there's dust and I have my window open it takes ex-amount of time to get a hose out and you know hose it down to mitigate the dust. I just don't see that as an acceptable solution. They also talked about spreading salt on the site to if I'm understanding it correctly which I may not be just to provide just like a crusting layer and I think you know you put salt over this large of an area it leaches down to the groundwater. I next door have a (inaudible) landscape so when my plants are looking for water in the summer in August that's why we see our street trees kind of looking like their dropping their leaves early, they're reaching into that groundwater table and they're taking up salts because there's no water left. They're taking up salts that have gotten into the groundwater from the winter from salting the roads and then here what they're doing is they're incorporating that into their dust mitigation plans. So not only their landscaping be affected long term but my landscaping will be affected, my neighbor's landscapes will be affected. I also don't think that's an acceptable mitigation. I am concerned about the Special Events eight to twelve times a year means you know that could be spread out or that could be every single weekend in summer and this is what I'm dealing with all night long. I can tell you that I have a handful of neighbors that live in the house next door and whenever they come home I hear them talking quietly in their driveway. I can't imagine what a wedding is going to sound like. I can imagine what a wedding is going to sound like and it's not going to be comfortable for me or my neighbors. As -T- 77 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting far as the ecological resources go, the loss of early (inaudible) communities would result in decreased habitat available the plants, birds, wildlife species present this is what the statement from the executive summary. I agree with that. Also stated is the resulting habitat loss and subsequent reductions and local abundance of bird and wildlife species is not a significant adverse environmental impact as succession hardwood forests and successional old fields are classified by the New York Natural Heritage Program as demonstrably secure both in New York State and globally. So what happens is this is really bad science here. They're taking environmental statistic on a statewide scale and they're applying it to a downstate small local condition. So when you take data from New York State you're taking data from all of that upstate area which underrepresents us and it skews the data and I think that for such a situation like this we need to look at patches, we need to look at our local environment and this needs to be evaluated fairly on that scale. If this was from their data the New York Natural Heritage Program if you look at some other date like if you go on the D.E.C.'s website they do look at these early successional communities as important valuable ecological areas. I just concerned who checks this environmental statement? Who checks the resources, who decides they're using the correct data, they're using the correct resources, they're using the most up to date informative resources? I think they're using the resources that apply to this project that are going to benefit them and they're not really accurate. I'll conclude with that thank you. WILLIAM BOMAN : First off regarding the there's been no specifications for animals or plants within the proposed decorative ponds so those species that are any plants species put in there are similarly be natives and no plants or animal invasive species would be added to those decorative ponds in keeping with the terrestrial landscaping. Regarding the assessment of the ecological impacts, it's important to remember that the successional hardwoods that are present on this site they have developed on this site since about 1980 when there was farmland for several decades before. So in the ecologic conditions they are typical what you would expect for an area that's gone in fallow for about forty years. There's six fourteen inch caliper largely early successional trees black cherry, eastern red cedar. Now those habitats do have some value but the point of the citing the New York Natural Heritage Program which is the NYSDEC it's a state agency and they are the part of the DEC that's part of the state and is charged with biodiversity related issues. They give that demonstratively secure classification both statewide but it's in keeping with our local regions as well. Early successional habitats are abundant within the Town of Southold as well so that all demonstratively secure does meet with both the state and a local criteria. If the Board has any further questions I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't at this time, anyone else who would like to address the Board please come forward. 78 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MARILY MARX : Hello my name is Marilyn Marx. I live on 54300 Rt. 48 in Southold. I am the Shorecrest Bed and Breakfast. I'm very familiar with the hospitality business. I support everything Joyce just said about the difficulty of finding help in the town especially in the summer. All the restaurants all the hospitality businesses here are desperately looking for help in the summer and then there is no business in the winter which makes it extra hard. I support the comments on the traffic the problem it would be. I think the traffic report I've read it that they submitted this company submitted is disingenuous at best. I live on Rt. 48, my heart sank when I heard my friend Ann mention sending all the trucks there because they have (inaudible) and it's miserable. Since I moved there in 2005 1 would say that traffic has increased it seems like at least three times actually because of the ferry traffic going to casinos in Connecticut. Connecticut doesn't care about Southold, doesn't care about our beautiful villages who are now subjective to these huge trucks going through them through East Marion or (inaudible). It's miserable. This is already very uncomfortable to be in Southold in the summer months because of the traffic. This is only going to make it much worse. What I would say is I didn't move here to Southold to end up being in Huntington where I came from and that's what seems to be happening here. We don't need this huge development. I don't necessarily disagree with a small hotel but this is a massive hotel. It's going to bring a huge amount of people. That is not a small amount of people or a small amount of traffic. As the other major issue I think is workforce housing here. We don't have workforce housing. The people working in this business are going to be on minimum wage at best. Some of them will be working for tips. Where are they going to live? I think that's a very important issue to be addressed here. When I was reading the report the submission, the as of right section really struck me because what we were told was that if we don't do this we can do a 30,000 sq. ft. office building here as of right. I'm shocked that the Town Board has not protected it better than that that they can do that if that's true. So I found that very disturbing and that's all I have to say today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone else? NANCY MAZUR : I'm Nancy Mazur I live at 1065 Bay Ave. East Marion and I do inter-commercial lending for BNB Bank so I see so many projects come around you know of what people want to build what people want to do out here. The cats a little bit out of the bag. I moved out here because I like it peaceful, I worry about the water quality, I worry about the water usage but from what I've seen of this project compared to other things that come across my desk to look at, this seems very reasonable. Are forty four rooms a lot for a