Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/09/2020 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York July 9, 2020 10:04 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 MATT HOGAN —VHB Consultant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney LOUIS BEKOFSKY—VHB Consultant ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant i July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Aleksander Myftarago#7346 3 —4, 29—32, 51- 55 Rhoda M. Urman and Stephen Spiller#7383 4- 9 Paul M. Fried and Elizabeth O'Brien Fried # 7386SE 9 - 13 860 Bayview Drive, LLC#7386 13 - 17 Minton Irrevocable Trust#7388 17 - 20 Maureen Benic#7389 20 - 23 Eric Frend #7370 23 - 26 Anthony Nappa #7406 26- 28 Solutions East, LLC# 7379 32150 Alexandra Baumrind #7393 55 - 63 Alexandra Baumrind #7394 55 - 63 Rimor Development, LLC., Harvest Point Condominium #7398 63 - 67 Erik Smith #7400 68 -70 Hard Corner Properties, LLC#7387 70- 86 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting I HEARING #7346—ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first item agenda is for Aleksander Myftarago #7346, because this was heard on January 2nd and that was so long ago I'm going to read the Legal Notice in to the record again. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 124 and the Building Inspector's July 30, 2019 Amended January 17, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" accessory garage and demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) accessory garage located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 3 feet, 2) accessory garage located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 3 feet, 3) construction more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%. The property is located at 135 Oak Place in Mattituck. I believe we have the agent with us. No we don't have Jeff Zahn. There seems to be nobody here. He has submitted material but he is not apparently on line unless this is someone on the telephone. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to enter what the variance relief is into the record and then I'm going to ask to let's see the next hearing is scheduled for 10:10. It is 10:08. Why don't you see if one of our staff is'going to try and get'a hold of the architect for Mr. MyftaA rago, and meanwhile I'm going to enter into the, record ' because this is again being recorded so we will have'_a record of it. What the variance relief requested is, this is'to legalize an "as built" accessory garage with a side yard setback at 1 foot 5 inches where the code requires a minimum of 3, a rear yard setback of 0.2 inches where the code requires a minimum of 3 feet and lot coverage that is currently on the property is 24.9% whereas the proposed is 27.45%. When we hear from the architect I want to simply confirm that that-is correct but that is what is 'before the Board,at this time. So if we don't have that individual I'm going to make a motion to suspend this hearing until the agent is available. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Should we ask if there's anyone in the audience that wants to comment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would rather wait until we have the 'presentation by the applicant first. It sometimes clarifies things enough so that questions go away. So let's wait to have any discussion on the application until all present are here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry Leslie you're just going to adjourn it in the sense for-this morning for later? We're going to try to squeeze it in maybe after lunch? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we'll try and rearrange it. I mean the applicant has been waiting ' a very long time and who knows what's happened,to Jeff Zahn but he did submit very detailed additional plans, photographs-and so on'that I don't feel it's appropriate for us to discuss it without the,presence of either the applicant or their agent. So let's hold off on that, hopefully 3 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting he will join us later. If not we will have to simply adjourn to a later date. Liz were you able-to get a hold of Jeff?, CLERK TYPIST SAKARELLOS I called both the applicant and the architect and there was no answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN`: Alright, why don't I just adjourn this to a later'time and if they come in today then we'll hear it today. If they do not we will adjourn it to the next meeting. So I'm just going to adjourn this to a later time-today is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Member Lehnert seconds the motion, Kim will you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acompora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I vote aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acompora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY ; Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye, motion carries. HEARING#7383— ROHDA M. URMAN and STEPHEN SPILLER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rhoda M. Urman and Stephen Spiller#7383. This is a request fora variance from Article XXIII'Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 11, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 85 Lake Court in Southold. Matt can you please promote the architect Erich Schoenenberger to a panelist. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MATT HOGAN : Lou already did. Mr. Schoenenberger you should be able to unmute and speak now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just take one second, we did receive your additional information very helpful drawings color sketches over elevations. I just want to enter into the record. BOARD SECRETARY : I'm going to share the screen also if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea you can bring that up but I want to review that this is an application for additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a front yard setback at 15 foot 113/8 inches where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. it's a corner lot on Lake Drive and Lake Court. Now it's up to you Erich. ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : Okay, Kim will you be able to share the screen or should I just assume that you CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we've all seen it but the public might want to and it would be great for us to look at it together, then we'll welcome any comments you'd like to make. ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : Thank you for hearing our application. So this is Rhoda and Stephen have purchased this house about a year ago and are intending to be out there quite often as they're getting older and want to outfit the house somewhat better for their needs. So one of the curious aspect of this house is that it has a lower level that is smaller has a relatively large overhang than the upper two stories, the top and the first floor as I would call it. No that's not it Kim is it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it is. ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : Okay, right do you have that PDF I sent? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes she does. ERICH SCHOENENBERGER,: Okay so one of the things we wanted to do is, on the ground floor filling the overhang area and essentially'being able to bring those windows that are for that lower level out to the same perimeter as the existing house. This would not increase the footprint of the house in any way, not change the look of the house much other than that it doesn't have that dark damp and often kind of that musty area underneath the house plus it will enable Rhoda and Stephen to use the ground floor better the lower level better. There is no addition of rooms. We're not creating any additional rooms. It's simply those two bedrooms that are downstairs currently are super small and we're basically extending them or hoping proposing to extend them to the perimeter of the existing footprint of the upper floors. Again, July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting no enlargement of the footprint as I see but we're filling in the area underneath that's currently a large overhang. It is framed currently by columns that hold up the upper floors that are quite substantial so when you look at the images that I sent it appears almost that the house is already that perimeter. Then the second aspect that we want to do is we want to have a front balcony on the north side where they=re able to actually basically sit out and have the view of the sea. Why it's there is because this is sort of the only area in the ground floor that we can do it that is adjacent to the or is connected to the living area and that's why,we're hoping to make you there. It's going to be in style of the house, it's going to be nothing obstructive. Then in the back currently in the back we have a patio deck and we wanted to enclose that into a screened in patio deck because as you might all know there's a lot of mosquitos out there and they would just hope to enclose it.' In the PDF I sent I marked hopefully quite clear with different colors where enclosing, where the balcony be and where the sunroom would be and I also added some of the drawings that we have submitted and marked on the drawings where these three items are. The other aspect I wanted to make is that the property line is actually quite far away from the road and maybe that's what threw us off in the beginning that the road is actually the edge of the road is actually 35 feet away from what we're doing. However of course that doesn't matter in terms of the legalities. I just wanted to make that point that the house is actually fairly set back from the road as it is. That concludes what I would have to say right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware Erich, every.Board member has inspected the property and the surrounding neighborhood personally. We do that for every application prior to a public hearing so we'-re all familiar with what it looks like. Lake Court is clearly a very small private dead end right into Great Pond. ERICH SCHOENEN BERGER: It's a cul de sac. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It"s a cull de sac. There's one other house involved and a lot of wetlands on the other side quite quiet and private. Okay let me see if the Board has any questions, we'll start with Eric, anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : Yes, Eric Dantes, it looks like the current property has the benefit of a Zoning Board of Appeals 4405 in 1996 and another variance from 1977 is that how the existing structures have legal status? ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : I would think so. I didn't fully research that. I, know that all the documents we had from the town showed the structures as it is now so we were assuming it was all part of the file. So we were assuming it was all,properly filed. 6 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMER DANTES : Okay so it legally exists at its present location and you're asking us just to modify the existing setback?Those are my only two questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anyone else from the Board have any questions, Nick, Rob, Pat? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have a question. So relative to those prior ZBA variances and I thought I had them in my file. I remember looking at them when I originally looked at the application but I'm wondering Kim do you have ,access to them because I believe there was verbiage about the reason why the lower level I guess the basement level was left open and not to be filled in and as is the case of many of our decisions today will explain better in our conditions that something should be left in its state. I just went through my papers and I can't find that decision but I thought there was in fact commentary about the reasoning why that area that the applicant describes as a musty outdoor space was in fact left open. BOARD SECRETARY : Okay 4405 and I'm just looking through the file to see. MEMBER DANTES : I (inaudible) was a lot line change. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the one we're looking for is 2314. All I have is a Certificate of Occupancy stating that the variance exists. BOARD SECRETARY : I have 4405 1 don't seem to have the other one in here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only one that was cited in the application was in fact 4405 but perhaps this is something that I pulled up on my own and I looked at it on line versus being submitted with the application but there was a prior of July 1977. BOARD SECRETARY : This was change lot line increase size of non-conforming lot. MEMBER DANTES : That one is 4405 and that's in 1996 but what we have is a Certificate of Occupancy that states that there was a variance in 1977. 1 don't have a copy of the variance in my packet. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have it up on my computer if you would like me to read it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Go ahead. BOARD SECRETARY : What do you have? 7 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : 2314 1 looked it up in Laser Fiche. Dated July 19,- 1977, permission to construct dwelling with insufficient setback in rear yard location property Lake Drive, Lake Court Southold bounded on the north by Lake Drive, south of (inaudible) west by Lake Court. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So apparently that's how they go the non-conforming setback approved. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Resolved granted permission to construct dwelling with insufficient setback in rear yard with the following condition, the main house shall be no closer than 32 feet to Lake Court, no closer than 16 feet to the southerly line adjoining Sunricker and no closer than 12 feet 3 inches to the easterly side line.That was stamped August 26, 1977. ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : There was a point that there was a reason why so is there anything about because I was curious myself, was there a reason why that lower level wasn't (inaudible)? MEMBER DANTES : In 1977 they just wrote like a brief paragraph. They didn't actually draft all decisions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And maybe it was something from the Trustees that I read and in either case I was just wanting to verify because I couldn't find the decision that I had previously seen so unless anyone has any opinion I'm fine with that variance the 2314 as it was written. I just thought there was mention at some point and perhaps it's in a Trustees document but my mistake, I don't have anything here so I'm kind of at a bit of a loss but that was my only thought to inquire about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the point is the subject property was you know has received prior variance relief. We can assume if it has the C.O. that it is existing in its current state legally and they have to summarize the applicant and the architect for the applicant is not proposing to change the existing footprint but rather to fill in the overhang. Is that correct Erich? ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : That's correct yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Okay. So anything else from the Board? We all know what the character of the neighborhood looks like and the percentage of relief requested. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? Let me look at the attendees and see whose here. It would appear that there's no one here for this particular application. Hearing no further comments or questions from the Board or from anyone in attendance I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Sec'ond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Lehnert seconds the motion. Kim would you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. Thank you Erich. We'll have a decision for you at the Special Meeting next week July 16tH - ERICH SCHOENENBERGER : I'll be able to see that meeting correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes of course. HEARING#7385SE—PAUL M. FRIED and ELIZABETH O'BRIEN FRIED CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Paul M. Fried and Elizabeth O'Brien Fried #7385SE. I believe Member Planamento is recused so Nick would you please MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm going to turn everything off. If you can buzz me I'd like to,come back in obviously. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN --.-Of course. I'm going to read the legal notice into the record.This is a--' request for a special exception under Town Code Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicants are the owners-of subject property requesting authorization to legalize an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure located at 1050 Hyatt Rd. in Southold. I believe we have people here let's see. MATT HOGAN : They've already been promoted and they're on screen and ready. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ; There's so many things on my screen, I have board members on one side, I have a survey on the other side and I have seven prompts. Okay let's go to the applicant then and hear what they want to say. This is an accessory apartment in a two story two car garage. There was a certificate of occupancy 35224, 10/20/11 with second story non-habitable storage, that was for the garage. That was ZBA#6517 on 11/7/11 granted the second story deck to a non-habitable garage and suddenly we have an accessory apartment which we have all inspected by the way. So let's hear how that accessory apartment came to be and what the applicants have to say about their intentions for using the existing apartment so that it can be legalized. ELIZABETH FRIED : Good morning, I'm Mrs. Fried. When we purchased the property in 2015 it was as it is right now. The garage apartment was there it was existing. We did look back at the records and I see that the prior owner got all the approvals to build the accessory structure you know put in electric I mean there-was even a permit for air conditioning and a generator but she didn't finish the job and we wanted to legalize it. It's really just for the use of our family. l Our children use it when they are here. We didn't really prepare any big presentation. It is what it is and just one thing that we did want to point out is that we did put in one of those new septic systems. We got a grant from the state and from the county and that was installed in June and that hooked up the garage and the house to one system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a couple of questions, I jusit want to indicate that you are in conformity in terms of the livable floor area 692 sq. ft. We have in our file an affidavit of principle residency which is a requirement for having an accessory apartment. I understand that ,you also live in the city like a lot of folks. I -think you simply declared that you're in Southold more than you are actually in the city at this point, is that true? MRS. FRIED : That is true. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You submitted an affidavit but it was not signed or executed. We simply have a blank copy with the information in it-unless Kim you have anything.more recent than what I have. MRS. FRIED : We submitted signed and notarized affidavits. 10 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's why I'm asking the Board Assistant to check our office files. They may have a different version than what every board member gets a copy as you probably know of every application so we have our individual ones but the file in the office has absolutely everything in it so I'm just having her check right now. She's got it with her to see what's in the record there. It's easy to fix if that's the case but we should have it if you think you submitted one that was executed we need to get a copy of that that's all. Now you're not -particularly renting this out to anybody?Your intent is to just let any of your children use it? MRS. FRIED : We have never rented it out nor do we intent to rent it out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're not really establishing a rental agreement with anybody. Are any of your children or is one specific individual I think you said your son possibly is going to live in it? MRS. FRIED : Well I didn't have a formal rental agreement with our you know we didn't'have an agreement with our children but we were requested to submit a lease with the application so we did prepare a lease and submitted that for our kids for a hundred dollars a year. BOARD SECRETARY : I do have the affidavit signed and notarized. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know how it is that I got a copy that wasn't but in any case we have,it. MRS. FRIED : I think we did that the same day that we submitted it so maybe the copies that went with the copies didn't have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I bet that's what happened. Okay let's see what the Board had, anything from you Pat?, MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just want to make sure that the applicants are aware that the Special Exception permit needs to be renewed every year. MRS. FRIED : Yes I read that in the ordinance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : No I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick oh I forgot he's recused, Rob? MEMBER-LEHNERT : I have one question which you guys answered about, the septic system but I still like to see where it is on the survey and 'get a copy of the approval from Suffolk County. 1,1 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MRS. FRIED : Yes well we just did it in June so we haven't received we received. the letter of approval and they were waiting for the as built survey and they will finalize it. I will probably have that in the next week or two. MEMBER LEHNERT : The approval letter from Suffolk County and also you know the survey submitted to them showing the septic system and showing it tied into the apartment. MRS. FRIED : Yes we can provide that. I don't have it from the engineer yet but they did come out and do a physical inspection. 'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's great. MRS. FRIED.: It was a big job it was a really big job and very expensive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but you're going to be preserving not only your property and the surrounding properties but Long Island Sound by doing that. MRS. FRIED : Yea that's why we did it. It was definitely worth it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good for you we should all be trying to do that wherever possible. Anybody else in I don't know if there's anyone else I have to look and see if anybody is in the participants, I don't think so. Nope nobody else is here to speak about this application. Alright, hearing no further questions or comments from the Board or anyone in attendance I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a letter of approval from Suffolk County Department of Health and a survey showing the location of the IA system. Is there a second to that motion. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Member Acampora I will second the motion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please call the roll Kim. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you'vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Board Dantes votes Aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? 12 _ r July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Motion carries. So the hearing is closed. We will have a decision for you actually in a week if we get the information. If not we'll have it at our next monthly meeting because we won't be taking anymore comments or testimony, we just need what we asked you to submit to us. So the soonest you get that if you get it to us if you're able to get it to us in the next week we should be okay: We have a meeting on Thursday in the afternoon MEMBER LEHNERT : Can we make a decision Thursday and just leave it pending receipt of documents? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a little unorthodox but we could. MRS. FRIED : I'm sure I can get those to you before'that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what, if you can't let Kim know and we'll do everything we can to just move this forward. People have been waiting so long we all have. We may just close it and condition it based upon entering them into the,record. We can,put that down, as a condition if we don't have it. Very good so thanks so much we're going to move on to the next application, would you please bring Nick back in'. HEARING#7386—860 BAYVIEW DRIVE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 860 Bayview Drive, LLC, #7386. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15F and the Building Inspector's January 6, 2020. Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" accessory garage at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 860 Bayview Dr. (adj. to Spring Pond) in East Marion. I believe we have Mike Kimack as the agent who should be calling in I think. Matt do you know whether one of these phone calls or is he already on is this ***? LOU BEKOFSKY : Leslie Joseph this is Lou Joseph is on he's unmuted, we can.ask to turn his video on. We can ask if Michael is also on, he's not listed but he may be one of the phone numbers. BOARD SECRETARY : He said he would be calling in so he has to be one of the numbers. MATT HOGAN : Michael we're going to unmute the phone number ending in *** first and if that's you go ahead and identify yourself please. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack, agent for the applicant. Do you hear me? 33 July 9,2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can:"Let me just say that the accessory garage is let's see it's supposed to be code required side yard setback of 40 feet and it's at MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Front yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so it's 36.6 feet and the code requires 40 feet. MIKE KIMACK : There were two on that basically. The garage itself if you look at the survey, the garage setback to the corner was 38.6 which is 1.4 feet over but the eaves overhang which is supposed to not exceed more than 2 foot into the front yard was at 36.6 and it should have been 38.6. So between the garage and the eaves overhang there's about 3 sq. ft. that we're requiring the legalization of. If you look at the survey and what made it difficult I guess it's not an excuse per say but Knoll Circle is very curvy at that particular point and I guess when they laid it out they didn't realize exactly where the curve ultimately began and ended because they have it at 41.4 for the most part and they came around and unfortunately a portion a very, very small portion 3 sq. ft. and 3 sq. ft. for the overhang went into the front yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Got it. This is a pretty straightforward small variance. MIKE KIMACK : I also for your help also I put together a bunch of variances that you had previously done, prior decisions.There were six of them in the immediate area primarily and for, the most part it does support from a precedent point of view decisions to basically intrude within that front yard. One of them is actually an approval of a three foot extension to an existing garage within the front yard of 19 feet with a minimum front yard setback of 35 so there is a precedent in the area for all of that and I dug up six of them and I gave you a tax map indicating where they were located. Many of them were really almost adjacent to the existing property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Nick do you want to start? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just looking through my folder Mike, good morning and I guess it's good to hear you. MIKE KIMACK : I hope everyone I should say this basically forget about the rest of this stuff, everyone is well and okay and everybody got through that's the important thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep so far so good and we have to keep it that way. That's why' we're digitally zooming here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike just to keep things moving, maybe you can just share a little bit of what happened. It seems to me from the application that there was actually a building permit for a garage in a conforming location but as you said the overhang, the curve somebody AQ , July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting didn't really think it through where they were placing the foundation. I have a very hard time when I see as built structures with a problem like this where you have space. You could Have just pushed the building prior to the building permit instead of being so close to the lot line back you know 6 feet. I think you have more than enough room on the side that you would have been in a compliant location. Can you explain what happened? MIKE KIMACK : I can't in essence I wasn't there during the construction but in terms of pushing it back there's a connection of that garage back to the house so it couldn't be pushed back that far. I guess when they laid it out Nick the only thing I can suggest is that when they laid it up I believe they had it in the right location but if you look at the curve on Knolls Circle it really I guess threw them off in terms of being as precise as they should have been. Granted it's not a lot, we're asking for 3 sq. ft. for both the garage and 3 sq. ft. for the overhang. The majority of the building is certainly within the conforming space away from the front yard and I'm not quite sure is Joe Ciampa on? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I don't think so. MIKE KIMACK : Nick I wasn't there during the construction, I can't give you an answer as to why it occurred. Primarily I certainly don't think that there wasn't an intention to be here because yes all we had to do was move it back about 1.4 feet.'If they had moved it back 1.4 feet we would not be having this discussion. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When they were originally were proposing it so close to the lot line I think that had they just pushed it back on the side they got 26 feet so I think that even with the utility building I mean they could have avoided all of this. It's just a point (inaudible) as builts. MIKE KIMACK : Yea I think the original approval was they were right on the 40 foot line if I remember correctly because of the connection of where that was occurring I guess they didn't have that much space to move it back further. So it was close to begin with and then unfortunately when the layout was done they exceeded the front yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's fairly it's not uncommon although it's not desirable that surveyors errors that construction errors, foundation errors take place. In this instance it's a fairly small one. The vast majority of that structure is conforming. The intent of it was to be conforming and it's a small amount of relief. Let's hear is Joseph on here now as a panelist, does he want to say anything? No, alright. MIKE KIMACK : Sorry about that he had every intent to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's okay. All that we'll do would be to reveal how the error happened. The error now exists so how it happened is not as of concern so much as the fact July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting that the property has got two front yards basically. It's hardly discernable with the minimum corner. MIKE KIMACK : You can see how difficult it was I mean when you look at Knolls Circle the one corner is 52.4 feet and then pretty much the rest of the building falls at that 40 feet and it just curved and at that one curve it picked up 3 sq. ft. on that one little spot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from any board members, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Yes. It's more of just to Nick's point, it's not that uncommon what it looks like the foundation was right on the setback line and the builder (inaudible) within a couple of inches of the 40 foot line on the foundation and whenever it was laid out they didn't plan on the eaves. They only planned on meeting the foundation setback. MIKE KIMACK : Many people don't realize you're only allowed the 2 foot eaves overhang into any of the setbacks. When I did the variance application request I had the surveyor put the eaves overhang because I recognized that we're asking for relief both for the garage 3 sq. ft. and for the 3 sq. ft. for the eaves overhang. MEMBER DANTES : Wherever they staked it but I think it's only a foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's even the entire structure. Alright, anything else from anybody? I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Planamento seconds. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please call the roll Kim. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes Aye. Member Lehnert member how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 1s July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. HEARING #7388—MINTON IRREVOCABLE TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Minton Irrevocable Trust #7388. This is a request fora variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 17, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to, legalize "as built" additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the,code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 5194 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel. Mike I think he's still on. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant. He might also be on the line too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see for item No. 5 MATT HOGAN : Leslie he's been promoted to panelist. This might be a good time to•just remind people, if you have any questions or comments you'd like to submit please use the Q&A functions at the bottom of your screen. We'd just like to let us know your name the address and which hearing you'd like to comment on (inaudible) the applicant name for any of these hearings let us know and we'll make sure we'll get you renamed and promoted at the ,appropriate time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Matt. This is to legalize as built additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a rear yard setback of 1.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. This is an unconditioned porch and it was inexistence prior to 2001. Okay Mike I'm going to turn it over to you. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. You are correct on that, it's a very small lot primarily. It had been in place for some time. It's an unconditioned porch, one story it's 14.7 feet by 13.4. It meets the legal side yard setback but it doesn't meet by a long shot. I think the thing the picture that is painted I gave you a little sketch in there showing the front yard-and the side yard setback in the buildable area. For the most part almost the entire house falls outside of that and that is very common with these particular lots. They're very small and they really have been there a long time,and they're non-conforming in terms of their setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You also (inaudible) a whole series of priors for that area. 171 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : I did. I tried.to find those which were most representative for the most part and I found three of them. Probably the most significant one is the one that's next door which was before you about a year or two ago. In a sense it was the lot was perhaps a little bit larger but that was a complete demolishment in that particular one and it was built in the side yard setback we placed at 10.7 feet and then we added an extra garage along the side of it also in the non-conforming area. So there isn't a lot of space obviously. It had been done many, many years ago and he is attempting to simply legalize it. If you did look at that little drawing I put together you realize that pretty much two thirds of the existing structure including this porch really falls outside of the buildable area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if the Board has any questions. You know we've all been out to the property. We're familiar with that area anyway and we did do site inspections. Let's see Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : Mike can you just walk us through how this became as built? MIKE KIMACK : It was as built back in the I guess the eighties, the original owner primarily added it on to the building about thirty years ago Rob and just obviously didn't think he needed to get a permit at that particular time and it had been in place no one paid attention. It came to the attention of the owner when he went to get a rental permit from the town and obviously at the time recognized that they needed to get that back porch legalized. It's been there a long time. JAMES MINTO : Hi this is James Minton I don't know if you can hear me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can. JAMES MINTON : Oh hi good morning. My grandparents built this room I guess back some time in the eighties. They had consulted with the neighbor I think you probably have that in your application a letter of no objections from Muriel DiGiorgio and you know we didn't realize that the room was built without a permit at the time. Obviously both my grandparents are deceased now and with the rental permit that's when it came to our attention that the room was not permitted properly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that clarifies it pretty well thank you. Anybody else have any questions Pat, Eric? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing I'd like to ask this is Member Planamento and Mr. Minton I understand things happen over time but in 1964 a variance was granted #669 so 181 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting think it should be reminded of the Board; the decision clearly states certain limitations for a side yard setbacks so I don't understand how a prior variance can be ignored by the-current owner or anyone. Clearly this is built many, many years ago but I would just while you submitted as part of your application the prior variance it does have restrictions and I just want to remind people that you know we put these conditions on decisions so that we avoid future problems. I was commenting on decision 669 that clearly states setbacks so it's just disappointing that people actually don't follow these decisions and I just wanted to make sure that it's entered into the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the one thing that we can say is that the pressure on our community for development within the last decade has been exponentially increasing and all of us are paying much more careful attention to what gets built and how it gets built in our community. Thirty years ago I don't think people were paying that much attention particularly if something was a cottage, a summer home, a seasonal thing. People did what they did, no one paid that much attention to the law. They should have but this is not unusual. That's why we're seeing so many of these things coming before us now because properties have changed hands and now people are aware that they need to legalize what was done without benefit of permits and going forward they need permits in order to build. JAMES MINTO : We fully acknowledge that. Obviously my grandparents are deceased so I can't speak for you know what they intended or not intended to do. We're just trying to fix you know the issue that's before us today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much. MIKE KIMACK : May I make one comment on 669 and Nick is right it had been issued in 1964 but it was basically for the general (inaudible) to divide lots with insufficient frontage and for approval of access so that particular certificate wasn't specific to any side yard or front yard or rear yard setback for a dwelling. So it may not be necessarily (inaudible) but it may have been necessarily a bridge to the fact that these particular setbacks were required. THOMAS MINTON : Hi this is Thomas Minton, I'm James' father. When my parents bought that property there were only three houses on the property and ours was the last one on the lot that was approved and then split up on the lots and obviously my parents after that point and time didn't realize when the other house next to them the DiGiorgio's house was built that they, would have a problem with putting this three season room on the side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I think that's all the participants we have that are here is that correct for this application? It looks like it. Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? 191 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Second, Eric Dantes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes, Kim would you please call the roll. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye, Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye, Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye, Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye, Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. Thank you very much everybody. HEARING#7389— MAUREEN BENIC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Maureen Benic #7389. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 21, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" accessory pergola at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 375 North Parish Drive (adj. to Southold Bay) in Southold. This is a pergola in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard or on waterfront properties in a front yard location, 16 feet by 9 feet 6 inches in size. Is Eileen on, I think Eileen Wingate is representing this application. EILEEN WINGATE : I am here can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can hear you Eileen. EILEEN WINGATE : I can hear you, I'm glad you're all there. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know if you heard but I entered into the legal record what the relief requested is that you want to legalize an as built accessory pergola in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard or front yard on waterfront properties. As you know we've all been out to the site, we've inspected the property. I'm wondering if Ms. Benic can you also hear us? She's going to unmute to answer that. It would appear that Ms. Benic is also on the screen as a panelist. MATT HOGAN : I just sent her a request to unmute. BORIS BENIC : Her husband is also on Boris Benic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay very good and Kim has up on the screen the survey showing the location in the side yard. Alright listen, Eileen why don't we get started, tell us what you would like us to know about this application. EILEEN WINGATE : Well we have applied to the Trustees a while back for a minor addition attached to the house"and when the Building Inspector came out to do our final inspection he noticed that the Benic's had put up this arbor. It's a kit essentially more or less a temporary structure although it does have footings but I was told to go to get a permit for it and was rejected because it's in the side yard. The situation is that due to the nature of how they sided the house and because it is waterfront it's very confusing as to you know what's your front yard, what's your rear yard, what's your side yard. Literally the front door is on the side of the house as opposed to the front of the house. It just seemed like there was an existing patio and all the Benic's were really looking for was a shade structure so that they can get some shade when they were doing some dinning alfresco. So we ended up with an as built arbor which is considered a side yard. It would have been completely legit if it was the rear yard but the house is on an angle which made it difficult to get it right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, let's see Pat do you have any questions about this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just wanted to make sure for the record that there already was an existing stone patio. EILEEN WINGATE : Yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Okay. EILEEN WINGATE : GIS will show you that. It wasn't exactly the same shape but there was an existing patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you did get Trustees approval for this addition? 23. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting EILEEN WINGATE : Yes the addition if you look at the survey is opposite the you could see the little dotted line on the front of the building where the we just did yea exactly where your little arrow is it says two story cantilever. That's where Trustees gave us permission to basically borrow some space from the cantilever. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Rob any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone on that are panelists who are here for the application who would like to speak? Any of the Benic's want to say anything? BORIS BENIC : I think that we are okay. That was just built like Eileen said was to provide shade to the area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you just say who is speaking cause it's being recorded and we have to get the names in, say your name please. BORIS BENIC : My name is Boris Benic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mr. Benic. What were you saying? BORIS BENIC : It was a pergola kit that was built with the foundation to give us some shade in that area because without it that space is very difficult to use both in the morning and afternoon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. It's open, it's porous, it's permeable. BORIS BENIC : Yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, you won't need to get Trustees approval for this will you Eileen? EILEEN WINGATE : I was waiting to get through ZBA before. If you were going to require me to I guess it's up the Building Department to make that call. They haven't asked me to do that yet. I'm more than happy to do that but one Board at a time. 2 2' July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay very good just checking. Alright, hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Member Acampora I second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Pat, Kim would you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye, member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye, member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye, Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. HEARING#7370—ERIC FREND CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Eric Frend #7370. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 7, 2019 amended October 30, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory shed at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 3690 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. in Laurel'. Martin Finnegan is on, good he is the attorney for the applicant. This is an accessory shed that's 10 foot by 14 feet in a conforming rear yard with a lot coverage of 23% where the code permits a maximum lot coverage of 20%. 1 believe the shed is now built rather than proposed and we have a memorandum of law that 213 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting was submitted by Mr. Finnegan the applicant's attorney. Martin what would you like us to know about this application? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody. I guess I did the usual and tried to cover the most of the details in my memo but I discovered that I made a mistake because I was referencing the earlier 2009 ZBA decision when I sited to the existing lot coverage. So back in '09 there was some variance relief granted for earlier construction and so we're starting, off with 22.1% lot coverage and the addition of the shed would take us up to the 23%. It's a little confusing the earlier decision but be that as it may obviously we're looking to increase the already approved non-conforming lot coverage slightly to allow this shed to remain. This is another one of these oddly shaped Peconic Bay Blvd. parcels that is you know just constrained all around. The photographs provided I'm sure you were all out there. As you can see the property is substantially screened in the area where the shed has been placed so obviously it's our position that there's you know minimal if not any impact on the character of the neighborhood or on the neighborhood in general. It's not a huge additional variance that we're asking for just .9% relief to allow to remain. So that's really it, I would argue a de minimus application and we're just you know the owners of the property have very limited storage and with young children and everything they need they just needed a little space to put stuff and that's why they want to have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's start with Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just want to again for the record, we had put this off because the last time we were going to have a meeting the applicant was not able to attend and I'm just wondering why they went ahead a put the structure there without the approval being done first. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Fair question. Of course that was my first question when I got involved in this. I think in the very bizarre time that we all lived through in the last few months look we were home we had it sitting there you know and I thought I was in the process you know everybody was quarantined and it got him in the back yard out of the house, he built it himself. I said that I anticipated that the Board might have a comment about that and he said look I wasn't trying to offend it just was you know a crazy time and he just got out there and did it cause there was a lot of down time and that's what happened. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To that point did he physically build the shed. I didn't visit the site since the original site visit but did he physically build it or was it just delivered? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No he built it himself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Backyard project. 2-4 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yep if any of you lived in a house with children over the last few months can appreciate the need to get the hell out and do something, so that's what happened. Be that as it may it is in a conforming location and despite it being-slightly larger than allowed I think that it's not offensive to anybody surrounding there. We'weren't contacted by any of the neighbors with any opposition to it so that's where it stands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else have any questions? You know we've all seen the property, we went and saw that it's totally fenced, screened from view and what it's .9% relief now I had .2% over what was granted.. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea I'm sorry that was the typo I mentioned, yes .9% relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anybody else have any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in attendance who wants to address the application? If so let's see who else is here, Kim you can take down that survey now please. I don't think , there's anybody else on for this application that I can see. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'll second it, member Acampora. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Pat, Kim would you please call the roll. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes-votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you'vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting BOARD-SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do yoo"vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries.Thank you very much Martin stay well. HEARING#7406—ANTHONY NAPPA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is #8 on the agenda for Anthony Nappa #7406. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 28, 2020 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 required rear yard located at 425 Jacobs Land in Southold. This is a swimming pool in the front yard on a corner lot where the code requires a rear yard. It is technically actually behind in the architectural rear of the house but because there are two front yards there's a technical variance. Okay I think Tony is on here Tony Nappa is that correct. TONY NAPPA : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi Tony. What would you like us to know about this application? TONY NAPPA : It is a pool but because it's on a corner lot we needed a variance for the front yard a front yard variance. I mean it's technically in the back yard and it is I don't know how far away about 283 feet from Main Bayview. It's two acres of pasture between the pool and Main Bayview. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's think. Can you see this up on the screen? I think everybody can see the survey. Can you see that Tony? TONY NAPPA : Yes I can see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let me go here, I'm going to try something really cute hold on. So we're right here look I got this little toy I can play with, check this out. So it's right here. If it was here I guess it would be you know I can't make a straight line I'm like a child with a crayon. Anyway, that would be I guess probably technically in your side yard from Bayview. 