Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/02/2020 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Recreation Center 970 Peconic Lane Peconic, New York 11958 January 2, 2020 9:41 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney (Absent) January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Justin and Elizabeth Mirro#7350 3-5 Vincenzo and Margherita Posillico#7352 5 - 14 Vincenzo and Margherita Posillico#7353 15 - 23 Robert and Stephanie Swing#7356 23 - 29 John Arcara and Michael Scopellite#7357 30-33 Patricia A. Grady, aka Patricia Reddington #7360 34- 36 Paul and Maria Blazek#7358 36 -37 Marietta Caravanos#7362 38 -43 2 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting HEARING #7350—JUSTIN and ELIZABETH MIRRO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public hearing before the Board is for Justin and Elizabeth Mirro #7350. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 3, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to maintain an existing accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 2455 Nassau Point Road (adj. to Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. PAT MOORE : Happy New Year, Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Mirro. I know you're very familiar with this property. My client was granted a variance Appeal # 7171 to demolish the existing house, build a new house and at the time of the original application this garage was going to be in the way of the new house. Later on with the assistance of the Board we were able to flip the house so that the garage is in the opposite location so it left the existing garage unaffected. This particular garage had been the subject of a variance in 1978 was granted was pre-existing. The original garage is pre-existing then it was allowed to be expanded slightly in '78 with a variance and it is fully functional. There's nothing that needs to be done to it other than cosmetics. The owner's asked if it'd be possible to keep the garage which will technically be in a side yard because of the length of the existing garage or the new garage places the existing structure in technically a side yard. Otherwise there are no variances that are required because the original garage was there with the benefit of a small variance as I said in 1978. So it's a relatively straightforward application and I think we're really not asking to do anything to the garage other than allow it to remain. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are the garage doors going? We don't have a complete set of elevations. PAT MOORE : Tom Samuels is here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And could you please address the structural state it's a little bit more than cosmetic. The soffits are rotted, the windows are rotted, the doors are rotted and the shingles are rotted. TOM SAMUELS : Tom Samuels on behalf of the Mirro's, Happy New Year. We are planning to take out the overhead door facing the road. It's not going to be used for a car garage anymore. It'll be used more for a workshop and man cave you might say just a place for storage and you know dealing with kayaks and things. The house is in a flood plain, the basement is a technically a crawl space. The cosmetic improvements will improve, residing the house obviously and putting (inaudible) the garage, putting new windows in and a new roof a wood shingle roof. Otherwise structurally the building is fine. The foundation is good, the slab is good. We're not putting heat in it, we're not putting plumbing in it. It's really just meant as a extra space which January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting is what is obviously a relatively large house (inaudible) spaces would be very useful to the M irro's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to say with an eight bedroom house they need storage? TOM SAMUELS : It's a six bedroom house but yes they CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 8,000 square feet. TOM SAMUELS : With the garage yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says eight bedrooms on your plan. TOM SAMUELS : That's technically allowed by the Health Department. We don't actually have that many bedrooms in the house.That's how the sanitary system was sized. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the lot coverage on this property? TOM SAMUELS : It's a little less than the max. 20% MEMBER LEHNERT : 16. (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob you want to start? MEMBER LEHNERT : You mentioned that there's no plumbing or electric going into the building. TOM SAMUELS : Electric will be but no heating. MEMBER LEHNERT : No heating. TOM SAMUELS : No. MEMBER LEHNERT : So you're going to have like hose outlets and stuff like that. TOM SAMUELS : There may be irrigation outside but it would be MEMBER LEHNERT : No heating. TOM SAMUELS : No heating and no plumbing as far as sanitary plumbing is concerned, a hose bib outside. MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay that was my question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. 4] January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES :Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7352—VINCENZO and MARGHERITA POSILLICO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have two applications next that are for the same property and the same applicant. I'm going to open them separately because they are different kinds of applications and I'm going to open up the interpretation first Pat. It makes more sense to do it that way. This is for Vincenzo and Margherita Posillico #7352. This is a request for an interpretation pursuant to Article II Section 280-10 and the Building Inspector's August 20, 2019 amended August 22, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on a re-application for a previously denied waiver of merger to determine whether the subject premises is exempt from the merger provision. This is located at 650 West Rd. & 719 Southern Cross Rd. in Cutchogue. PAT MOORE : Good morning, I have Mr. and Mrs. Posillico here today they're right there and their application is before you and we do have initially an interpretation and I didn't know how you wanted to proceed with this because an interpretation I hope would eliminate the need for January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting an area variance so phase two of this application I would hope would be moot. I've provided for you a memo with regard to the interpretation because just as a matter of law and I'll give you an example. Let's say that a person comes in for a use variance on a property and many of you already know this law but just to put on the record; if somebody comes in for a use variance and the Board denies that use variance and the Town Board later changes the code and makes that use a permitted use, obviously the original denial is moot because the legislative body has overridden the need for a use variance. Similarly the area variances, there was actually a change in the state law. Prior to the I have to remember the year but I want to say '94 there was economic hardship was the standard for area variances. Later the state law changed and the standards for an area variance changes as well so it made it possible for applicants to come in and seek a variance under the new standards. So whether it's a state law change or a town code change, any decision that's made under a prior law when a new law comes in it gives the applicant an ability to either meet with the code or not meet with the code. Similarly when we have a zone we have a code change that makes something that was previously permitted not permitted. You apply on a daily basis every time you hear you review a decision, a variance because of a code change that has occurred and a lot that had previously been entitled to build at 10 feet from the property line now requires 15 feet from the property line. So it's the same legal standard which is, when there's a change in the code an owner can either benefit or be damaged by the code. It happens every time that the Town Board as a legislative body changes the code. What I did is I went back to the original adoption of the code for merger and when you go back through the record to look for an application where a person has where an owner has a two parcels and the merger occurs by operation of law and by operation of law is when a co-owner has died. Those applications don't exist in our town records because those applications were directly exempt just like the other exemptions in the waiver of merger law. The multiple exceptions that do not trigger the merging. If the lots are over one acre even though they're in the same name if the lot is more than one acre it's exempt from merger. So my initial application to the Building Department was this received a denial of a waiver of merger back in 2007 prior to the change in the code and it was very clear from the record of that application that the merger occurred due to the death of the co-owner. MEMBER DANTES : That was a different owner wasn't it? PAT MOORE : No, Froley was the original owner, that's who we bought the property from. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) PAT MOORE : No what happens is as long as the buyer because that wouldn't make sense it would undo all the waiver of merger exemptions. What happens is the same owner and the code says the so there's a death of a co-owner okay that exemption maintains the single and J6 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting separate ownership until the death of the surviving co-owner. You have to read that code very carefully, it says surviving co-owner. In this case Mrs. Froley outlived two of her co-owners. She first put one lot in her brother's name and that's when the Board in 2007 that's when the Board made the decision that because of the death of the brother she became the same owner on both parcels. Again the law then changed and said no, no that's unfair that's an exception we want to maintain that if you try to maintain the lots as single and separate and put your other property the two properties, you put the other property in the brother you're not married or you're married or have a partner, whatever you put the co-owner so that you can keep the single and separate. That maintains the exception. In this case the brother passes away and now she's stuck again with what do I do, now I'm the surviving co-owner. She places one of the properties in the husband's name so now she's joint tenant with right of survivorship as husband and wife. Low and behold poor Mrs. Froley keeps outliving her co-owner, her husband passes away. At that point she decides you know I'm going to sell the property. My client's come in and they buy from her but as again with the exception that has applied they buy the property but keep it single and separate. So the exception gives the surviving co-owners the ability to sell the property as long as the person unrelated person who comes to buy it keeps it single and separate. So this instance my clients because the exception is in place bought one property in and I forget one is Mrs. Posillico's name and the other one is in Mr. and Mrs. Posillico's name. So we wanted to maintain the single and separate status. What I did is I went back to the first couple of the first decision I could come to after the code changed and the first one and that is a tough thing because I had to go one by one each application and because when you look at it as a filter and you try to pull it up it just wouldn't come up so I had to go one by one. The first decision I come to is the Hollanback and that's what I attached to your packet. That was a lot waiver application that went in directly I think it was one of the first ones that went in after the code changed, the code change in 2007. Sorry the law was in 2007'Mrs. Froley got her denial got her denial in 2006 before the zone change. So that decision actually gives in the parlance of law it's Dicta, it gives the analysis that says, we recognize the exemption due to the death of the owner. In that particular case the Kootz family unfortunately couldn't make use of that exception because when the individual passed away they put the surviving co- owner put it in a trust and put both properties in a trust. So unfortunately under that scenario they couldn't come in and ask or couldn't apply the exemption directly but it gives you a really good outline of the change in the law and it points out, hey the law changed. We recognize the law changed and unfortunately in the Kootz application it didn't it couldn't apply. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have case law that shows that when a code is changed it applies retroactively and not going forward? PAT MOORE : Well it's such a standard of law that I was looking for a case to give you and unfortunately I couldn't find one right off the top because what happens is, when a law changes 7 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting the owner has the benefit of whatever the law is. Just like I pointed out on a zone change. So a use variance would have said, sorry you can't have the use that you're seeking the use variance but the town code changes and now allows the use. So the owner goes and implements whatever the use is that the zoning code allows for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The reason I bring it up is because I was a part of that code change and I was on that Board when this property was denied originally. PAT MOORE : Yes I remember. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It had always been my understanding that it was put into place because so many husbands and wives were finding themselves in that predicament that they have checker boarded the names and then somebody died and obviously sole survivor inherited and it seemed grossly unfair that there should be such a penalty when after years you've been paying on two separate lots. It's not even really clear whether or not they had to be spouses. PAT MOORE : Co-owner CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe it refers to co-owner. The intent was husband and wife but it's not a hundred percent clear but my understanding was that all previous denials based upon the circumstances then held in place, the determination was there. Going forward that law would apply. That's why there was a denial originally and that's why PAT MOORE : Well there was a denial originally under an old law and there was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But the bottom line is the one that you submitted here wasn't an approval because the law was in place when PAT MOORE : Correct but remember there wouldn't here's the point, you actually had I know for a fact I think the name was Errico because I remember I went in this was on Moore's Lane and we got a denial because of the economic hardship argument it was you may have been on the Board or before you, it was a sister and brother who inherited the property and unfortunately when the estate was distributed the brother got cash and the sister got the two lots and both lots were put in the same name, estate attorneys are not zoning attorneys. So that particular case was denied because of the law in place. When that law was changed, again she was it wasn't an there was no exemption for inheritance or so she came back in and got a variance for those two lots not a variance pardon me a waiver of merger for those two lots because the law changed and now it was understood that without the economic hardship then all as long as you met all of the other standards you were eligible. So what happens is, you did get this applications in that met the waiver of merger standards, you didn't have to get applications that applied exceptions because they were not required to get waivers of mergers January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting so in a sense it was a proactive law as well because or retroactive in a sense that anybody who had received a denial because of a death co-ownership by operation of law didn't have to come in and get a variance or a waiver of merger. They were automatically exempt and therefore they could at that point had clear sailing to be able to sell off the lot that had previously been considered merged and couldn't get a waiver of merger. So as a matter of law unless in you state in the law that this law is prospective and not retroactive you can't discriminate that way, you have to say whatever the law on the books is we're not you know if you meet that law at the time you come in that's the law that applies. The same with you know every area variance that you hear is MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Pat maybe I'm skipping or missing something, wouldn't it be Mrs. Froley who would have to then make the application? PAT MOORE : No. Mrs. Froley has had the authority to sell the properties independently because she was exempt. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But she had already received a declination on the waiver of merger so PAT MOORE : She didn't have to the law changed. She didn't have to come back because the law didn't say you come back to us for a it didn't let me back up. It was an exemption not a standard so an exemption is, we will not consider your parcels merged if it occurred by operation of law. Your lot is one acre in size, you have two structures both have C.O.'s or are eligible for C.O.'s. So those were right off the top of my head three exemptions. An exemption is you don't you're not affected by this law. The law exempts the merging. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The real question is, I think you stated your position the real question is whether or not an exemption of merger would have that was merged by operation of law would have been exempt retroactively. That's what your argument is. In other words the law changed, they should have been exempt even though the law changed after they were merged. PAT MOORE : Yes that is the argument as a matter of law. Do you understand? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I understand but as a layman I'm thinking that if I get a speeding ticket and then they raise the speed limit am I exempt now because of the prior speeding ticket? PAT MOORE : That's a criminal case. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) doesn't seem to make sense that PAT MOORE : Well I'm trying to give to you an analysis of something like a use variance. 9 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're so distinctly different and the standards are distinctly different. PAT MOORE : No I'm giving you the law that's the same law. You apply the law on the books at the time of your application. You're application today or in fact the interesting thing is Gail Wickham represented her on MEMBER DANTES : Wouldn't the Building Department why did they send you here to us? Why did they PAT MOORE : According to the Building Department and I put it in my memo, Mike and Amanda said the law today would definitely exempt those two parcels from merging. Their concern was whether or not the original decision in a sense was a binding on this property in such a way that you precluded them from ever having a change in the law applied to them. So it's not really Res Judicata because that's kind of a law of the case but similar analysis in that once the denial is in place that's it you're done, you're stuck with it and that's not as a matter of the law that is not the case. When the law changes, when the legislative body what previously they said was not allowed is now allowed you don't penalize it's really a penalty to apply what is currently a permissible two lots to be precluded from being separate because of an old a prior determination. That just makes no sense as a matter of law. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's two things we have to do. One I will check with the Building Department for their interpretation. Two I will check with legal counsel who is not here because he is with the Town Board in the meeting hall as their counsel as well as ours. So we will definitely do that and I will see if they can turn up any case law PAT MOORE : That's fine, contradicts our what I think to be a black letter law. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I think also this Mrs. Froley make the application makes complete sense. I'm having a hard time understanding and other waiver or mergers that have come before me as a member of this Board we looked at the use, we've looked at the ownership and we've made a clear decision. But if the property transfers just by default we basically say that you're no longer applicable to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's for a waiver of merger and they're not applying for a waiver. They are not eligible for a waiver of merger. PAT MOORE : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She's applying for an interpretation that says they should not have been merged. 10 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Exactly they're-exempt from merger. Look at the first MEMBER PLANAMENTO : At the time they followed the law PAT MOORE : But that was in 2007 or'06 pardon me '06 it's one year early'07 is when the law changed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But she also held those in common name for six years. PAT MOORE : Yeah but she kept putting her she put her husband on one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But she had it in her own name for six years before she applied for a waiver of merger. PAT MOORE : But the law changed one year after. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know. PAT MOORE : I understand that but really she held it for one year before the law changed. So in 2006 she got denied. I was going to say Gail Wickham represented her, a very good application I was quite surprised when it was denied but directly thereafter Gail put it into put the one lot into the husband you know as husband and wife understanding and she's a very good lawyer and I would have agreed with her that at that point the exemption applied and therefore she could put the property into husband and wife. So one lot was always in her name, she never put it into anybody else's name she was sole owner and then I believe it's the house that kept going into first brother and then husband and then husband died. After that again the exemption still applied so remember we're not dealing with a waiver all the applications you ever see are waiver of merger applications. You don't see the exemption applications because just by the term exempt you're exempt from the merger. You're exempt, those two properties do not merge because merger is by operation of statute. When a law on the books says if you own two properties in the same name we're going to merge them. If you don't have that law then arguably I've seen cases that you know it doesn't apply, you don't have a merger. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we get it. PAT MOORE : Well I'm trying to answer. MEMBER DANTES : So basically you're saying waiver of merger by death applied retroactively to every property that have ever merged by death before 2007? PAT MOORE : As long as it continued to be when it sold it continued to be a single and separate. MEMBER DANTES : So if it merged by death in 1985, then it would have applied? :11 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : If it was in place in 1985 it would have applied unless somebody merged it in (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : What I'm saying is if the property had merged by death in 1985 then this exemption would have applied to them and they now would be able to sell both lots. PAT MOORE : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : So that's what you're asking us to interpret. PAT MOORE : That's what I'm saying the code says. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay look, I think because we're getting we have another one a variance application I want to see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application. PAT MOORE : The interpretation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The interpretation. Are there any other question from the Board? Please state your name for the record. MIKE KEALY : My name is Mike Kealy, I'm at 575 Southern Cross Rd. and it's not about so much what she was mentioning but the procedure. We've had two certified letters and I was just curious of how the procedure works here. Are all variances are we supposed to be notified of all variances that affect our property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would be getting as a matter of procedure if you live directly adjacent to a property you would receive a personal notice. Otherwise it would be noticed with a yellow sign on the property indicating the name and what the variances might be and when the hearing date is and all that. You don't not everybody in the neighborhood gets a notice. It's only in fact our office will look at the plat you know and say this, this and this property need to be noticed. The applicant then has to send by registered mail a notice that this hearing will take place and for what reason. They have to return to us the green cards that say that neighbor got it. MIKE KEALY : We did get it. We signed. PAT MOORE : This has been the only hearing. What happened is you probably got a notice before the interpretation was requested so this has been the only hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have not heard this before. You haven't missed anything. PAT MOORE : Yeah you haven't missed anything. 12 January 2, 2020'Regular Meeting EDITH KEALY : I'm Edith Kealy 575 Southern Cross, we live next to Julie and Peter Bohan and they're property is definitely affected by this and they did send you an email which I hope you got. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did. EDITH KEALY : They did not receive and I think that if it exists then you should really go back (inaudible) because they did not receive either of the certified letters and the only reason they knew about this hearing was because my husband and I called them and we were interested in what do you think about this but they were never notified and I think that I know I had to sign I got both letters and I signed for both and I think you should check to see if you got BOARD SECRETARY : It was properly mailed and for some reason the post office didn't deliver it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you hear her answer? She traced it. Staff does,an excellent job of following up on all of this because we do want to make sure that people are properly informed. So she's already spoken to your neighbor and it was properly EDITH KEALY : Are you Kim Fuentes? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and it was properly mailed it just didn't get sent by the post office properly. That's what she's looked into to find out. EDITH KEALY : Then I would think that if that situation existed and if it wasn't for us you know having a good relationship with the Bohans, I think that then there should have been some follow up by you to say hey we didn't get a response. We need to notify these people because more than anybody Julie and Peter Bohan are affected by this variance. MEMBER DANTES : The honest answer is that there's a public notice posted on the front of their property so if the Bohans go to their house they'll see the public notice and it's also in the newspaper. EDITH KEALY :They live in Garden City and come in the summer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's part of the dilemma. We have a lot of situations here where people are part time, they're in Florida in the winter and sometimes it's really difficult for people to receive forwarded mail and especially if it's registered. We certainly do the very best that we can because that's the fair way to do it. Plus people should be duly noticed when it affects their property or their neighborhood. MEMBER DANTES : Plus it's mailed to where they get their tax bill where the mailing goes to. So I mean as long as they get their tax bill that's the same address the mail gets to. 13 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting EDITH KEALY : Right but the post office didn't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In this case I don't think they did, that's what Kim's research showed. That just shows you we do a lot of due diligence. We're very careful to make sure that people and we've often actually people come in with the green cards at the hearing you know they've finally got them back and we collect all of them and file them as part of our records so we do the best that we can so sometimes things do slip through the cracks and but not often and there has been no prior hearing on any of this so at least the good news is he was made aware and he has made his position known through written correspondence. All correspondence is part of our public record. You don't have to be present and testify for your comments to be considered as part of the public record. Now if we have pretty much concluded with this part this is one kind of action and one kind of decision. If in fact the decision agrees with counsel's perspective then the variance application will likely be moot. In other words they won't need variances, it should not have merged. If it's a denial then they will need to obtain variances in order to subdivide the property. That would require saying the lots are not conforming to the code to the size of the code and I'm going to open up that hearing because they've applied for those kinds of conditions as well alright as s sort of second I guess (inaudible). If the subdivision those variances are granted they still have to go before the Planning Board in order to get the subdivision. We would be applying permission to say we will allow two non-conforming lots, sizes and I think it's width or depth I have to look at my notes but these two lots would not conform to the current code for size. Then we have to look at different standards, we look at very different standards. We look at the bulk schedule, we look at (inaudible) so, hearing no further questions or comments is that correct about this application for an interpretation I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 14 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting HEARING #7353—VINCENZO and MARGHERITA POSILLICO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What that means is that our record's now closed, we heard everything we think we need to hear and we're going to then deliberate sometimes we manage to do it in two weeks at the next meeting, sometimes it's like a month later. A decision is written up and we vote just like you heard us here today. We voted on a decision, that's what the procedure is. The same thing will be true for the next one that's coming up and this is for the area variances. So this one is closed and I'm going to now move on to the area variances. This is application #7353. Again for the same applicants, Vincenzo and Margherita Posillico. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-14, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 20, 2019 amended August 22, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a two lot subdivision of merged lots and to legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) both proposed lots will be less than the code required minimum lot area of 40,000 sq. ft., 2) both proposed lots will be less than the code required minimum lot depth of 175 feet, 3) "as built" additions to the dwelling on Lot 1 is located less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet, 4) "as built" additions to the dwelling is located less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet. This is the lot with the house on it at 650 West Rd. and 719 Southern Cross Rd. in Cutchogue. And just for the sake of time I'm going to review what the variances are and that would be proposed Lot 1 which is also known as 43 on this plat. It would be 22,822 sq. ft., the code requires a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. Lot 1 number 43 would have a lot depth of 125 ft., the code requires a minimum of 175 feet and then on Lot 2 number 42 there would be 23,012 sq. ft., the code requiring a minimum of 40,000, the lot depth would be 125 feet again the code requires a minimum of 175 feet and then on proposed Lot 1 this is the house if subdivided the "as built" additions and alterations will have a non-conforming side yard setback of 11 feet from the property line the side property, the code requires a minimum of 15 feet and two a rear yard setback of 27.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet. Then there would be site plan approval required from the subdivision approval from the Planning Board. That's not a variance that's just another required action. So we're looking at six variances, two for lot area and depth and one for rear yard, one for side yard for the house. I think it's that second story deck that was put on. PAT MOORE : Well the variance is for an enclosed porch oh it has a deck above it yes and then also the rear deck I believe, the raised patio. I'll try to address them individually. The more simple variance here is for the existing house that has the enclosed first story room with a deck above it's a roof deck. Then also the above grade patio, it's really it's been described as a deck but it's really a patio raised patio. What we were able to decipher is that when the building permits were issued particularly in the nineties. I believe it was I have the C.O.'s there '92. It describes really it was a significant renovations second floor addition to the house; at the time January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting we're guestimating that the enclosure was made of the closed porch area and then the deck the raised patio deck in the back was also completed. I say yes because the paperwork at the Building Department was not often that complete. There was no current survey submitted with that application and it was describing what was previously there and how it was being renovated, altered and the second floor addition being added. It would not make sense given what was there pre-existing as contractor to be able to build on top of what was there. It was clearly replaced with more significant foundation and structure just very poorly described. What we found in our research when we tried to get all the C.O.'s for this house that Connie and her very thorough work that she does in the Building Department couldn't make heads or tails with the survey we had and comparing it to the C.O.'s that we had because of the 90's additions that was done. It just didn't match our survey so since we were coming to the Zoning Board for other relief it made sense to clean up the record and make sure that the enclosures are all covered under this variance and that the deck is also included in this variance. Again in the 90's the application of the zoning code was that once there was a structure you could continue to build at the distance of the existing structure so it appears from the old survey that the original structure was 11 feet from the property line and also the same distance in the rear yard there was a structure. So when Mrs. Froley renovated and put major additions to her house she just had everything she didn't need variances so it didn't come in for a variance at that time. So the first application that I'm addressing right now is for the existing structures to be able to get C.O.'s for their alterations and close out all the proper permits on this house. The house has been there again since the 90's. It is consistent with the setbacks of the existing structure that had been there and we hope that you will grant the variance so we could close out our C.O.'s. We put an application for building permits and C.O.'s but we can't close them out until the variance is granted. So that's with respect to the existing house. Now with respect with area variances for the separation of the lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2 that would be tax map 42 and 43. In this case Lot 1 is 43 and Lot 2 is 42. 