hotel, if you don't have a certain amount of rooms you'll never make it work. So when I looked at this I thought oh well this is great what a great usage, it is a business zoned property so something is going to go there and to me this seems like a great use. I mean this is a tourist area, an office building what businesses are you going to put in there? I'm on the Housing Advisory Committee, I understand that we don't have enough housing for the workforce. However, that's their worry to worry 79 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting about whether they'll be housing and if they can get employees but we cannot stop all development and I think if we get a project that is reasonable like this that is not going to be too intrusive for the neighborhood we should really back it and consider it. WILLIAM WILSKI : Good evening my name is William Wilski I live at 532 Laurel Ave. in Southold. I'm the owner of Albertson Marine one of the properties directly to the west of this and a lot of valid points were brought up tonight from both sides, pro and con and I really appreciate the opportunity to A. listen to my fellow Southolders with their concerns as well as the opportunity to address the Board. Let's start with traffic. I (inaudible) is an issue alright and we can discuss the purple farm out there to the east as well as our pumpkins to the west here. Traffic is always going to be an issue in this town whether we like it or not. I leave that property and enter that property several times a day during the summer and the most time I've ever had to spend waiting to get just to make a left hand turn is probably two or three minutes okay. Yes there is concern and absolutely and I'm sure the Board is going to address that as well as everyone else. A lot of environmental concerns I would be (inaudible) saying I disagree with that cause I'm going to leave that in the hands those who know what they're talking about with that. The other thing they addressed was the affordable housing. My (inaudible) is that it's absolutely essential part of this town that we need to address. Having said that I would like to see the reaction of individuals in this room that are against the project if the proponent said we're going to put forty four affordable apartments in there okay. I'm sure their reaction would be a little bit different also on that but that's again something for another time. Again health is an issue, absolutely but again that's my responsibility as a business owner as well as the individuals who wish to put in this place. It is a business zone, this town has got a lot of beautiful open land. I remember that as a vacant lot, I remember the horses, I remember my dog chasing the horses in at the end of the day. What are we going to do with it if we don't want this. What should we put there just more vacant land? We have a lot of vacant land, should we preserve all of it? Yeah it would be a great idea to put it off but we need tax structure, we need people to work here. The other thing this town has done also is we've stopped short term rentals. I'm not pro con on that but we've now said no you can't come to this town unless you rent the house for two weeks. So we've got a double edge sword here. We want people to come here but we don't want them here. We want you to stay here but we don't want you to stay here. You can't drive out here cause we're worried about the traffic, it goes on and on and on. I don't envy your position. You've got a lot of issues to address. I am for this again it's not in an area where it's going to affect the entire character of this town. Most people will drive by that thing I don't think anybody most people will drive by won't even know it was there that property is there. I only know that it's there cause I grew up next to it alright. Again there's a lot of issues here pro and con. The tax structure doesn't concern me. It's going to add some money to the tax to the (inaudible) that's great. It may encourage more people to possibly move out here. Maybe it'll S® November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting start addressing the issue of more affordable housing. We need (inaudible) somewhere and we'll have to bite the bullet like it or not. I've said my speech and I thank you for your time and good luck with everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. At this point it might be useful to alright go ahead. I was going to say we have some questions from the Board but that can wait. BRIAN BRADY : Thank you my name is Brian Brady, I live at 115 Masters Rd. in Laurel on the Southold town side. I'm a dying breed. I'm thirty nine years old. I'm lucky enough to command a position in the hospitality world. I started when I was nineteen at Peconic Bay Winery. I' worked at a private club for seven years and most recently opened up a project very similar to this in Riverhead. I grew up in Farmingdale. I was lucky enough to have grandparents that had a summer house out here. I wanted to make a life out here. There's no way that Southold is becoming Huntington or Farmingdale. I know that for a fact cause I go back to see my mother as much as often back in Farmingdale. My goal is to get her out here, my goal is to live in Southold. Projects like this are (inaudible) are a dying breed out here. I understand labor, I've been able to with successful management keep people working for me and as much as it is a challenge it's more of a challenge for the ownership than it is for housing and everything else like that. Even demanding a good salary I rent out here cause I understand the housing better than anyone.The customer (inaudible) they will come regardless of this project being approved or not. I think approving it is positive for Southold. At the end of the-day this will be a walking community cause they walk in Manhattan. It'll command a certain price point and they will probably keep the events down to about twelve per year. You can see that at the higher end at the wineries. Most of them don't do more than fifteen and I know that for a fact. I don't want to move out of New York, I don't want to move out of Southold. I'd like to continue my life here. I haven't been while I'm in talks with them everything I've done for the lack of a better term is pro bono because this no projects that I believe in. I think what they've done down in Einstein Square is going to be a huge positive for the town and you know while they will come whether it will be through illegal Air B&B's which I witness on my own block that is not being enforced I think this is a positive move. I understand the concerns of the neighbors but I know this group and I know this group well and they will do everything to accommodate any worries. Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : Wait when you said while you're in talks what does that mean? BRIAN BRADY : I've ' discussed this project and numerous other projects because of the relationship that my ownership where I was formerly working knows this group. LINDA CARLSON : Hi, Linda Carlson 1600 Waterview Dr. here in Southold. I wasn't going to speak cause I don't do well with this but I have to say I grew up in a little town in Ohio about $1. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting forty five minutes below Acron which we know what the rubber city capital. I grew up in farm fields. Twenty nine years ago my husband and I chose to come to Southold cause he grew up here as a little, little boy and I said where' Southold I never heard of Southold. We came here with two little kids and looked at many, many properties, what house should we buy and I kept saying I don't want it on Main Rd. cause even back then 25 was not a place to raise two little kids. So we bought way off the beaten path on Waterview Drive. We have many businesses on 25 in the hamlet in the village come and go. I've seen so many in twenty nine years those little tiny bakery that used to be there. All these companies business owners couldn't make it here. I've been on the Board just left the Board unfortunately the Chamber of Commerce North Fork Chamber of Commerce last year fourteen years. One of our issues was we need people to stop in Southold it's a great little community. What do they do, they zip right to Greenport. Why, cause Greenport has so many things to offer them and yes a beautiful waterfront community. I've known the Heidtmanns for quite a few years, papa Heidtmann I love the gentleman, Glen follows in his father's footsteps. I think Einstein Square has they did that so tastefully what a beautiful little place. I personally envision that hopefully someday bringing my grandbabies sit at Einstein Square maybe ice cream, coffee whatever we need a walking community like Love Lane, Greenport. I think I can't comment much on this hotel because it's a little big but we need a place for people to stay and walk into the village and I' m thinking this might be a really great idea and if it's what they're saying we're not going to see this big great elaborate hotel from the road then what's wrong with this? I do feel bad for the local families that maybe that live next door for years and they're going to have traffic but I hate to say this traffic is an issue. If you don't know that by now for the North Fork then you've been hiding in a your head in the sand. I think we have a beautiful community, I think the Heidtmann's what they're doing is amazing. Somebody said earlier how this has been so thought through. I think they really went above and beyond to present this to us and for me I'm like I wish my kids stayed here but they couldn't. They didn't have a lot of opportunities I'm not going to beat this into the ground but housing is a problem and yes they're going to have to find help, who's going to work there but hey bring something new and exciting to Southold village. I'm not talking the town, let our village grow a little bit and have something positive that's all. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. LINDA SWEENEY : My name is Linda Sweeney and I live at 950 Strohson Rd. in Cutchogue and I've actually been out here since I'm one years old and I just want to say that I agree with Linda Carlson. I too am on the Board of Chamber and business is good for business and just want to put on the record that my husband does bartend and I'm able to live out here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With your indulgence we can have more comments and questions that you may find come to mind as I ask some questions on behalf of the Board and bear in '32 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting mind that you also will have an opportunity until December to submit. If you go home and think of something that you didn't say tonight we will allow anybody to speak that's not what I'm saying but if you think of something else and you want to submit something in writing you have ample time to do that. You have other opportunities to tell people that you know who are interested in this project to also take a look in detail the DEIS. Most people probably haven't seen it. it's a good thing to look at. So the Board has gathered together a couple of questions and some of them have to do with the issues that have already been raised this evening and I'm going to enter them into the record. The applicants may address them if they wish or they may simply make note of these questions because they will have to be addressed in writing as I said in the final Environmental Impact Statement. I'm just going to read this. The Draft EIS indicates projects sponsor anticipates hosting special events approximately 8 to 12 times per year (during the late Spring, Summer and early Fall months) is what they're proposing. They indicate that such events would likely consist of wedding, fundraising events, etc. and that larger events will be hosted on the lawn area adjacent to the proposed pond. I believe you mentioned that this evening. The Draft EIS noise analysis indicated that events would be limited to 6pm to 10pm on Fridays, 2pm to 11pm on Saturdays, 2pm to 6pm on Sundays. The use of sound barriers, noise limiters etc. has been mentioned but how does the applicant propose to ensure the enforcement of the hours of operation identified and identified noise mitigation measures to ensure that they are adhered to? For example who is responsible for adjusting the limiter and checking the noise level at the property line of sensitive receptors?That's one thing if you'd like to address it you may. SEAN HARKIN : My understanding is that if we want to have a special event we have to apply to the Town of Southold for a special event permit. I would suspect that if there were complaints from a previous event that was approved by the town and there were issues raised those would have to be raised to satisfaction of the town prior to issuing an additional permit for the next event. So we don't set we'd love to have as many events as we can but either limit it by what we can get approved by the town. The town has the opportunity to review the application to determine whether or not it's appropriate, whether the time frame is appropriate, whether it mitigates any concerns that were addressed from previous events and so it's not just arbitrary where it's our opportunity to do whatever we want, it's an approval process that has to go through the town of Southold. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true there are special event permit procedures that need to be applied for but I will tell you now, you are proposing eight to twelve but that does not limit you unless there are covenants and restrictions or other conditions upon approval that would do so. I used to grant or deny all of those permits until I managed to convince the Town Board that the legislatures, they should know what's going on in this town and that they as our elected officials should be monitoring these special events. They are now doing so but through 83 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting the recommendation of a special event committee that I sit on. That committee consists of exactly the same people when I was there to make that decision but I reached out to Police Department, Land Preservation, (are the development rights intact or sold), Suffolk County Land Preservation, Planning Board, Building Department, Fire Marshall and others. You are right in theory that we can enforce these by Code Enforcement and so on but we all understand that we rather have a project that isn't going to potentially look forward to issues on the property. So let me ask you another question, the sound barriers you're proposing to use to mitigate noise. You mention movable fencing presumably insulated with some sort of acoustical material, what's the fence height, what's the proof or any proof at all that those are effective devices? SEAN HARKIN : So as far as the composition, I do have some samples here of a material that we have used in the past for live sound and for situations like this with much success before for summer communities and different areas that are going to have live music, live events. As far as the height and location it (inaudible) everyone that that be analyzed with some of the individual layouts at the time of a special event being set up. If we were to put a blanket statement and a blanket location for the sound barrier to be used at one specific location the efficacy of that barrier varies greatly depending on where the specific sources are going to be for the noise and that also relates to the height. So it's important that when some of these initial plans come in for some of the first events to be had that these plans be