26 july 9, 2020 Regular Meeting TONY NAPPA ': Yes, they're saying that (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably the only rear yard you have is here I mean it's one of these technical variances which is called by the Building Department it's clearly not physically behind your house. This is very far away from Main Bayview and actually the front yard is primarily Jacobs. Do you have any intention of screening this with evergreens or anything like that? TONY NAPPA : No we like to have the view of the pasture and you can see all the fence lines on this new survey so right next to the pool on the I guess southwest side is a quarter acre vegetable garden and then the next fence line right there is a half-acre riding ring horse riding r ring and then beyond the fence line where (inaudible) easement is all just pasture. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie if I may just a question, you mentioned that based upon the proposed location which is technically a front yard, if the pool was pushed over more to where I put the blue rectangle would that still actually be considered a front yard even though it's clearly behind the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably not I'm going to say but again it might be considered a side yard to Bayview. Do you see what I'm saying?This is the side of the house and well I don't know can you see this or not? TONY NAPPA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you see my mouse? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't see your mouse.There it is. BOARD SECRETARY : That's my mouse. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point is if you look at the part of the house that's facing Bayview that is the side of their house but technically it's facing Bayview frontage. So I think Nick if you put it where you suggested then that would be the side yard to the Main Bayview Rd. So they're kind of stuck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See what I'm saying? It's a technical call, this is precisely the kind of variance that the Board would like to get rid of by changing the code via a code committee and the approval of the Town Board because some of these just don't make sense any more. MEMBER LEHNERT : There's nowhere to put this without coming to us. 27 0 July 9, 2020 Regular,Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's true basically. I have no further questions,"-does anybody else on the Board have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. MEMBER DANTES : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else here for this application? Hearing no further questions or comments from the Board or anyone-in attendance I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Planamento seconds. CHAIRPERSON WEISMANA :Thank you Nick. Kim would you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento,votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. Tony we'll have a decision in a week. Our next meeting is and you can attend that if you wish. There will be another Zoom meeting will be 4 or 5 o'clock I'm not sure when we will exactly get started but we will be deliberating on all the application. You can listen, we aren't taking any testimony just deliberating on the decisions which I will then be signing the next day to legalize. Thank you have a good one stay healthy. Z$ July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting AFTERNOON SESSION CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Good -afternoon everyone and welcome to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting for Thursday July 9th. As most of you-know my name is Leslie Weisman,,l'm Chairperson of ZBA for the Town of Southold. I just want to make a few introductory remarks and that will be followed by some explanation for everyone present as to how to participate in this Zoom meeting. We're meeting via the Zoom platform pursuant to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's executive order 202.1 because in person access to the public building to Town Hall isn't permitted yet at this time because of the COVID-19 health pandemic. Today's hearings they are public hearings, the applicants or their agents will be testifying before the Board and the public will have an opportunity to see and hear the proceedings live. Interested persons will also be permitted to speak if they wish during a hearing. As you just heard this meeting is being recorded and it will be available for viewing at a later date along with a transcript that will be published. I just want to say on behalf of all of the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the ZBA staff, I want to thank our consultants from VHB Alan Belniak, Louis Bekofsky and Matt-Hogan who is with us today and the Southold Supervisor and Town Board for enabling us to get back to work remotely via Zoom until it's safe' for all of us to meet face to face once again. Finally thank you to all of the applicants and their agents and the general public for your patience during this challenging time as we adopt to a new standard for conducting our meetings on line in light of the current health pandemic.'Now I'd like to just before we return to the agenda turn this over to Matt Hogan who will explain how you may participate in this meeting. MATT HOGAN : Thank you Leslie. To all of our attendees who have joined us today we're asking, that you please use the Q&A function if you are to comment on any of the hearings. Please let us know your name, your address and which hearing you're here to comment on. If you're a member of the applicant team for any of these hearings and we haven't renamed you as such please let us know so that we can promote you to the panelist at the appropriate time and I just want to'make sure that everybody did hear-that this is being recorded. HEARING #7346—ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some of you don't know unless you were on earlier that we actually deferred or recessed on Aleksander Myftarago #7346 because the applicant and the applicant's architect were unaware of this meeting time. They go a bit confused so we adjourned the opening of that hearing to one o'clock today so before we get started on Solutions East which is our 9th 'item on the agenda we will be hearing now from the architect for that application Jeff Zahn and let's make sure Jeff is there. Thank you for putting the survey up. Just for the benefit of those who were not on earlier while we're waiting I'm going to review once again what the 2-9 c July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting variance relief that's requested is. This is for setback relief for an accessory garage that is as built at 1.5 feet from the side yard, the code requiring a 3 foot minimum, rear yard of 0.2 feet again minimum 3 feet according to the code and there is a third one here someplace I think it's lot coverage. So we're looking at lot coverage that is already non-conforming at 24.9% and the applicant is proposing to demolish an existing dwelling and replace it with a slightly larger one which will bring the lot coverage up to 27.45%. 1 believe that covers everything, is that correct board members? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jeff are you on? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I was just looking at something while you were speaking. I'm trying to get my screen back open I don't know how to do it but I'm sorry am I on mute? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No we can hear you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh good I didn't know if you could hear me I was moving pages. Kim is it possible for you to put up the newer survey? BOARD SECRETARY : Of Myftarago? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yea so it can show what we're talking about instead of what was there. I just want to make sure that I was right. There had been a submission that illustrates the house that's actually proposed. I meant to say that to you earlier when you put it up and I had forgotten. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Matt while she's looking we need to have Jeff Zahn unmuted please. MATT HOGAN : Okay Jeff you should be able to unmute anytime, I'll send you a prompt now. It looks like Jeff might be having a little difficulty with his audio. BOARD SECRETARY : Nick are you asking me about the site plan itself not the survey? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's easier to see thank you the site plan cause it illustrates what he is proposing versus BOARD SECRETARY : Right sorry about that I didn't put that on there. It's basically the under construction garage which the survey shows the garage that's under construction MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the footprint of the house is really squared off it's not which aren't on the survey. 30 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting BOARD SECRETARY : I didn't scan that so if you want CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the important part, the garage has two variances for setbacks, the entire proposal there's nothing to do with the setbacks for the proposed dwelling. It's only the fact that the enlargement will create (inaudible) house. So we can look at the survey that we have but the important thing is that Jeff be able to make his comments. MATT HOGAN : Jeff we're still not getting any audio. If you can look at the lower left hand corner of your screen see if you have an option to join computer audio otherwise you may need to disconnect or call in via the phone number. Then we do have two cell phone numbers as well. We're unsure if that's possibly the applicants so I'm going to unmute each one very quickly and if you could just identify yourself that would help us here. First I'm going to unmute number ending in ***. NO response, next number ending in ***. Go ahead and state your name. I'm not getting any response from Jeff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay rather than sitting here waiting I think what we'll do is Liz can you see if you can call Jeff and work out what in the world is going on with his audio and we will go to Solutions East and then get back to them next. Why don't we take a second to do that. See if you can get a hold of him although if he's on one of those phones who know we're just going to try. I'm sorry everyone please be patient, this is a difficult format for some people to become familiar with and we're all there's a learning curve, we're all having to deal with so thank you very much for your patience. I know you're waiting for other applications and we'll do our best to move this quickly. BOARD SECRETARY : No answer at the office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you want to try the cell phone?Then we give up. BOARD SECRETARY : I don't have the cell phone here with me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Never mind then. Matt is there any way you can communicate with Jeff? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie we have him on the phone. He's trying to get back into the meeting. MATT HOGAN Let me try promoting him again. He's under the panelist list now and I am sending him the unmute command but it looks like his audio isn't connected because it's not responding like it usually does. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : He's trying to get back on he's trying to go through the website. If you see him that means he's on isn't it? 31 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN He is but he's muted. He's in but we can't hear him. I think he's calling in or is he on line? MATT HOGAN : Is he calling from one of those,two phone-numbers maybe he's trying on a cell. We've got phone number ending in '" could you identify yourself? We see this happen once in a while when somebody's Zoom session crashes it will look like they're still in the meeting but they're really not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we know who these other two phone numbers are? MATT HOGAN : We just got a message from Jesse Gordon in the Q&A who are individuals who want to participate Solutions East so we will correct me if I'm wrong Leslie, I'll unmute them when we get to them correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MATT HOGAN : I'm not seeing any change with Jeff's status. It looks like his system might be either frozen or his session froze. MEMBER LEHNERT : Want to move on to the,next one then and get this guy when they're back? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we're going to have to. I mean we've spent quite a bit of time while other people are waiting and I think in fairness to everybody I think we might just have to do that. We're doing our best to cooperate with this applicant and his agent but we need them to be present in order to proceed. So let's simply move on. I'm not going to'adjourn it or close it. I'm just going to leave it and if and when he can come back in we'll put him on the next when we finish with wherever we are. So let's move on to No. 9. HEARING#7379—SOLUTIONS EAST, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an application for Solutions East, LLC #7379. A request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building I'nspector's November 19, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for ,a permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1055 North View Dr. in Orient. The agent for the applicant is Pat Moore and I believe we have some others in attendance also. This is an accessory garage in a front yard where the code requires a rear yard location. That's about it, this was I think we had another hearing on this did we not? I don't see it on my agenda but I know it was adjourned from another hearing. It must have been the March one yes? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : March 5th Regular. 32, July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Regular meeting,okay. Alright well let's hear what Pat has to say. Pat welcome to the meeting and please state your name for the record we're being recorded. That's Pat Moore not Pat Acampora. PAT MOORE : Hi everyone, Pat Moore. I also have my clients in my office with me so that way they can participate if they'd like to interject. So this is in fact the second meeting. At the first meeting just to bring you, up to speed so you.know the general layout of this property. The property is quite hilly. It has a great deal of contours and the area of the proposed garage in the front is the flat area that is least would cause least disturbance to the property would cause fewest trees, vegetation to be disturbed and, really no need for retaining walls. If we were to put the garage in the backyard as you can see from if you recall from your inspection or if you've gone recently the house is on a hill and the topography goes up towards the back of the house. Also there are some really significant trees, some evergreens and some beautiful mature tulip trees all of which the applicant the owner wants to preserve. So this garage location was really the preferred ideal location so much so that they've waited the many, many months to continue with this hearing. We did based on I guess the just in general the)neighbors comments that we did receive prior to either in writing or somehow they got to my client, we were able to move the garage back from Northview Drive 25 feet. The covenants and restrictions that we had to be concerned with of Browns Hills allows 10 feet to a property line and we did comply originally with our proposal and now we moved back'further realizing that there was still a little room to push it back before we started reaching the topography. So at 25 feet at the back of 1 the garage the back of the garage is really where at this point the topography changes and the hill starts going up so we strategically moved it back. Northview Drive again as you see from the survey but also more importantly from the site inspection, the road itself is about 50 feet from my client's property line. So Browns Hills and Northview Drive the road is somewhat dead ends there and then you get to what would be I'm not sure if it's a flagged lot but the waterfront lot at the end of Northview Drive so it becomes a private road at that point. So this house is for the' most part the dead end the end of Northview Drive. It's quite vegetated. The road is I want to- say narrow, it's not fully developed it's 50 foot right of way but I believe the road itself is 20 feet in width at most. Oh 16 feet pardon me I'm asking my client. So the improved portion of the road is about 16 feet so we have actually a great deal of setback before you between the garage itself and the actual improved road. So while the setback is 25 feet the actual setback from the street is quite a bit farther much further than even the code minimum requirements of front yard setbacks. Anything else that oh yes thank you. In addition the one modification that was made, the original design was a slanted roof kind of shed roof I'm trying to remember the architectural description of it. It's a shed roof, at the peak being 19. The peak was actually dropped down a little bit to make the peak 18 even though by code it would have been compliant as originally proposed we brought that down a little bit as well. So all in all we really 33 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting tried to make this a very unintrusive structure. The garage itself is .22 x 22 so it's a box it's square. The doors are on the east side of kind of the garage is parallel to the property line but the property lines here are all somewhat triangular in certain areas so on the east side are the doors. So again from Northview Drive we've offered to vegetate vegetation. It's already pretty well screened but we could add additional vegetation if that's what the Board would like us to do. We want to maintain the privacy of this property so that's really in keeping with my client's preferences anyway. I think at the last hearing I pointed out and provided you with the other variances that have been granted in this area. There is right across the street from us quite a large accessory building that was granted a variance as an art studio. From the road it appears like a large house, it's about the size of a ranch house. It's 1500 Northview Drive is the address and oh I'm sorry my client is giving me details. It's actually a 1,500 sq. ft. structure which is a very large structure as an art studio. There are other accessory structure, pools that have been granted in this neighborhood. Many of these garages that are in the front yard are actually permitted because they are waterfront properties that are permitted to have accessory buildings in the front yard. So if you need any additional information we're here to provide it but we hope that with our modifications you will feel that we've been reasonable in our request and obviously the house has been beautifully renovated and the garage will similarly be in keeping with the architectural design and improvements on the property. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Pat. Let's see if there are any questions from the board members, I'll start with Eric. MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, we have some other attendees that I believe are here for this application is that right Matt? MATT HOGAN : Yes, we have Jesse Gordon who we have registered and we also have Alixander Pearlstein posing some questions so I can bring them in as a panelist as well if you'd like. �4 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting Alixander okay your screen is going to blink for a minute and then you'll-rejoin as a panelist. Jesse you should be able to unmute now if you'd like. JESSE GORDON : Can you hear me, this is Jesse Gordon? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can. JESSE GORDON : Excellent how is everyone doing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very well thanks. What would you like us to know about this application? Would you just state your name again and where you live for the record. JESSE GORDON : My name is Jesse Gordon. I live in a parcel across the street at 1150 Northview Drive. I'm also speaking on behalf of (inaudible) McNamara who lives in another parcel across the street as well as Tom and Mary Morgan who are all notified in connection but were unable to attend this. So do you need any further information from me about who I am or? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's fine just comment on the application. r JESSE GORDON : Okay I'd just like to start by making some initial responses to what Ms. Moore just had to say which and then I'm going to go on to some additional comments just about the substance about the application itself. There was some discussion a lot of discussion about the topography and some discussion about not wanting to disturb the existing tree, gardens etc. I'd like to point out when this house was built there were significant beautiful gardens that were there from the previous owner that were torn out by the new owner. Furthermore there was a pool put in the rear yard that resulted in the removal of trees and significant disruption to the vegetation as well as significant grading so I feel that the assertion that desire to preserve the vegetation and the trees as a determining factor in connection with this application is somewhat disingenuous. I'd also like to state that I believe the precedent that Ms. Moore states is also not necessarily accurate. While there is a significant accessory structure on the Pearlstein/Adams property I think it's very important to note that a variance was granted in that case because and I can't say it's (inaudible) because it's a waterfront lot and there was no possibility with the required setbacks and the fact that that lot is a waterfront lot to place the structure that they wanted to build on any other space other than where it was placed. As their neighbor I had no objection to the placement of that and I did not comment because really there were no other options at the time of the application. So I think it's important to note that. Ms. Moore also notes an abundance of front yard garages on houses on Northview, that is actually inaccurate; I know of one and that's again on a waterfront parcel. Additionally another and you guys did a site visit, but I believe the assertion that there is a 50 foot setback from the road to the property line I do not believe that is accurate. It may show that way on the survey but if you go and look at the space there is no way there is 50 feet from the end of that road to 35 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting the property line and you guys did a site inspection I assume so you've seen what it's like. So I don't believe that is accurate either. I'd also like to point out some additional before I move on to the substantive portions of the application I'd like to point out some procedural issues, with regard to the way the notices were sent and I'm not asserting that they were purposefully misleading but there was a notice that was sent to this hearing that respondents would not have the opportunity to comment. That was corrected after I brought after I made the ZBA aware of that. There are also a multitude of errors on the last survey that was presented in that on that survey none of the adjoining property owners are accurately identified. The lots are and the names on the lots are all mixed up. If we can't rely on the veracity of a simple survey, statements of facts such as 50 feet, my question is can we rely on the veracity of the applicant's assertions in totality in connection with this application. So those are some of the issues. I'd now like to move on to the analysis the five or six factor analysis as its proposed in the original application. Starting with do you guys want to take a second it was on their initial application it says reason for appeal area variance reasons? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we have that information. JESSE GORDON : Okay thank you. So the first factor addresses the character of the neighborhood and in their analysis of that factor what the applicant focuses on is that the property is on a sloped parcel which is accurate and the house was recently renovated which is accurate but the fact that they would need to build retaining walls and a longer driveway is not responsive to the character issue. The neighborhood has you know numerous houses. Northview Drive is a private road with several houses but none of the houses except for one that I'm aware of and again the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong which is on the waterfront side of the community have front yard garages. What is being proposed is a significant structure that's going to be visible directly from the road and is going to in my opinion change the view driving down Browns Hills Rd and I know that the McNamara's feel the same way and I believe the Morgans also confirmed to me that they feel the same way and those are neighbors who are on either side and were noticed in connection with this. I think it's also important to note that you know they say that the applicant says that it requires significant grading; significant grading has already been done. There have been earth movers constantly at this property. There was a pool that was installed. There are many areas on this property that have already been graded and require significant amounts of earth moving and that didn't seem to be an issue in connection with what they were doing but now all of a sudden it is in order to place something in a place that's most convenient for them. The second factor, addressing whether or not the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method feasible to the applicants. The fact remains there is significant room in the back yard excuse me in the front yard where a garage could be placed and I also believe that there is space parallel adjacent to the house where it could be placed. So is it going to be more July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting expensive, is it going to be more difficult yes but I do believe that there are other feasible remedies that could be granted. I also think it's very important to note and I know that this is another factor but this is a one hundred percent self-created situation and I say that inasmuch as the fact that there was an existing garage when the house was purchased and that was acknowledged. There was a significant rear yard where a garage could have been placed and the applicants elected to place a pool there in lieu of placing a garage. That was their decision and now they're seeking relief for that it's greater than necessary I believe. I'd also like to point out that you now this is going to have an impact upon me and this is I'm saying this solely in my individual capacity not on behalf of the other neighbors in any way whatsoever but it's not shown on the survey but my house essentially will be directly across from where this garage is being placed. It is a hilly lot as has been pointed out and every drop of water that drains off that property drains down my driveway. There's no question in my mind that the and ultimately not only does it drain down my property but ultimately my property is on the water and that water ends up draining down to the bluff and potentially eroding the bluff as well. Now I understand drywells would be required but thus far since this construction started I've had a constant nearly constant influx of mud and water down my driveway and it has encroached upon the bluff which if you look at the map in the are you will see actually recedes quite back further than in any other areas specifically in that point and I believe that's in part due to drainage. Let me see so I guess the fourth factor is the variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood, I think I just said one negative environmental impact that it would have on the neighborhood and the fact that it would have a great visual impact that would change the nature of the neighborhood as it currently exists. Now we're getting to whether or not the condition has been self-created and here the applicant says no it has not been self-created but I take issue With that assertion inasmuch as I said. There was previously an existing garage, there was space to put a garage and they elected to place a pool there. Interestingly enough that pool is not referenced anywhere on any of the surveys that were presented to the Board in connection with this application. Other than that really I think I've said everything that I have to say. I would like to say that we oppose I oppose the application is submitted. I would like to see it built to where it could be built as a matter of right if that's a possibility and I believe there is a possibility to do that or I would like to see it moved back adjacent with the house and as I said I got two neighbors who are on either side as well who are also in support of that position. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you do realize if it were moved back unless it was moved back to the rear yard, if it's adjacent to the house then it's going to be in a non-conforming side yard. JESSE GORDON : Understood but I don't 37 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One moment please, I'm-not finished. If you move it back farther from the road it would still be a front yard location but certainly less impact which is what the applicant was trying to accomplish. There's one other person that I would like to hear from who is here. I think it's Alixandra you're on. I .think -that's also the neighbor. Let's get all the comments in and then we'll see if the Board has any questions. I'd like to give the applicant's attorney an opportunity to respond to the neighbor's concerns. Let's hear from Alixandra. Please state your full name and where you live. ALIXANDRA PEARLSTEIN : Hi, my name is Alixandra Pearlstein and I live directly across the road from this property at 1060 Northview Drive. I would like to I concur completely with everything my neighbor Jesse Gordon has said and I'd like to address a few comments and also address a few points that Jesse made. First of all as the owner of the accessory building I'd like to say that it is not the size that was presented. It is 1,200 feet it's not 1,500 feet so those facts are incorrect. Also it has no bearing on this proposal whatsoever as Jesse pointed out. It's a waterfront property. It's a completely different situation and I'd like to say also that we had three letters from our neighbors in our favor when we went to you know get an approval to build this structure. That is not the situation here. We had conversations with our neighbors because we were moving here to live here and to be concerned members of the community for the rest of our lives. We're not building a house in speculation we live here and our neighbors would happy to support us so that we could live here and do what we needed to do. This is not the situation for Solutions East. As'I'm looking at the site map again the pool isn't there, there's also a sunken patio that does not appear on this site map which takes up additional space in the rear yard of the house where the garage can (inaudible). A tremendous amount of site work has been done so again to concur with Jesse the arguments about the site and having to change the site, it's already been so changed it's not a reasonable argument. I don't think that as a neighborhood we should set a precedent to change this variance and particularly since it is truly for speculation there's no necessity for it and there have been so many inaccuracies in this proposal and because,there already was a garage and you know again because this large pool and sunken patio have been built in its place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you tell me where that previously existing garage was located? ALIXANDRA PEARLSTEIN : It was in the lower level of the house and it was used by the previous tenants so they had argued previously about it being inaccessible but I lived right across the road I saw them using the garage all the time. Also there was some concern about Solutions East having to wait for this hearing, they made a lot.of progress during the quarantine. There were three or two truck there every day during the stop work order and a dumpster that was overflowing for two months and the environmental impact also both Jesse Gordon and I are across the.road (inaudible) but we have been having a constant flow of mud and refuse from 38 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting the' hay barriers that are across the road. We have been cleaning it up at our own expense. Their inaccuracies on the site mapthat I'm looking at now, the location of the neighbors is inaccurate. Let's see what else I had written a few comments but yea I don't see any reason to set a precedent for this particular situation when there was a,garage, when they build this huge pool and sunken patio removed the existing garage and already done a ton of site work. I absolutely object to it and I think it should be in the rear of the house as it is in the rest of the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments both of you, We appreciate them. I think Board members do you-want to, ask some questions of either the neighbors or the Pat; Moore or do you want to have Pat respond first? You want to wait you're nodding. Yes okay., Before we ask anything further let's let Pat Moore respond if she Ihas any comment she'd like to make. i PAT MOORE : Just very briefly because I'll let the Board, the Board is certainly familiar with the standards, I believe we've met them. With respect to drainage, this house because it got a building permit for renovations has to comply with all the drainage requirements and it has all the dry wells all the drainage that's required. This garage will also require a-dry well so as far as water,runoff, this property is controlling all the water runoff. As you know Browns Hill is a hilly area and water runoff can be coming from pretty much any other property on the road. So we are addressing our water runoff. We offered landscaping along Northview Drive as a means of screening. What would be just an 18 foot high structure so it would certainly be screened from, view to the extent that the cars drive by Northview-the homes that Mr. Gordon I quite frankly' did not it doesn't make sense the description of where his property is because as I from my inspection his driveway ends in Northview Drive. It's not across the street from this property but I guess that's just a matter of his opinion positioning. I will correct Mr. Gordon is correct, I misspoke 50 feet is the improved driveway to the proposed garage so the setbacks we have 25 feet of road that is vegetated unimproved uncleared before you get to the property line,and then 25 feet from the property line to the proposed garage so the 50 feet I misspoke: It's not, within the Northview Drive it's from the driveway to the proposed garage so'I apologize if it. sounded like I tried to'misrepresent anything, that was just my error. I think that we've all tried to be very transparent and open on this process. This first notice I apologize when I wrote the- letter with the notice I took the language literally from the Zoning Board notice and that's the, way word for word so there may have been just some language correction that ultimately they, did get the notices all within time and clearly identifying they had an opportunity to participate as they have participated to this point. Aside from that I think we've already we've given you a pretty thorough application till now including the previous hearing and this hearing so 1',II just check with my clients and make sure that there's nothing else that you want me to the vegetation am I okay? Sorry, as far as vegetation the pool in the back yard if you walked around 39 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting the back you can see the pool in the back was replacing what-had been previously a.2,000 sq. ft. deck that was part of this house so there was no,need to do clearing or anything. It was an area that was already part of the original decking and there was actually a reduction of lot coverage by way of just patio and a -pool rather than decking material. So clarifying that there's no intention of misrepresenting anything with regard -to the pool. ,We asked the surveyor to identify the proposed garage rather than resurvey the entire property with a pool and the house. An updated survey for our final C.O.