1 submitted to the Board as an exhibit to the application the character of the area as well as the size of lots in this area and the first exhibit that I provided was the subdivision of Eastwood Estates. So to the north of Southern Cross you have lots that are 140 X 160 in size. That is the predominant size of the lots in that area, we have a very well developed fully developed neighborhood of very small undersized lots. The second exhibit I provide is Mobias Associates minor subdivision that was done in '82 and that too was the subdivision which created a non-conforming lot and that too is provided for the Board as an exhibit. These were waterfront lots, they are the lots that are south of East Rd. An additional subdivision that was granted for John Wickham that was done in 1990. Those also are non-conforming lots as to width and they are both waterfront lots that was granted. Another lot subdivision these are one acre lots in 1979 north of East Rd. that was another subdivision that was granted. What I also did is there were variances granted for the creation of some of these lots including the parcels that are south of Southern Cross, they're actually the 16 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting adjacent property owners, there were two subdivisions and two area variances. One in 1977 that created the Inez Moone subdivision. It was actually taking the subdivision of Harry Lister, that was the subdivision that created the subject lots. Our property is actually the combining of two lots of the four lot subdivision. So you have the original Harry Lister subdivision that creates the existing house and the adjacent lot which is part of now this parcel. It comprises of what is proposed Lot 1 the 22,822 acre parcel is the combination of the W. Harry Lister subdivision Lot 3 and 4. Then our proposed Lot 2 which is 23,054 sq. ft. is the combined subdivision Lot 1 and 2 of Harry Lister. Those four lots are before you today to make them two lots and to the north the Kealy property is the formerly looks like Inez Moone which was Lot 6 of Harry Lister subdivision and then the lot owner of Bohan the Bohan property is shown as an existing house on Lot 5 of Harry Lister and also the re-subdivision of Inez Moone which was done in 1977. So these parcels were all the subject of prior subdivisions and interestingly again applying the exemption there is an exemption from a merging if the lots had previously gotten a variance. Well unfortunately every lot here or excuse me the lots to the north the Bohan and the neighbors both neighbors got prior variances so their lots are exempt from merging whereas the Posillico properties were part of the subdivision but they don't lot number wise did not appear on the variances. It was a little confusing because the ZBA did grant variance 505 for Harry Lister in 1962 and he made an application for permission to use property as separate lot would reduce frontage but (inaudible) three lots 6, 7, and 8 were the lots to the north and unfortunately the lots that he retained 1-4 didn't get included in that variance. Had it been included in the variance we wouldn't be here because it would be one of the exempt. Exemptions on merging is that if a lot had previously received variances. So again, these exemptions take out applications from your consideration. In our case all the lots to the north of us that were part of the Lister subdivision got a variance so they're exempt and these parcels for whatever reason at the time did not need to be included as variances. MEMBER DANTES : But wasn't that variance alternative relief? They didn't approve that whole application if you read that decision I believe. PAT MOORE : Sorry about that yes, the two on the north. I guess some of them ended up I didn't look at the combined Lister lots to the north. I don't know if they were ultimately what was done with them. I was dealing only with adjacent properties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat you know what, (inaudible) sixties and seventies. We have comments from Planning Board and they would have to be an agencies that would have to pipe in on this if these variances were granted and I'd like to give you an opportunity I know you've gotten a copy of their letter. Their (inaudible) to us as an involved agency we always ask for comments. It could be the Town Engineer, it could be the Planning Board as a matter of 17 r January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting procedure and would you like to address their comments because their comments basically are to deny the application. PAT MOORE : Well I have never seen the Planning Board on rare very rare occasion make a recommendation to grant a variance. In thirty years I've seen it once for a subdivision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you say why? PAT MOORE : Oh sure, because they're role as a Planning Board is to subdivide conforming lots not they don't consider any of the other factors that this Board considers with respect to granting area variances for the lots. You have to consider different standards than the Planning Board. The Planning Board will consider general standards where your Board considers character of the neighborhood all of the five standards that you're well aware of. So we're talking about two different sets of laws and standards that both Boards will independently review. I mean I can address if you have I don't know if I brought my entire file, if one of you has I can address it immediately the letter from the Planning Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the things they point out is that Lot 42 would need a 42% variance for area and Lot 43 would need a 43% variance. One of the standard we do apply is substantiality of the variance so they're pointing that out. PAT MOORE : Well if I can address that issue specifically. They are applying one acre zoning here. To the extent that you ask for a variance for a lot that is less than the one acre, it's going to be a degree of substantial relief. In this case we're asking for a little over half of the size of 40% but given the size again they look at a different standard. They don't look at the surrounding community and look at the size of the lots which I provided for you. Old subdivisions these are from the seventies and old decisions from the seventies and eighties up through the nineties because this area is substantially developed. There aren't very few if any large tracks of land left to be able to subdivide into anything other than standard one acre lots. This area Southern Fleets Neck Rd., West Rd. this is a very well developed neighborhood of old subdivisions that are quarter acre, half acre at most; half acre being the largest of the lots in the area. So our application is for lots that are comparable in size to the larger lots in the Fleets Neck area with many lots that are substantially less and half the size of our parcels. So as far as the percentage of the variance that's required they are applying one acre standards. It clearly cannot meet the one acre standard because none of the dimensional requirements could be applied on a half-acre so yes we do have a numerically substantial 40% however again character of the area is that we are conforming with the majority I would say a predominant development of the area. So we're talking apples and oranges when we're asking for the Planning Board for their recommendations versus the standards that you consider (inaudible) try to address the difference. I would also point out that as far as ground water and other public 9.$ January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting health safety issues, the vacant lot certainly could be developed with an IA sanitary system. That would be typically a condition of any subdivision approval today or the Board as well has imposed that as a condition which would be a significant positive feature of any development of this property. The existing house,already has a sanitary system and everything is functioning. We could certainly put a condition on that and if the sanitary system was ever replaced it would be replace with an IA system or whatever comparable system might be available at the time. The existing house is staying as is. It clearly was developed and intended to be developed as fitting within the Lot 1. Lot 2 remains vacant and there are no structures on that property. The two parcels also have access road frontage on two completely different roads. You have Lot 1 as lot 43 has access to a right of way, that won't change and Lot 2 has direct frontage on West Rd. so that is I'm trying to remember if that's ,a public road or Fleets Neck Rd. I believe that's a public road. So it was originally and always intended to be developed with frontage on West Rd. as the Lister subdivision shows. The lots in, being reestablished then would be actually the combination of two lots that had previously been granted the subdivision approval. So again the Harry Lister subdivision had two lots on West Rd. now it has one and two lots off of the right of way Southern Cross and now it is one. (inaudible) propose to continue to be one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At this point let's see if the Board has some questions, anything from anybody?Anything from anyone in the audience? EDITH KEALY : My name is Edith Kealy at 575 Southern Cross. I know that when the attorney characterized the neighborhood she's describing small older homes. I believe that the house right next door that is exactly adjacent to this property was recently sold for a tremendous amount of money. One of my concerns is that I know when we bought our house we had to pay based on what we paid for the house we had to pay into the Peconic Land Trust and my kind of math calculations says that these people who recently within the past month bought the house right next door probably paid about $30,000 into the Peconic Land Trust. One of the reasons was and it was given to us was that they want to preserve open space to limit development. Now these people a month ago buy this house and now next to them right next to them these are substandard lots and I just I don't think that's fair. I think that the neighborhood is not I'm not saying that there aren't small houses but a lot of the houses are on a lot bigger lots than I believe was described. MIKE KEALY : Mike Kealy at '575 Southern Cross. I just want to ask about the in the statement "as built", this summer they renovated the whole house. So in getting permit to renovate why would it need wouldn't it have come up then and why would we be redoing something that shouldn't have been done in the first place? I don't understand that, that's one thing. Two, he's removed some vegetation between our lots and his back yard and now it seems very close. They took a little bit of the buffer away so when people were working I could hear them. I think 19 1 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting I can tell you what their conversations were but now to make the I guess to make a permit is probably what you do but what you're doing is you're making if you keep going down this road you're going to have row houses and the idea of going through the histrionics of the past of the seventies and eighties and to say okay well they did it then so you gotta do it now is making two wrongs a right. This is the here and now you know let's keep it as it is you know. Let's not change things that's it. DAVID HOWE : David Howe from 970 West Rd. I have to agree with Edith. I realize that Pat did a lot of work in researching but the immediate area around West Rd. particularly West Rd. and to the south I would say that more than half of those houses have much bigger properties my one included. MEMBER DANTES,: (inaudible) two properties as they exist. Single properties as they exist or two properties as the bigger properties are they bigger than the proposed subdivision or bigger than the property that exist today? DAVID HOWE : I believe they're bigger than the proposed. Some of them are double properties that were joined were merged. Some of them were there around when the Fleets still owned most of it. I agree also I think if we try to preserve land and open space to have two non- conforming properties that could essentially be two houses. It would be inconsistent with the goals of the town, and it would also affect the neighborhood, it definitely would affect the character. MEMBER DANTES : Would you say the character if it has changed since the variance we granted in the sixties and the seventies? DAVID HOWE : Absolutely. MEMBER DANTES ; Why? DAVID HOWE : Well because there's a lot more houses than there were then and the houses themselves are of different styles, different sizes. I think in some cases it actually improved the neighborhood cause the neighborhood is a very unified neighborhood, very friendly. The neighbors understand that the neighborhood and they respect their neighbors and I think in that way yes it did change. Prior to that I think there it was a bit more a lot more rural. I think that at the time and Harry Lister is a good example. Harry tried to do a lot of things. He tried to slip underneath the law. He tried to bamboozle people, he did a lot of things that were that thank God the town actually kind'of stopped him in many of those things some of them they did not because he was able to get them through but Harry was not a nice man. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? 201 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have a question. Pat could you indicated where the septic is on guess it's Lot 1 the site of the residence number 43? PAT MOORE : Do you know where it is? What I'll do is give you a little star on my surveys. It's in the front what would be considered the front yard. Just from the client it's where the pipes the direction of the pipes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the question then, what is this here? Here it says concrete cover, on other surveys it says CP which I thought was for cesspool perhaps. PAT MOORE : The old well pump. There's public water now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then here you're saying this is it's a well pump. PAT MOORE : It's a well pump. VINCENZO POSILLICO : Vincenzo Posillico, wire come out it's a pipe that come out that used to be a well, well water and lift it up the cover see what's in there it's a wire with the pipe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that operational now or no? VINCENZO POSILLICO : No. PAT MOORE : There's public water. PAT MOORE : I just would like to respond to the size of the (inaudible) the change of the neighborhood since the seventies when the subdivision was granted, in looking at the tax map the larger I actually put a check on lots that I thought looked larger or that had a lot number that reflected some form of a subdivision and I actually gave you as an example the lot to the on the waterfront which was a subdivision tax lots 1, 10, 7 & 8 was a subdivision; subdivision of 18.2 & 18.4, for the most part the two proposed lots just in examining the tax map just dimensionally there I would say ninety percent of the area here is either the same size or substantially smaller lots. I have a tax map for your records, I know you have the same information. So to the extent the character of the neighborhood changes. There are people that buy homes now or tend to be building much larger homes. That's fine the value of the properties certainly reflect that. I would point out that these two properties have paid taxes since the date they were created in the seventies. They have paid all the taxes the real estate taxes, they have paid for the town services as two separate parcels so and when Mr. Posillico purchased the property he too paid the Peconic tax that was required. So everybody contributes to the Peconic tax whether they like to or not. It is used for purchasing the open space but the open space that is being purchased is being done through development rights and through you know negotiation. It's not very little condemnation as being applied so these 2 T January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting two lots have since the seventies been paying double for all the services, all the benefits that everybody pays so they have paid their share and have continued to pay separate tax bills. The town and the county all recognize these two parcels as two separate parcels and that and as I pointed out the size of the properties are comparable to the surrounding community. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're very, very late. PAT MOORE : Well these were two very first being a very complicated applications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's why you (inaudible) time. PAT MOORE : If you have any other questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I do. On this other survey, map that was done in 2007 we just talked about that concrete cover. This says it's a CP cover. PAT MOORE : That's a surveyor yeah the surveyor misidentified. My client you can swear him in if you need to just from his own observations we would go with his observation. The fact is that the cesspool is in the front so that would be a very unusual to have a cesspool back there. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It also shows on this that the property that is now grass covered was a wooded area. So since 2007 1 don't know where the trees went but it's obviously all greenery now on that property. So it has been taken care of, it hasn't been left as woods. PAT MOORE : Oh no, no, no it hasn't no structures have been put on it that's my clarification. Yes it actually has you know some water views to MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just want to make note of it because the new survey does not show anything. This old survey does show that at that time in 2007 it was wooded property. MEMBER DANTES : What's underneath that cover then? PAT MOORE : My client testified that it's a well head or well electric pump. MIKE KEALY : In response to the wooded area, it was just done recently since Mr. Posillico bought the house. He cleared all that out and he cleared out some stuff from the back just wanted to point that out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's when grass was planted? MIKE KEALY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? 22 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEBMER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7356—ROBERT and STEPHANIE SWING CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert and Stephanie Swing #7356. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 19, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory swimming pool and to legalize an "as built" second story deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) swimming pool located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1745 Bay Shore Rd. (adj. to Pipe's Cove) in Greenport. Is there someone here to represent the applicant? JASON SIMMONS : Hi my name is Jason Simmons from Jason and Bill's pools. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this proposed pool we got an LWRP on this we should have. MEMBER DANTES : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it's inconsistent, of course. This proposed swimming pool is located 10 feet from wetlands which is the bulkhead and it's within a FEMA flood zone. We don't even know on the survey which is not your fault but the surveyor did not put what the base flood elevation was on that survey. The recommendation is if a pool is to be approved at all needs to be with greater setback out of the flood zone. JASON SIMMONS : From the wall or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bulkhead. January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting JASON SIMMONS : The bulkhead, okay. Now on the other side of the bulkhead I measured myself it's like a 38 inch drop from there so we are as far as you're talking about the height of the pool or you're talking about the distance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The base flood elevation, one is the distance which is a 10 foot distance that's easy. The base flood elevation has to do with sea level rise and where the flood zones are located and that's a different kind of calculation. Surveyors should do that. The LWRP is a document that says it's consistent with local waterfront revitalization program, the coordinator is Mark Terry and we cannot rule anything we can't grant anything that's not deemed to be consistent. Now what we can do is make conditions and post conditions of approval or provide alternative relief that we would then say this mitigates the inconsistency and so we can make it consistent. You follow where I'm getting at? JASON SIMMONS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so we have to see what can be done if anything to get this thing out of a flood zone and I guess we really need to know where the exact measurement of that flood zone is. In the meantime what's before us is the fact that it's in a side yard. JASON SIMMONS : And it's 1.9% over lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct, so those are the two just for the audience the code allows a swimming pool to be in the front yard on waterfront properties provided it meets the principal setback. Say it's 25 feet for a house that's a principal setback. So if that pool was in their front yard 25 feet from the road it would be conforming it wouldn't need a variance it would not even be before us. It can be in the rear yard on waterfront properties but again it has to be setback 75 feet from a bulkhead and 100 feet from a bluff. They have a very small back yard. Do you know anything about this framed screened porch that deck addition? JASON SIMMONS : He said when he bought the house it was there so when we went to go get the permit obviously we have to get the engineer report and get everything legal. But he said it was there he didn't do that it was there when he bought the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Standard comment, I didn't do it. JASON SIMMONS : Now here it says that it's 19.1 feet from that, that's like a concrete wall. Are you saying that the minimal is 10 feet from that or you're saying is the minimum is 10 feet from the high tide? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh but they're not even conforming with those here's the thing, you probably need Trustees approval for this too by the way. 241 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting JASON SIMMONS : Which we did go through. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you got it? JASON SIMMONS : We got the approval, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got, do we have a copy of that? I didn't see anything. JASON SIMMONS : I do have that. We went through the Trustees first and we also did the D.E.C. approval as well. The Trustees basically said you have to go through D.E.C. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. JASON SIMMONS : So I don't know if that's we went through D.E.C. we got the approval from them. They said as long as you get the variance and you are approved for the variance for the 1.9% in the side yard then they would approve . CHAIRPERSON WEISMANA : Do you have anything in writing? JASON SIMMONS : I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they did not approve it yet? JASON SIMMONS : No they said you have to go through the variance before we approve it. They didn't give me no this is all verbal from her. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have the letter from the D.E.C? JASON SIMMONS : They didn't give me it was all verbal. I have like basically I applied, did the applications and everything and I spoke to the woman on the phone and she said they wouldn't go any further until we got the variance approval. MEMBER DANTES : The D.E.C. too? They didn't give you a letter of non-jurisdiction or they usually (inaudible) if they have jurisdiction or they don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no they do have jurisdiction. They're just not going to take action until they see whether or not we approve. JASON SIMMONS : I thought the Trustees was in there. Do the Trustees give us the Trustees sent us to D.E.C. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh so you don't have Trustees approval? The Trustees would have had a public hearing. JASON SIMMONS : No that never happened. Z5 M1 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WE-ISMAN : So you did not get their approval. Generally we would refer to the Trustees first if it has severe environmental impacts. This is not in the code, its internal policies to help property owners so you're not being ping ponged all over the place back and forth. We would generally make our.determination first subject to approval by the Trustees. Let's say we say okay, if they say no all bets are off. So we would say you have to go to the Trustees next, if they approve it it's fine. JASON SIMMONS : Would they refer me to the D.E.C. and then basically take themselves out of it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No they both have to act. MEMBER DANTES The D.E.C. goes first then the Trustees make their decisions. We usually make our decision.'after D.E.C. JASON SIMMONS : So if I get something in writing from the D.E.C. cause they said that they're not going to make'their decision until CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They won't make a decision until they see what we have very (inaudible) they're not going to do anything until and why would they? If we're saying no, what's the point. JASON SIMMONS: Yeah that's who I was talking to on the phone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you did not receive it? JASON SIMMONS : No the Trustees they wouldn't do anything until I get the D.E.C. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you've just inquired basically. JASON SIMMONS : Yeah I put the application in for the Trustees, they got back to me and said you have to go th,e D.E.C. I put that application in and then they said you have to go for a variance and they won't make a ruling until that. MEMBER DANTES : Did you submit the application to them? JASON SIMMONS :;To both the Trustees and the D.E.C. yes. MEMBER DANTES : Can you give us a copy of the D.E.C. application? JASON SIMMONS : I don't have it, I did not bring it. They won't give me anything in writing and they said they won't make their decision until I get the variance. MEMBER DANTES : We'll take a look at the application. 261 January 2,' 2020 Regular Meeting JASON SIMMONS : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So look, where you're proposing is clearly the open flat area that gets the most amount of sun. However, why would anybody want to build a swimming pool in a flood zone? JASON SIMMONS : The one thing we are doing with it is we are going to raise it out of the ground 18 inches. It's going to stay out of the ground: It's going to be out of ground by about 18 inches. We did the test hole, water is between like 4% and 5 feet so that's why another reason• why we're popping it out of the ground. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why you're in a flood zone. JASON SIMMONS : Yeah and it's all going to be one level. It's all going to be 4 feet so we're not going to have like (inaudible) it's more of a hangout area so they don't have to go into the bay right there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know why anyone would want to not go in the bay on bay front property say I need a swimming pool. Your house your option. Alright so look this is a 30 X 15 that's not little. It's a standard sized pool. JASON SIMMONS : So the actual water measurements cause we're doing an 18 inch copping so the water measurements are going to•be 12 X 24 but the setbacks have to be the outside of the copping. So it's a 15 X 30 the water is at 12 X 24. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you thought about rotating that so that it's tucked back at least to where the framed screened in porch is? JASON SIMMONS : You mean rotating it ninety degrees and tucking it in to that side there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. JASON SIMMONS : The one reason we didn't want to do that cause like you said the sun, on the side there there's huge trees that area with the house there as well it's zero sun. That's one of the reasons why we basically pushed it as far back on the way it is. We're,hugging the house, we're about 10 foot from the house right there, that was as close we.could basically do it to that side with everything that was over there. So that's the one reason we chose this location for sun. Just because the side yard is zero sun. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you got some landscape screening there too that's and it gets narrow and there's (inaudible) JASON SIMMONS : And that's where his electrical service comes in as well. 277 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just had to ask whether or not there was a reasonable alternative to what you're proposing. JASON SIMMONS : The electrical service runs over there, there is like all the air-conditioning. It would be very, very tight over there. The main reason was for the sun just because it really wouldn't get any over there without changing the landscaping. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from the Board? MEMBER ACAMPO'RA : No I would just like for the record to reflect that shed we all saw it is not on the survey. JASON SIMMONS : Yeah which I don't know when that was done. We were there December 23rd putting up the,sign and saw that there..I don't know what happened. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then also it doesn't appear to meet front yard setbacks. JASON SIMMONS :!The shed? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The shed. MEMBER DANTES : Your other problem is the shed would then increase the existing lot coverage. JASON SIMMONS : If I remove that shed would that be can we get that removed as part of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'd have to see what the impact of the cause the lot coverage is being increased by virtue of the proposed pool. JASON SIMMONS : Yeah it would add to the lot coverage which I don't (inaudible) without my knowledge. I can simply have that removed and not put it back. Would I need to then reapply or change or just write a letter with that cause I'll drop off the D.E.C. cause I have a copy of everything the D.E.C. and the Trustees. I'll drop that off, do you want me to get like a notarized letter from him saying that we'll remove that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if the Board was so inclined to grant this, if there was an approval it's a stretch to be honest we would just condition approval based upon removal of the shed and then it would be a legal obligation. So we don't need a letter but we would like to see your applications to Trustees and D.E.C. JASON SIMMONS : Okay you got it. 2$ January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you have examples of variances for similar relief in this general area? JASON SIMMONS : In that area I did Google Earth, there's only one other pool in that area. I couldn't find like a variance for that particular property but that is the only other pool. There's one other on that I think it's about three houses down that has a swimming pool, besides that I don't think there's any other poo'Is there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is this something you want to do more research on or are you comfortable with that answer? JASON SIMMONS : As far as more research saying is there a variance for that? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : For that vicinity or similar neighborhoods. JASON SIMMONS :.I can do similar neighborhoods? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's character of the neighborhood. It's very site specific. JASON SIMMONS : There was one pool I went to the town they said there were no variances for a swimming pool in that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER 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) 7-9T, January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting HEARING #7357-JOHN ARCARA and MICHAEL SCOPELLITE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John Arcara and Michael Scopellite #7357. This is a request for variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's September 19, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" accessory pool house at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 3905 Wells Rd. (adj. to Richmond Creek) in Reconic. JOHN ARCARA : John Arcara 3905 Wells Rd. Firstly, when we purchased the property there was a pool shed that was in the same exact location. It had a C.O. and started to rot out so we got a contractor to have it replaced. We asked them a number of times if we needed a permit and he said no so he con,tinued and he built it and we wound up getting a Stop Work Order. The existing shed was; approximately 100 sq. ft. and this one is about 128 sq. ft. so we only increased it 28 sq. ft. and we did not go towards the water side. It went I guess they call it upland or somewhere towards the road was the additional couple of feet that we added on to it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Could you just tell me which C.O. covered that structure. JOHN ARCARA : I don't think I have a copy with me but I know that I put one in that package for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll check the original application and office file and see. Just so you understand what the law why you got a Stop Work Order, is basically because once something is demolished the legality of it goes away it's extinguished. So that's why they said wait a minute you need a variance for the side yard location. MEMBER DANTES : It says (inaudible) shed addition to existing wood deck as applied for 7/27/98, Z25853 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's basically we all did the inspection and I was able to go around it was not open at the time and I think somebody might have been there but I didn't bother to knock on the door..I could just look in cause you could see just basically storage. JOHN ARCARA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No heat, no air-conditioning, one room. JOHN ARCARA : So the other thing I wanted to address is that originally 3® January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Basically what happened was you had a storage shed was in a conforming location and it looks like they built the deck later on and that's what put the storage shed in a non-conforming location. JOHN ARCARA : Well I didn't put the deck on that was all there but they explained to me when I purchased the house that because the deck was attached to the house and the storage shed was attached to the deck that it was considered like a renovation it was considered an addition not a separate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : accessory structure. JOHN ARCARA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Regardless it's in a side yard and it is an accessory structure. ,Was that height always the same height with the one you replace it? JOHN ARCARA : It's slightly higher. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah cause it has an exceptionally high profile from the street, the shed roof. JOHN ARCARA : Right, the back of it is the same height, the top went up a little bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because you slanted it. I don't have any questions, anybody else? JOHN ARCARA : I do have if you would be interested, I have two comps. One is on the block which is twice the size in the same location. It was approved for a variance and a building permit and also is an actual pool house. It has a kitchen, showers, bathroom and there was also another one that we CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's called a guest house; kitchen, showers. JOHN ARCARA : Well distinguished what it's called I originally filed the application for a pool shed and the girl in the office it can never be called a pool shed because of the size of it; 128 sq. ft. I don't think is that large for a shed. What I would like to do is have it called a pool shed rather than a pool house because in my opinion a pool house has running water and heat and you know a bathroom, a kitchen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not supposed to. A pool house is supposed to be able to have a half bath with an outdoor shower and a changing area, a sitting area. Unfortunately we've seen a lot of them I mean we now have the definition of a pool house. We didn't have one previously but it's not supposed to be something you could live in. It's not supposed to be 1 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting habitable space. Occasionally you know AC units allowed in a window or a wall whatever but it's not meant to be, there's electric you might have a small refrigerator in there for cold drinks or something around a swimming pool but people got very elaborate with them. Frankly I think this should be called a shed. JOHN ARCARA : Right and that's what I would like,to call it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then call it a shed. It is a shed, it can be located anywhere on your property for what:you're using it for. You're not going in there to change your bathing suit. I don't know why the Building Department even called it, accessory pool house because it's located by the pool. JOHN ARCARA : I had already filled out a storage shed and then they told me I should change it to pool house. So not knowing anything about this or doing it before I listened to them and I changed it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine, what we will do is make sure in the determination that it is corrected to read that it is a storage shed because that's what it is. JOHN ARCARA : Thank you I appreciate it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : May I ask a question? Relative to the C.O. that would seem to cover the original shed, where was the original shed located? JOHN ARCARA : Same exact location. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So when you whatever size that was whether it was 10 X 10 it was approximately 100'sq. ft. you've increased the footprint making it larger it's 16 feet long. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but he said it was 128 sq. ft. JOHN ARCARA : I believe it's 128 sq. ft. give or take. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 128 that's what I have. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So when we discuss the C.O. that was mentioned earlier in theory this C.O. should still (inaudible) the original structure or does this become CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No when something is demolished the C.O. is extinguished. So that's why he got a Stop Work Order. It's a new shed. He couldn't have just replaced in kind or enlarge it or anything because he needed a variance for its location. What I'd like to see happen here is that the C.O. that gets ultimately issued for this reflects the fact that it's a storage shed. 32 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting This really is not a pool house and you never intended it to be so I don't know how they decided probably cause it's just sitting on top of your pool. MEMBER LEHNERT : The doors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it opens it's a little more elegant looking than most sheds so they embellished. MEMBER DANTES : I mean how is it finished inside? JOHN ARCARA : The inside there's sheetrock on the inside. MEMBER DANTES : How are you going to finish the floor? JOHN ARCARA : There's a floor, there's a tile floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you have an outdoor shower right? JOHN ARCARA : Nowhere near that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not near that but you have an outdoor shower? JOHN ARCARA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're going to call it a storage shed with no heat, mechanical do you have electric in there? JOHN ARCARA : There's electric in there yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just electric. 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 ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. 33 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7360— PATRICIA A. GRADY, aka PATRICIA REDDINGTON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Patricia A. Grady a.k.a. Patricia Reddington #7360. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 23, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 240 Bittersweet Lane in Cutchogue. This is a proposed swimming pool. It's not waterfront property. The engineer's letter said it's in compliance with Chapter 236 of the storm water management code. It's located 148 foot front yard setback from Horton Rd., 87.3 feet setback from Bittersweet which is an unopened walking path. It's a double sized lot and it is basically located in the architectural rear yard is what we call it the house and I think you said Pat the subdivision that was developed at the time didn't really define rear yard. PAT MOORE : Unfortunately it would have been nice if it had yes. Yeah the house I think was the original house may have been there but in any case you pretty much restated all my points for the variance. 'It'll go very quickly I hope. This is the application unfortunately because anything built on this property is going to be subject to three street frontages. The variances are necessary but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the third frontage? PAT MOORE : I'm sorry two street frontage. The private road is it's other access point but it's in the back yard. MEMBER DANTES : I don't understand why that other right of way on the east side, does this house have access to that right of way? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really only a walking path but the Building Department always determines despite my telling them MEMBER DANTES : They use it but they don't have access (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is correct but I don't think (inaudible) and there are no vehicles allowed on that. PAT MOORE : Well it hasn't been opened so it's not I think the Building Department CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that right of way. I see what it is. 34 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : I think it was originally there, it's part of the original development. That's my memory but in any case yes this is the subdivision known as Maple, (inaudible) and Nassau Farms. So it was actually a re-subdivision of a prior subdivision. This actually is two lots of that subdivision and as you've already stated it has technical frontage on Bittersweet Lane and Horton Rd. because the deeds do not limit that access. The Building Department considers them front yards. If there was some (inaudible) that didn't give them a right to access then yes it would be considered the side yard. So it just predates all of those modification or restrictions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it set way back from everything. It's a huge piece of property and it's totally private. Anything from the Board, anyone in the audience? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I actually have one question cause I never heard the phrase, on the pool plan it shows the proposed pool but then it lists two sun shelves. What are sun shelves? PAT MOORE : Oh they're just covers. They're shade protections. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : In the middle is a hot tub. I thought it was some swimming pools have like a sun deck that's actually part of the pool a chaise lounge or something. PAT MOORE : Honestly you may be right. Some of them have a little bit of water that are like you can sit in the water but still be protected. I don't honestly MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the pool plan it didn't explain. PAT MOORE : I mean it shows you as a patio on this plan so I'm guessing it's a shade protection but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would presume so. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the pool it shows that there's a bench which I assumed is in the water which then I thought that the sun shelf is also in the pool. PAT MOORE : I don't have oh hi there you go. MICHAEL GRADY : Hi I'm Michael Grady. The sun shelf is just 4 inches of water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh 4 inches. MICHAEL GRADY : So you can put a lounge in as you sit in the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now we know, I never heard of that you learn something new every day. Anything from the Board, anyone in the audience besides Mr. Grady. Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? 35 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING #7358—PAUL and MARIA BLAZEK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board Paul and Maria Blazek#7358. A request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 30, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 670 Hickory Rd. in Southold. JOHN SBAGLIA : Hi I'm John Sbaglia the architect for 670 Hickory Rd. section 54 block 6 lot 7. My address is 1050 West Shore Rd. Mellville, New York. We're here to ask the leniency of 9.1 feet for the proposed rear deck, 40.9 feet from the rear yard property. The property is in the R40 district that requires the rear yard setback to be 50 feet. The properties range from 20,000 to 40,000 sq. ft. Our property is 20,473.2 sq. ft. and our coverage is 11.2%. The deck we're proposing is 14 X 22 feet (inaudible) framed with the level first floor and reducing this deck to meet the setbacks would make it only 4 feet wide which is not worth having at all. Any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I need to ask the obvious, why not a patio? JOHN SBAGLIA : They like it level to the house. There is a patio there now, you have to go out the kitchen down several steps. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's just two steps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's their preference that's all. With 11.2% lot coverage you know there's a little bit of a natural buffer along the rear property line from the other house of 36 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting course it's useless in the winter but then most people are not out on their deck anyway and you certainly won't be able to see it from the street or anything like that. Would it be a hardship to make it 12 foot deep and just increase that setback by 2 feet? JOHN SBAGLIA : My clients say no it's not a hardship. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It makes the variance just a little bit less that's all. Twelve feet is still a pretty usable deck. I mean when you start to get less than 10 feet you can get a table on it but 12 feet is alright. JOHN SBAGLIA : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rather than having you having hear affirmation on that rather than having you redraw this you will have to have another survey that shows the 12 foot instead of you know with the increased setback; we can grant this with alternative relief meaning instead of granting 40.9 we would do two more feet 42.9, two weeks wacked off two feet from 14 to make it 12 so the alternative relief would be 42.9. Does that make sense to everybody? It doesn't have any impact on anybody really and the house that's behind you is set way far back. JOHN SBAGLIA : There's only two properties behind. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You might want to consider putting in some evergreens. I don't think it warrants our conditioning approval based on that but just for your own privacy from your neighbors. If you're going to be using your back yard more intensely because of a convenient deck you just might want to do that, think about putting in some evergreens. Make sure they're deer resistant, green giant arborvitae trust me I know I live down the street. Anything else from the audience, anything from the Board? I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. 317 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting (See Minutes for Resolution) HEARING#7362— MARIETTA CARAVANOS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Marietta Caravanos #7362. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 31, 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) located less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 3700 Stars Rd. in East Marion. This is a demo and new dwelling, front yard setback at 34.6 code requires a minimum of 40, rear yard setback of 39.7 code requiring a minimum of 50 feet. PAT MOORE : I have Mr. Caravanos here today one of the property owners and Mr. Stromski who is the design professional the architect. I also have letters from the neighbors. You received one I believe by email but I'll just put the rest he has support from his immediate neighbors. It's always helpful. I provided for you just a since I didn't submit the application it was done by Mr. Stromski who very competently of course but I actually added a little extra information. In my memo I just point out that the unfortunately this is considered a well this is a non-conforming lot which would meet the non-conforming lot's setback requirements of 280-124 in that the non-conforming if it's over 20,000 then we get kicked in to the larger setbacks. Other variances that have been granted pointed out that when you're slightly kicked over unfortunately your now have to apply much larger setbacks and what would be applied in the lot that is just under 19,999. So in this instance we have the lot that is 20,871 which is only 871 sq. ft. over that 20,000. The setback for the smaller lots are 35 foot front and 35 foot rear. The requested variances are 34.6 front and 39.7 rear. It is very precise, Mr. Young is extremely precise when he is plotting the house and the additions and we have inches from compliance with 35 and 35 rear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have 34.6 PAT MOORE : We have 34.6 which is a half inch and 39.7. 1 checked with Mr. Stromski would it be possible to comply that half inch, I leave that up to the Board we're almost compliant so it's we're here anyway it would be nice to keep the plans just as they are. MEMBER DANTES : What do you mean almost compliant? PAT MOORE : Oh I'm sorry, almost compliant with the 20,000 lot size. 38 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the lot area? PAT MOORE : 20,871. The requirements for this size lot under the non-conforming are the 40 and 50. What I point out is if applying the 20,000 the undersized lot we would be more compliant yes. I did just for facts here the house itself is a modular, the garage is a stick built Mr. Stromski prepared plans for that for the construction of the garage attached garage and the rear balcony which is the setback requirement and the front yard porch required the variances and I believe you did that gets added on to the modular with stick built. I also provided comparable variances granted in the immediate neighborhood and I pulled up for 22-2-19 Appeal 2816 in '81 for a proposed front and rear yard variances. The Board at the time granted 26 feet for setbacks and 22-2-18 that got three variances. It started off with a rear yard setback of 30 feet and then a sun porch was added and the swimming pool in the side yard. So I provided those decisions the variances and the year. The area of Stars Rd. is well developed of non-conforming lots. I attached my research which is I apologize for the chicken scratch, it's all the variances that have been granted in that neighborhood but I only gave you the ones that I thought were more applicable but yes this are of Stars Rd. and Cedar and Willow Terrace that whole area is a non-conforming area requiring variances. So I provided that research for you as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I have one question more out of curiosity, there's a wrap around an eight foot you know deep porch front porch and it's one story so that's good because it's less impact than a two story; it wraps around to the side and there's no window on the side and there's no door on the side so it kind of goes around the side yard I'm just curious. It doesn't affect the variance because it's the front yard setback but I'm just curious. JACK CARAVANOS : Thank you for your time and Happy New Year, I'm Jack Caravanos partial owner of my mother's house. My mother is elderly, she's in a walker, she loves moving about and we felt aesthetically having something warp around going to the sun porch with a nice area that would be just aesthetically more pleasing. In putting a fireplace there was complicated. We were going to put a fireplace but that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the inside I presume. JACK CARAVANO : On the inside. PAT MOORE : So that changed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so the setbacks that are there now are just a little bit more conforming but only a little. It says 2.5 feet and 2.3 feet is that right do I have that correct? It says it's greater, does that mean it's more or less? When you say it's a greater I don't know what that means more conforming or less?They're slightly less. 39 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Non-conforming or conforming? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the new footprint bigger than the original? ROB STROMSKI : The new footprint is slightly larger than the original. You see on the survey the light gray line, that shows the existing footprint and porch and then you see what the proposed house is over it. So this footprint is slightly larger towards the front and rear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which means that it's slightly more non-conforming. PAT MOORE : Non-conforming, yes. Thank you for that clarification. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat while you mention that this is a modular home and I understand that there are certain limitations as a result of modular construction, it would seem that if the house was flipped the variances could be reduced or even just you wouldn't need a variance. The lot is wider it's 129 (inaudible) feet on the north versus the 111 on the south. So is there a reason why you know currently the driveway is on the south side, is there a reason why you wouldn't PAT MOORE : The code still requires a 40 and a 50 so the flip would not alleviate the need for a variance it might just reduce it slightly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think based on the map (inaudible) 30 foot wide house. MEMBER LEHNERT : Absolutely cause if you get rid of the front porch in the front you don't need the variance. I'm not saying get rid of it. PAT MOORE : Oh no, no yes but the porch is what causes the need for a variance. MEMBER LEHNERT : I mean my question if Nick didn't just ask it was, we have a blank slate here why are we asking for these variances more than what was there? PAT MOORE : Well keeping in mind the width of the house would still I mean you'd have a very narrow house. MEMBER DANTES : So (inaudible) it's not small. PAT MOORE : No but because it's a half acre you're applying the 40 and 50 front so I took 40 and 50 subtracted from 111 in think I came to 21. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) took the average of the two lot widths end up at 124 minus the 90 PAT MOORE : But you can't really do as an average, you have to really plot it and then see so 4® January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it still seems that the house at the widest at the narrow part of the land. One thought that could perhaps might be the case I don't know I think the applicant mentioned does your mother are there mobility issues or a necessity for the garage to be cause there seems to be an embankment also. JACK CARAVANOS : She's not very mobile. We felt aesthetically leaving that open space on the south the driveway there would be nice, company would come and park there and then our main entrance to the house would be on the other side where we would go up and you're right we would have to cut into the slope and pull into the garage, a small ramp going into the kitchen of the house and then my mother could move about. So I think we tried not to change the layout of the house. My mother likes the front door there and a little driveway on the right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you remove the second floor deck, how many feet would that cause that would be a more conforming rear yard setback. PAT MOORE : Well the balcony is only 4 foot depth. I mean we are we have all open undeveloped land behind so it is a very minimal variance. We hate to change people's design. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to ask you a little bit about that road that's on the back of the property, there's no access you don't use that at all but what road is that? Is that a private road? JACK CARAVANOS : It's a very large piece of land and that's a-private road that goes to the main house which is on the Sound. It's a gravel road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a long private road. JACK CARAVANOS : Yes it's a gravel road we hear the cars as they it's not paved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a big open piece of property behind you. JACK CARAVANOS : Billy Joel used to own that property years back but I think it's just been sold too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know the lots in the area are all developed with one and two story houses, there's an awful lot of non-conformity there. I don't think that they're that egregious what I would like to see however is the installation of an IA system a sanitary system that is now more upgraded and not a standard septic. We are generally as a rule requiring that any brand new construction, put in the more advanced wastewater treatment system. It's just as important for your properties health and wellbeing and welfare of the town and eventually I'm hoping the Town Board will change the code to require it as a matter of you know protection for groundwater quality and so on. So just be aware of the fact that this is kind of 41 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting the standard, Trustees are doing the same thing. It would really be tragic to have any new construction now put in,an old fashioned system where nitrogen leaching is a big deal. PAT MOORE : That's fine. JACK CARAVANOS : Point well taken and I'll definitely explore that. I'm not familiar with that system. I want to be (inaudible) the environment (inaudible) that's my business and PAT MOORE : Let me clarify on the shed, yes thank you. Our getting a permit for that shed, what happened is there was delay getting the plans from the shed company so now that we just actually just got the plans but the Building Department wanted us to make a decision of either get rid of it or do something with it and since we didn't have plans CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot coverage is not an issue, (inaudible) conforming location just get a C.O. for it. PAT MOORE : Exactly so that is part of that's in the progress and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're okay if we just put that in the decision? PAT MOORE : Yeah, get a permit for the shed yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I just want to share something, I personally know whether the Board members know this or not or even the property owner, there is a right of way that's behind the subject,property that runs literally the length of Stars Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what I asked about. JACK CARAVANOS : Oh the driveway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The driveway you asked about services the house on the Sound but there's a five foot wide right of way. JACK CARAVANOS : Yes I can address that. That is actually you're correct it's a right of way that starts at the before the (inaudible) turn and it's made for access to a private beach for land owners on Stars Rd. PAT MOORE : Pedestrian access. JACK CARAVANOS : Yes pedestrian access and we have a concrete wall and a stockade fence and that is it's sort of overgrown cause no one takes care of it but you're right that is a right of way. Then beyond that is the property owners access road. I'm sorry and that won't be touched. 47- January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it's on the neighbor's property not yours so I just wanted to let the Board know about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no one else in the audience. Any other questions from the Board, Pat any? PAT MOORE : No thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. (See Minutes for Resolution) 43 January 2, 2020 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. a v Signature alizabeth Sakarellos DATE : January 8,,2020