reviewed in order to come up with a realistic fence situation that is going to address the noise concerns at that time with those various situations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you also say that you will occasionally use a tent and that the tent itself will be an acoustical environment but surely in the middle of summer nobody is going to close a tent entirely off to air and breeze so I don't quite understand how a tent is really going to mitigate sound if the amplified music is outdoors. If it's indoors it's controllable, if it's outdoors there are so many variables as you know as a specialist for acoustical issues. The type of sound system, the direction of the speakers, who monitors the speakers. Are you going to have your own system? In the DEIS it actually indicates that you're proposing a sound system near the pool as a part of normal business operations. That's not a special event. So what does that mean? SEAN HARKIN : As a part of normal business operations the hotel itself and the way everything has been oriented acts as very effective acoustical barrier. So as far as sound at the pool, that is not really a major concern of ours. The hotel and the orientation and the sheath acts as a very effective sound barrier for sound from the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Depending on what direction. 84 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting SEAN HARKIN : Well all of the direction would have to be towards the west just because of the orientation. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : And you talk about the sound ordinance which at the property line is 65 dba, that's pretty loud. That's really pretty loud. I mean that's our code but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't hear it on adjacent properties. So you know that's way above conversation and when you begin to put noise from just ambient noise from people gathering, talking around a swimming pool, kids laughing and jumping in and out of the pool you're going to have a combination along with additional traffic impacts. That is a concern to this Board. So we really need to take a look at that. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Leslie, could someone show us where the tent would be on the property? ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : The premises that sound baffles would be used from within and outside the tent to help prevent noise migration, the tent is intended to be along installed on the meadow and the goal is to install obviously as far away from the adjacent properties as possible. It's a three quarter acre area there. There's a lot of flexibility where we locate the tent. We've discussed the potential of buying our own sound system so we can control the levels of sound that come from it and we're working through it's a work in process to the extent that we can install sound baffles within the screened planting that would be effective that's also something that we're looking at but until I can see that they're approved to be effective and they don't require replacement on an annual basis and that type of thing we weren't willing commit to it but at this point in time we are willing to commit to providing sound attenuating counts both within and outside the tent. As far as noise around the pool as Sean stated the goal is that you know you're coming to a pool to relax, it's not intended to be like a (inaudible) pool party. It's intended to be a quiet area, respite; the sound system around the pool will be intended for background music and that type of thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You also have four detached cottages and families could easily come in with kids and with their own you know nowadays we have little speakers. Everybody has you know their own IPad or IPod or whatever they're using or their cell phones for music. It's just a very tough problem and it would be true on any site, acoustics are always very, very difficult. MEMBER DANTES : What exactly is 65 decibels? Like a jet ski running at full speed or SEAN HARKIN : No that would be more of around 85 to 90 decibels. So 65 decibels would really be the level of conversation that you and I would be having on a typical day to day basis two to three feet from each other. That would be around what 65 decibels is. Obviously 65 decibels means something a little bit different when it is received from further away. If I speak to you at November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting 65 decibels here that's something that you are seeing, that's something that you're comfortable with and that's the requirement that the town has laid out but that's typically what around 65 decibels is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you this much, there are special events at lots of properties out here from wineries and yacht clubs and hotels and it is rare that somebody isn't calling and complaining about the noise. It's just a fact a fact of life so I would rather that we all have an opportunity to address them head on and come to grips to how you can propose really serious mitigation measures that will satisfy everybody that noise can be properly contained on that project without having really adverse impacts on businesses and on the streetscape and on other residential properties. I mean what are the other meaningful ways that you can do that? Between eight and twelve in the warmer months could mean as one person said that one or two major weddings can happen every single weekend, that's a lot. That's a good deal of impact on a residential property. It isn't just the noise, it's the number of cars coming in and out, it's the headlights without a buffer going in to residential the windows and so on, it's reflected light. There are a number of factors. I know you have a very talented team and I know that you've thought all of this through and I know that you can do well with listening to this public concern and the Board's concerns cause we've really poured through that DEIS which is our responsibility to do. So that's why we're bringing them up now cause everything we say tonight is something that they're going to seriously look at too. They're required to. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think I'd like to go further with this. With regard to the music by the pool, have you considered what hours you would be using this music? ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : So at a hotel you wouldn't expect that the music would start playing early in the day. it would probably be in the afternoon and early evening and at that point after say 6 to 8 o'clock I would imagine it would probably wane so you know activity would happen inside. People go to dinner people go to sleep. So we limit it with aside from the concern of the neighbors we have the concern of the guests and the guests are not necessarily going to appreciate noise at all hours of the night either. Our goal we're trying to make it a successful hotel is to try and accommodate the needs and desires of our occupants and so noise mitigations are concerns to them as well. MEMBER ACAMORA : I would say it's something that really needs to be considered. If I'm going to a hotel I don't need to have music around the pool. Everybody has earbuds that they can stick in their ears for pleasure. I think it might just be an added nuisance by having the music, something to consider. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You've also indicated some special events indoors and you've described them as smaller things like fundraisers and small private gatherings maybe fifty $6 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting people. You have actually there's room for fifty people in the hotel lounge area according to my calculations, and then the indoor dining area has thirty seats, then you have a private eight seat dining room. So could you please describe those indoor events in more detail because those would not necessarily require permits.Those are more or, less part of a business model. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : As a resident in the town I can state that my partner has a concerted interest in seeing the cultural aspects of Southold growth. He was very excited at the prospect of the opera house coming in hoping it would have been successful. He's very much involved in the arts and some of the events we would expect to have would be small you know art gallery art displays. The opportunities for (inaudible) students to display their work and perhaps have the opportunity to sell them but it would primarily be geared around more cultural events other than those few times a year as I said during the off season where we might entertain some corporate retreats and there would be events that would be organized around that corporate retreat but again that's limited to the occupants of the hotel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The assumption being a seminar rooms that your conference rooms they're fairly small rooms. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Right it's not bringing in a convention of doctors for a (UNNAMED SPEAKER) : I was reading the hamlet business right and it mentions special exemption hotel, motel and it's links and when you go to it and it says you know it's part b 280- 35 it talks about the number 4 transient hotels motels and you go down further in that and that's where you get the 6,000 sq. ft. they were talking about and this is C. no music, entertainment or sorry I flipped so I could read it across and it disappeared but there's no music, entertainment or loud speaker systems shall be audible from beyond the property line. So that's the standard audible, I don't care that it's 65 decibels so I don't know how they manage that but just to be clear that's your code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know that code and it's actually in the DEIS. They've addressed it in the special exception standards. Maybe with it's entirely up to you how long you want to stay here we can stay here till midnight. What I want you to be aware of is that there are a long list of things aside from the DEIS what they have to address, a special exception permit which we cannot approve or disapprove until a SEQRA determination has been made which is what that DEIS thing is. We decided there were potential impacts and they had to fill out this big long form that investigates all of them and then if we find there are problems they have to come up with mitigating measures to make sure they don't have adverse impacts. I've described earlier what the procedure and how we work and what the law requires us to go through step by step. I want to just continue a little bit more about the noise. Let's see, I mentioned about crowd noise also which is not necessarily assessed for, special events or even for just normal business 87 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting operations. Part of the special use criteria requires the applicant demonstrate the proposed use will be compatible with the surroundings and not cause noise disturbances. That's one of the special exception standards. Now we haven't discussed those yet. I mean they're going to have to address them and we do have hearing supposedly on those this evening. We're not going to close it in any case so there will be another hearing and we might find that that's more beneficial to specifically address later on but that's section of the code is also on line and if you want to have a look at all of the things that they're going to have to address it's also in the DEIS. So if you want to go look at how they're talking about those various standards you can find them in their DEIS. I think it's page eighty or something like that. Let me introduce a new one, the site is to be operated during both weekdays and weekends but the noise monitoring is only conducted during one short period between 12 and fpm and 7:45 and Spm on a Thursday in July. It's not clear how this data adequately characterizes the existing weekend noise environment to service the baseline for the weekend conditions. It's pretty limited data. SEAN HARKIN : It is limited data but as far as it's concern if anything you have increase noise levels during the weekend. So if we're using these days on a Thursday afternoon and night as the baseline data that is really more conservative than using data from a weekend as you would expect there to be increase noise due to traffic from the weekend. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it seems to me we have looked at other noise studies that have been far more developed in terms of the number of measurements they took and the times they took them, the number of days they took them and this basically is one little snapshot in time. So even if it's totally accurate for that snapshot it may not fully address the broader picture and unfortunately if we asked to try to do it again the problem is we are now off season and the only time you're going to get really effective readings is next summer so that's something to think about. I think that's enough of that. I do want to indicate we're also aware that you're proposing a portable sanitary systems for special events on top of the onsite STP and we'd like to know a little bit more about those how you're going to do sanitary collection during special events. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : As with many special events of size you have these portable trailers that come in. We're not talking about a series of porta sands lined up along the property line. We're talking about a trailer for male and a trailer for female occupants that would be self- contained and then trucked offsite at the conclusion of the event. So there would be no sanitary developed onsite as a result of that. I do want to state that you know I think we've demonstrated that our development concept for this is respectful given the parameters (inaudible) to be developed onsite as possible. So we take very seriously the Board's concern about noise and noise mitigation to the neighbors and as we've done with every other concern the Board has raised I'm confident that we would be able to adequately address it to the $$ November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting satisfaction of the Board. I'd also like to state for the few residents that are here, the Board retained an independent consultant at a fair expense to review everything that we've prepared. They came back to us with comments. We had to address their comments before we can be here this evening so it wasn't in fact these folks who were going through our application but it was in fact an independent consultant who was not necessarily looking to work to our benefit but to strictly accommodate the concerns of the Board and if you saw a lot of the commentary back and forth they were very detailed. A couple of other just real quickly, as far as the screening of the restaurant that you know as far as the front of the property goes, we selected the driveway location based on the existing curb cut. We just thought it would be natural not to upset the (inaudible) we're not opposed to moving the curb cut to provide the adequate fifteen foot screening. Special events we already touched on. In terms of housing on this property, there was a financially viable housing project proposed for this property prior to our purchasing it. It resulted in a lengthy and divisive law suit because I wrote MEMBER DANTES : No I was on the Affordable Housing Commission for this. That owner never asked to there was a law suit about a similar project in Oyster Bay, I don't know what the outcome was. T. A. DUFFY : They sued us because they got denied and brought up a civil rights action, it's still pending. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : So it's not that housing hasn't been looked at for this site in the past, it has and obviously it has not proven to be either financially viable or welcomed by the town in terms of the perhaps the density that was proposed but even a twenty four to thirty unit development would require a variance from this Board. I don't want to speak to the potential development to the neighboring properties but I think we've demonstrated that everything we've done is according to the allowable development on a piece of property and I would suspect that anything we would do on other properties would be well within the confines of the allowable code on those properties. We're not looking to change the code or to change the zone on those properties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for bringing up the fact that we have a consultant that's working to evaluate cause this is very technical as you can see and the Board has considerable background but we don't have the sort of technical expertise. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : It started out it was just a couple of pages and it still (inaudible) but this was a document submitted to the consultants and this is the resulting document after the back and forth with the town's consultant. 89 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's important that the public understand that the ZBA is not doing this in a vacuum. We have experts that are working to make sure that our decisions are informed properly and that the data is properly collected and that the analysis is properly executed. I have quite a few questions actually about traffic impacts. I don't want to keep people here till midnight but I want to enter into the record and you don't have to answer them all now okay but it'll give our neighbors here some idea of the kinds of depth that we're going to and that they're addressing in order to figure this out. So I'll start with this one, during special it is estimated 55 vehicles will make an eastbound left turn into the site during Saturday peak hour against an estimated 612 westbound through vehicles. As Main Rd. is one lane in each direction, eastbound left turn vehicles will have to wait for a suitable gap in the westbound direction to safely complete the left turn. These left turning vehicles will block the eastbound through vehicles creating queues on Main Rd. Has the applicant measured gaps in oncoming traffic to ensure sufficient gaps exist in the westbound Main Rd. traffic stream to allow eastbound left turn vehicles to safely access the site? We will provide all of these questions to you in writing cause you just can't spontaneously answer them now, I don't think. During special events about 91 vehicles will be exiting the site during the Saturday peak hour. As the traffic showed the eastbound approach will operate at LOS F (the worst level) with anticipated long queues in the site driveway. These long queues will create on-site circulation issues and difficulty for patrons to leave their parking spaces. What types of mitigation is proposed to address both delays due to queuing on Main Rd. and on-site circulation? Another one, special event analysis shows that the analyzed intersections are significantly impacted. However, no mitigation measures are recommended. What is proposed to address impacts at nearby intersections? Cars regularly pull in and out of the 7-Eleven store which is across the street as well as other nearby businesses. If the proposed project is causing vehicles to queue on Main Rd. cars may be blocked from entering and exiting these businesses. Has the traffic assessment considered anticipated queue lengths and how they may impact nearby site driveway locations? The cumulative effects of this traffic with these businesses should be considered to ensure public safety and to minimize traffic congestion. Since overflow parking is being proposed in the vicinity of the proposed restaurant which is anticipated to be occasionally used by hotel guest and during special events, pedestrian walkways/sidewalk should be provided to connect these two areas and provide safe and convenient access. Another one, the plans involve the elimination of some on-street parking in front of the property to facilitate access and egress from the site. How many spaces will be lost? Will this adversely affect the parking supply for the other businesses in the area? Those are the kinds in depth questions that need to be answered for us to really get a sense of how this project will function and the affect it will have for good and for not so good and the not so good they will have to propose ways to mitigate in order to go forward. That's why this is considered a Type action. That's why we said this is a big project for this property. We want to have them go 9® November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting through a very rigorous analyses to make sure we all know what we're doing. So we'll give these to you in writing and they're part of the transcript which everyone could have access to and which you will get a copy of. So this is more for all of you to understand what we're going through and with the help of our consultant who understands the technicalities that are in some ways beyond the scope of what we typically deal with which is why we hire a consultant who will advise us on. They will also be reviewing the final draft that will incorporate all these questions and all these comments and we'll have to put in writing the things we talked about and if we're not the consultant and the Board not fully satisfied then we go back to them and ask for more. If we are and only then can we make a findings statement and make a SEQRA determination and proceed with special exception permit. Now is there anything that anyone else in the audience would like to say at this point? Please come forward and state your name and address. MAUREEN HOYT : Maureen Hoyt Maple Lane, Southold down from the Fire Department. I was just wondering if this is part of Founder Landing access use and whether that has been brought up or considered, the impact on that beach because there are events that are held in that building so I'm not sure if they're in that district if to be used. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Southold Park District. MAUREEN HOYT : For Founders Landing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That would be the Southold Park District. MAUREEN HOYT : I think Founders Landing is just for immediate area which this proposal might be in. I don't think it's all of Southold although I don't know who actually uses it but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't know the answer to that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO I think it came up earlier where there was a discussion about Founders Landing it is within the park district. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought so I mean it's part of the park district and as such guests would be permitted they have to get a parking sticker but you know they would be permitted to use the beach as anybody in town can do. I mean if you're at a B&B you can use the beach but there's I think the B&B experts can tell us. There's a certain number I guess of passes that you get. It may be different for a hotel cause there's more units, I don't know but Joyce do you know the answer to that? You have to come up to the mic sorry to make you stand up. JOYCE BARRY : With a B&B we would pay the town to get one pass per room. So most B&B's have three to five of those, but it does crowd the beaches. November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that allow for a car to be parked there? JOYCE BARRY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a parking permit which allows beach access. T. A. DUFFY : Town beach not district. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that's true, that's right with regards to Founders that's park district that's not town beach. Town Beach would be the one on the North Rd. you know Southold Town Beach. What other town beaches do we have, Kenney's, New Suffolk, McCabes. Those are town beaches, that would be allowed. A park district is different you have to be a resident. Any other comments or questions from anybody at this point? LAUREN BARRY : 56755 Main Rd. next door. I was just wondering who the consultant is and how they were chosen? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The consultant is Nelson, Pope Voorhies. The Town of Southold has used them many, many times. They're under contract as consultants and by the way you should be aware of the fact that the applicant is obligated to pay for our consultant. T. A. DUFFY : The choice is made through our (inaudible) procedure, they supply quotes for rates and also their qualifications. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Lauren before you walk away I'd like to ask a question. I believe you live on the Main Rd. frontage of the neighboring site and Mr. Forgione lives in the back lot, is the property owner of the middle lot here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No he's on the end, who's in the middle? ANTHONY FORGIONE : Bill. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is Bill here? ANTHONY FORGONE : He's not present today. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Was he here earlier? ANTHONY FORGIONE : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All three of you live full time in these homes or LAUREN BARRY : I'd also like to make a request, right now I'm listed or my property is listed as the property currently and formerly owned by Valerie Scopaz and it' been like that. I've owned 92 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting the property for two and a half years now I would like it if it could be amended on all the documents so that it's clear and not missing anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the Assessor's office has to do that. Actually if you just go and tell them at the Assessor's office they'll have the record and they should do that. They'll probably want a copy of your deed that's all. I have surveys where people have been dead for generations and they're still knows as formerly known as formerly alive. MEMBER DANTES : Mr. Forgione had a concern about the R80 district on the other side of this house (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Turn that around so that you're on the record. MEMBER DANTES : Mr. Forgione had some concerns about the R80 zoned land that is on the other side of his house and I don't know every single use for the code but it is a residential district and my understanding is you can't build a hotel in a residential district so it would most likely end up being houses if anything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A two acre zone I think it's (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : And the other concern brought up about the permitted uses on the site, we don't have any say on those. That you'd have to go to Mr. Russell and the Town Board for. They can make changes and they're the ones that would have to analyze that where an Appeals Board and a special exception board so our only jurisdiction is to evaluate what's in front of us. We have opinions on it that are private you have to go to them for actual (inaudible) ANTHONY FORGONE : Can I ask you a question, if those events do come up and the people guests who stay at those hotels that noise is continue into the night cause there's going to be nobody to monitor those special you know that's going to be another issue with you know debris piles whatever smoke (inaudible) I'm sure they'll have cameras on the sites there'll be we were all kids at some time it'll be sometimes worse than others but that's going to be another thing to address. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think they've heard us loud and clear tonight. ANTHONY GIAMBERTONE : I would like to address one thing, when we were looking to this was not the first thought we had to develop a hospitality site within Southold because we felt there was a genuine need for it. There are very few pieces of property in the hamlet business district which would prevent either a hotel or a sizable office building that are available. Most hamlet business district properties are relatively small homes on the Main Rd. that have a half acre of property. That could never possibly be developed into anything significant such as this. This was 93 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting a very rare piece of property to come by that was zoned hamlet business that was neighbored on two sides, one by the Long Island Railroad and one by a commercial boatyard so that you were really not bringing a commercial use into a residential community. So it seemed to have the best potential for development that we could put something together in a respectful manner and I think we've demonstrated that with the design of the building and the intent to screen the noise. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can I ask (inaudible) also, the STP system can that be relocated anywhere else on the site, I noticed in the other sort of as of right program you could place it well being proposed in the same location but can it be placed on the west side of the property? PAUL GROSSER : Paul Grosser with P.W. Gross Consulting, there's setback requirements that limit where you can put it. You'd have to reconfigure the entire property to do that. Keeping it at the existing you know we'd have to look at it. The other part is right at the front door. MEMBER DANTES : What he's asking is can you put it closer to like let's say the commercial property the boatyard versus Mr. Forgione's PAUL GROSSER : We would have to reconfigure with the cottage because this has to be 75 foot setback from the plants to cottages to habitable dwellings so it would have to be reconfigured somehow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that is a point to think about. PAUL GROSSER : Yeah we'll look at it the house and what the setback distances are from that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. One last question about special events cause this comes up all the time particularly with wineries. Many businesses have said that without being able to realize some income from special events their business model is not going to be successful. How important are those events to your successful business? ANTHONY GIAMBERTONE : When we undertook this project we did so with having a study done in terms of the financial viability of it. The study was done intentionally leaving out special events so that we felt that based upon what we would build we wanted to assure ourselves that the building would be financially viable with or without special events. That being said you know it is a hotel and it is a seasonal use and we've spoken to many owners of hotel properties in the area and the ability to have special events definitely takes the edge off of the pain of carrying it through the winter. So there's definitely it definitely makes it more financially viable but our initial business plan was not predicated on the ability to have special events. 