- would show all of the structures as built but we do have a building permit for everything that has been done till now and my client has been following the laws very carefully and religiously throughout. He is the owner and any activity going on in'the house during COVID was him. He alone is the property owner and was ALIXANDRA PEARLSTEIN : Does he have three trucks at once? PAT MOORE I'm sorry we're not going to go into this but there was no,violations and irrelevant here anyway so thank you. 'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions. MATT HOGAN : LeslieTnn sorry to interrupt, we do have three other phone users and I want' sure if they were here to comment-or not. Can we just check on them,really quickly? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. That's our consultant speaking-allowing people to enter into the hearing based on what they're here for. He's just checking. In the meantime while he does that one of the things we can ask for is number one I've got two different surveys in front of-me here. One was from John Ehlers you know with the 10 foot setback originally. The other one and that one only shows the driveway. The newest one is from Harold (inaudible) and that doesn't show the driveway it just shows basically the house with the additional setback. Kim are you trying to say something? BOARD SECRETARY : It doesn't show a pool either so we might want to get something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN No, none of those things are shown. It would be at least beneficial since you're going to have to do it anyway for all of us to have a survey showing all existing structures, the correct-property owners okay and the existing setbacks and having said that drywells should also be located. MEMBER LEHNERT :'I'd like to see the contour lines. They were on the first survey and they're using that"as an argument. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that too. Thank you Rob. Finally I wanted to ask Pat Moore and the owners, if you will consider an amended application to at the very least move that structure 40 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting J even farther away from the road to the greatest, extent practical. One of the neighbors proposed adjacent to the house. We realize that will require some excavation but (in'aud'ible) the farther you go back the greater the excavation and the greater the cost. Can you respond to that while we're trying to see who these other people are who are waiting? PAT MOORE : I also have the owner here but just very as far as I can tell, the garage where it's been proposed now is before you start having to cut into the grade and I'll let him discuss as far as moving the garage back into a side yard position. The way the house, is designed common sense tells me I don't think it would work cause that's where so let me put him on because he- knows design wise what would work and what wouldn't. CHUCK KITTS ::Hi,-my name is Chuck Kitts the owner of Solutions East. So getting back to the„ garage that we moved another 15 feet is the furthest we can,move it without doing as it is,now I already have.to do a retaining wall on the bluff side-of the garage the south side of the garage I'm sorry because the hill starts to go up there. As far as putting the structure without being a side yard variance, if it went into the back yard where it was with no variance at all we could not do it because of the side yard setback. It would not fit.in the back yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We honestly can't tell that because you don't have the patio, you don't have the swimming pool shown. We can't look at alternatives without having the full information. We've seen it because we've inspected the property but we really need to understand the dimensions to be accurate about what is feasible. Now we do all understand that the farther from the road that you put.it the more you're going to,have to have a retaining wall. CHUCK KITTS : Back in the March meeting we were not asked to put the pool and patio on the survey. The Board just asked us,to relocate the garage 25 feet. I would,have had it done if they asked us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. CHUCK KITTS : That's all. I'm not trying to hide anything. The,pool and we have the permit for everything that's on the property right now. We were not asked to locate the pool or patio or anything else on the property at our February meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand,that. Let me see if the Board has any comments or questions at this point. Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : Have you given any thought of just attaching it to the house? It would make this variance go away. 41 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHUCK KITTS : On the side? MEMBER LEHNERT : On either side. CHUCK KITTS : Well on the east side PAT MOORE : No on the west side. CHUCK KITTS : He said either side. PAT MOORE : Oh okay. CHUCK KITTS : On the east side we explained to the Board that we have an underground gas tank in there and underground electrical on the east side an`d the topo is so the grade is so'high on that side it would be impossible. That was the whole problem with the garage the way it was already was a steep incline in a circular driveway that in the wintertime it was near impossible getting up and around that garage area. On the west side if we attached it to the house, because of the side•setback it's a-gigantic hill right at the front of the house drops considerably so we would have the same problem going up a steep hill to get into a garage. Where it's set right now in•the front yard it's totally flat. So that's our argument is we want to make it as easy as possible and flat as possible for a car to get in this garage and the least amount of disturbance that we would have to cut multiple trees and dig the hill out to try to attach to the house. MEMBER LEHNERT :Then as part of that argument,[ would love to see contours ori the survey. CHUCK KITTS : They were on the original survey? MEMBER LEHNERT : John Ehlers gave it to you so do you have that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct, we have it. CHUCK KITTS : Okay so you can look at the survey. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'd like to see what you're proposing with the survey you have now and the cuts and fills that you're proposing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's with the 25 foot setback into those contours and also, you're going to need it for a final C.O. anyway right Pat Moore? You need to have the pool the you know it would be very much better for all concerned if we could see everything corrected on that survey that needs to be on it and the reason,that we, were not probably asking for it was because we didn't have comments from neighbors. 42 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : As you know Mr. Ehlers is sometimes difficult to get surveys so that's why they ended up going to Mr. Trenchen so we'll see which one can-give us the information. Hopefully Mr. Ehlers we can just add the well either way you're going to have to have Mr. Ehlers whoever is showing the pool. CHUCK KITTS : We can (inaudible) survey, put the pool and patio that's on there that we have all the permits for and do it because like you're saying we need it for a final C.O. anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right and that way we can look at where drywells are right, we can look at your argument about' you know underground gas tank, electrical lines. We'll understand exactly what reasonable options exist for you. CHUCK KITTS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see Alixandra has her hand raised. Did you want to make a comment? ALIXANDRA PEARLSTEIN : I just want to make a point that all these concerns about not being able to place the garage because of all the new things that have been installed should have been considered prior to placing the underground tank, prior to placing (inaudible), prior to placing the sunken patio then you know I don't know why it wasn't being considered in the initial stages of the design. That's all.- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Let me see if there's anything else from the Board, Nick do you have any comments or questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it's more just a comment and it's unfortunate sort of where the dialogue is going, the terrain the first thing that I wanted to share that it's just my opinion that while it's not anyone right to have a garage in the front yard given the particular terrain and the setting I think that there's bit of a'precedent that yes waterfront properties in town do have the right to put a garage provided it meets a front yard setback in the front. I think the character of Browns Hills you know it's one of those unique places like when we talk about Fishers Island and other communities specifically more Orient and New Suffolk where you have these unique settings. So I'm very sympathetic to the applicant's request. At the same time (inaudible) that the house had a garage originally underneath the structureiwhich was clearly visible during my site inspection. It would seem to me that a lot of the issues could go away and I don't know if this is an acceptable alternative for the applicant but if a garage was attached on the west side _ of the house but recessed like the house built into the hillside. I mean you're still excavating the soil but provided you met front yard setback I don't think that would be so much of a hardship. So maybe there'd be some consideration and while I'm still as I said open to the dialogue of the application where it's presented because of the community and the character it would seem 43 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting that it's so much easier just to sort of bury it into the hillside the way the house is also recessed. And I'm sure that you've thought about these things or looked at it but I'm wondering if that might be an alternative rather than kind of going in circles with an application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's do this, let me see if Pat's got any comments (inaudible). We've been at this for quite some time, we have a lot of other applications for today. Pat any comments or questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes I was just wondering, at the last meeting there was a representative there from the homeowners association who said that they did not receive the association a notice and that they wanted to have a subsequent meeting and then did we ever hear from these people? JESSE GORDON : This is Jesse Gordon. A meeting was held and inasmuch as there was no complete consensus amongst the board members and amongst the homeowners as to where the garage should go. The board elected to allow the individual homeowners who were pertinent to the property to enter their comments. So the board elected although they did meet and I was at that meeting, they elected not to enter an official position. That being said as a matter of course the board I believe the Browns Hills Homeowners Association should have been noticed and ultimately they were. So the adjournment was in part to give the Browns Hills Homeowners Association an opportunity to discuss the matter and also to remedy the defect in the notice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you Jesse. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one question relative to that meeting, how many homeowners were actually in the Browns Hills Association? JESSE GORDON : I believe I mean I can let me pull the tax map. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a guestimate. I can look at the tax map myself. You're a resident there so I'm just asking you just JESSE GORDON : I would say there's about twenty homes in total. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And how many homes oppose the application? JESSE GORDON : That I know of one, two, three, four, five and there may be others who oppose it who just aren't aware of it cause they weren't notified of the application. I can't speak for others. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me move on, any questions from you Eric at this point? s July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, did I miss anybody? I think what we're going to wind up doing here is I am proposing I want to poll the Board on this is to adjourn this application until we receive'a more updated survey. I want the owner and Pat Moore to think carefully about everything they've heard. If you're proposing screening I want to see that on the survey also, landscaped screening. I'd like this moved back as far from the road as an amended application. -It's not amended in the sense that it's still a front yard and it always was a front yard but the setback was what was changed but the relief required is the same so it's just an alternative proposal. Let's see what can come in. We have our next meeting in a week so we know that's not feasible. We may want to have 'another hearing on this because of the concerris 'of neighbors and I don't want to close off their opportunity to be heard and to testify when they see the updated information. So having said all of that we are completely as you all know overbooked because of COVID. We're way behind. The Board and I and staff have all agreed prior to even doing this Zoom stuff to almost double up our workloads in order to move people forward as quickly as possible so that we can help people get their project underway as quickly as we humanly can but as you can see each of these applications takes a considerable amount of time. So I think that probably from everyone's point of view the best thing to do at this point is to adjourn this to the regular meeting in September to provide time for the survey to come, in., for the attorney to consult with the owners and for the neighbors to see an alternative survey that has different information on it, more complete information. Board members does that make sense to you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : It does and you know Leslie it seemed to be quite a big deal from the Association when their representative said they weren't noticed properly and that they did have this meeting and we're hearing from one of the'homeowners. I think that it would be good also to hear from the Association where they do stand on this you know a formal letter to the ZBA would not be a bad thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they can get it but you know they'appeared at this point to have mixed reviews. It would be probably beneficial to see what the final proposed survey looks like' and where they're proposing to put this garage and then take it back to neighbors and see what people think. I think that's about all we can do at this point. I think it's the fairest way to proceed to all parties and although I really don't favor having to yet another a third hearing on this I think probably that is the most ethically responsible way to proceed for all parties concerned so if the Board's willing to do that I would make that motion to adjourn this to the regular meeting in September. Kim what's the date do you have the calendar? BOARD SECRETARY : September 3rd. 45 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : September 311. I'm assuming we'll still be doing this"digitally rather than back at the meeting hall but who knows. You will all be notified in any case. Is the Board MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie this is Nick. While I appreciate the different commentary that Rob even suggested contouring, we know the terrain, we know the community is it something that perhaps the applicant can make a decision or we can have a discussion cause I hate to extend it to September. This is just my opinion but you now if there's something that they can offer or to resolve that we can perhaps close this today I think it would be beneficial if it's something that the rest of the Board wants to leave open you know by all means we need to do that but I just think that the association of Browns Hills had an opinion they would have you know written that letter. They obviously don't have an opinion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick I've already asked the applicant and Pat Moore what they were prepared to do and what we got was discussion from the owner as to why they couldn't. If they wish to change their minds now to avoid further delays then they can so state. Pat anything from you or Mr. Kitts anything from you? CHUCK KITTS : Yes just to reiterate Nick's question from before that it would be nearly impossible to dig that garage into the back most back part of the house without a variance to put a garage attached to the house. You would need a retaining wall on each side of the driveway going into that property to make that garage level. It's an enormous amount of work and I think it would look horrible to truthful just to try and do it that way. Again to answer to Leslie's comment we would propose a garage and a half in the same spot to make it smaller and if the Board is willing to approve that that would considerably you know get the size of the garage down. We are willing to like we had said to put a large buffer from the street to consume as much of the garage sight from the street as possible if the Board is willing for that. MEMBER DANTES : Can I say something? What I'm understanding what Mr. Kitts is saying, building the garage itself is not the issue that's