The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-12/05/2019 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 December 5, 2019 9:38 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 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Cono Cimino #7338 3-9 William Todd Jeffcoat#7351 9 - 11 Tracy Peck and David Corbett#7340 12 - 14 1605 OSYL, LLC#7355 14- 18 Joan Cooke #7342 19 -42 Erin Streeter#7344 42—56 & 88-89 935 Sound Beach Drive, LLC# 7341 57 - 60 Frank and Joanne Gumper#7348 60- 67 Michael and Debra Hahn #7345 67- 68 Aleksander Myftarago #7346 68 - 73 Laurene Herwald #7347 73 - 75 William Gorman #7303SE 76 - 84 Elias and Jeannine Kassapidis # 7336 84-88 Z December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING #7338—CONO CIMINO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Cono Cimino #7338. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 12, 2019 amended October 4, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 155 West Shore Road in Southold. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning everyone, I'm Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant who is present in the audience. The request is because we've got two fronts. The existing residence primarily does not interfere with the West Shore Drive front yard setback although the existing building does not meet the requirement of a rear yard setback in that particular (inaudible) which is a fifty foot (inaudible). At the present time it's 34.1 feet (inaudible) existing building (inaudible). On the private road section the 40 foot setback, the existing building is 32.9 and it's at the closest particular point and the proposed addition would come no closer than that (inaudible) with a wraparound porch (inaudible). The majority of the additions are forward which do not interdict with any of the required setbacks whether front, side or rear. The hardship is that it's a very unusual piece of property being pie shaped like that with the two fronts makes it difficult to meet the code requirements although the house itself does not meet the requirements now as it sits and we're not extending any of that into the front yard or rear yard setback more than what is already there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wanted to having a look not just the survey but also the other plans, the application say�emoval and it looks as though there's so much new construction mostly interior all the windows, walls, roof removed and so on how is this not a demo? MIKE KIMACK : It's not a demo because the existing residence being in place a second floor expansion going on but the back section is if you look at the proposed second floor it's an expansion on top of the existing lower section, back section there which is the on the back going to be the proposed second floor expansion is simply on top of the existing house and then the proposed garage and all of the proposed first floor expansion is in addition to what's already there. The house except for being renovated interior so pretty much sits as it is. What we have really are much more additions to it than a demolition of the existing house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's what I guess maybe it's the way you filled out the reasons for appeal, (The removal of the existing dwelling and the new construction will not be -T 3 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting out of scale and design with the neighborhood and not provide an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood). MIKE KIMACK : Then I probably mislabeled that because it's not the removal of the existing dwelling it's just the renovation of the existing dwelling primarily because that's how the thing was written. We're basically not going to be taking it down (inaudible) the Notice of Disapproval was written as construction, alterations and additions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right that's frequently the case but MIKE KIMACK : You gotta ask the questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A long history of additions and alterations that become demos. It's much better to address it in the beginning than to have to deal with it afterwards. MIKE KIMACK : The majority of the work on this house is pretty much additions and alterations to it all the way through there preserving the core of the house and adding to it. Putting a second floor on the existing (inaudible) so obviously it's not being knocked down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think this is a six bedroom house is it not? MIKE KIMACK : I believe it is, yes. To let you know ahead of time, the septic system has all been installed and approved by the Health Department and registered (inaudible) for a six bedroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have something from the Health Department showing that? MIKE KIMACK : I don't with me, I can. It has been the Health Department approval was submitted with an application to the town and the Building Department has it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to have a copy of that. MIKE KIMACK : I will get a copy of that for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In reading these answers the reasons for appeal it would be very useful to the Board the way the answers were addressed explained why. For instance number four, the request for a 35.7 foot front yard setback in that location will have little or no impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Well that's what the reason actually asks, the variance will or will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district because. The because is what the Board needs to address in the decision. MIKE KIMACK : Because of the situation I could add to it now (inaudible) that particular wraparound porch, that particular (inaudible) is no closer to the existing road the private road 4 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting on the side. It's an open area, there's no tree taking down, there's no environmental impact per say. It's not going to be a visual impact because it's lower than the overall house itself so on the neighbor's perspective when they're looking at the house overall that particular section that goes within that 40 foot setback on a private road is really up against the house. It's not going to have any outstanding feature that's going to stand out more than the house (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay now that's in the record please put it in the application. MIKE KIMACK : I will be more detailed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what the Board has, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I had two questions, you mentioned before it's not a demolition but are you going to saw the second floor off, because the way you're showing this it's much higher than what was there originally? Both sides there's a second floor. MIKE KIMACK : Is there a second floor? MR. CIMINO : Right on one side there's a second floor a complete second floor, the other side has a catwalk with like two rooms up there, that side is completely coming off and then the other side it has a complete second floor we're going to take that and just change the (inaudible) roof. MEMBER LEHNERT : So you're raising everything up? MR. CIMINO : Right. MEMBER LEHNERT : I know you spoke about the septic system before, along with your application do you have the site plan showing where all the pools are? MR. CIMINO : We actually registered that with the Health Department. MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay that's going to be part of what you're giving to us? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm curious about that. That was my questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes I just wanted to sort of mirror what Rob just said. I'm having a hard time understanding how this is not a demolition. When I look at the site plan I see the existing residence, the front fagade is I don't know at least something in the range of 20 feet back from the proposed fagade so it would appear to me that the entire second floor is being December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting engulfed by the new second the existing second floor is being engulfed and taken over by the new proposed second floor and I really don't understand between what I'm looking at here it's very hard to understand the existing conditions versus the proposed. If you're going through this extent you know expense which is a substantial additions what I think you're calling it, what really looks like a demolition why you just don't relocate the house to conforming location and just start new? MIKE KIMACK : It wasn't the intent of the owner or his architect basically take the house down. They can work with the existing residence, they can add to it, they can amend it, they can build on top of it but it wasn't the intent to take it down. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand that that's not the intent but I think in principle you are taking it down. There's no remaining interior walls from what I can see, there's you know nothing of the original house apart from that you're not taking and I would argue it's a full demolition but that's just my opinion. MEMBER LEHNERT : Are we saving the deck of the second floor or is that coming off? MR. CIMINO : We're saving the three back walls of the house. We're pulling the house forward in essence. In other words the three sides of the house are pretty much staying the same which is pulling the house forward to the front street which is West Shore and then we're doing the pitches on the roof because the one side like I said has a catwalk upstairs MEMBER LEHNERT : Well the second floor, floor joists are the existing ones are they being removed? MR. CIMINO : The second floor, floor joists well one side doesn't have any it only has little rooms in the back. MEMBER LEHNERT : The ones that are there. MR. CIMINO : The ones that are there, I believe so. MEMBER LEHNERT : So you're demolishing the second floor. MR. CIMINO : The second floor is going to get gutted out and then re-peaked. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason that I brought this up was because as you know the Building Department doesn't always catch the fine line between this could be a demolition but we're saving some of this and some of that. The way we should basically proceed I think that would satisfy everybody and make sure there are no problems, do you have an architect MR. CIMINO : Yes. 6 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : who stamped these plans, that is a licensed design professional and what we would require would be to have that individual calculate the percentage of removal and the percentage of new construction and certify that the cost does not exceed 50% of the existing value of the home. That's what the code defines it as a demolition. Mike I'm sure has a copy of that section of the code and if a design professional submits a stamped certification that it is not a demolition based on the code then we can proceed with the assurance that it is not. The Building Department just doesn't go into that kind of detail all the time to calculate cost and so on but that and the certification of the six bedroom septic system with the location of the pools and so on should put us in complete application, anything else Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I'm just wondering for the Board members, would it be helpful to see the existing conditions along with the proposed. The way that it's highlighted over it it's very hard to fully comprehend what's going on here but it would seem to me that it is a complete demolition. MIKE KIMACK : Well if we get the architect to write the fact that it's less than 50% 1 don't see a need for that Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Possibly but the other thought MEMBER LEHNERT : You're already showing the existing conditions with the dotted lines, so he's got them so it wouldn't be difficult for.him to show. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what, it's just a magic marker basically showing what's staying, what's being removed, what percentage. Do it on a small Xerox. It doesn't have to be a full I mean it's just basically as an attachment to the certification and then we'll know exactly what we're doing because we've had a situation that it was such it was so close and you know the Building Department could have caught, Mike said well we could have called it a demo but we didn't so we didn't know and I don't want to see property owners go through that unnecessarily. It's better to just solve these problems before they exist and make sure that everyone is on the same page. MIKE KIMACK : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : What about keeping the deck at the existing setback or I think right now it's on your survey it's 35.7 feet for the rear yard setback and they propose a 34.7 feet or 34.1? MIKE KIMACK : Are we looking at the one off the private road? MEMBER DANTES : No the existing rear yard setback. December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : That building that exists Eric it's not new that 34.1 is off of the structure MEMBER DANTES : According to your survey it says 35.7 (inaudible) and now according to your print it says 34.75 and it's an existing 37.7 so I don't really know MIKE KIMACK : Between the architect's (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : I believe generally we take the surveyor. The Notice of Disapproval says 35.7 MIKE KIMACK : The survey shows 35.7. I'm just trying to they don't necessarily go to the same point. It's kind of a little unusual situation. The architect's drawing is of the new structure and oh I see he's got the dotted line on the inside of that where the existing porch was primarily, so he is about a foot and a half closer than on that particular side. The original one shows on the survey 35.7 and then he's showing the best I can figure 34.1 the architect. I think he just squared it off squared the building (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just agree with what Nick and Rob were saying. It's very difficult to discern what is remaining and what is not. I mean by looking at this architect's drawing, it looks as though there's only the piece towards the back and the side that's really remaining. The rest interior is all going to be gone so I need to see something more that will make me think this is not a demo. I mean to me right now looking at it, it looks like a demo to me. MIKE KIMACK : Well the instruction I got basically you wanted a drawing showing the dotted line as to what is staying what is going in the existing house and a calculation from the architect that does not exceed the 50%. That should address your concerns. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sorry, Mike I'm just having again a hard time reconciling all this. I'm looking and I visited the site, I've seen the existing house, I'm actually very familiar with the house as it stands today and I'm looking at the architecture's rendering of the front elevation and it shows from the second finished floor begins and it's basically at the window sill level of the existing house and now the proposed you can see that there's a shift in the floor between the first floor and the second floor because the windows and what's marked as a future bedroom are like five feet higher than the floor. I don't have a scale here to exactly measure it but just the proportions that I'm looking at with an untrained eye it just seems like the whole house is being substantially altered. Yes the rear fagade wall remains and sort of the side on the corner of the private road is but nothing else and I think for the effort that the applicant is December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting putting into the house it just seemed to me that they could build the exact same house in a conforming location and they don't really need to be here if they just demolish it. MIKE KIMACK : Well let's just see if I can get the architect to get you the permission that you required. Obviously this is what was intended by the owner through the architect. You're concerns are that it may necessarily meet the definition of a demo CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. MIKE KIMACK : I won't be able to determine that until the architect makes his calculations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure fair enough. Hearing no further questions or comments from the audience I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the hearing to the Special Meeting on December 19th and Mike you can get us that information and depending on what we got we'll either close it or will carry it over. 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 #7351—WILLIAM TODD JEFFCOAT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William Todd Jeffcoat #7351. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 7, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" porch reconstruction attached to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet located at 2795 Bay Ave. in Mattituck. It would appear that Mike do you just want to enter your name please. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. 9 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this looks like an "as built" porch reconstruction with a front yard setback of 16, 22 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet. I think you're saying that the dwelling was raised on a new foundation in the same location and you're maintaining the existing front yard setback, is that right? MIKE KIMACK : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Were there any priors for a front yard setback or on Bay Ave. for similar 16 foot front yard setbacks? MIKE KIMACK : I didn't see any. Basically if you look at the property on both sides 300 feet on both sides. I didn't have any that close primarily. This particular building'they have received a building permit. It was raised in place. There's a porch over it a covered porch primarily and when the building permit was in place, in order to raise the foundation the footings for the deck had to be compromised and they were removed basically. There was a grade level concrete patio if you want to call it (inaudible) porch. Once it's raised the concrete patio was no longer reasonable and functional and had to be replaced anyway and that replacement along with the footing replacement triggered the requirement to the variance but essentially had that not been I would not be here because if we just raise it in place that being the issue something we would be permitted to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that why there was a Stop Work Order? MIKE KIMACK : I believe so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It said it exceeded the scope of the building permit. MIKE KIMACK : I think the building permit called for a new foundation. I'm not quite sure if they have it specified about the front porch and the footings. I think when they showed up to do the inspection and they realized that the front footings had been replaced at that particular time in order to carry the porch because it had been compromised during the construction and that's why they did a Stop Work Order. I don't think there was fault on the part of the homeowner. I assume he was moving in the right direction with the permit except that on the Building's point of view they looked at (inaudible) did not expect it to include I'm guessing the front footings and once those had to be removed and replaced that triggered the requirement for a variance. Also I suspect even if the footings were not removed just putting the new decking on the new deck on raised up would in and of itself would trigger the variance request. It's all within the same roofline. MEMBER DANTES : The covered roofline was always there. 1Q December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : The covered roofline was always there but it doesn't change. MEMBER DANTES : So it was always a covered porch. MIKE KIMACK : It was always a covered porch.That was all raised. MEMBER DANTES : But he's made it 6 inches higher. MIKE KIMACK : They just made it I think a foot 18 inches higher which required to raise it and obviously the existing footings either during the foundation excavation or construction could not be saved. It probably (inaudible) kind of condition that you'd want to put a new floor deck on it anyway. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, actually it's improving over what was there and it looks very nice. MIKE KIMACK : I have a letter from a homeowner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : I agree with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application?Anything from you Nick or Rob? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) I.1 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7340—TRACY PECK and DAVID CORBETT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tracy Peck and David Corbett #7340. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's June 14, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) existing accessory garage is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1305 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck. PAT MOORE : Good morning, Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Corbett and Ms. Peck. I have David Corbett with me to be my extra eyes and ears here. I'm sure you're very familiar with this application. This is one where they were it's a small cottage on Sigsbee Rd. one of the original little houses. They got a building permit for renovation, then during construction Mr. Corbett found some construction problems, some damage to the existing structure similar to I think the issues that we've had previously I heard today on other applications. So ultimately when he had that construction corrected at that point triggered more than fifty percent he had to come here and the Board said, well it's now a demo; the Board ultimately said since it's a demo you can now make the house conform all fine and good. He went to get his building permit to make the house conforming and the Building Department realized oops because it's a demolition the existing garage which is staying they're doing nothing to the garage it's in fine shape puts the garage in a side yard. So now back to the Zoning Board, I think this is round three and hopefully the last round and they need a variance to keep the garage where it is as part of the original reconstruction of the house. Is that clear enough. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a Pre-C.O? PAT MOORE : Yes it does it's part of your packet. It is let's see I just saw it actually it's together with the other C.O.'s right before your decision. The Pre-C.O. is # 38814 and it refers to "as built" electric service in accessory garage "as built" alterations, outdoor shower stall addition so the prior owners Murphy applied in February 6, 2017 for the existing garage. Got a Pre-C.O. but associated with Pre-C.O. there was electricity added and so additional building permits associated with that so yes it's a legally CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it looks like it was always in a side yard. JLZ December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It's always been but (inaudible). Nothing has moved here. I've always come back here with side yards of existing structures I call them technical variances because of our the code structures in a side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I have to ask the questions so I have in the record why can't the garage be lifted and placed in a conforming rear yard? PAT MOORE : And I'm sure for obvious you all know better and certainly as an architect you know better than I do, it's a very costly proposition to pick up a garage and relocate it. It's on a slab and the age of the garage is if you try to start and pick it up I think you might compromise it. It's been a very long process for this homeowner and the cost of the process I'm sure has impacted the budget so there is no new garage here. They want to keep what's there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only other question I would ask and I believe we've asked this in previous hearings, why not attach the garage? As far as the (inaudible) of the house and I understand there is a foundation there but could you not build I guess to the north and attach the garage? PAT MOORE : The breezeway is only permitted to be 10 max. and it would exceed the distance that technically a breezeway is permitted to be to connect two structures. Also probably if you connected it as a breezeway the side yard setback may not be accurate because it's 12.2. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably on that size lot it's probably PAT MOORE : 15 and 10 so we may be okay on that side but it's the breezeway (inaudible) certainly my first question to the client is like really, we're going to wait six months can't you connect it and technically it wouldn't be allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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. 13 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting 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#7355—1605 OSYL, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 1605 OSYL, LLC #7355. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 13, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a single family dwelling 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 1605 Shipyard Lane in Southold. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. The best way to proceed on this is this happened before you before and you had issued a zoning approval. If I can direct your attention to the way I wrote the project description it's the best way to describe it because it indicates that within that within that 6230 for a zoning permit you wanted to reduce the overall area of coverage from the 25.3% to 23.6% primarily. In order to do that you limited the front porch to 167 sq. ft. I believe and then you also limited the back porch, you cut that back to 10 foot 8 and not to extend any further out than 8 feet. On top of that Joe Fischetti had written a letter requesting that the staircase be extended up 11 feet and that had been approved. That sets the (inaudible). The request here is not to change the 23.6% but to move the approved porch front porch take that away and just put a simple covered porch over the walkway of about 31 sq. ft. and then you take a difference 134 sq. ft. and make a larger deck in the back because the deck as it is now it's quite frankly it's 10 X 8 (inaudible) landing. There's no really way to get a decent when you're putting table on there (inaudible) you need at least 3, 3 % feet around it. A 10 foot, 11 foot deck going out is not an unreasonable deck in order to have the enjoyment of the area. It doesn't change the overall coverage which was your (inaudible) direction in order to limit that down in your original ZBA. If anyone looked at the house it doesn't look too bad, actually the construction is there we're just putting on the front porch :141 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting covering the front porch with a 31 sq. ft. cover over it and then'do the larger deck in the back to stay within the 23.6. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to clarify one thing Mike, the de minimus approval that I granted in 2010 allowed just the stairs not the deck but the stairs to protrude into the non- conforming 27 foot rear yard setback that was granted by the Board and that was like a 3 foot wide stair okay not wide but 3 feet just for that stair and we're now proposing that the entire deck be set back at 24 feet. I remember that well because it was a modular construction and it was very complicated because they're all small lots around there. There was a second story proposed deck that we overlooked. MIKE KIMACK : There was a second story that which had been taken down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Everyone's rear yard that was denied and that's not been built, right now there's sort of a patio out there. MIKE KIMACK : But it's a low patio. You can't get to it from the what he wants to do is open the back of the house and go onto the deck and walk down. In essence the original approval was for a much smaller deck of 10 foot 8 which really isn't a functional use of deck and then with that staircase extending down 11 feet from the house (inaudible). We just really want to be able to have the ability to have a larger deck for activities there that are connected to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you expand the deck across the side of the house and still maintain the 27 foot rear yard setback with stairs protruding into the setback as originally granted through the'de minimus? MIKE KIMACK : As you basically asked the whole back of the house is pretty much that would not be (inaudible) basically the way we wouldn't be able to do that to limit it down less than that (inaudible) setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it would reduce the depth of the deck that's what would have to happen. MIKE KIMACK : By doing which way, maybe I was misunderstanding you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have an 11 foot proposed 11 foot deep deck running along the back of the house. MIKE KIMACK : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : for 18 feet. MIKE KIMACK : Correct. 151 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have a problem with 18 feet, I'm just looking to see if the deck depth was reduced by 3 feet you could then maintain the 27 foot setback. MIKE KIMACK : It would be a very 8 feet doesn't really give you a lot of room to really have anything there. I mean that's I mean all of you probably have experience with depths primarily and I've been before you with a lot of applications. If you're going to have a deck in you're going to basically have a table out there and any kind of activity 8 feet really doesn't allow you to have that. I mean any type of table that's (inaudible) having a table generally you need at least 3 to 3 % feet around that table in order to have your chairs to pull out and to have movement around it. Every time (inaudible) it's always been a minimum of at least 10 feet. can pull it back (inaudible) basically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, questions? MEMBER DANTES : I'm just a little hesitant cause it looks like the Board did review that and then they decided on doing it with just the staircase not the deck. Do you know why the Board didn't grant further relief? Why they only granted the staircase? MIKE KIMACK : I think the focus and look I cannot speak for the Board, but reading through the decision I think the focus was trying to limit down the coverage area as much as possible and the original application was for a much larger front porch and I think that particular applicant wanted that front porch so that front porch was reduced and then the difference was put on the back porch was also reduced in order to get that particular coverage area down from greater that 25% to 23.6. 1 believe that at least was one of the focuses of the (inaudible) primarily cause it's not being (inaudible) and I cannot answer that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the prior deck was 8 feet. MIKE KIMACK : The prior approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. The one that was MIKE KIMACK : 8 X 10. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. So it was 8 feet. MIKE KIMACK : It was 8 feet originally. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the 24 foot setback was just for stairs so that the total area of that 8 X 10 deck could be used. MIKE KIMACK : And the stairs didn't change the overall calculation of the 23.6. 1f December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we're looking at I mean you can still do 8 X 18 feet and maintain that setback. Mike it was lot coverage that was quite excessive the lot coverage at 23.6%. Partly it was because they're on small lots there and lot coverage is not MIKE KIMACK : I gathered that when I was reading your decision that that was one of the focuses that the lot coverage was important to reduce as much as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's true, that's true. MIKE KIMACK : Our hope and expectation is that we could create a larger deck by shifting primarily the square footage from the front to the back and not exceed the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that would address the lot coverage area that we're just looking at MEMBER DANTES : It also says the neighbor showed up for the last hearing and they voiced concerns over the loss of privacy in their rear yards by the applicant's proposed elevated first floor and second story rear decks which would cause so I mean there is a concern the rear deck will how close to the neighbor's houses is the deck? MIKE KIMACK : Those houses are pretty close together Eric and I (inaudible) suggest that there are other lots in that particular area. I don't know if any neighbors had given you new letters relative to this application. My guess would be that the neighbor might have been objecting that second floor deck because that one was really I mean if you're going to see something you would see the second floor deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was fundamentally the second story that was proposed. We said take the patio doors out, put in windows that is what is there now. MIKE KIMACK : I would have thought that that would be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : because that was just (inaudible) have complete you know birds eye view of absolutely the entire neighborhood. MIKE KIMACK : It would have looked down the other guys bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's exactly it. The shower was a risk let's put it that way. MIKE KIMACK : I would like to be able to at least have a reasonable width deck if we could in order to have some activity on there. Eight feet really doesn't do it because the 8 foot then would take 6 inches off of that because the railing (inaudible) 7 % feet. If we could maintain I'd like to be able to maintain 111 could cut it back to 10 to reduce that. That will also then reduce the overall percentage of 23.6 nonetheless. :1a December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what,just for the heck of that because Kim over here miss calculator just generated some information just so that you can respond to it. If the deck were to be proposed at 8 X 18, 144 sq. ft. will reduce lot coverage to 22.66% and if the deck is 8 X 10 that was the original size that would reduce the lot coverage to 20. MIKE KIMACK : 18 X 10 would reduce it to what Kim? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 23.12 the 18 X 10 feet. MIKE KIMACK : There's not much more I can add. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, it is what it is. MIKE KIMACK : So it's like 23.1 with 10 foot wide out and if it's 8 foot and 18 it's 22.6 or 22.7 so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 8 X 18 is 22 and 10 X 18 is 23.12. Alright, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Please come forward and state your name. MARIO SEULE : Good morning, Marion Seule lot 117. 1 came today just to find out about the rear deck. It's my bathroom that's going to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh you're the one. MARIO SEULE : So I couldn't tell if it was on the first floor or the second floor. If it's on the first floor I don't have any problem with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's also fencing too behind your property. MARIO SEULE : Yeah they put up a six foot fence. I didn't even know the house sold I didn't meet the neighbors but that's all I have to say. I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thanks so much for your comments, okay anyone else, anything from the Board? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. 18 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7342—JOAN COOKE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joan Cooke # 7342. 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 amend an existing building permit #42432Z for additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet located at 2205 Bay Ave. in East Marion. PAT MOORE :'Patricia Moore on behalf of Mrs. Cooke. I have Joan Cooke here. I know you're familiar with this property. This was the subject of a variance in that the existing house after Sandy many of the homes in this area experienced water damage really for the first time. So in order to hopefully avoid that in the future she made an application her architect to raise the house. The house was raised. It is probably ninety nine percent complete at this point. I was there six months ago when I started this and it was pretty much at the end of the entire process. What they discovered is and what happened is, at the last hearing during the and Bruce Anderson was the expediter at the time, I think Bruce was trying to come up with a more favorable setback from the front and really at the last moment changed the design of the staircase. The original staircase was going to go straight out and changed the design of the staircase to run parallel to the house. When the contractor was out there and actually started the construction they realized very quickly and certainly what happens is on paper versus in reality you may end up having between elevations and existing conditions and so on it turned out that the staircase if it was constructed the way the Zoning Board had approved it, it only left two feet to the neighbors to the property line between the one neighbor who lives on the corner and who had objected and participated in the hearings last time. I believe they're here today as well. That was certainly an unacceptable situation. We don't want to create any controversy between neighbors at all possible and certainly only having two feet, every time that you bring in groceries or somebody accidently steps over the line you'd end up with you know a situation. So at that point they went back to the Building Department. The Building Department they were actually trying to come up with alternative designs that would work. The final alternative design is the one that is before you which is I want to call it a switch back. It goes 19 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) PAT MOORE : Ah good okay the hiking terms, so it goes down and then it returns back. That was the most practical design that everybody thought would work in this situation and so that's the application before you which is to modify the staircase design so that it practically it would work. The original design just it was completely impractical and that was just not recognized at the time again because of existing conditions you have a sudden change in the elevation or an inch here an inch there and all of a sudden a very tight condition becomes unworkable. In addition to the request that is submitted, the Board had placed a condition that the applicant extend the siding down along the foundation and they looked at that and that again is going to create some practical problems. In vinyl going down to the foundation is going to result in mold that's going to grow behind the vinyl. It's also going to the house potentially be damaged with water. The reason that we brought the house up is because of the potential flooding that can come up Bay (inaudible) and those areas area low lying areas. So the owner would really ask the Board to modify that condition please modify that condition. She's had proposed or had investigated a material that's called DAICH. It's a roller it's a self-priming pebble stone exterior concrete material. It's a very thick paint, the cost is $164 a gallon. So it's not a cheap material but it's a material that can match the color of the siding and it can have a nice finish. It won't be an exposed block. It'll be look like what they call concrete, it's textured material again matching the color of the siding. If you happen to be during your inspection and I can give you an example. If you go down Rabbit Lane, some of the homes along Rabbit Lane had siding that goes down covers the foundation and you can see evidence of what it looks like a couple of years it's been in place. The siding is moldy, it's damaged water damaged. It just looks terrible. So what I think all of us including my client want this to be a sustainable, good looking end result and this material would be recommended. Now I would also add and I have my client here to testify to that effect and confirm for you we're not done. They're going to put landscaping, they are going to probably need to put up a fence between the properties because just the neighbor has the right to park all and put all his materials wherever he wants but it's unsightly and they would like to you know keep a nice tidy presence there. So all in all this is not an end the house is going to be a very attractive house. The finishes are all very high end finishes. Again, it's the exact same house that was lifted to put up for FEMA compliance. So just if you want to hear from her that she would certainly place landscaping on to cover the foundation so that whether it's siding or a masonry product it's going to be landscaped. Can you just confirm this? JOAN COOKE : Joan Cooke. To put up vinyl siding I've spoken to several people including my contractor who said why would you put siding when then house flooded. I'm trying to avoid having the damage again. Seven years that we haven't been able to use the house that this process has gone. We just want to finish the house. It's going to look pretty, it already looks December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting beautiful, the textured paint is beautiful. It will look like a foundation. It's not the siding down to the ground that the water is going to rip it off. He would have to add furring onto the cement foundation to add the vinyl siding in which to get under it we're trying to avoid mold. That was the original thing of why we lifted it in the first place. So it's been a long process and we're just trying to get the house done. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your comments. PAT MOORE : As far as some technical data that I'd like to include into the file. I did provide you in writing in my presentation the average setback of all the homes. I'd also like to point out that there's actually the code itself and let me pull out the section, the definition sections of the building area 280-4 excludes from building area setbacks steps and open porches that project not more than five feet from exterior walls and having an area of not more than thirty square feet. The proposed stoop complies with the town code. The stoop is 4 feet from the exterior wall, 5 is permitted. It's proposed at 4 and a 6 X 4 landing to comply with the code is 24 sq. ft. Again less than the 30 that is permitted under the code. So it has been designed and Mr. Feiler is here and the Building Department are all in agreement that the proposed steps down are conforming to code. They are also conforming to our town code. If you look at the houses that are up and down that street the ones that I listed with the average setbacks or the setbacks that were provided, those measurements are actually to the walls of those homes assuming that they too get to the point where they find that they need to raise the house. Presently their stoops are extending beyond the wall and extending beyond the setbacks. As soon as you raise the house you can't get out of the house and that's why there is a provision in our code that allows as long as it's not it conforms in size you're allowed to encroach into a front yard setback. It's obvious you have to get out of the house. So by code it's permitted. The reason the Building Department sent us back is because this issue these stairs became an issue during the hearing and there was some redesign because many times in the Building Department sometimes includes a stoop and sometimes doesn't. It's gone back and forth. When you come in for a variance for a front yard setback sometimes they consider the stoop and sometimes they don't. In this case obviously it was discussed at the prior hearing the relocation of the stairs parallel to the house required us to come back and have it redesigned. So, again we're trying to conform with the code, we're trying to finish this house. It has been a long process for the homeowner and we're here to answer any questions that you might have any issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay there are some before we open this up to the audience. One of the reasons that the stairs that were originally proposed doesn't fit because the foundation as built is higher than what the original foundation as approved actually was. So the higher up you go the longer those stairs have to be. So now you have a foundation that's a bit higher and of course those stairs if they're parallel because they have to get up higher 2.1 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Rise in the run. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : get even longer riser to (inaudible) and it's going to wind up closer to the side yard than what was originally intended. What you're proposing now is an 8 foot deep switch back instead of steps which only means that an 8 foot 5 front yard setback. Now this is more than a stoop and it's more and it's projecting out you're right about stoops but its' projecting out more than 4 or 5 feet. It's projecting out 8 feet in total from the dwelling. PAT MOORE : It depends on how it's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has to in order to be able to move around to get you up as high as you need to be. PAT MOORE : I went around the neighborhood to look at other homes and how they are getting out of their house and those houses that had been elevated have stairs most of them have stairs straight down and none of them appear to have had to go through a variance process. So I don't again it's sometimes it comes in on a variance and sometimes it doesn't. If the Board has an alternative design we'll certainly consider it. I think realistically it's I mean you can't have it run the opposite direction cause that's the storage it's a small storage area to access under the existing foundation. Obviously going in the opposite direction only leaves you 2 feet to the property line. JOAN COOKE : We're willing to do another option but we need front steps to get into your house. I just don't the architect tried various options and this seemed to be the closest to the house. The old house had a stoop and about three steps that led not really much closer cause we had a stoop and then we had steps so it began almost where it is right now maybe within inches not really much closer to the street than the old low down original house because we had a stoop and steps straight down to the street. MEMBER LEHNERT : Would it be possible to wrap the stairs around the house so you land on the sides thereby lessening the front yard setback? PAT MOORE : So you would take it down and switch back so what he's saying is you go out and then switch back and have stairs that kind of go out towards the back yard. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct. PAT MOORE : Yeah you have 5 feet, 5.9 to be precise. So if you have stairs to code 36 inches I think is to code come on up the design professional. I mean in a way it kind of it's a little bit doesn't make sense because your car is on the left hand side and you'd be facing the back. What's the width of the staircase? Again it leaves us 27. 1 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do it on the north side.There's also CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's a 10 foot side yard on the other side. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat pardon me, on the north side before it sort of (inaudible) potentially wrap the stair there's like an extra step of set of stairs. It looked like it goes to the electrical meter, is that permanent, what is that? JOAN COOKE : Somebody required him the contractor said he needed steps to read the meter so he added a little step so that the meter reader could climb up there. PAT MOORE : Building Department direction. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So to Rob's point that could perhaps be incorporated into access to the front door. JOAN COOKE : We don't have a door there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What Rob had suggested was on the north side if you wrap the stairs to switch back around the side of the house you'd have access to the electrical meter. PAT MOORE : But remember the left side of the house is where your storage is cause I considered that. Why don't we switch back the opposite direction but that is the access the foundation opening for the storage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but so whether you have the parapet the landing at the front door, instead of having the stairs going towards the south you just reverse it over that door and around. It's not my place to design the access but it would seem that there are alternatives or that basement door can always be relocated. PAT MOORE : Well we'd need a bigger platform possibly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would be no bigger than what you're proposing. MEMBER LEHNERT : No bigger than what you're proposing. DONALD FEILER : Don Feiler the architect. A little bit of history, I've talked with the builder about this and why was he went to the Building Department, this goes back to last May when he laid out the stairs it was the stairs (inaudible) at the front of the property towards the road that was changed when we (inaudible) maybe February 2015. Bruce asked me to change the location of the steps towards the south which I did. Now last May the builder Joe Henry laid it out and he didn't like the idea of going towards the neighbor's property to the south. He went to the Building Department talked with the Building Inspector and said what do you think we ---------------] 23 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting can do here I'm not saying the Building Inspector (inaudible) but the issues are on the north side of the platform is the access door to the foundation down at grade level off of (inaudible) entry door. There's parking on that side also so everything was required to go towards the south towards the road. Just about everything would require a variance according to the Building Department and (inaudible) for the steps, so that was what they thought was the best solution where we are now. (inaudible) in there to leave what's existing on the (inaudible) to the foundation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if you, this is a definition of a self-created hardship because the foundation was built higher than what it was supposed to be, anybody want to address that? PAT MOORE : I don't know that to be I don't know anything about the foundation. DON FEILER : No the foundation I don't believe I don't have the elevation of it but it was lifted up to conform to FEMA. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well according to the Trustees permit it was supposed to be 8 feet and then (inaudible) described as 11 feet so it's a 3 foot difference. JOAN COOKE : It's to the sea level, it's not actually the foundation is not 11 foot. When you walk in the foundation it's less than 8 feet. PAT MOORE : Oh they were using elevation level rather than sea level. JOAN COOKE : One is to the ground to sea level, it's not an 11 foot MEMBER DANTES : It's 11 feet to the first floor. MEMBER LEHNERT : Finished floor. PAT MOORE : Oh so there was no change to the foundation height it was one was using a measurement of the and the other one was using a measurement of elevation, both being the same so JOAN COOKE : It wasn't changed. PAT MOORE : None of us know about a change. JOAN COOKE : The foundation you walk in it's less than eight feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll get to you in one second. PAT MOORE : I mean he's the design professional, had there been a change he would have been asked to make a revision to the drawings so. 24 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : In the application 6808 which I believe was a former application there's a survey that says first floor elevation 11 as proposed zone AE elevations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : AE6 PAT MOORE : So we, can establish clearly there was no modification to the foundation. I just want to make that clear because none of us were aware of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's also a requirement for two on-site parking spaces. What you have now is barely one car. You can get two cars on there because the proposed stairs but you're going to have to show us how. PAT MOORE : That's not a problem. We actually anticipated that question so we have a drawing that I only have one copy I apologize. We have the one that is where the I think you guys are suggesting the staircase might be there's also right in front of the house that's parallel to the house and then just for purposes of establishing the actual road pavement is a car length out beyond that so there's actually the utility pole and then there's more yard so you have probably is that 10 feet or so; approximately 10 feet beyond the property line that goes into the street so there's room practically for three cars but on-site on the property we can comply with the two car requirement. I can provide that for you right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure we'll take it. PAT MOORE : Don Feiler kindly did this for us. He can sign it right now if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will have to be certified. Before I ask the Board if there are any questions or comments let's open this up to the audience cause I know that people are patiently waiting. Who would like to address the Board? Come forward and you can use either podium. Please state your name. FRANCIS BEAURY : Hi my name is Francis Beaury. I own 35 Rabbit Lane. I want to apologize, before I spoke out of turn I should know better and I apologize for all of the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Accepted. FRANCIS BEAURY : I don't (inaudible) 35 Rabbit Lane any longer. As far as this goes on with this house this has been going on for almost eight years now that this has been going on here. My goal and the goal of anybody on the block and the people that are here is not to keep anyone out of their home, not to keep anyone. When that storm came the best time and I was in 9/111 say the same thing, for a month after everybody worked together and everybody was friends and everything and that's how it was then. Everybody helped one another out, is this your wood is this this and that right. That house I had pictures, I offered you pictures, I showed 25 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting pictures to the Building Department was undamaged right. I was called a liar right. I'm not a liar, I'm not a liar at all. I was called a liar but I got in touch with the woman from Suffolk Times because I guess our area was hit the hardest so they took pictures of my home. I didn't get any water just under my basement. I didn't get any thank God, I didn't get any in the house. I lost my shed. That home was in perfect shape. Ms. Ladatto she did get some water in her house right. Everything was fine with it, everybody cleaned up their mess. I had a whole bunch of sand in front of my house. The town told me you can't put it on the beach. I said I'm new, I don't want to be a wise guy but what do I do with it? If I can't put it on the beach where do I dump it? I want to do the right thing, I don't want to do the wrong thing. So they told me that I could use it on the property if I wanted to it just cannot go back on the beach. I had basically no use for it but I went and did it and that was that. As far as my home I've been coming out here since 19— I'm 54 years old and I'm coming out here since I was a baby and at one time my family owned six homes on Bay Ave. Bay Ave. I love Bay Ave and it was my dream to own that house and as far as my house they mentioned about my home I guess being out of order. I own a boat, I have a boat in the driveway but so does a million other people that are out here. The boat is wrapped up, the boat is used. I don't have garbage or anything else. I had two garbage pails on my property right that they used. They used to use it to fill it up with things. So I removed them, I got them out of there right but I used to go out there my wife used to think I was crazy. It was the fourth of July weekend and if we weren't going out there I would it might seem ridiculous what I'm saying here but I tell you the truth I wish I could give that place away with the aggravation. The lying and the aggravation, the threatening of people by her family. Not her immediate family whoever the new person is that comes and threatens me. I went out there three times this year to stay there as a family vacation, I left. I went there one time we were staying for a week, one time we were staying for a weekend so it was two weekends that we left and one time we were there for a week and we left because the John Henry who works there when you go out there and you're there the show begins the circus begins. It becomes the cursing, the blasting radio you know the nailing the hammering and everything else. You're building a home, build your home I expect that's the noise you expect but I don't expect filthy I can't repeat the language, filthy referring to woman's anatomy with my wife, my daughter even my son just going on, going on and going on. The nonstop taunting going on right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Mr. Beaury as much as this Board will sympathize with the difficulties that you experienced what I would like you to do that would be very helpful FRANCIS BEAURY : They said that they were worried about putting the thing 2 feet from my house, well I'll tell you what, they put up the cement wall I guess for their cesspool which I'm guessing is up to here on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just make sure you're talking into the microphone. 26 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting FRANCIS BEAURY : It's approximately up to here on me and there's grass that's next to it. Supposedly they own a foot. The markings have been changed for so long, I have someone that's going to come out and recheck them and they also have a retaining wall that they put in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a (inaudible) you're talking about in the back or along the side? FRANCIS BEAURY : Along the side on my side. This fellow that comes out he identified himself as her boyfriend, I don't know who he is but she was with him the whole weekends right. I'm not a confrontational person. I don't want to have a problem with nobody right. He stood on the wall with the end of his feet hanging over the side and tells me, I know you I know where you live, I know the cars you drive, I know everything about you and you don't know who you're dealing .with. He goes you noticed we got what we got so I leave it at that. I'm not dealing with entertain this person to talk back to him or put myself in a position where there will be an altercation or something else. The last thing I'm going to do is I'm going to fight somebody right. Well he goes on and on and on and on and on, the whole entire day this man every time I left my house would come out of his house and come right over to the property line and start saying more and more (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May I just ask you a question please? How do you feel about the original steps that were going to come quite close to your property line? FRANCIS BEAURY : Well I don't understand, that's funny it's not the original house. There was I don't know if he's still there anymore, his name was I think it was Kavarski. He was a Building Inspector, he came to my house CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : John Jarski. FRANCIS BEAURY : He came to my house cause I spoke to you directly when they were putting up the cement wall for the cesspool, they were using a pump from the lake and using the water from the lake. That's our beautiful lake, don't touch our lake God forbid you know and I'm not being wise. The lake is beautiful and people put a lot of work into it but I don't think we should be using that for cement right. Verity comes out, Verity comes up to me and he tells me what's all this concrete slab you have in the street? It goes all the way down. They own houses across the street, there's concrete slab all over the street. So he tells me you know who do you think you are that you can do this? I said I can do it, I'm not doing anything. I didn't touch my house, this is from next door. I said I called up, I said because they turned my water on at my house over the wintertime when they were building it they went and they turned it on and they cracked three of my pipes under my basement. Three pipes were cracked. If you were halfway decent and shut the water off at least so I don't have to get a call from my neighbor that there's water gushing out of the basement. 27 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Sir most of this is more of a police matter. FRANCIS BEAURY I'll tell you what I've spoken to them and you know what, the Building Inspector besides Verity says this house should not have been built. This shouldn't have been built. This is wrong, that's wrong, this is wrong, that's wrong. I said but who do I talk to nobody listens to me. I make all the complaints on this. The cement thing they put up for the cesspool, the guy who put it up I don't know the guy he was fairly a nice guy and like I said I don't argue with people. They're trying to build their house, I don't have a beef with the guy he's doing his job. He told me this is ain't going to last, it's going to sink down. He says it's going to start cracking and it is cracking right. One of the big things when we dealt with you was with the they were going to put the siding to the bottom they like to talk a lot and I'm a retired policeman and the best thing that you learned you don't talk a lot. You keep your mouth shut but they like to talk and whether they know people or they don't it doesn't really matter but they turned around and they told me over a year and half ago it was John Henry, he says they're not putting that in. They're not putting it in, I told him listen I don't want to talk to you. You do your job don't talk to me. I said if they don't put it in I'll go to the town right. He says, well they're not putting it in. Well they didn't put it in and you know what, every house you look at they turn around and say every house goes from the top to the bottom and has siding, has bricks, has whatever they put on houses nowadays right so to turn around and oh you're worried about the mold I got an 11 foot cement wall and then I got another cement wall for the that goes around the house whatever it is I'm saying 4 feet I'm sure it's higher that I'm just guessing that right. I have a camera I put a camera around the house because I would have them all over my property. I'm not talking two, three people right and under normal circumstances if you were my neighbor or someone was my neighbor and they were doing work and said ghee we need to go on there, go ahead. I mowed the lawn for years, I used to make sure the lawn was mowed for it, I wanted to be a friend. I don't want to live next to an enemy right. They turn around they were going to the bathroom in my shower so they made them get a what do you call it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Port A Potty FRANCIS BEAURY : Port A Potty which my house looks messy with the Port A Potty there apparently the people who rented the homes or wherever it is to go to the Bed and Breakfasts I don't know who they are, they come down to the beach hey there's a Port A Potty there. To me it would be obvious that it's not for me to use, it's there for there but they go in and they go to the bathroom in the Port A Potty. So I got that right on my property line right. Most of the time if it rains I know the guy that does the thing he's a hell of a nice guy because he has to come and lift the thing up cause it falls over 28 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I really have to just have us focus on the things that the Zoning Board can address. It sounds terrible. FRANCIS BEAURY : Okay but what I'm very angry about is they say that they're worried all of a sudden they're worried (inaudible) to put something 2 feet from my house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how do you feel about it? FRANCIS BEAURY : Right now I wouldn't give them nothing, nothing at all. I'm against it one hundred percent cause the whole damn thing is a lie. It's not the same house. The underneath the small storage area that this woman explained about it's a small storage area, the guy Varsky came out to the house and he said about they wouldn't allow him to put the cement floor in he said but no cement floor it's going to collapse. You need the cement floor. Well they did put the cement floor in, the doors that were put on for a small little house, those are vacation homes we can't live there now. Those are seasonal homes have tremendous locks on them so that they what do you call it it's just abnormal looking right but there's four doors to get into a little tiny home. So there's four doors there right, why can't you put stairs on the side? I know it would be an inconvenience to her but you know what, she inconvenienced everybody else. She destroyed this woman's property, she destroyed my property right and besides the thing with the stairs I've spoken with Mr. Orlando from the Highway Department we have a major flooding problem since they redid the bridge. What happens is the way they redirected the water, the water comes down and it doesn't hit the sewer so it keeps going down there. I lost five feet of property going in there. I lost a big part of my driveway, everything else they said that the water is too shallow to build a thing for it. So how are they measuring this? Are they measuring it from where the street used to be or measuring it from there? When I called up and I wanted to put bushes, I was told it had to be at least 12 feet from the street right. So you got the water covers half the thing so once they put that staircase in there it's not going to be I think he said the setback should be 35 feet, this is going to be on the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the house is setback itself at 16.9 feet. That's where the wall of the house is. Now originally this Board and you'll remember I'm sure FRANCIS BEAURY : I remember it all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So instead of having this big long staircase going out into the road, turn it so that it runs parallel to the house and you know you'll have to enter it that way. What they're now saying, I just want to make sure you understand what's before this Board okay and anyone else here, we granted a setback from the road to the staircase originally of 16.9 no that was the house, what was the stairs I'm trying to look and see. I have to look at the survey. 2g December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting FRANCIS BEAURY : Honestly I'm not questioning you but it's all eroded away. It doesn't exist. What existed five years ago does not exist anymore because the water eroded everything away so when you put those stairs, those stairs this is a (inaudible) as far as they turn around and they say oh we wouldn't want to put it 2 feet there they built it supposedly and I have someone coming to check it because I don't believe them because everything was moved. They built the thing 1 feet away. I used to go and just mow up against the wall. I had twenty three people on my property, they were painting my ground with some kind of red paint for whatever they were designing there. I called the police, I called Officer McMann, he came he told them you gotta get off this man's property right. He asked me and I was foolish. He says you want me to lock them up I shouldn't be pointing I'm sorry. He said you want me to lock them up, I said I just want them off my property. I said every time I come out here it's something new. I says they're cursing. I said I got my daughter, my daughter is crying. I said just get them off the property. He no sooner drove away they were back on my property, the guy comes over to me with a shovel in his hand right and he tells me they have work to do and he's going to get the work done right. It's just bizarre. This makes me crazy. This fellow whoever he is that loves to stand until he's off your property (inaudible) we don't dare come on your property he'll stand there and heckle you an heckle you and heckle you, he turns around and I have a camera so I had everything on camera he says to me oh listen you're trespassing on my property. This is my property now, this is my property and the rules are going to be my rules not your rules right. The reason why the stuff was on his property they took two oars they moved the rowboat that I had they put the oars up on his wall which I wouldn't put them there but it was his workers that put them there so he stood there and read me the riot act for a half hour of how I'm trespassing on his property and then he tells me I used to mow the lawn cause I want to keep the house clean you go by there now and take a look at it it's certainly not a dump. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir I understand your I can really hear how frustrated you are. FRANCIS BEAURY : But how would I allow to trespass, they can't how CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand, I believe that you've done what you should have done which is to call authorities. Call the police, talk to the Building Department. FRANCIS BEAURY : You know who I honestly should call, (inaudible) cause maybe I would have more help. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm very sorry for your also what we want to hear people address right now, it's FRANCIS BEAURY : I'm addressing the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A set of steps that are 8 feet from the property line. 301F December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting FRANCIS BEAURY : and what about the paint, the stuff right? First of all people build homes and they don't build (inaudible) on the bottom.They don't build right to the ground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That is not a variance, that is a condition that we put on it. FRANCIS BEAURY : You put that on (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we did because we realized this was one of the first properties that was raised to FEMA compliance. We understood then and we see it now that it changes the character of a neighborhood. FRANCIS BEAURY : It's a dump. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I wouldn't call it that that's your words. I'm simply saying that we knew it was going to be much higher in the air than all those other little cottages, we understood that. So the reason we put excuse me let me just finish please. The reason we put that condition on was so that it, would visually mitigate some of the severity of a very tall concrete wall and look a little bit more residential in scale. That's the reason that condition was put on there. Rather than having a raw concrete foundation that was really very much different than other structures in the neighborhood. FRANCIS BEAURY : I think people eased off a little and were more for it but we thought that we were getting that and there's houses that are built right down to the bottom several feet and mold issue or anything else. I was told by him and you know what, he's not here and I really couldn't care what he said but he told me a year and a half ago it ain't going up and when I spoke to the Building Department they said oh we go in and we check and they won't get the Certificate of Occupancy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right. FRANCIS BEAURY : And then they're also saying how they're putting a fence, do you realize they built that one feet to my property line, so it's constantly flooded. I wouldn't even dare to walk over there because you'll after a rain you'll go right down to your knees into the thing and we never had that issue before. MEMBER DANTES : That's like the Town Engineering Department goes to address flooding so if there's an issue with flooding those are the guys you have to talk to. They're supposed to make the FRANCIS BEAURY : Nobody will talk to you about nothing. They don't want to be involved with it. They told me Verity said about the money some money that was given out or whatever and that's none of my business he turns around and says, well you know what if someone checked 31 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting the wrong box on the thing and got money what am I supposed to do. What are you supposed to do? How about your job. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright thank you for your comments. FRANCIS BEAURY : How are they going to put a fence in? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir I really want to is there anyone else in the audience who wants to FRANCIS BEAURY : Again I didn't get the answer I'd like to know how they're going to put the fence if they have one foot and I'm not allowed to mow there the lawn cause this guy told me to not to step on his property so now you look out my lawn is mowed and the lawn is this high in there one foot it's actually more than that cause I don't near it. I don't want to have a problem but now they say they're going to put a fence in there, how can they put a fence to one foot. You need so you're going to stand there like this I mean I feel (inaudible) I use my house three times. One time I go out with my daughter, my daughter is crying in the car, we go over by that beach I'm 54 now, I'm 53 years old I don't cry. I turned around we pulled in there and I sit there and cry and I hugged her and I said I'm so sorry. I said we just got to get out of this mess and this person had the nerve he said he's going to drive me so crazy that I'll sell him that house for a dollar. I called your office but I could take a joke I said why don't you sell it to him. So that's not very professional either and I worked in public service and I tell you I can put my head on the pillow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I find it very difficult to imagine anyone, I'm not questioning you but I (inaudible) FRANCIS BEAURY : I have thousands of tapes and I have thousands of pictures and I might as well throw them in the garbage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who else would like to address the Board, please come to the podium and state your name. JULIE LAUDATO : Good morning my name is Julie Laudato and I have a home at 2165 Bay Ave. and I'd like to just make a couple of statements. Since this project has begun it has negatively affected my families quality of life. My property now floods significantly from the excess runoff created by the angled grading of the side yards due to how they put the cesspools in the back yard. The contractors and their employees hired by the homeowner maybe she's aware of it maybe she isn't have had little regard for the surrounding property owners when they're doing their work. In my absence they've used my yard as access to do work on this home when I explicitly at many meetings told all of you, the Building Supervisor who had called many times, the Southold Police Code Enforcement etc. that it was not permissible. (inaudible) numerous 32 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting emails as well. My yard has been trampled, my fence was removed, plantings were destroyed. My hose was dragged across my yard to the lake to mix the concrete for the very unsightly wall that was erected and I'm assuming that this is a big environmental no, no to touch the lake water. I'd like to know what's going to be done to stop the runoff onto my property cause know that one homeowner could not intentionally allow another house to be drowned because of their upgrades if you want to call it. How will all the concrete be covered and when so that it's compliant with cottage aesthetic of the neighborhood and how is this project continue to affect my home and quality of life that I have here in Southold? I'd like these questions answered and I ask you to please as I've done on many occasions to be a voice for all of the homeowners who live on Bay Ave. and Rabbit Lane and Huckleberry. We've all been in some way negatively affected by this. I'm not saying that someone should not fix their home, we want to see everything fixed, we want to see everything look like the lovely neighborhood that we all you know moved into many years ago but it just can't continue like this as it is. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. MEMBER DANTES : Do you want us to make the written documents? JULIE LAUDATO : You know what I'll (inaudible) I'll leave it with you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ma'am if I may ask, could you perhaps address the stairs, how you anticipate a resolution for access to their house. JULIE LAUDATO : There's so little front yard. The rest of us have a larger setback. I can't see how they're going to do that in the front. Maybe possibly that whole concrete box that the house is on is open. They can do an internal staircase like a I'm not sure, I'm not a contractor but I can't see how this could possibly work in the front and particularly with all the runoff that everybody gets from their backyard. It's on an angle so all the water comes down on both sides on all the surrounding properties that are in the street so it's always flooded in the front of that house now. I can't see how stairs can go there. I don't see where there's going to be room for them or anything else for that matter. I can't be in agreement with this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. SUSAN COMROSKI : Good morning my name is Susan Comroski. I own the property directly across the street from this project that's been going on since Sandy. It's been very inconsiderate the way everything is done here. My daughter who is a 2000 graduate of West Point, she's a (inaudible) with PWC, Press Waterhouse Cooper, she has an engineering degree and said mom I wish I could come with you here today. You do have to stand up for this cause this is actually a safety hazard because if they put a staircase in they're going to be eliminating 33 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting more they need to be very happy that they got away with what they got away with, with the building of this structure and not even be asking for any more because if they put the staircase out in the front they're going to be eliminating parking which I could see this being a nightmare for like a rental or something where you know you're going to have a ton of cars. When you come down the hill there or you come from Rabbit Lane we've been experiencing so many trucks and people working there. I mean it's not just us that are here today, it's the whole neighborhood that are making comments about this. My sister-in-law who's from Breezy Point said how did they get to raise this the way it is? She says in Breezy we're only allowed to go up 11 feet and that's on permanent housing people that have live there year round. So it's been a thing that I think should say I'm thankful for what I have gotten here or gotten away with and now the staircase, put it on the inside of the house. They have I don't know how many doors you know entrances and what not, they really don't need this. I mean I think that they should just be thankful that they got away with you know some people would say murder in this case you know what I mean and be happy for what they have. The parking you know they're going to just there's no way to park. I definitely don't want them by my property and you know in front of the lake and everything else. Actually over the summer I saw when I was walking my dog a near miss of an accident on that corner and the next thing you know it's a kid that gets hit. It's really they can't put that I don't care how big the stoop is or whatever they got five entrances, I live directly on the water, I've been there since 1981. My relatives have been out on the North Fork since 1903 and it's a shame to see this happen really. It's a shame to see what has happened but now it's to the point. Be thankful, you got away with this. The people on both sides with the neighbors have been affected and not just them but everybody else and everybody's been complaining about it. Then also when the work has been going on, Fourth of July weekend and stuff I mean there has been no consideration. I just thank you for letting me you know put my thing in and I hope the town you know gets stricter with things because we're going to lose it out here you know as far as the whole North Fork goes. You gotta the stricter the rules are the better off it's going to be for you and me. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? Hold on one second, number one you need to come to the podium and number two I want to have everybody else who hasn't had a chance to speak and then we can MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a question Leslie? I'm looking at the building plans by Donald Feiler and it says on the back it says reconstruct deck and it shows the deck sticking out and a staircase going out in the side yard, I'm looking at the survey that shows the parking plan which just says wood deck and it doesn't show the staircase going out so it looks like the side yard setback would then be a little bit different on the plan versus what's on that survey that was just submitted. I think that has to be rectified. Then looking at elevations on the plan I don't see that staircase on the rear deck sticking out on the east elevation in the back. I do see it on the 34 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You mean on the north elevation. MEMBER DANTES : It says east you got the front door and you have this new front entrance (inaudible) on the left you don't see that MEMBER LEHNERT : You should see it on the front elevations. MEMBER DANTES :The front elevations too but it should show the different side yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it should. MEMBER DANTES : I think the plans should be consistent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Don did you follow what Eric was PAT MOORE : Did you understand what was being said? Give us a second so that we can understand. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you're looking at the floor plan there's the steps coming down from the reconstructed deck at the rear of the house, shouldn't we see those on the front elevation should be labeled as east elevation and site plan? DON FEILER : On the site plan PAT MOORE : On the small drawing? MEMBER LEHNERT : We're seeing the steps on the floor plan, we're not seeing them anywhere else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Don I think what it is, is because you stamped this, this becomes an official drawing the schematic that you did. DON FEILER : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However what you have is a deck there but the deck is only parallel to the rear the house and it only goes out along the side yard where in fact the floor plans show it going out into the side yard in the rear with steps coming down. DON FEILER : That was the rear deck was revised several times while in construction and plan but was not revised on my floor plan. CHAIRPERSSON WEISMAN : So which is accurate, this? Your plans are accurate or the plot plan. Is plot plan is (inaudible) PAT MOORE : That's where the construction drawings? 351 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting DON FEILER : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the plot plan is not accurate. PAT MOORE : All that Don did for us is dealing with the parking so he didn't redraw the entire project so when you redraw this just make it conform to your construction. MEMBER DANTES : No Pat what will happen I think is he's going to the non-conforming side yard setback cause the initial stamped plan I (inaudible) PAT MOORE : I'm sorry there's too many people talking I couldn't hear that. MEMBER DANTES : The initial plan we approved the variance had an interior staircase built into the rear deck it didn't have MEMBER LEHNERT : You're going to run into setback issues. PAT MOORE : Well we have the Building Department there were modifications and the Building Department accepted whatever the modifications were at the time. The only issue that we're here for is the front staircase so I you know whatever the Building Department felt MEMBER DANTES : Did you give them a revised survey or did you just give them the plans? (inaudible) off this but if they had a survey I think they would pick it up. DON FEILER : I don't think the survey was revised from any point beyond PAT MOORE : the original. I'll have to go back to the survey I was using. MEMBER LEHNERT : Could we ask for a revised survey to see what's there now? PAT MOORE : We have to have an updated survey. MEMBER LEHNERT : An updated survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear the original deck Nick you asked about the deck, if you look at this survey this is the original house before it was elevated. PAT MOORE : (inaudible) staircase that was cut into the deck? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes cause it didn't need to be elevated. It was just minimally elevated originally because the house almost at grade. PAT MOORE : The original house. 36 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the Building Department only has what you submitted to us which does not show the deck as constructed in the rear nor does it show the small staircase and stoop going up to the electrical meter. PAT MOORE : That was the Building Department's requirement. We would take it down (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you may be able if you put stairs along the side yard you may be able to take it down and then incorporate the ability to get to that meter by stairs that would allow you to get to the front of the house as well. DON FEILER : You're saying to start the beginning of the stairs would be on the north side where that PAT MOORE : Where the meter is. You want that little staircase shown on his drawing? Well if I get an updated survey it's going to show me whatever is there so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, I think basically what you need to do is sit down with your client and with Don and figure out having heard everything that you've heard what possible alternatives there might be other than an 8 foot front yard setback for stairs. I'll give you the opportunity to do it if you want to amend the application I'll give you the chance to do it. PAT MOORE : Understand that the frustration is all around, just because even going for a variance means a six month wait so the construction just stalls out and pretty much stops so you know the neighborhood is disrupted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) take that long, we wouldn't have to PAT MOORE : No I'm just saying that as far as both sides being frustrated by the process I didn't you know understandable I expect everybody CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I appreciate that what this Board you know there are a lot of things that we heard that we don't have jurisdiction over. PAT MOORE : Yes please thank you for clarifying that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would however to the extent that we possibly can like to do anything possible to ameliorate what is clearly a frustrating situation all the way around. There's just limits to what we can and can't do so let's see if this is does the Board have any other questions or comments at this point? 3.7 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My only thought is relative to the survey, site plan etc. (inaudible) and all that, will they need an updated Notice of Disapproval to reflect that stairwell access to the rear deck because it encroaches upon the side yard setback? PAT MOORE : But it's a staircase CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sometimes stairs are not there's a piece of deck there too. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the deck comes forward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's a deck, it's actually carved into the deck so it's a deck. The stairs are oriented that way. PAT MOORE : Well it's actually a landing. The landing for the stairs. I think that's how cause I did question it, I looked at it very carefully and I was cause it raised a red flag for me personally and what appeared to be it's the landing for the steps for the egress the deck egress so that's why MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) to clarify that. In my opinion and I can understand the anxiety on all sides, I think that somebody does need access to their home. I don't know what the solution will be you know the switchback seems like it's a common opportunity but I think we're dealing with a lot of different moving parts and perhaps if you investigate doing sort of a mirror image the reverse to the you know to the rear deck to access the front something similar that may take away that extra set of stairs accessing the electrical panel and still get you in the front door without limiting access to the basement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I was suggesting, you've already encroached into the side yard by 4 feet into that 10 foot side yard in the rear okay with the stair and the landing for access to the rear deck. PAT MOORE : So let me just a visual just to help me I apologize CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just come up here let me show you. PAT MOORE : I was visualizing that what you're saying is essentially creating a (inaudible all talking) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) We can't have a conversation at the dais, the public needs to hear this. Could you just go back to the cause I want to point out something, the Building Department did not see this drawing. They only saw your plot plan without this encroachment into the side yard for the stair landing. The stair landing we just calculated are 48 sq. ft., the maximum allowed is 30 for a code conforming stairs. So there's just a whole bunch of things that need to be figured out here. 3-T 8 December S, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : And we also asked for drainage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes absolutely. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'd like to see a drainage plan. PAT MOORE : Drainage is on the plan. There are actually three drywells there that are showing as part of the yeah one, two, three. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well any determination by this Board is going to require compliance with Chapter 236 of the Storm Water Management Code of the Town of Southold. That will require an approval from the Town Engineer for the management of on-site drainage. PAT MOORE : Which I believe is already part of their building permit application. The code was in place when this was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so what we need to do is you need to provide us with that information to show that the town has reviewed a drainage plan particularly since we know that whole area is a total flood zone all the way from Rabbit Lane all the way up halfway up Bay Ave. So that particular area given the overflow from Marion Lake and all of that is a real problem for any homeowner. We want to make sure that the town has properly inspected this property and that they certify that on-site drainage is in compliance with the town code. If it is not they will have to tell you what remediation needs to take place to ensure that that drainage is controlled. So where are we going with this? PAT MOORE : So let me just list the things that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have other applications we've taken a really long time with this PAT MOORE : Yeah I know, very quick I'm going to have a survey updated, item two is get whatever the drainage plan that was approved by the town for this building permit application and three; we're going to double check the stairs and landing of the deck of the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because you might need a variance and also consider the possibility of how you might wrap the stairs into that side yard. (inaudible) from your property on the other side there was already stairs going in there to access the rear deck and we'll see if we can get it to come up above the entry to the basement well the foundation cause depending on the riser and run ratio where you start those stairs will determine how high you are above that door and then you wrap it you might need a landing for the meter and then continue and warp around to the front door. At least you'll have the same setback as the house is now, room 39 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting for parking alright, you will still have access and it seems to me that is something that can be done. PAT MOORE : That was a good creative thinking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let's do this, I'm going to adjourn this I think we should probably adjourn this to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe we should get an updated Disapproval from Mike (inaudible) within that time frame you think? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They don't usually take that long. You know what, I'll tell you what here's what I think you need to do. In January it's difficult because we're going to be in the Peconic Rec. Center instead of this room because we have a conflict on Thursday the 2nd with the Town Board's Organizational Meeting who needs to be in this room. Our organizational meeting needs to be on the same date so we've made arrangements there will be transcription equipment, it will be recorded there will be official public hearings but I think given the range of issues here which might even include a new Notice of Disapproval an amended Notice of Disapproval that I think we should probably do this in February when we're back in this room. Any information submitted to our office between now and then is available to the general public as part of our file and any of you who wants to see what's being proposed, come to our office speak to Kim and she will make it available. You just fill out a FOIL form just a signature Freedom of Information Act I get to look at this and you can look at it. So you will be fully informed of how this is moving forward. Do you have a question? FRANCIS BEAURY : I'm Francis Beaury 35 Rabbit Lane. I'm bringing up and it (inaudible) I'm sorry I went on and on but I went out and took a picture of your building with your siding going down to the bottom you have a cinder block building with your siding, I don't find any excessive mold or any mold for that matter and most houses MEMBER DANTES : If you want print out the picture you can submit to the office and put is as part of the file. FRANCIS BEAURY : Cause I really find that was part of the thing cause like I said nobody wanted to keep anybody out of their home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think you need to be concerned about that. That was a pre- existing condition to a prior variance and FRANCIS BEAURY : That's not the same though. 40 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it's not, we all know it's not. We anticipated what it would become as best we could and that's why the condition was put into place. FRANCIS BEAURY : Putting in the siding would make it look a little bit better the wall. They say about putting a fence there's no way that they can even work without being on my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the Board has heard the Board understands the consequences. We've heard the applicant's argument, we've heard from all of you about how you feel and the Board will you know will deal with it that's all. We do it all the time. FRANCIS BEAURY : It just seems it's just an awful long time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a request on their part. FRANCIS BEAURY : I should (inaudible) a nickel every time someone comes by and rides down the street to take a look at the house. JULIE LAUDATO : I just want to ask one question, what you're proposing with the drainage will that prevent the water from coming onto my property then from that pitched side yards that they have, cause up until hurricane Sandy I never had not one drop of water at my home but now I have it coming up to the steps. When we have heavy rain the back yard floods, where they have cesspools it runs down the side it goes under my house it goes up the stairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where's your house exactly? JULIE LAUDATO : I'm on the other side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other side so you're on the north side. JULIE LAUDATO : Yes I'm on the north side. MEMBER DANTES : It would prevent the water from their property running down to your property. It (inaudible) from somewhere else. JULIE LAUDATO : I don't get it from any place else. I currently get it from CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Town Engineer would be able to certify where the water is coming from. If it's coming from the subject property then they have some homework to do to make sure that that isn't the case. If it's not coming from there then you need to actually talk to the Town Engineer about the neighborhood. You should you know you just have to say well we're flooding where is it coming from, who's causing it. 41 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting JULIE LAUDATO : I've never had any flooding other than Super Storm Sandy which everybody had. MEMBER DANTES : If you have photos you should submit them to the office. JULIE LAUDATO : I do have them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be helpful. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to February 6th, 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#7344—ERIN STREETER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Erin Streeter # 7344. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's May 10, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a subdivision to re-create two previously legal lots merged by Town Law at 1) proposed lot will be less than the code required minimum lot area of 40,000 sq. ft., 2) proposed lot will be less than the code required minimum lot width of 150 feet, 3) proposed lot will be less than the code required lot depth of 175 feet located at 400 & 650 Town Creek Lane (adj. to Town Creek) in Southold. PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore, I have Erin Streeter here with me. So what prompted this application is I'm actually very familiar with this property because the (inaudible) previously owned it, they owned the entire area here and while they were the owners of the property we found that there were individual lots from the Latson subdivision. Many of these properties had existing structures on them so if you have an existing structure or a C.O.'d structure on an improved parcel then that parcel does not merge. What I remember from when the Stanton's 42 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting owned it there were two cottages and actually it's showing on the Latson subdivision map. There were two cottages on lot 4 which is presently before the Board as a larger parcel, it's tax map 14.6 and the lot 3 of the Latson subdivision is the separate (inaudible) parcel that's contiguous to lot 4. The cottage was ultimately taken down so the main house that Ms. Streeter that lives in is that one story framed house which is about 800 sq. ft. in size. It's a very, very modest small house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat I'm sorry to interrupt you, who took the cottage down, the second cottage? PAT MOORE : I think it may have been the Latsons I'm sorry no, no Stanton. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Stanton, so is there a recent history (inaudible) PAT MOORE : Recent history yeah. I don't know exactly the timing. I tried to find it on the Assessor's card but I don't remember seeing it there as far as a demo permit or anything else. I think it was just taken down and that was it. So Ms. Streeter you know she just loves her little property, she loves her little house and she would really like to keep this little house that she has, not modify it keep it as the character that has been in place since the Latson's were the property owners in the seventies and then have the vacant lot the half acre lot which is the formally lot number three to be able to put another her own house, again a nice little house. She wants to keep everything small and it's her design in her head and her decision and certainly it's for her and she's willing to put whatever covenants to limit the size of the house. She wants to keep everything very small. Certainly putting a covenant on the property would impact the value of what former lot 3 but since it's for her it's her choice and down the line if somebody wants to buy they'll just be limited to the size that has been the condition of the approval. Just going back to when this property was originally subdivided in 1971, in '71 the zoning provided for a lot less than one acre zoning there. This property according to the zoning at the time they could have had eight houses, eight lots but Mrs. Latson purposely kept it made oversized lots at the time significantly oversized lots at the time. In addition there was a secondary application by the Latson's for the combining of lot 1 and 2 because in the early eighties I believe it was public water had not come in and the neighbor to the north wanted to build their house. The Latson's found that they just couldn't get that accomplished based on the Health Department regulations without public water. So lot 1 and 2 were combined and one house is on that piece of property and will never be changed because the house overlaps believe the property lines. It's centered between the two properties. So there's already been a downsizing or reduction in the density from the original subdivision in that lot 1 and 2 were combined. Latson lot 3 and 4 originally had two dwellings on it so what we're proposing is to reinstate that lot that merged and be able to put as I said a second home on that piece of 43 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting property I did with respect to the character of the neighborhood and I did get LWRP recommendations which I understand LWRP's recommendations but his conclusions I don't think are justified. To begin with, the character of the neighborhood and the size of properties in this area are all within a half-acre. The larger size lots are the original Latson homestead the big lot 5. That's an original lot. Most of the surrounding community is consists of the pre- existing half-acre or less lot sizes. You have the house where it's on 14.6 is an oversized lot as well in comparison to the surrounding properties. In addition he makes an issue with respect to impact on the creek or wetlands, we are this lot is more than a thousand feet from Town Creek. It is part of an original subdivision map. Lot 4 has the way it was created was as a flag to the road that takes you out to Youngs Ave. That has ending point of Town Creek so it gives access to the water and it's a common driveway that goes around to Youngs Ave. That's the way it was designed it's a big U on both ends dead ends on Youngs Ave. This lot is not going to impact or adversely impact in any way the wetlands. So I would respectfully disagree with one of the conclusion that he draws. As far as sanitary impacts, again we this property or one of these two properties used to have two cottages on it so the sanitary was the two properties. The existing house on tax lot 14.6 has two bedrooms and one bath, so again it's very small, it's very low impact. I know that as a condition that the Board usually imposes as well as the Planning Board for a re-subdivision would be you would be to use an IA system and certainly that has become a common condition so again you're mitigating with IA systems any impact on nitrogen and density load on ground water. The property the way it has always been set up, has been created was always intended as two separate lots and at this point unfortunately by the time even the Stantons bought it you couldn't go through a waiver of merger process. The code just didn't provide for it under that scenario and the Latsons I think Mrs. Latson had passed away at that point so it was an estate. So that process was not available. It came down to whatever owner would ultimately have the energy and the funds to try to pursue this as a one lot subdivision, a re-subdivision. There's really not much more I can say on this property. It has a long history and I'd be happy to address any other issues. I did bring up a lot of information in my submission. I don't want to rehash everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well first let me enter into the record what the variance relief is. The lot size of 22,673 sq. ft. this would be lot 14.5 or this is the lot 3 1 guess will be non-conforming with 22,673 sq. ft. where the code requires a minimum of 40,000. That's approximately 43.3% relief from the code. However when you calculate the removal of the flag which you must do in order to determine lot area, that calculation goes up to 50% relief for that 14.5 and 11% relief for 14.6. Then we have a lot width of 124 ft. where the code requires a minimum of 150 in width and we have a lot depth at 168.68 feet where the code requires a minimum of 175 feet and this would also require Planning Board approval. PAT MOORE : Correct. 