94 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you that's an important comment, anything else from anyone? We haven't really done much with addressing the SEQRA application, those (inaudible) standards but since we're you know we're really here primarily for the DEIS tonight and special events will have to be addressed anyway again not special events, Special Exception Permit and those standards I'm wondering how the Board feels do you want to ask any questions particularly at this point about that or should we simply leave that open and you know kind of what do you suggest? I mean we're not closing, we have to have another hearing on the Special Exception Permit application, we just haven't gotten into very much depth with it this evening because the priority really is to get the SEQRA determination first. Would you like to enter into tonight's record anything about that Special Exception Permit application? ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Actually I would ask a question to the Board. I believe Mr. Cuddy did submit CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have submitted in writing. ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Beyond what we've discussed here tonight which is fairly extensive are there any concerns of the Board relative to the Special Exception Permit that we should consider in preparing our next presentation? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well in my mind the standards that we're obligated to use from Section 280-142 we have not only general standards but there's matters to be considered which is a laundry list this long they've submitted in writing is this right out of the DEIS Charles or is this yeah I know but they're both in there. These are excerpts from the DEIS. MR. CUDDY : Those are separate statements from the DEIS. They (inaudible) solely special exception. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So most of the standards that are in here will be addressed by the questions that were raised tonight. lust for your information I'm going to just read off a couple of them just so you see what's involved. The first is that the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or properties in adjacent use districts. So that was like impacts on other businesses, impacts on the neighbors, residences so on and so forth. The use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use permitted or legally established uses in the district whereas the proposed use is to be located or permitted or legally established uses that are adjacent use district this all sounds repetitive but the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use. They have to say how it won't be. They have to answer, because and then explain their reasons. The use will be in harmony and promote the general purposes and intent of the chapter that's special exception chapter. It's going to have to be compatible with the surroundings, with the 95 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting character of the neighborhood, the community in general with regard to visibility scale and overall appearance and it goes on. Proposed structures, equipment and material shall readily accessible for fire and police protection. Finally the proposal complies with the requirements of storm water management code or in the alternative Zoning Board of Appeals shall condition such approval on compliance with Chapter 236. So those are the general things they have to address before us before we can say yes the use is permitted but only if you can tell us how these are all going to fit within those standards. Then there are a whole other series of other matters to be considered that are also to be addressed and there's I don't know sixteen of those or something like that. So I'm not going to read those. They're there and they're available for you to look at. We welcome your ongoing participation in this process it's important to all of us. This is what small town democracy looks like. I want to thank all of you, the applicant for their professional preparation for this. I want to thank our consultant and I want to thank all of you for coming this evening. It's very important that we get feedback from the community. Your comments as neighbors we take very seriously and the applicant will as well when it comes to continuing to develop their proposal based upon what they've heard this evening. Are there any other comments from the Board? MEMBER DANTES : I think in the next submission if they (inaudible) flush out like a drought (inaudible) landscapes and water usage and then look at the rain sensors for irrigation and things like that I think would mitigate some of the public's concerns on the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So here's what we're going to do, hearing no other comments for this evening I'm going to make a motion to close the DEIS hearing subject to being open till December 9th for written comments from anyone from the public. We want to get those comments to the applicant as soon as we can because they need to address them. So anything you give to the Zoning Board take them to Kim, email them in if you want or drop off something in writing and we will make it an official part of our public record and will be as important as any testimony we heard this evening. We'll make sure they get copies so everybody knows what the thinking is. So I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to written comments up until December 91h, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. 961 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the SEQRA application to thank you I'm getting tired it's been a long day, the Special Exception Permit application which is a separate application no but we can have a hearing. It's true it's complicated so you know what, let the applicant concentrate on the DEIS I think that's probably most productive. I'll just adjourn it without a date and then when you're ready then we can put it back on the calendar as soon as possible. Does that make sense to everybody? Mr. Cuddy. MR. CUDDY : Well we'd like to do it as soon as possible because it's a long time but certainly we can get this done shortly after we finish with the DEIS. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I anticipate that it would be in the beginning months of next year that we would be back before the public for that special exception permit hearing. T. A. DUFFY : The problem is Charles we have the draft and then we have to final (inaudible) calendar we don't want people showing up when nothing's happening so I think it's safer to just have a without a date. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does everybody understand what we're doing here, any questions from anybody? Bear in mind that the applicant in addition to the findings statement on the SEQRA and the Special Exception Permit application will then have to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval and they may require certain changes with the buffers and landscaping and parking. They may relocate the sanitary you know there's still things that have to be addressed that the Planning Board has jurisdiction over and generally handles. That'll be the curb cuts exactly there may be some modifications with site plan. We did not have a vote on the adjournment I'm just proposing that we adjourn I'm just going to repeat that the application for the SEQRA determination which is do we have an application number we should not SEQRA for the Special Exception. BOARD SECRETARY : It is 7046. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so application #7046 I'm proposing to adjourn without a date is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 97 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. If anybody wants to have a quick you know a better look this is a great time to come up and look at the model, have a look at the drawings see what they're actually proposing. (See Minutes for Resolution) 98 November 7, 2019 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature : 0 - Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : November 25, 2019 )9