easy anyone can do that on the side of that. The issue is that building the driveway cause you need to have a flat surface to get the car into the garage. That's correct right? CHUCK KITTS : Yes. I know the Board was out at the house. The steepness of the contour of the land to go up to the garage would be exactly what we were trying to get away from. What the pre-existing house had was two garages underneath and a circular driveway. In the wintertime I was there, I owned the house for two years now. The oil truck couldn't even get up the driveway to deliver oil with snow in the driveway it was such a steep incline in a circular driveway. It would be the same thing if we tried to do something on the west side of the house without digging the garage into the property. It would be very steep and taking out a lot more trees. �46 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what I think I'm hearing that you want to leave it at the 25 foot setback, reduce it to a one and a half car garage and put in a buffer of evergreen screening. Is that correct? CHUCK KITTS :,Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what I'm going to suggest then is that we adjourn this subject to receipt of a survey with all that stuff on it that we talked about okay. We will close it once that's received and we will deliberate at the next available meeting. We're not moving any farther with this. We've heard all the testimony we can, we've heard from the applicant, we understand the neighbor's issues. We have a lot of other applications before us. This is what we have before us now so I'm going to propose that we get all of it summarized on an updated survey. As soon as we receive it we will look at it and we will deliberate. JESSE GORDON : Will the neighbors not have an opportunity to comment on the revised survey and will that survey CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Only if we hold this open. If I close it subject to receipt of that survey then no other commentary will be open. We can leave it open. JESSE GORDON : I respectfully request that it be left open to allow the neighbors this was proposed previously to allow the'neighbors the opportunity to comment. I mean again the previous application has had so many omissions and errors I think it's only fair that the revised- application that actually shows an accurate representation of what's being proposed that the neighbors have an opportunity to comment on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then the only way that can happen is if we adjourn it to the Regular Meeting in August. We will not have further testimony, we can have written comments. If what we do is keep adjourning it we don't need any more testimony, we can keep adjourning this until two things happen, 1. We have comments from neighbors and 2. They're commenting about something that,we received which is what we just requested.That's the only way-that we can do it. JESSE GORDON : I have, no objection to that. That seems reasonable to me that we have an opportunity to respond in writing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat what is your response to that? I know you can't get it done by the Special Meeting. I would adjourn it to the Special but there's no point it's a week from now. PAT MOORE : Yea I don't see the surveyor to be able to get there. 47 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're not going to have it. So I will adjourn it to September"okay which means we will close it in September. Now if you can't for some reason get the survey by the way once we get the survey we will scan it into Laser Fische you can call the office to ask if it's been received and we will scan it into Laser Fische where you will be able to FOIL it. We don't have yet the ability to have you come in in person to the office to see it so as a courtesy we're putting everything onto Laser Fische so that anybody who wants to look at what's in the application will be able to do so. So you can find it that way alright? I think under the circumstances that's the best we can do and if we have comments, if we have the survey we will close it in September. If we don't we'll adjourn it to the next Regular Meeting. So that will keep it open. JESSE GORDON : Will Pat be willing to notify us once the survey has been sent to? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No she has no obligation to do that. JESSE GORDON : I'm asking if she'd be willing to do it as a courtesy but that's all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? PAT MOORE : I'm a little reluctant given the representations of my defrauding everybody up till now so I don't want to be mean or uncouth. If I get an email contact maybe Kim can get the email for the people I'd be happy to send them emails of the survey. I'll do that as a courtesy. JESSE GORDON : Again as I said I never meant to insinuate that it was done purposefully. I don't if my CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just stop for a moment you don't have any obligation to do that. Our office will do that. When we receive it I will ask staff to email any of you that send an email to her requesting a copy.-You all have Kim's email address. JESSE GORDON : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Email her and ask her to send it when we have received it from legal counsel. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a point of clarification which I think is important for everyone, the applicant stated that they'll reduce the garage to one and half cars, that would shrink the garage in my opinion by about 7 feet so is that 7 feet added to the 25 feet setting it back to 32 feet or the 7 coming off the back? CHUCK KITTS : Yes Nicholas your answer is yes I would push it this is Chuck Kitts yes. PAT MOORE : 32 48 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Because in my mind I don't mean to disrupt the tone of the conversation or what people are saying, I see no reason if we're getting a 32 foot setback that we can't close this pending receipt of the survey. I know that the neighbors are disappointed with this location want to be heard but I think we've heard everything. It becomes really a neighborly dispute from what I'm seeing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let me poll the Board. Do you want to close it subject to receipt of a survey with what was the new setback? PAT MOORE : 32 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One and half car garage, screened with landscaping showing all existing and underground utilities and a 32 foot front yard setback. What do you think you want to do that? MEMBER DANTES : I'm good with closing it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Close. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'm good with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm comfortable with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey which by the way I will still ask our secretary to forward to all concerned parties. JESSE GORDON : Will the survey will also be required to show drainage, drywells as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will show drywells, it will show contour intervals. Drainage is a requirement of the Building Department and on-site drainage will have to meet Chapter 236 of the Town's Storm Water run-off chapter. CHUCK KITTS : That's part of the building permit for the final C.O. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is absolutely a legal requirement of the Building Department. CHUCK KITTS : Yes. 49 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So now I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey it's the same front yard but it's going to be a one and a half car garage, a 32 foot front yard setback from the property line and landscape screening showing contours, showing underground utilities, showing all existing on-site development. Is there a second to that motion? - MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Planamento seconds. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim will you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Board member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. Thank you all very much and thank you everybody else who is listening in for you'r patience. You can see that we try very hard to make sure that all parties can be heard properly. That's what small town democracy is supposed to look like. Sometimes it takes a long time. My question now is, is Jeff Zahn is here to represent Myftarago? MATT HOGAN : We have a Jeff on the list. Can you just very quickly confirm that you are Jeff Zahn. I allowed you to speak. JEFF ZAHN : Yes can you hear me? MATT HOGAN : Yes let me move you to panelist,just a moment. 5o July 9; 2020 Regular Meeting l HEARING#7346—ALEKSANDER MYFTARAGO m CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can hear you Jeff. I've already twice read into the record exactly what the relief is. JEFF ZAHN : I appreciate that and your patience. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just going to say one more time we're looking at an as built accessory garage with a single side yard setback at 1 foot 5 inches and a rear yard setback of 0.2 ' inches where the code requires a minimum of 3 feet and you're enlarging the footprint proposedly of the new dwelling which is the old one to be demolished that will bring the lot coverage up from a currently non-conforming 24.9%to 27.45%. Is that correct? JEFF ZAHN : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you begin by explaining why you have to increase the lot coverage since you're demolishing th,e house?Why can't you keep it the same size? JEFF ZAHN : We could keep it you know it's 195 sq. ft. larger than what was there. We did push back, because the existing house is 6.5 feet or 6.3 feet off the front property line. In conformance with the average front yard setback we are now at 14 % feet and just to get the house with the square footage with the four bedrooms that my client wishes for that was the size of the footprint of the house that was required.`So we were hoping that we would be able to get a variance for the lot coverage being that the existing house is 24.19% over the 20% you know in lieu of the 20% that is permitted. I'm sure you guys have seen the house. It's really in quite disrepair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh we've seen it alright. JEFF ZAHN : It's bad, really bad. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We understand. .y JEFF ZAHN : In fact when my client first contacted me he wanted to actually you know try to refurbish and you know obviously it's not even a possibility to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : Let me see what the Board has to Rob questions, comments? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea question, every time this comes up you have a blank slate, why are we asking for lot coverage? Leslie already asked that question. JEFF ZAHN : That's a good question. It's just that the house was designed as to be honest with you designing it with the property offsets and we thought we were conforming to everything July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting except for the lot coverage and*then when we went down there to the Building Department to submit it we found out it did not meet the lot coverage. So being that the house you know is what my client really wants and desired with the four bedrooms and the layout it's really tough to take it doesn't sound like a lot 195 sq. ft. but1'when you take 195 sq. ft. off of a 1,200 sq. ft. footprint it really chops up the house of what he wishes for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the front yard setback of the new dwelling from Oak Place? JEFF ZAHN : It's actually 14.5 feet and that's to the covered porch so it's actually the front fagade of the house is actually 17 feet, 17 %feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that conforming? BOARD SECRETARY : Average Leslie average front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that's the average. MEMBER LEHNERT : Let me ask you the next question, if we didn't approve the lot coverage you know where would you take it from the house or the garage? JEFF ZAHN : That's a good question. If they didn't approve this would you take the 195 sq. ft. off the house or the garage? (asking his client) MEMBER LEHNERT : I know what you want to do I'm just you know like I said I hate when someone comes in with a blank slate there's this close and you know were asking for a lot coverage. JEFF ZAHN : The unfortunate thing is it's a small lot, it's only 66 feet wide so it's not a large lot in any way but that is a good question as far as you know with the one that you posed with the garage. I'm sure you guys know the history of this. My clients they bought the house a little over a year ago. The garage was dilapidated also and he rebuilt it not realizing he needed permits to rebuild what was there so he was just matching basically the footprint of the existing garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we also you know we've seen the property as you know Jeff and you know the garage is where it is. It was not appropriate for him to rebuild it with that kind of setback. Is he going to repair or replace the existing fencing? You can't get a toothpick between the garage and that fence but at least it provides some screening from the adjacent properties. JEFF ZAHN : Yes it would all be landscaped and fencing along the property. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any example of prior variances that are granted 27 %% lot coverage? JEFF ZAHN : I do not no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what the average lot coverage is on those small non- conforming lots in that neighborhood off of Oak Place? JEFF ZAHN : In that neighborhood I do not no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you, if there are precedents that the Board can rely on for non-conforming lot coverage that's helpful to your application but if none exists then we are much more reluctant to go ahead and grant a variance that's actually 7 %% over what the maximum allows. You only have 25% now. Increasing it is a fairly big deal and I think it's not a bad idea to consider if you really want that house that badly I think Member Lehnert suggestion removing some of that-square footage to maintain the existing non-conforming lot coverage by reducing the size of the garage is probably the better compromise. How do you respond? JEFF ZAHN : I think that's a good idea. I would go over that with my client but I think he would rather lose the square footage out of the garage than the dwelling. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well that would be your choice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other thing though that I might point out, if in fact you're going to remove something from the garage it would most definitely be beneficial if you removed it from the back of the garage so that that setback which is now 0.2 becomes a more conforming setback increasing that setback. JEFF ZAHN : Yes I would agree with that and then even shave it off on the east side as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, question? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to say it should be on the north side as you suggest and the east so that it can look like one entire bay it will make the garage more conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, what we're going to need from,you then is a survey amending the size of the garage and the setbacks okay and leaving the house the way you want it and keeping the lot coverage to the existing 24.9%. JEFF ZAHN : Okay perfect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will I don't know if there's anybody here for this application. Can we check Matt that nobody else wants to speak. 53 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MATT HOGAN : I don't see any commenters. I just want to make sure I'm looking at the right one. I've got too many documents open here at once. No okay we have somebody who wants to comment on the Hard Corners. We don't have anybody else who wants to comment on this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey which is actually an amended application because the side yards are going to change and the lot coverage is going to change. So we're going to see this as an amended application. JEFF ZAHN : Okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The conversation is to limit the lot coverage to the existing 24.9%? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct and to increase the setbacks from the rear and side property of the garage. So I don't think we need any architectural plans. I think a stamped survey showing the proposed lot coverage and the smaller garage with greater setbacks is all we need. Is that right board members yes I think so. So I make a proposal to close this subject to receipt of an amended application showing this on a new survey. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Lehnert seconds. Kim will you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Board member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Board member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Board member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. 