44 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now Planning Board has submitted comments to us and I don't know Pat whether PAT MOORE : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we'll make sure you get a copy of that so that you can address them. The Panning Board recommends a denial on this application citing the large nature of all of these variances. They're saying subdividing the property would result in seven lots that use Town Creek Lane for access and they're saying that the adverse environmental impacts to Town Creek is that it's only 380 feet away. You just said it was 1,000 feet away, Planning says 380 feet. PAT MOORE : Oh no I'm mistaken. Well hold on, I'm reading the old map. MEMBER LEHNERT : 180 to the corner of(inaudible) house on as per the survey. PAT MOORE : Yes I'm sorry 180 yes MEMBER LEHNERT : 179.29 PAT MOORE : I was mistaken sorry. I was reading a number here that was not the correct number. Even so it's not adjacent to the creek. In any respect you have many more houses that are much closer to the creek. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what the Board has to say, want to start with you down there Rob and we'll go across. MEMBER LEHNERT : No I don't have any questions right now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, not to sort of mince words the 14.5 is not adjacent to the creek but the combined lots, the lot to the south lot 4 actually is a creek front lot. Is there a dock on that property? Then the other thing sort of for me as a point of clarification, you had stated that there were two cottage, the two cottages according to the survey were on the south lot, lot number 4 PAT MOORE : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : there wasn't one and one so lot 3 was never developed. PAT MOORE : Correct no that's yeah lot 4 had two structures, two dwellings on it so there's a net zero gain in that you've eliminated the one on lot 4 retain the 800 sq. ft. house on lot 4 and we would be proposing a modest very modest home on lot 3. 45 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then the final question is, is there a C. 0. on the framed shed that's on lot 3? PAT MOORE : I didn't find one. I think it's pre-existing or when it was added I mean it's less than 100 sq. ft. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's 10 X 12 PAT MOORE : Oh usually you buy those they're based on the interior. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a nice one too. PAT MOORE : It's been there for a long time. BOB GAMMON : My name is Bob Gammon I live right next door. Stanton put it on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on I need you to come up to the mic. PAT MOORE : Actually he's helping me with a little history. The Stantons who were two owners ago had put that shed up there. If a house were put on this property that shed will be made conforming. MEMBER DANTES :The she's conforming isn't it? If it's under 100 sq.ft. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's 120. T. A. DUFFY : Accessory building without a principal. PAT MOORE : Right if you were to create that lot you'd have an accessory shed without a principal structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right now it's conforming cause it's one property. PAT MOORE : Yes thank you for that reminder. We were prepared to remove it if it would interfere with our approval. It certainly would be a condition with our approval. We wouldn't want 120 sq. ft. shed to interfere with this application. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Please come forward and state your name and spell your last name. BOB GAMMON : Hi my name is Bob Gammon. I own the property immediately to the north in the subdivision. My sister owns the property I guess immediately to the west and looking the thing over and the nature of the property, the one thing I want to say (inaudible) as far as the 46 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting runoff, the way the property is pitched the water on the proposed lot is going to run towards Main Rd. It's not going to run towards the creek. I mean it's just how it is. As far as the property goes, the little cottage that she's proposing we really don't have a huge problem with. Where our problem would be is I would like them to try to limit to 1,500 sq. ft. so it's a small cottage like what they have cause this way it would not affect the neighborhood so to speak. My concern would be (inaudible) limit on what they can do. As soon as they leave people can do whatever they want with it so maybe put a 1,500 sq. ft. structure on there I don't think it would change the dynamic of the neighborhood one bit. One thing I want to clarify is when we built our house on our lot we put our setbacks (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask that question, so you're house actually sits on number 2? BOB GAMMON : Yes, I don't know the number in front of me so I shouldn't say that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : From the Latson subdivision, lot 1 to the north which appeared BOB GAMMON : Actually right through the house. So our house sits on lot 2. Like I said I really have no other concerns about it other than that. I mean (inaudible) go bigger than you know 1,500 sq. ft. or something like that cause it will drastically change the neighborhood (inaudible) like the show we had just before us. Then make it like lifelong covenants not something that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else, come forward. CATHERINE STOKES : Hi, I'm Catherine Stokes. We own the property lot 5 so we're just to the south. So the address is 522 Town Creek Lane. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that the blue house? CATHERINE STOKES : No. It's not a numbered thing but it's the house directly to the west of us. PAT MOORE : On the old survey it says Salmon. It's the one that's on Town Creek faces Town Creek. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right that's the blue. BOB GAMMON : You know the Latson's main house the old homestead the house before that as you drive in there's a house on the left has a brick chimney. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, let's just do this here's the subdivision come and show us I don't want to be worried about whether it's blue or gray. CATHERINE STOKES : I live here,there's the neighbor's house right here and Erin lives here. 47 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Oh you're the old Latson house the big one. CATHERINE STOKES : White house with the pink doors exactly. So we're lot 5. We're on the creek. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now what would you like us to know? CATHERINE STOKES : Now that we clarified where I live and I don't pay any attention apparently to paint colors but just two things, I wanted to come to just make sure I was understanding what's being proposed. We don't have any objections. Again we're on the south of the property but when I went and looked at the file yesterday I guess it's a FOIL request, I just noticed email that I believe Ms. Fuentes wrote where she mentioned that there are limited use that there are covenants and restrictions on the property that she couldn't find a copy of and we are the beneficiaries of the covenant and restrictions and I have a copy of the covenants and restrictions and I just didn't know like do you want me to hand them to you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. CATHERINE STOKES : Suffolk County Clerk Records Office. PAT MOORE : I remembered these but I can't find them. CATHERINE STOKES : We didn't receive, it says in the file that you had sent a survey out to the neighbors. We didn't receive the survey but PAT MOORE : Ah it was me, that's why I was like I could swear that's me so I'll explain this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that a copy so we can have or make a copy. CATHERINE STOKES : No you can have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Talk to the Board please. BOB GAMMON : I was just saying that we never received anything certified cause stuff was sent to our street address not the P. 0. Box. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see the green card that PAT MOORE : We went by the Assessor's records and in some cases they don't have P.O. Boxes. When we find out we try to search people down. So just to clarify because I'm glad that you saw that. In the back of my mind and I couldn't find a record of it lot 4 the cottage, when the Stanton's owned lot 4 they wanted to keep the east side of that property as natural as possible so they imposed they created a covenant before they were to sell lot 4 out from the family in 481 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting order to keep a green space. So lot 4 actually has a prohibition to further develop the east side of the area as shown as 85 X 168 it's kind of a square that is front of the Stanton's the old Stanton's her house in order to keep the character of the area as wooded, as natural as possible. So that has remained and I apologize I didn't I remembered it but I couldn't find it and it really didn't impact as far as the creation of lot 3 because it was a self-imposed condition that they were not further developed. So this area has always been self-regulated in the sense that they want to keep everything small and natural and as my client has confirmed and I've said before any development of lot 3 she would put a covenant and restriction on the property limiting the size of the house. She doesn't want a Mcmansion here, she doesn't want to have the two lots where they're combined that could allow for a much larger house. She wants to keep everything small. The cottage that she has now only has two bedrooms in the back. Another house there would be equally I don't know about two bedrooms in the back but equally small, we could limit the square footage. So that is something they would certainly agree to and I think based on the comments that the neighbors have raised would be consistent with the intention of keeping this all a very private, very natural surroundings. CATHERINE STOKES : So I guess just two things, the covenants and restrictions her current property which are 3 and 4 1 would just want to I would assume but I don't know how it works I would assume that they would be applied to or have to be signed off by whoever purchased 3 if it is separated because it says it runs with the land and to the future people or whatever. So again there is a covenant that is to her benefit which is about the east side of the land remaining CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the boundary that's adjacent to your property CATHERINE STOKES : Exactly and that's where the old cottage used to be which (inaudible) put in the covenants (inaudible) open and nobody can do anything there but there are some other covenants that are included in the covenants and restrictions. For example I didn't look at all of them but for example it says you know it cannot become a B&B or something; so we would hope that that would apply if it is separated to the new one as well. Whatever rules apply to 4 if 3 and 4 become separated would also apply to 3. So we would just ask that that all be included that the covenants continue. Then I know there was some issue about the water concern I don't know what the building folks have said, I would just mention that we there are problems but I'm sure they can be worked out but where Town Creek Lane comes down into the creek I think just because frankly the way Town Creek Lane there's constantly wash off and we have to keep putting down all sorts of things. They're trying to stop huge puddles (inaudible) so anyway I think there would have to be some focus on it. There's going to be more traffic if there's going to be another home there you know that's a low (inaudible) I'm sure can be resolved. Anyway 49 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting we're not opposing this, we just want to make sure that the covenants and restrictions that already exist continue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Continue and apply to potential lot 3. CATHERINE STOKES : If there's a division right that they would just apply to the divided property as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there public water around there or no? PAT MOORE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is public water so you're just dealing with the septic you're not having to hook up to public water. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ms. Stokes, do you have access to your house by Town Creek Lane or Maple Lane? CATHERINE STOKES : Town Creek Lane and it's actually I'm embarrassed to say it I don't really know all the rules. So on the map we actually own two different pieces of property. We pay taxes on two different pieces of property. We pay taxes on number 5 which is you know with the house and the land and then we pay taxes on basically our driveway which runs along the length of the creek out to Youngs Ave. So we were told maybe I misunderstood what we were told is that Town Creek Lane actually isn't a "U" it's basically comes in to the north. It comes down basically to the creek and it ends there and the Stantons I don't know who did it but they built a little gravel CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : driveway. CATHERINE STOKES : whatever of course everybody has I assume the right of way and that's fine but we you know so we pay to have it be graveled or whatever needs to be done. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you own the lot that's just above Southold Park District? CATHERINE STOKES : Yes. No, no I don't own CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She owns a flag, basically it's a gravel flag. PAT MOORE : I have a lot of information on this cause I did all the work for the Stanton's at the time. What was when the yes the Latsons when we were doing the title search there some the surveyors were pulling their hair out because the Latson subdivision and the middle of the road and the measurements so ultimately what we tried to do is since the road from Youngs Ave. is (inaudible) title but it has subject to the rights of others to cross it, it was put in a separate so December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting ownership or separate title separate tax map number so that it would limit the liability for the homeowner of lot 4 which was the Stanton's at the time as well. So I think I don't know in your case 5 pardon me it was changed along the way just to try to limit some liability. UNNAMED SPEAKER : So my understanding is so as a result isn't actually public there but whatever now people sort of use it as a "U". (SPEAKING GOING ON BETWEEN NEIGHBORS) PAT MOORE : We're all here the owners of the road so just so we put on the record it was just discussed Mr. Gammon is the owner of the north side of the road which starts at Youngs Ave. it's like a flag and ends at the end of Latson lot 2 that's his property. Then Streeter owns is an easement is the owner technically of the road that starts at the top of the lot 3 and goes all the way down to Town Creek and then CATHERINE STOKES : Then how do the Wolfgang's get into their house? PAT MOORE : They have a right of way yeah they have easements. CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : It's an easement across the property. CATHERINE STOKES :They don't own any of this? PAT MOORE : No. (NEIGHBORS SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER) So for the record, when the Staton's owned it there had to be some cleanup of the easements to run the water lines so there were the easements were cleaned up as far as making sure that they had the proper access, ingress egress and all the utilities. So those all done many years ago to kind of clean up the record here because the old subdivision showed it was owned strips going this way strips going that way and creating more of a headache than anything else. CATHERINE STOKES : Somebody had asked earlier about if they own a dock. So the Wolfgangs who own the Salmon house they have a dock and we have a dock lot number 5 and you can see it on the drawing its way up in the southeast corner of the property but there is no dock or access for the Streeter property. ERIN STREETER : There actually is, I own 25 feet here but it's not big enough to put a dock. It's 25 feet but I don't think it's enough PAT MOORE : It's so nice to have everybody here, sorry but anyway I think that's CATHERINE STOKES : I think that was everything I had to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat we'll make sure you get a copy of the Planning Board's comments. 51 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Yeah my experience with the Planning Board is they (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Planning Board clearly you know looks at the Comprehensive Plan and the fact that up zoning was there for a reason and that when you subdivide a property even though it may have been that way back in the day you are down zoning and consequently creating greater density and often more septic and more adverse impact. So that's typically why the Planning Board will not recommend subdivisions and that's what they did here and I just want the attorney to have the opportunity to address those comments if you chose to. BOB GAMMON : Can I just say one thing, as far as like the zoning and stuff as far as impact to the community, if this is to be subdivided and the limit to the house was 1,500 sq. ft. would have a lot less adverse effect than somebody bought the house, knock down the cottage and put up a very big house. That would change the character of the whole community. So that's one reason why I'm not opposed to this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your comments. Anything from anybody else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes if I may; Pat, Ms. Streeter you'd spoken earlier that you put C&R's if and when the re-subdivision is granted that you would limit the house to 1,500 sq. ft. is that approximately 800 sq. ft. of footprint with a 1,500 sq. ft. of living space or is that a 1,500 sq. ft. of footprint? PAT MOORE : Well I think realistically because the state building code compliance and things like that it would make more sense 1,500 living space. I think that gives I grew up in a 1,500 sq. ft. ranch, my kids grew up in a 1,500 sq. ft. house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ms. Streeter said that her house is currently is approximately 800 sq. ft. PAT MOORE : It doesn't include the decks or anything, 800 is the living space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and I think the NYS building code you need or Southold it's 850 sq. ft. something CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : minimum to constitute a dwelling. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the scale of the first floor would be similar to the existing house. Would both properties have the same covenant and restriction? ERIN STREETER : I would be willing to do that if it would help my cause. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In other words you'd never expand the footprint of your existing house but you could add a second story. December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting ERIN STREETER : Again I would be willing to do that to the neighbors. I had several people approach me over the last five years to buy my house because of obvious reasons. They want to be able to build a huge home there and if this can help my cause to put a covenant on my existing home 400 Town Creek, I would absolutely do that to maintain forever the look of the neighborhood back there. PAT MOORE : It comes from her. It's the owners decision. That's a significant financial impact on the value of a property. BOB GAMMON : (inaudible) she's getting a substantial increase in value. PAT MOORE : It's an offset. BOB GAMMON : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of any written comments the attorney wishes to submit with regard to comments from the Planning Board. 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) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat you also memorialize maybe whether it's an email to Kim or how you want to communicate Ms. Streeter's willingness to put C&R's on the proposed subdivision and just to clarify whether they're equal or different cause she said that on the existing house she wouldn't make any alterations to that. I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. PAT MOORE : On the existing house. 53 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On lot 4 there's an existing PAT MOORE : No I know, I know I mean I don't want to make it so restrictive that if it burns down or whatever I mean you want to be able to rebuild what you've got so I mean MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right not limit that but she had said that she doesn't envision a larger house. PAT MOORE : No she doesn't want MEMBER PLANAMENTO : She wants to maintain as it is and then on lot 3 1 guess from the Latson subdivision to indicate that she would limit it to a maximum 1,500 sq. ft. living space whether she does it as one floor or two floors. That's irrelevant to me but to limit it at 1,500 sq. ft. PAT MOORE : Yeah that one is easy for me to that's an easy one. It's trying to figure out an 800 sq. ft. house to limit its size to 800 sq. ft. I think works fine for her but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Works right now so PAT MOORE : Alright so I'm just trying to think scenarios. If it burns down I can't rebuild 800 sq. ft. I'd have to build a minimum of 850 sq. ft. to meet state building code. So I don't want to create a condition that is impossible to meet so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Make it 850. PAT MOORE : That's fine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Calculate the (inaudible) of the existing footprint even though it's not living space there's a screened in porch on the front and by memory there's a deck or is it a terrace off the back? ERIN STREETER : It's a deck. MEMBER LEHNERT : Why can't we just make it a minimum to meet the NYS building code? PAT MOORE : That's fine, minimum the state code the building code would require. ERIN STREETER : I just have one question to clarify, if I do I know one lot has nothing to do with the other but on number 4 if I do put a covenant on that, that would help my cause for number 3? PAT MOORE : Oh yeah that's the only way we can pose a condition is an approval with conditions. If it's a denial you 54 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's a denial then there are no conditions imposed. PAT MOORE : No loss there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't say no and then but you're still going to have to do this that's unfair. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually the question, there's a gate like on lot 3 ERIN STREETER : That will be knocked down. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was confused cause a gate is a gate but that's more of a gated it's a fence that's either six or eight feet high so I mean it looks like it's in bad condition. ERIN STREETER : Yes that's why I was I knocked it down and I was going to build another one but the person that built it didn't do a good job but since I was going through this I figured let me just keep it as it is to see what the outcome of whether or not I build cause if I can't build all of that will be knocked down. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So again Pat maybe memorialize that the shed will be relocated and the fence/gate will be gone. ERIN STREETER : The shed will be demolished. PAT MOORE : Well relocated or demolished. You can move it to your house if you want to. BOB GAMMON : Or you can drop it off at my house. PAT MOORE : and then the fence will be made conforming. Well you may want a 4 foot fence so I'm going to say make it conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look some of these are conditions of approval. You're not going to put a C&R on a conforming fence and a removal of the gate that would be a condition of approval. C&R's are in perpetuity, they run with the land, they're filed with a deed it's a far more strict you know kind of application of the law that stays there. So what would be helpful in addition to the you were going to submit comments possibly Planning you could also if you decide not to make comments you just tell us you have no comments to make that's fine too. Do submit a letter covering the proposed C&R's of both properties. (inaudible) carryover of the old C&R's okay. T. A. DUFFY : Those C&R's will be wiped out because you're subdivided the lot. 55 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right but the neighbor was hoping that those would apply to the newly created lot. T. A. DUFFY : Regardless whether you do it or not. PAT MOORE : Well I'm not sure how because they're not sitting on the new parcel. It would be you're not affecting so the old parcel the house that has the covenants of the scenic (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That remains on that parcel. PAT MOORE : That remains, in a sense we're not applying it to the new lot cause there's no area that is the scenic portions so it will be as Mr. Duffy just stated a subdivision would not modify that covenant it stays on. I mean we can certainly again conditions of approval will say whatever covenants have been filed CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Remain in full force. PAT MOORE : continue yeah. Does that make sense? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of Planning Board response to Planning Board comments and a summary of the proposed C&R's, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 56 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting 935 SOUND BEACH DRIVE, LLC#7341 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 935 Sound Beach Drive, LLC # 7341. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 10, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions to an existing single family dwelling and legalize an "as built" shed at 1) "as built" construction located less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) "as built" construction located less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) "as built" shed is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 935 Sound Beach Drive in Mattituck. Hi, could you state your name for us please. CHRIS GEORGHIOU : Chris Georghiou. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at an "as built" deck addition with a front yard you have a front yard setback 39.2 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 40, side yard setback at 12.9 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15. Shed in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard and let's see that looks to be it three variances. What would you like us to know about this application. CHRIS GEORGHIOU : My wife and I purchased this home back in 2018. The house was built in the seventies as you see it here on the original survey which is dated 7/31/2018. The home was built 12 foot 9 from the neighbor and the deck was built accordingly right along that line against the house and it's indicated on the property card. Now when we purchased the home the original homeowner somewhere between the 70's and our purchase built a side deck which gave you photographs of which encroach further on that 15 feet and I think it brought it probably down to it looks like 10 feet according to the survey when I purchased the house. So what we had done (inaudible) repairs we put the deck stairs and everything. All the planks were loose, the nails were rotted and plus it wasn't a safe place to sit with the family. So we started doing repairs and we wanted to comply with what the property card said and bring it back into what was appropriate so when we moved that side deck and just kind of realigned the decks with the original property card how the it was approved back in the '70's. At the same time we shrunk the depth of the decks by about six inches, seven inches as well so basically we removed the old side deck that didn't belong there and we reduced the size of the deck as well. As far as the framed shed goes that was there when we purchased it. I gave you a picture of it cause that's been there for a good thirty plus years as well. So we never touched any of those that was already there. The decks were already there as well we just kind of modified and improved on them to make them structurally sound and safe. 57 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Can you talk about the topography of your property. Talk about the topography of your property and how there really isn't another location to put the shed. CHRIS GEORGHIOU : It's an interesting property. It's more than a half-acre but most of it goes downhill. So we have CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Call it a land bluff is what it's called. CHRIS GEORGHIOU : It goes down that bluff so really we have a certain amount of space in the front I would say probably if it's 100 X 100 it would be a lot but most of that is in the front and the back is kind of narrow so I guess when they built that shed and they put it there that was kind of the only place that made any sense without blocking their view or getting into the neighbor's yard you know where they would (inaudible) see the shed instead of seeing the water. So I would guess that's why they placed it there. We had (inaudible) to touch it cause we're afraid it might fall down one day so we kind of left it where it was and use it for our outdoor use. MEMBER DANTES : Honestly looking at the survey I don't think there is a code compliant location available to put a shed. Do you know if that front deck was part of the house when it was first built in 1970? CHRIS GEORGHIOU : It was. It's on the property card as well. MEMBER DANTES : It was part of the original C.O. when they C.O'd the house? CHRIS GEORGIOU : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We should note that your front yard is quite unorthodox. It would have been a lot more helpful if you had an address on Summit and not Sound Beach. Fortunately most of us know Captain Kid Estates and know that you kind have to sneak in on these rights of ways to find properties which are behind, behind and we get extra brownie points for this one. CHRIS GEORGHIOU : (inaudible) working with the contractor and the closing and they said yeah the property is 935 Sound Beach Drive and I said is there another address cause you can't quite get up that way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really, you need a ski lift. MEMBER DANTES : How did you end up coming before us? How did you end up applying for a variance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a Stop Work Order. December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHRIS GEORGHIOU : We were actually putting on some lattice on the deck and John had come by to see my neighbor who is doing a renovation and then he came over, he introduced himself and he asked CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : John Jarski you're taking about the Building Department Inspector. CHRIS GEORGHIOU : Yes, so he asked me what we were doing. I said we're putting up lattice and he goes do you have a permit for it? I said I didn't know that I needed one so he looked at the deck and he says you know what he goes you should legalize this thing go get a permit. So I asked him how and he gave me the address so as he was driving out I pulled out mine and I started heading to where he told me where to go and then I saw the ladies there and they gave me the package and after I submitted it you know I waited a certain number of weeks and I heard from Amanda I think and she told me there were some issues and then I would go for the variance, then Kim and another young lady were very helpful teaching me how to fill it out and what to fill out and that's how I came here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, let's see if there's anything from the Board; Eric anything else from you? MEMBER DANTES : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes relative to what Eric was asking or the discussion earlier about the framed shed, can it be relocated under the deck? CHRIS GEORGHIOU : That was a big question that we keep on asking ourselves. Is there a way to move that thing but I think that thing might I don't want to over exaggerate to say that it would fall apart but it doesn't look like it's the kind of thing that's movable like you know the nice Home Depot shed which is very light. This one looks like it's constructed like building a house. So we're kind of afraid to touch it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience want 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. December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We will have a decision in two weeks. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7348— FRANK and JOANNE GUMPER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Frank and Joanne Gumper # 7348. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 15, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 2400 Minnehaha Blvd. (adj. to Corey Creek) in Southold. Good afternoon. PAT MOORE : Good afternoon, Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Gumper. I have Mr. Gumper and Mrs. Gumper both here. Mr. Gumper's standing next to me to help me out. So this is a very unique circumstances that we have what prompted all of this is he wanted a new bathroom. There was some interior work that he went to the Building Department and said I'd like a building permit. Well the Building Department went back and looked and said, well why are we not seeing permits for everything that's there? We had to go back and figure this out. So ultimately Mr. Gumper is the son of the original owner and he's not a young man so the house has been there a very long time. The house was originally built in 1965. His mother bought the house in 1969 and thereafter most of what is there today was expanded or modified. So I listed everything in the porch was enclosed in 1971 and the back deck was constructed the same. It's everything that's existing. The back deck was constructed by his brother who had just returned from Vietnam in 1971. What we have is the existing house is size wise and everything is the same. The lot coverage was created back in the sixties through the seventies and over time it's just been renovations of the existing. What I went back to do is for my own sake and also for hopefully helpful to the Board, I tried to understand because when he bought the house his mother was alive his mother was absolutely adamant that everything was legal. No issues whatsoever and what I went back to do is to figure out under our town code what's the story and so I pulled up and I have for the Board I made copies for everybody in 1981 Governor Perry signed into law the uniform fire prevention building code and the town was directed by the 64 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting state at that time to adopt the code. The building code was adopted formally by the town in 1981 according to this memo that went out to Dear Mayor and Supervisors of all the towns by the State. So I have that to give (inaudible) and what it says it gives guidance on getting state building code application to any new construction that's taking place. In addition again some of you will know this already and I apologize for saying it but, the town the Building Inspectors would allow up through the time Walz decision was adopted and I brought out cause it's (inaudible) when you're having fun the Walz decision was back in that the interpretation of the town changed in well the Walz decision and I want to say the Walz decision was in 2001. You'll correct me I'm sure if I'm wrong. Up through that time the Building Department would interpret that once you had established a pre-existing setback you could continue that setback it would not be considered an increase in the degree of non-conformity as the interpretation is today and right after Walz. So the existing deck that's there most of the work the conversions of and I gave this to you originally which was that the original house in '65 then the existing garage was converted to interior conversion to habitable space in 1978. The original existing deck was enclosed in 1969 and as we pointed out just previously the new deck the deck in the back yard was constructed in 1971. So all of these structures again in the seventies and prior to Walz were permissible. Interior all prior to the adoption of the state building code so the conversion, the renovation space was done on a routine basis by contractors without really thinking that they had to go to the Building Department. Unfortunately now I'm dealing with and I know you see it all the time all these seventies and eighties renovations are coming to the Zoning Board cause the Building Department is saying well I don't have a permit for it. There's no testimony or proof of when it was constructed so we have to apply for it today. In this case I have my client who was part of the family that owned it so we have the dates of everything when it was done. The bottom line is, we have an existing house as is and we have the deck in the back that has been there and the only change being and I put it in my written commentary, the only change to this deck was the relocation of the stairs up to the deck because the original stairs were right next to the wall and I don't know if you noticed but there's a window there and every time somebody goes up the stairs they hit themselves on the window that was open. So ultimately that stairs got moved over a bit. Aside from that the deck is as the deck has always been in size and in shape. What we tried to do is mitigate or reduce the lot coverage any possibility we could come up with. The Building Department had no issue about the wood that covers the cement patio. The cement patio again was part of the pre-existing and the wood because it's covering and it's on grade was not an issue. Where we needed the variance was it's a wood walkway that goes if you go to the color rendering it's easier because we try to make it as simple as possible so we have the wood walkway that goes adjacent to the it's we have the bulkhead and you have a bulkhead cap. So there's just like a little platform. That's okay the Building Department acknowledges that that's part of the marine structure so that's not part of 61 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting this application. That was constructed when the wood bulkhead was replaced after Sandy. It was put in front of the oh not after Sandy. MR. GUMPER : No we had put it back in it goes back probably in the PAT MOORE : Oh this is Mr. Gumper. MR. GUMPER : Frank Gumper 2400 Minnehaha Blvd. My next door neighbor was putting in a new bulkhead and I had had problems with the existing bulkhead being gone. We had to keep going back and getting it repaired and I noticed they were putting in a new (inaudible) bulkhead. So I went over and asked the contractor and said well if we want to do that how would you do it because as you can see the house is built on property that normally be putting the bulkhead in you would dig a deep ditch and he explained to me we have to build the new bulkhead in front of your old. I think that was built in the early (inaudible) I have the dates here cause we went it took us about a year and a half which I had to go to the DEC, the Trustees, Army Corp. of Engineers for all the approvals and it finally came back and built it. So the new bulkhead is actually built in front of the old one which did create a bit of a problem with the Building Department cause they said well cause I always considered it as a deck as part of the existing deck. They said well we can't give you a permit for a deck on land that's not going to be on your property line because the new bulkhead actually was built in front of the old bulkhead. So it does (inaudible) have a little bit so that's why they basically said okay we'll narrow that and it's now like what you call a wood cap. All it does is it just covers the bulkhead. PAT MOORE : So then we have the wood walkway that's adjacent to the cap and what we have when we look under that is that there's about MR. GUMPER : The land slopes. PAT MOORE : the land starts to slope so there's a little there's a gap between MR. GUMPERT : About ten inches on the south side when you get down to the lower part of my property it's on grade. PAT MOORE : So what we did with Vincent (inaudible) who's the architect and we really brainstormed to try to how to correct how to fix cause if you take it down and lower it you're going to create a tripping hazard because now you have the cap here and you have the walkway here and you're going to have three levels because the property you know if you're going based on the grade you have one level of the cement, you have another level of this area between. So what we thought was a good solution would be to bring the grade up bring the fill and the best material along the water is the gravel material. Working with the Building Department cause we took a long time with the Building Department to try to figure out how to 62 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting improve on a situation that's existing. The gravel and our drawing shows it we'd actually had gravel that would be the non-turf buffer and the LWRP comes back and oh no make it vegetated. It's like well no the best material is a non-turf buffer, gravel because it absorbs the water, it's going to it's not going to create any runoff issues nothing and the gravel as you since the property pitches and you get to grade you have more gravel towards adjacent to the bulkhead but it comes down to much maybe a half inch of gravel as you get to where the house begins. So that was our suggestion and the Building Department thought it was a good idea that they said well you gotta go to the Zoning Board. Show it to the Zoning Board as a way of mitigating the lot coverage because by bringing the gravel we would bring the wood walkway that is in orange okay into conformity. So I gave you the calculations of how we can reduce the lot coverage just by bringing the gravel and the grade up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you didn't say was what you were reducing it to at least I didn't see it. PAT MOORE : I thought I no let me see if I have it here somewhere. Oh yes proposed, okay so it would reduce it no I think that's the existing. What's our existing now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Notice of Disapproval says 34%. PAT MOORE : Okay yeah cause 34 is what-he came up with here, I'll get that for you cause I know I had that number. I think we were when we were able to I think we were able to reduce the lot coverage maybe by 2% because it's not that great. We only have a 5,500 sq. ft. property so it's a very tight piece of property and we'll get you that number. I know it was here somewhere but I can't put my hands on it this moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The Notice says 34% PAT MOORE : No, no the 34 was not assuming the gravel would bring the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, right, so what I'm saying is your mitigation is going to reduce it and I need to know what the lot coverage PAT MOORE : Exactly, I will get you that number. I thought it was here somewhere and I may find it when I look at it again. Let me see if I have it anywhere. Maybe in the project description. Yes it's in the project description, we have 34 existing, proposed reduced by 172 sq. ft. which is the area that the walkway brought to grade. I'll have to do that calculation but 172 sq. ft. is what we were able to come up with. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there other well you know we look up and down we've all seen the bulkhead we look up and down the water to see what other properties have done with 63 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting bulkhead and setbacks and so on, can you address that relative to character of the neighborhood or any other priors for any of these things? PAT MOORE : Well let me what I did is and let me give this oh here's the Walz decision. I knew I made a copy of it. It was approved in 2001. Let me bring it up here. So here's the first page is the State building code adoption, the second page is LWRP addressing LWRP and what I did is attach the Walz decision and then I attached the surrounding neighborhood which consists of you have map of Section 2, Laughing Waters and Laughing Waters Section 1 and you have it's all the Laughing Waters properties subdivisions that are the original subdivisions and there was one more that was not it's Nikomos Waters. So this is the surrounding community which is very non-conforming. The waterfront lots are equivalent in size to this property. This one may be the tightest one just the way the waterfront angles in but let me make sure you get that. MEMBER DANTES : What is the purpose of the copy of these, you say before 1981 people weren't required to apply for permits for decks? PAT MOORE : Well what the state building code when you look at the Building Department records it's very sketchy okay. You get there were building permits issued that used to just say single family dwelling or even for an addition single family dwelling. MEMBER DANTES : And they would include the deck on the plans (inaudible) PAT MOORE : They would include a deck, sometimes they would sometimes they didn't. Again it was very casual. So it's not consistent. So I was trying to understand is somebody who bought a house in the sixties and who did the interior renovations in the seventies what prompted his mother to think there was no need for a building permit and they actually had an architect hired and MR. GUMPER : I can tell you what she thought. My mother was married this was her second husband and she worked for the Health Department here. In the mid-seventies she had an accident and she had to retire because of problems with her back. She wound up getting a settlement cause she had fallen in the line of work and I don't know how big the settlement was, all I do know is that when my mother did the renovation of the garage she paid for the entire thing but she didn't want her husband to know what it was costing. So literally every document except for one architect drawing I found she destroyed. Now I have a file that thick when they put in a floating dock. When they put the shed in it had to get a variance. I filed that I think (inaudible). I have nothing for this renovation. At the time she led (inaudible) the woman across the street her son who lived two doors down was in construction. She didn't pick him. She told me the next day she had the Building Department people knocking at her door asking her what she was doing. Now this was back in the mid-seventies. She told me at the time that 641 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting she was concerned about closure and (inaudible). As I said right after they bought the house my brother came back from Vietnam and lived in Mattituck. He was in real estate, he built his own home there. He said okay I'll fix up the house I just sold you cause they lived in Huntington at the time and he enclosed the porch, made the living room and then he built this other deck. Now she told me at the time when the building people came through and questioned her about that, she said she filed everything the appropriate forms and everything else. I went down after I bought the house ten years after I bought the house cause we were thinking of making modifications to it and I went to the Building Department. I had the original C.O. but I don't have the records and that's when they told me there are no other records. So I don't know what happened but for all those years we just assumed that she complied with whatever she was supposed to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So how is it that you're before us now? Was it cause of the reconstruction of that deck? MR. GUMPER : No. We live in Port Washington it's a two story home. I'm getting a little older so we've always figure in a few years we're going to sell that home and Southold will become our primary residence. (inaudible) we have this big fireplace and so we we're thinking okay if we sell the house if we sell our Port Washington home and move out here what would we want to do and one would be take out the fireplace and do a few modifications and as I said at the time I realized that we didn't have proper C.O.'s I said well you know before we do anything we're going to go and get everything legalized and that's what we did. We hired an architect, hired Pat Moore here and we're going through the process. We're trying to do as much as we can. The building people came back and said you're going to get a lot of lot coverage. I will point out that except for the porch the structure of the house hasn't changed since '64. That was what was originally approved in the first building plan, the first C.O. My mother was always told by the original owners that they had to get a variance so they built a little bit closer on the two sides, they said the reason they got the variance was because both lots on either side are owned by people across the street. That's their access to the water. Went down we checked PAT MOORE : There's no variances. MR. GUMPER : Those variances don't exist. They lied to my mother too I don't know. All I'm telling you is that we decided we want to come out here permanently and make some changes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you very much for letting us know. So where are we? PAT MOORE : We're back to the only thing that we can think of to make this more conforming is just to put some gravel to bring everything to grade and that would at least eliminate what we could control which is that walkway that gives access along adjacent to the wood bulkhead. 65 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any other questions, Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. When the decks were built there probably wasn't a lot coverage restriction. The codes didn't exist that exist now. PAT MOORE : Right. In fact that's precisely I pulled out all the old codes and in '71 when this was done I went to the code at the time and it didn't call anything up. The definition of buildable area did not include decks. It was actually just the house was it. Decks and I even today you see sometimes some of the older interpretations where decks were considered accessory structures and therefore they could be as close to the back property line because the way that they were constructed were considered accessory. I'm going back through old records and I pulled out I actually for my own sake I have a folder this big of all the old codes highlighted it's like because many of times I have to go to the Building Department say look this was built with a three foot side yard this is the code at the time and you know usually you can get past you know as long as there's proof of when things were done. MR. GUMPER : Just one other thing I know it's not relevant but for your seeing here, like if you go to the tax records that deck is shown on the tax records when they upped our taxes in the 70's. So they drew an accurate picture of what the property looks like and when I went to the Building Department and I said well tax records don't look like that I got a comment well we don't talk to those people. PAT MOORE : So here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well sometimes they do. Okay anything from you Nick, Rob? Anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? I 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. 66 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7345—MICHAEL and DEBRA HAHN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael and Debra Hahn # 7345. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 26, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 1250 Vanston Rd. in Cutchogue. State your name please for the record. GENNERO COZZOLINO : Gennero Cozzolino for the homeowner Michael Hahn residing at 1250 Vanston Rd. Cutchogue a.k.a section 111-4-7 an R-40 zoning district. We're requesting relief from the Board to build a 20 X 22 foot two story front addition and a 27 foot X 10 foot front porch. As you can see from the plot plan we're staying in line with the existing house but because the house is askew it requires a minimum side yard variance. Requesting to build at 12.83 feet from permitted 15 feet the difference of 2.17 feet. Proposed additions comply with all other zoning requirements. Proposed additions will have no significant impact to the environment will not affect any of the adjacent properties. It will fit in with the character and the nature of the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You probably know this but I'll state it for the record. The Board has done a site inspection and each Board member has done a personal inspection so we certainly were able to see that the house is just not parallel to the side yard. It conforms on one end and not at the other with this particular addition. Honestly it's very straightforward. I don't have any questions, does any Board member have any questions on this one? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 67 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7346—ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Aleksander Myftarago #7346. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 30, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize as "as built" accessory garage at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 3 feet from the rear property line, 2) located less than the code required setback of 3 feet from the side yard property line located at 135 Oak Place in Mattituck. Would you please state your name for the record. ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : My name is Aleksander Myftarago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So as you've heard we all inspected the property, we see what's going on there. How is it that you are here before the Board? It would appear that the property has been abandoned and the dwelling is non-habitable and is boarded up and you're reconstructing or constructing an accessory garage literally without a principal dwelling. I should say let me just enter this into the record. The side yard setback is 1.5 feet and the rear yard setback is 0.2 from the property line where the code requires a minimum of 3 feet from each of those property lines. So what would you like us to know about this? ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : Well bad luck I called up to help me to stand in front because my English is not so good but he have inspection and he called me he cannot make it. So when I bought the house you know the condition of the house is not livable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did you buy the property? ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : (inaudible) and over there was like garbage and fence you know the garage was landing on the neighbors on the left told me you will do something with the property because it was garbage. So I starting get the fence cleaned make new fence and going 68 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting to (inaudible) garage. So I saw the garage was collapsing and (inaudible) existing slab wood was damaged and I built as existing. I don't know really I have to get permit because I thought you know because it's there but the wood was really damaged you know and it's collapsing I build a new one also for the neighbors in the back and on the side they say you know clean up. It's also some grass over there was really high you know and you cannot see nothing so I start to clean and make nice until to see what I have to do with the house. So let's build a garage I thought and I have somewhere you know to locking to prepare the plans for the house. I have ready the plans and now I know the setback in front I bring the architect to speak with Plans Examiner you know and based on what he told us we have to push the house back and I said you know I don't want any more problems just to do what the town (inaudible). For the garage you know I thought I don't know about I thought because it was over there I fix as is. Also the fence around was also on the left side of the property in the back was shed but was you know destroyed completely and cleaned it out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think probably what should have happened is that everything on that property should have been removed, demolished the property cleaned and then you could have proceeded to come to the Building Department with proposal for a dwelling and a garage but you may not have understood what the law allowed you to do and what you were required to do but the bottom line is you can't have an accessory garage without a principle dwelling. You must have a house on the property in order to have a detached garage on the property. This house is not a house. It's a shell that will have to be demolished. ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : Well the house is yes it's true but also the house can be repaired you know as is but because it's not safe and (inaudible) Building Department told me it's better you make a new one CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN It is better because the repairs would cost you more than demolishing it and building a nice new house from the beginning. It's so deteriorated that it is really not salvageable. ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : For this reason I say okay you know everybody even the architect say okay let's do it I say but happen because in the beginning I thought I can repair the house, repair the garage, clean the property and make you know livable. When I started to repair the garage and the fence to secure the property you know from dumping garbage and stuff and I do the fence do the garage and take a look at the house what I can do. When I found all this problem you know I got (inaudible) from Mr.John you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Building Inspector. fig December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : Building Department they told me look just leave the house, (inaudible) I said okay I don't (inaudible). The garage in the beginning I thought repair everything as is and you know keep as is but after I find very difficult and problems, paperwork and I said get architect to do what supposed to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if a garage were to be rebuilt on that property then it needed to be set away from the property line where your fence is partly repaired partly not, it's falling down. It all probably needs to be reconstructed if you want to fence in your property. The bottom line is you kind of went took two steps ahead of where you should be. You should have been concentrating on the dwelling and clearing the property because now we have very limited information about the garage. What the architect submitted to us did not include floor plan, it did not include the elevations, all we have are some construction details standard lumber yard construction details on the garage. So we don't know what's going to go it's very tall for a small garage. So we don't know what's going to go in there. I mean it could be anything we don't know because we don't have the drawings to show us what's inside. ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : So in that it's no (inaudible) make it everything you know up to code must be raised. Now you tell me missing floor plan was the slab existing slab existing floor rebar on the place and if you no show I think give me other date I bring architect over here and he will explain better the situation. CHAIRPESON WEISMAN : Okay it's alright with the Board to adjourn this hearing, I think February would be the earliest and you can come back here in this room with your architect and then we'll maybe understand better what's happening and he's going to need to all we have here MEMBER LEHNERT : Isn't the other issue again there's no residence here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know that's what I'm trying to explain. See this is what we have here. MEMBER DANTES : Basically what she's saying is in order to have an accessory garage you need a residence. So part of your plan you need to give us what the plans for the residence as well as the plans for the garage and then we can make a decision. ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : So we have to make the plans for the house and (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : I would say file a building permit not just a plan. MEMBER DANTES : Right I would do the whole plan then we decide all at once rather than cause technically you can't grant a garage without (inaudible) residence. 7® December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : Well this what Building Department say if we do up to code the house you know the setback and MEMBER DANTES : I'm not telling you that you have to demolish the house I'm just telling you, you need to put on the plan this is the house, this is what we're doing with this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First of all I want to apologize. I was wrong, I just checked this drawing and there's a second page. There is a floor plan and there are elevations for a two car garage. So this has that information but the problem is that you were not aware that without a viable house you need to produce a survey that shows where you're going to put a new house that conforms to the setback from Oak Place. That's when they said push it back? ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so you need to show on a survey where you're going to push the house a new house where you're going to put a new house and then you're going to have to file with the Building Department plans for a new house. You have the plans for the garage. I would do nothing don't do anything more to that garage and you know if you can get that all done by February then they will write you probably write you a new or an updated Notice of Disapproval. It depends on what you do but I think that's going to be the best way to go. I don't know if February is enough time for your architect and for you to figure out what you want to do in the way of a new house. ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : He have already the new plans. He just wants to put the scale now what he told me (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have house plans already? ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : It's not filed yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you have those? ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that's good then February is going to give you plenty of time. What you're going to need is a survey of the property showing exactly where the garage is and where you're proposing to put the house and submit that survey with the house plans to the Building Department and the survey will also show the garage where it is now. They will still need variances for that garage for the setbacks cause they're way too close. Either you have to move the garage or we're going to have to grant you some substantial variances for the rear and the side property lines for where the garage is now. At least if you have plans for a dwelling 71 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting then we can address the garage. We can't even really talk about the accessory garage until we see a house is going to be there. Do you see what I'm saying? ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : I understand what you're saying but it doesn't matter that it was existing garage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, if it's in that kind of disrepair it's considered that it could be demolished. It basically was demolished, you took it down and built it back where it was right? So once something is demolished it's gone you start over. It doesn't matter where it was. It was in the wrong place that doesn't mean you can rebuild it in the wrong place just cause it was there. It may have been at one time legally existing you know, it's possible it could have been built before the law said what it had to be but once it's torn down that's it you start from the beginning. So you just didn't know that obviously. ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : Well I thought you know I don't know really and I thought because it had been a garage you know to build in the same spot in the same slab without and so many for the house to fix also the house get permit to fix as is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : When I find all this these problems I said you know I bring the architect to deal with Building Department to make legal everything cause I don't want now if I go again for a variance this mean six months CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no we're going to just take today like you asked us to do so you can come back with your architect but we would like something more from the architect. We would like the plans for the house, we would like to see where the house is going to be located on the property. So we can do that in February alright or do you want to do January? We could do it next month, we can fit you in if you can get your architect here with all the plans. Alright then why don't we do that. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to January 2nd and you understand now what you need to bring to that hearing? I'll tell you it's very unusual for we are not going to be meeting here on January 2nd in February we're back here but in January we have to meet at the Peconic Rec Center the Recreation Center on Peconic Lane. Kim will send you a letter so you can give it to your architect. We're in conflict with the Town Board. The Town Board has to meet in here on January 2"d and we have to meet on January 2nd so we're going to go over to the Rec Center. BOARD SECRETARY : Jeff Zahn is your architect? ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO : Yes. 7 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting BOARD SECRETARY : Okay I'll send a letter to him also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there's a motion to adjourn to January 2nd, is there second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution)\ HEARING#7347—LAURENE HERWALD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Laurene Herwald # 7347. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 26, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" deck addition attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet located at 105 Krause Rd. In Mattituck. Would you please state your name. LAURENE HERWALD : Laurene Herwald. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have built a deck attached to your house with a side yard setback at 5 feet and the code requires a minimum of 15, this is an 18 foot by 18 foot deck. You received a ZBA approval my notes show, #5356 July 24, 2003 for a 12 X 30 foot deck. You also have a 1999 ZBA variance #4659 for an 8 X 56 foot addition to the side yard setback in the rear of the house and for lot coverage. The deck has been in place with variances I guess in the 1980's is that right? LAURENE HERWALD : No, not quite. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please explain it to us. LAURENE HERWALD : I did not build the deck. It was built in the early 1980's by my mother and I inherited the property around 1999, the deed is attached and what I'm looking for now is 73 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting requesting a 10 foot approximate 10 foot relief from the 15 foot required side yard setback to allow a 10 foot length section of the deck to be granted a variance to remain approximately 5 feet off of the east property line. This is 105 sq. ft. of the total 273 sq. ft. deck which is 38% of which is in the setback where 62% of the deck is in the back yard and not in the setback. The majority of the deck is in compliance with the setback requirements but since my father built the house in the 1980's I mean I'm sorry 1950's prior to permitting requirements the east wall of the garage was built in the setback. It's approximately 4 feet as shown on the survey and don't know has anyone been out to the property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have all personally inspected, every Board member inspects every property prior to a public hearing. So we know if you're yard is fenced, we know how close you are to your neighbors and all of that. LAURENE HERWALD : Good so you can see how my dad put the garage way over near the east property line because at that time they didn't really require permits. It was the early 1950's. So I contend that the deck itself is less non-conforming than the garage and that the setback requirement a portion of the deck is for the minor portion of the deck not for the whole thing. don't know if there's anything else that I didn't cover. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did now when was the existing deck built, let me just be reminded. What year and did you do that or did your father? LAURENE HERWALD : I was not in town when that happened but my dad had passed in 1979, my mom remarried Walter Rowley in '82 so that means she built the deck when she was there after my dad was gone between '79 and '82 so I'm guessing it was built in '80 or'81. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has questions, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. LAURENE HERWALD : Also I'm not really familiar with this, are there variances that you reference? I attached the neighbor's variances as comparables and that was the one #5356 William Reed that's the property that's adjacent right here it says Reed and they requested a rear yard setback which was granted in 2003 and then the Kremplers which is the next property on the other side or Reed they requested a lot coverage setback 22.5% from the 20% required and that was granted as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So these are comparable variances in your neighborhood. LAURENE HERWALD : There are two prior variances on this property but they're not relevant to this property line. They were relevant to this property line on the top of the page. 74 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know clearly that at one point that deck could have been designed a little differently and it would have all been in compliance but it is what it is, it's there now and yes in fact most of it is compliant or a big portion of it anyway. LAURENEN HERWALD : And there's vegetation screening really from the neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it's a very large backyard and my notes show from the site inspection that the deck is screened from the side yard by a large rhododendron. The neighbor to the east has a huge side yard and their house is considerably farther away from that side of the property line and you can't see the deck from the street and those are just some of my notes anyway. Let's see Eric any questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have any questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you planning on doing some modifications to the back of the house? LAURENE HERWALD : No . MEMBER ACAMPORA : No and no swimming pool? LAURENE HERWALD : No. I have one in Florida another house and we don't even use it and it's a lot for me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further comments or questions 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. December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7303SE—WILLIAM GORMAN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for William Gorman # 7303SE and variances. We have a new Notice of Disapproval. This is adjourned from October so I don't need to read the Special Exception again but I will read the new Notice of Disapproval for the variance. This is a permit to construct a front porch to an existing single family dwelling under construction permit 42160 and to alter an existing building to an accessory storage building. The proposed accessory storage building to be converted to it's an existing building to be converted to a storage building is not permitted because it needs to be in the required rear yard and accessory building is located in the side yard. So that's a variance that's a consequence of where this building is now located. Mike we were trying to get from you some information about the sanitary system. BILL GORMAN : Still waiting. Sorry, Bill Gorman. The sanitary system was inspected and it is large enough for six bedrooms so I'm just I'm waiting for that to come back from the Health Department. It's just an administrative review. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we need that. We also had asked you for a updated survey that showed the removal of the proposed second story on the unconditioned storage building, we don't have it. Right now the survey that we've got from November 26, 2019 shows on the one story, concrete and framed building it says two story concrete framed building for unconditioned storage, proposed second story addition. Remember we talked about that? MIKE KIMACK : Yes. As I and I did not (inaudible) I think Bill had submitted to you just to make sure that point, you got drawings showing the existing and single car garage showing unconditioned storage space above that and then also a set of plans showing the commercial building now is storage area primarily. Those sets of plans came to you plus the two family house now it's showing two, three bedrooms rather than the three and one, two and I do understand that you do have those plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have them and according to BILL GORMAN : I don't know how that got passed us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : According to the Building Inspector, Sean who was there to do an electrical inspection he has at my request marked up this floor plan of the second floor because it's not what is there now does not match this floor plan. 76 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting BILL GORMAN : I know cause I'm aware of that but I wasn't going to do it till it was approved. You're just talking about that one hallway that goes into the two bedrooms CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me pull that. BILL GORMAN : Can I show you what I'm talking about? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure you can. BILL GORMAN : I just didn't do it. This is the first floor then there's the second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's saying that there's no wall here which shows here and he's questioning what's happening with that door. He says that's a wall not a door over here. It's the second floor. BILL GORMAN : Oh yeah, yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : New garage so that's that. He says this doesn't exists, this is all open. BILL GORMAN : That's the plan I submitted that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know this is the first floor, here's the second floor and he's redrawn the doors, he's redrawn the hallway. He was there we weren't cause we didn't do an interior inspection. MIKE KIMACK : What were the plans (inaudible) BILL GORMAN : I'm sorry I don't mean to waste everybody's time but I guess this is how it's all going to end up. I mean aside from moving this door we're not going this door from this side of the garage to the other side. I moved it from here to here rather than to get from here cause that's (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking for the most recent date. This is not a variance. This is a Special Exception and we need to know exactly that there are two units independent units and what they look like. That's number one so that's the Special Exception alright. You already got I'm looking you have a variance for a front porch that's before us which we were holding until we could deal with this. I don't believe the Board has difficulty with it or with the two family dwelling but we need everything to be correct and in place that's number one. Number two again you have what is essentially now a detached garage that was inspected by the Building Inspector who claims that it's being used as a dwelling. You even admitted that somebody was there. That's not legal and that can't be allowed. We now have a storage building which you wanted to store your materials in from your work but that has to be an accessory building to 77 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting the principal dwelling. It cannot be used for commercial purposes in any way. You proposed an attached garage so now we also have a situation that BILL GORMAN : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I'm not asking you to work on it I'm telling you what the issues are alright so once and for you understand fully the range of things going on that property. The way your property was originally constructed, there were two uses on it and once that use the commercial use was extinguished you have two driveways there. The property looks like it's two lots it's done on purpose to distinguish between what was a residential area and a commercial area. That needs to be one lot, it's a small lot. You need to take out the hedgerow and you need to take the fence out and you need to make it appear as it should be as one lot. You can keep the driveway and the curb cut but to me that building then should be an accessory to the principal dwelling as should everything else on that property and it should probably be used its way too big for a shed and storage for a dwelling. It should be used as a garage or use the one in the back; get rid of all of the heat and the air-conditioning and all the things that make it habitable and convert it back to a garage with a second floor storage loft or whatever you want to call it. These will all need to have interior inspections. John Jarski has been out there again at our request and so there's just a lot of stuff you have to do to clean this up. BILL GORMAN : Should I do that but I can't be working on it can't convert that small building into a garage now can we?The (inaudible) approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're just discussing it with you I don't want you to be blind sighted. I don't want you to say MEMBER LEHNERT : My question with a small garage is, how can it be a garage if you can't fit a car? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The attached one. MEMBER LEHNERT : No the small one in the back the staircase in there. How are you going to fit a car in there how can it be a garage? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look Mike there's the first floor you have a big stair how are you going to get a car in there? I mean this could be habitable space since it's attached if you wanted it to be and not a garage. The only thing that makes it look like a garage MIKE KIMACK : This is the detached. 78 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see maybe I had the wrong one. Rob were you looking at the detached MEMBER LEHNERT : I was looking at the detached garage in the back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright yeah, yeah, yeah okay so he's saying how can you use that as a garage if you can't get a car in there? BILL GORMAN : At the end of the day you won't. I mean at the end of the day it will be a garage I just Mike should I be (inaudible) right now. MEMBER DANTES : No don't do work now. BILL GORMAN : Take that stairway out. MEMBER LEHNERT : You should be proposing as it a garage not showing us MIKE KIMACK : It is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's over here. It's the one in the corner that says framed garage which is being used as a dwelling. BILL GORMAN : It says garage plan and elevations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That is the as built. BILL GORMAN : It says (inaudible) one car garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's the one that is being used as a dwelling. Well this is what I'm trying to say, you guys need to talk to each other and Mike you need to find out and explain to Bill MEMBER LEHNERT : Again explain to me how one car garage can be used as a garage when there's a stair in there? MEMBER DANTES : So what you're saying is it should say staircase to be removed. BILL GORMAN : Right there should be no staircase, staircase removed. MIKE KIMACK : Madam Chairman, let me see if I can encapsulate and not take up more of your time. What you are requesting of my client is to come in with new amended plans and I'll start with that detached garage showing removal of the staircase that in fact is a garage and storage unconditioned storage space above, that's the first thing. The second thing is on the commercial building you'd like it to be relabeled not storage but garage and the hedgerow in 79 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting between that and the house to be removed so that it resembles a one lot as opposed to being two lots. You also want the survey updated to show to remove that one little section and showing that as proposed one car garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the point is, if you have a you don't need three garages. Now you proposed an attached garage so the point is that any accessory on that property needs to be an accessory to the dwelling. It kind of made sense that each of those units they're pretty good sized units would have a garage an accessory garage or an attached garage so I can envision, it's kind of up to you, you can remove one the old garage in the rear or you can renovate it and bring it back. You can remove the storage building or you can renovate it into a garage but then you have an attached and two accessory garages. I mean we're trying to get a reasonable amount of legal stuff on that property if you follow what I'm getting at. It's a matter of just cleaning it up. We're not telling you exactly what you should do but we're telling you what the issues are and I don't think a two family dwelling needs three garages. You can decide what to do about it. MIKE KIMACK : When we were here last with the commercial building which is no longer a commercial building cause it doesn't have a C.O. attached to it, the feeling back then was we can label it storage. So labeling it a garage is a new direction that the Board is now looking at as opposed to what we were told the last time. I can understand you not we have an attached garage two car garage to the main house primarily and then if we take the staircase out of the back section you got a single car garage back there. So the only logical thing would be that that commercial building be labeled storage primarily because your concern now you just don't want to see two detached and one attached garage. Two detached accessory garages on the property with an attached garage on the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'll be frank with you, the problem is if that remains a storage building the concern is those two dwellings do not require a storage building that big, it's not a shed. Typically a house would have a storage shed if they needed it. My concern is that you said so Bill you want to use it for storage for your business and we can't allow that. So what do we do? BILL GORMAN : I do understand that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Take your word for it you know that you won't? I mean the house does not require these two family dwellings this one building with two dwelling units in it doesn't require storage that big so you label storage but storage for who as an accessory for the dwelling? so December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : Well from what you just said it would have to be accessory to the dwelling. It couldn't be accessory to Bill. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct so those are the what we're doing here is not making a decision, we are laying out the issues. MIKE KIMACK : I understand what the limitations and restraints are on the commercial building and I'll talk to Bill about that. The third thing you need obviously is a clean set of drawings on the two proposed three bedroom units showing the final aspect of what walls are there, where the doors are etc. like that. They don't have to necessarily be there now but will be there once the approval is given. I think that covers everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need Health Department's certification. MIKE KIMACK : Apparently it's coming (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yeah I've already said that I mean the survey will have to be relabeled if that's what storage building, garage or whatever its' going to be it's going to not have a second story proposed addition on the survey. Bill the point is, if we stamp a drawing in relationship to an approval if it is not exactly what the Building Inspector sees when they go out to do a Certificate of Occupancy we start all over here we go again and we don't want to do that. We don't want do it to you we don't want (inaudible). BILL GORMAN : I totally understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're trying to get you to understand we need consistent accurate information. BILL GORMAN : Should I do should I make the house MEMBER DANTES : No don't do any work. BILL GORMAN : So which part should be proposed and what part should be existing? I should do it as existing and do the plan around the proposed? MEMBER LEHNERT : Accurate plans as to what's going on, on the property. BILL GORMAN : Right but not make that hallway that I circles on that set of plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to make sure that we have plans that are going to be congruent with an inspection a final inspection for a Certificate of Occupancy. December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting BILL GORMAN : That's what I figured that's why I'm sorry to say I didn't go that I didn't get I figured an as built which you all know the Building Department doesn't give as C.O. with an as built. I do this all the time. That as built I know was coming for the house, I understand that. You know that's why just I threw the hallway on there and I get it. MIKE KIMACK : The Board is looking for a final set of drawings whether it's the way it's reflected in the building now but the final set of drawings that when the Building Inspector shows up when you've done all your work in there that it matches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words to grant you the Special Exception Permit for a two family house we need plans of exactly how it's going to be when it finalized and that way we stamp it, they go out, they inspect it and it's consistent. BILL GORMAN : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's number one. We need health certification for a six bedroom house. We need to understand we got to make sure that septic is adequate and the Health Department certified it. We need to have a survey that shows removal of a picket fence, removal of a hedgerow, the storage building as an accessory garage if that's what you choose to do with it. MIKE KIMACK : We'll discuss that and see which MEMBER LEHNERT : Did we speak about the curb cut? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There is one already. MEMBER LEHNERT :The one in front of the accessory building. MIKE KIMACK : Yes, that wasn't an issue per say that's what I understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which one are you talking about Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT :The one in front of the accessory. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yeah the commercial building, well depending on how that's going to be used. If it's a garage then fine the driveway can stay there or if it's not a garage we don't want to see that there. We want to have an entrance to your property like other residential properties have. Some properties if they have two front yards they have two driveways. BILL GORMAN : Or I could just do one. 82 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you use the one? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Like a "U". CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you use the other one yeah you can do an "innie" and an "outie" thing. MIKE KIMACK : I think we understand what the Board is looking for. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And Mike I think it was discussed earlier you actually suggested this, the attached garage maybe convert that to living space to make one of the apartments larger if you're giving up if you don't need the three garages. Turn the attached one into one of the apartments because then you would maintain the west garage building and the east garage building. MIKE KIMACK : I mean there's sufficient space in both buildings in both spaces now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : They're beautiful apartments absolutely. MIKE KIMACK : They really are they're really good space. We'll consider MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) use of the former commercial building as garage you don't need Health. MIKE KIMACK : What I suggest till February. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what it's going to take them a least (inaudible) to get this stuff together. BILL GORMAN : Joan Chambers is back now so she's going to have in the next couple of days (inaudible). MIKE KIMACK : We can't guarantee Health Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would rather leave this open because if we just close it and then if we have more questions which given the history on this property MIKE KIMACK : You will have more questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We might. MEMBER DANTES : I'm not saying close it I'm saying adjourn then we'll see the information then at the Special we decide if we need to hear it or not. 83 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine I can always end up closing but I would rather adjourn it to a hearing date. I would not touch anything. That's wasted money Bill because you know you start renovating and then something changes or shifts. MIKE KIMACK : You don't have a permit on the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. BILL GORMAN : I get it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll adjourn it to February I guess. Does that work for you Mike? MIKE KIMACK : I think that allows enough time for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, here's what you do, if you don't have what you need by then call the office and we'll adjourn it into the next month. MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) Health Department it was submitted a week or two ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to adjourn to February 6th, 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 # 7336— ELIAS and JEANNINE KASSAPIDIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's another amended Notice of Disapproval. This is for Elias and Jeannine Kassapidis #7336. We adjourned this so do I need to read this? Well there's a corrected Notice of Disapproval now for four variances. It's now a demolition not additions and alterations so you have a side yard setback at 8.4 feet from the dwelling, the code requiring 15, $q December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting combined side yard setback at 27.1 the code requiring 35 minimum, lot coverage of (inaudible) code 20% max. and as built pool in a side yard now. So where are we? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon, Martin Finnegan (inaudible) Main Rd. Southold for the applicants. Thank you for having us back here so quickly. Yes we did at your request get the amended Disapproval since the original did not account for the demo of the first floor. I would for the record ask that our application be amended to include the requests (inaudible) already for that additional variance from 280-15 to allow for the pool to remain in its current location and yes we are also seeking the side yard and combined side yard setback variances to allow the construction to proceed on the existing foundation with no new ground disturbance. I talked to Bill about this, I was sort of puzzled as to whether (inaudible) no longer a Walz case. I don't know how the Board used that we kind of figured it' because of the demo I guess it's just a regular variance case now. In any event no matter how you look at it, it's sort of the same analysis and in this instance I believe that the argument is the same that the impacts here are negligible because we really are just looking as far as the property around and everyone is concerned everything is going to be the same. So in order to you know preserve build on that existing foundation we're asking to maintain that single side yard setback of 8.4 feet where the 15 is required, the combined 27.1 where 35 is required and the lot coverage as is at 33 and we will need a 7 inch variance to allow the pool to remain I guess because of the fact that part of it jets into the side yard there. It seems to me that it is substantially a rear yard but because of the fact that it jets out there so I did already address the 267 criteria when we were here before on the record so due to the late hour we're going to spare you that. I do however have an amended memo of law that I'd be happy to (inaudible). It does cover the amended relief. So you know it's actually (inaudible) one more time cause really that's in terms of additional relief you know we just want to keep it where it is and not have any this is really about not having any ground disturbance and I think the impact when you're talking about a waterfront property really stem from that from any construction that would you know to excavate the foundation and rebuild it and put in would be far more damaging than leave all well off alone and that's essentially our position. If there's any questions I'd like to address them now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know if this is a question so much as a comment but you know why you got copied I'm sure Kim gave you, this is I can't remember honestly if we discussed this or not so I want to just review it, Soil and Water MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes I think we did briefly discuss; as to the (inaudible) measures we have no problem with that. I did have an issue with the other LWRP review that I think we also covered on the record last time and you know again because there's no new ground disturbance there's no it's going to be the same exact number of bedrooms and all the construction is well landward of the CEHA. We didn't really feel that the mitigation of an IA 85 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting system was necessary here but we do have no problem with the drainage for the pool, the outside shed, our (inaudible) controls all those were obviously (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well Soil and Water has four comments here which basically we tend to use those as mitigation you need those to make the LWRP consistent. As you know we can't make a determination an approval without consistency. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we'll say based on the mitigation we propose these conditions cause some of these are just improper drainage on the site. MARTIN FINNEGAN : All will be dealt with. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin would you remind me and apologies if it's my packet or part of the application, but do we have something that illustrates where the sanitary system is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not on the survey. I don't think we have anything. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Let me see. Why don't I have that detail added and I can submit that is that okay? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I'm fine, I think it's helpful to have, the only concerns we were talking about in terms and you just made a statement about the IA system that it seemed to me historically a house in this period would almost appear that we are going to discover that the septic is under the wood deck. I don't know if you would agree with that (inaudible) where the bathrooms are you know (inaudible) condition of the site is. Is it something that your applicant your client may be willing to install an IA system? I mean there is substantial improvement here. MARTIN FINNEGAN : As I said they had not contemplated that at the outset and I felt like because of the fact that this was essentially just going up and not going out with no ground disturbance that we would leave all enough alone so we do have to go to the Trustees and I understand that if you don't require if there's a possibility CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to get it from one place or the other. We hope one day to have it in the code. I mean especially on waterfront property when something is a demolition that's (inaudible) new construction and the Board has been very diligent about saying it's time in this town to protect our groundwater and surface water and so we have been regularly doing that as a condition of approval and hopefully time will come and we will have to because it will be in the town code. 86 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : To reiterate, it would be our preference to leave well enough alone but will you know MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And what I'm wondering now is if (inaudible) whether we impose or the Trustees it's something that needs to be added to the plan it would sort of seem to be counterproductive to ask the applicant to illustrate where the sanitary is now if in fact CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't want to delay you anymore than we need to so if in fact MEMBER LEHNERT : We can make it a condition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have been. So the point is Nicks quite right, why bother to update a survey and spend the money if in fact you're going to have to put it on a survey for a building permit. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I was actually (inaudible) just mark it on there and let you know just (inaudible) but I understand that MEMBER LEHNERT : If you know where the vent is on the outside of the house we would know where the septic system is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I do think if the spirit whether it's this Board or the Trustees they're going to propose it maybe it's easier and I can't comment as far as what the decision will be but it might be something just to discuss with your client that is something that's really coming down the pipeline. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will probably be forthcoming. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Oh I already have and you know of course you know cause of the expense and all that it's usually the initial reaction of course is (inaudible) there's no bedroom trigger but I will of course have that conversation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? I'm going to make a motion to I guess just close or yep we don't needed the updated survey then. I'm going to close the hearing is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 8,7 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a motion to reopen the meeting of the Board of Appeals at 3:15 PM seconded by Pat (member Acampora) all in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes and Resolution) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The purpose of reopening is to make a motion to amend the resolution for Aaron Streeter application #7344 which was closed subject to receipt of comments from the applicant's attorney regarding comments we received from the Planning Board and also proposed covenants and restrictions on lot 4 and 5 to also include receiving comments at the request of the Board of Appeals from the Town Fire Marshall regarding the right of way a.k.a. as Town Creek Lane relative to maintenance and health and safety emergency access and so on.That is the motion I'm now making, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. 88 December 5, 2019 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we will inform Pat Moore that we amended that motion to close subject to receipt to include those comments and that she will be receiving a copy so that she may also in turn address those comments if she chooses to. December 5, 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 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : December 19, 2019 901