54 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries. HEARING#7393 &#7394—ALEXANDRA BAUNIRIND CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm glad to say that I'm not happy that we're running so late but I'm glad to say that I'm going to open up both of these applications at the same time which we should have done anyway. We have two applications for deer fencing, one on the applicant's developed property and the other one on the applicant's adjacent vacant property. So what I'm going to do is read these legal notices. What is that? MATT HOGAN : This is Kevin Reardon he's the representative and it looks like he's sharing his screen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi Kevin how are you? KEVIN REARDON : Hi how are you. I don't know what just happened but I can see you guys on the right side but nothing on my main screen is that okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really because our main screen oh that's better. Do we have the i survey for the two properties Kim? Can you bring that up with screen sharing. While you're doing that let me enter this into the record. This is an application for deer fencing Alexandra Baumrind #739,3 & #7394. A Request for variance from Article,XXII Section 280-105 and the Building Inspector's January 2, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct an 8 foot deer fence at 1) more than the code permitted maximum 4 foot in height when located in the front yard located at 1965 Mulberry Street and 2215 Mulberry Street in Cutchogue. The first one is the developed lot the second one oh I'm sorry that's not right which is which here? One lot is developed that is #7394 that's the undeveloped lot and the developed lot is#7393. Got it okay. So deer fencing,just so you know BOARD SECRETARY : Can you see my screen being shared? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you see this Kevin? KEVIN REARDON : I sure can thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have deer fencing along a road and Kim can you move that up a little bit? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you'll get the whole-thing if you reduce it. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just make it smaller so we can see those properties at the same time where it's going. BOARD SECRETARTY : I don't know if I can get both of them on the same screen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the meantime the first question I want to ask you Kevin is when we did a site inspection the Notice of Disapproval says proposed deer fencing, it's up it's built. KEVIN REARDON : We actually only have 6 foot high up in the back and it's not closed in the front at all. We were holding off to hear this variance outcome before we did the front yard which as you know can only be 4 foot high in the front. That's what's there right now. We would be increasing it to 8 foot high which my contractor tells me my landscaper rather is rather easy to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to get out my big survey so I know what's going on. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Wasn't there also a small sized fence on the other property? KEVIN REARDON : Should I explain the physicality of it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that the deer fencing is already in place. KEVINIREARDON : It is well the 6 foot high deer fence, we're asking for an 8 foot. What it is this Mulberry St. is a private road that's about two thousand feet from Oregon Rd. We're the first lot that you come to. We bought the second lot as you can see and the two adjoining lots past that are owned by our neighbors behind us and across the street from us there's about thirty acres of farm field which already has an 8 foot deer fence with very ugly 6 x 6 wooden blocks. TQ the south of us a Christmas tree farm the Zuhoskis and the only neighbor, physical neighbor we have is behind us and they are on 7 % acres overlooking the Long Island Sound on a bluff and they have fifty foot high evergreen trees we can't even see them. (inaudible) thoughts are that nobody drives on the street except us. They're already existing very unattractive deer fences to be had now and ours would not be seen at all by anyone except us. There's also the real reason we're putting it up is that my wife has had Lyme disease once before. This is our retirement home. We're both in our sixties. We're going to have grandnieces and grandkids coming over and we don't want them to be exposed to any sort of diseases because of too low of deer fencing. Even though we know eight foot deer can get over but it's more of an incentive certainly. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My question is this then, why do you need to put fencing on a vacant property. Why not just surround your developed lot? 56 ,July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting KEVIN REARDON : Oh I see. One reason, if you see how close the driveway gets we wanted to extend that in so that we wouldn't see it as much. The reason that it's'off on an angle like that ,there's no other to(say it but my landscaper made a mistake. It was supposed to go straight along parallel to the existing property line by about 15 feet and he was misinformed and whfen the survey came back in I was shocked because you can't first of all you at this depth it's very hard to see it cause it's black but we didn't want it right up against our property or on our property line because of the turnaround you see there. In reality when trucks come in to turn around, UPS trucks they back up almost into the fence cause they just don't have enough turn radius so we couldn't get closer to the property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know that's why you have two applications cause you got two different lots here even though you own them both and what you're asking for you're_ probably not aware of. We are not allowed to have any accessory structure and a fence is an accessory structure, on any property without a principle use. A dwelling is the principal use'. Your developed lot is you know makes perfectly good sense and it isn't because your wife has had Lyme disease, I have too. Almost everybody out here does and unfortunately the state statutes do not allow us to personalize variance relief otherwise every single person in this town would want deer fencing because of Lyme disease. So having said that you do have other legitimate reasons for saying that; it's characteristic of the neighborhood and so on and so forth 'but having it on an adjacent property, we've actually had applications where we've had fencing on adjacent property and we've had to require that they move it onto their own property because if you wanted to put deer fencing up on that other property at some other time once in future if you build another dwelling or sell it to someone who does, then they have every right to put it up on the side and rear yards and possibly in the front yard with a variance. I guess you've given us your answer as to why you put it there. KEVIN REARDON : Let me ask you that, if you're not going to allow that fence on that lot and I - understand your reasoning which you just explained to me would it be okay if'we moved it inside of our lot line but made it 8 feet? We'd move the fence, would that be allowed so it's on the 1965 Mulberry St.? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be allowed as of right in the rear and side yard but not in the front yard you'd still need some variance relief because if it goes all the way across your property-to' the road from the rear then some of it will be in the front yard but that's a legitimate request for a variance. KEVIN REARDON : Right so that's what I realized now this is the first time I'm hearing this that you're not allowed to do that otherwise we wouldn't of wasted your time and ours. So what 57 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting' you're saying is I would,have to move the fence inside our,property line which I don't have a problem doing and then we would have to reapply for a variance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, what you can do is withdraw the variance for the undeveloped lot or we can simply deny it either way and then you can move show on an amended survey the fence 8 foot high deer fence along your property line on your developed lot and the other question I'd like to ask you to consider is we have granted 8 foot high deer fencing'in front yards but ninety nine percent of the'time we have asked them to meet the principal front yard setback. So right now you've got it proposed just right where your'driveway starts with a little gate and if you could KEVIN REARDON : It's actually back about 15feet from where the driveway starts. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you+move it back to 35? KEVING REARDON : Thirty five feet that would be very hard because then it would be sort of getting into our lawn already. We're trying to keep it behind the existing shrubs and plants that we will be putting in. The house is finished but we don't have a C. 0. at this moment but since nobody drives on this street nobody will ever see it and there's deer fence across the street. MEMBER LEHNERT : If we did entertain it in that yard couldn't we just condition it for screening, vegetation? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the street side? MEMBER LEHNERT : On the street side. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's almost being ridiculous because the deer are going to eat it whatever you're going to plant out there. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm just trying to get around (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Privet hedge you don't even know it when the privet hedges are planted with deer fencing so I think there are screening alternatives if that's a discussion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They'll eat just about anything. The only thing they tend to not eat as much is green giant arborvitae and there's no guarantee they won't eat that either. KEVIN REARDON : That's what we put in along that lot line that you see that the existing fences we have we planted fifty of those. Right now we have indigenous shrubs and bushes and evergreens in the front to try to mass that a little bit. We wanted to keep the views open we didn't want to have to have to block our views of the fields and the vineyards. That's one of the reasons we wanted to keep it down. The house actually faces primarily east and west. 58 r July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How far back do you have that fencing now along Mulberry and your developed lot? What is the setback to the proposed fencing on the survey that we got it looks like 20 feet to the property line is that right? KEVIN REARDON :There's no fencing there now at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like that's where it's proposed. MEMBER LEHNERT : The other thing we need to think about here is Mulberry St. is a private road. It's not exactly like we're talking about a town road here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : True. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'd have a lot of problems on town road. I have a lot less of a problem with this on a private road like it's sitting. KEVIN REARDON : May I add please that our neighbors who own the lots the two lots over to, next to us bought them for the sole purpose not building anything on there. So to not block their views either. We know that there's not going to be anyone going by our, properties anytime soon thus we thought it wouldn't be a problem having that. MEMBER ACAMPORA :That's was Corso's property that he did the road. KEVIN REARDON : It was, that's exactly right and our neighbors who are Mike Judge and his wife we spoke to them and they don't have any problem with it. They don't even use our road they use Digmans Lane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right we know the area. KEVIN REARDON : Okay it's a pretty area and we want to keep it that way as well. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I wanted to ask one question and I'm sorry if I can interrupt but the property card illustrates that the ownership of both the developed lot and the vacant lot is in your wife's name under Baumrind. KEVIN REARDON : Yes she's here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I'm just curious because and I appreciate what our Chairperson had said about moving the fence into the developed lot, but are the two lots actually one? KEVIN REARDON : No we never merged them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Because they're in the same ownership but I didn't know what you're interest you know in keeping single or separate. 59 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting KEVIN REARDON : We didn't want anyone building there so-that's why we bought it. Are you saying it might be easier to join them together? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well if it was one lot you know I think the fencing issue is a different conversation but you're saying it's (inaudible)two even though it's owned in the same name. KEVIN REARDON : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I think Nick is getting at is if it's a merged lot then you can put it where you're proposing. KEVIN REARDON : If for some reason we would need to sell that lot we couldn't. That's why we (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very big decision to merge a lot. I think at the moment what's before us is a much less complicated which is to you want to withdraw the variance or should we just deny it because we're going to have to write it up anyway. MEMBER LEHNERT : It would be easier for us just to deny it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll just deny it on the undeveloped lot and you come back with a survey showing the fencing along the side yard of your property with a greater setback from the front yard from Mulberry St. as you deem feasible. KEVIN REARDON : Okay and also just so that we're on the same page there's a picture of a gate, it's an aluminum gate it's the most minimalistic one that I could find. It lets light and air through. Would that be okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's fine, fine with me. KEVIN REARDON : Okay so that's what we have to do and then how do I, do I have to reapply to the ZBA? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, all you have to do is go to your surveyor, have them make the corrections we just discussed and send it into the office. As soon as we get it we will then prepare a decision and we will deliberate on that decision at the next scheduled meeting. We can only deliberate and vote when we're meeting before the public. The next one is scheduled for one week from today. I don't know that you can get the surveyor to move that fast. What we'll do is we already have sort of a draft prepared anyway so what we're going to do is just hold onto that, we'll amend what we've written up and we'll wait to get the survey and as soon as we get it Kim will let you know what our next meeting date is. I can deliberate at a Regular Meeting, we only do a few of them there if necessary which is like a public hearing like we're 60 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting having today. We do it first thing in the morning when we start. If the next one is a Special Meeting. You can sit in on either one of those to listen. We won't take testimony on the deliberation because we're closing the hearing but we'll be able to give you, you can listen to the decision we make and Kim can notify you when that's going to be based on when you get us that survey. KEVIN REARDON : Let's say I can get you the survey, does the fence how far does the fence right on the property line? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea as long as it's set in you know even half, six inches. KEVIN REARDON : Okay fair enough. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as it's on your property. KEVIN REARDON : Gotcha. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no setback for a fence. Are we all clear on everything? KEVIN REARDON I am. Kim can I contact you if I have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She's nodding yes. KEVIN REARDON : May I contact you with questions please? BOARD SECRETARY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else here who wants to address the application? I don't think so. MATT HOGAN : I don't see anything for this application no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey both hearings. Do I have to do them separately I probably should. Okay motion to close Baumrind #7394, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Member Acampora, I'll second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? 6IL July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. The next application is the one for the Alexandra Baumrind #7393 and this was for the is that the undeveloped lot. I've got this all confused that's the developed lot, anyway motion to close is there a second. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'll second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's subject to receipt of that survey by the way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We opened them together so aren't they closed together? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really, I just decided to close them separately because they're two separate applications? I opened them together because they were so in twined with each other that it was silly not to talk about them both at once. So we have a second from Member Acampora. Kim would you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 62 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson`Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. So both of these are closed. HEARING#7398—RIMOR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, HARVEST POINT CONDOMINIUM CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again thank you all who are here in attendance for your patience. I think we might typically in the meeting hall I would not limit comments to a particular time frame but you can see what's happening here, people need to have their say so I'm tend to be quite lenient about the length of comments but I would really appreciate it if people would try to be very brief and very precise in what they say. I think maybe Matt there are a lot of-people on, do you want to review how they can participate or is that not necessary. MATT HOGAN : That's definitely worth reviewing again. If anybody is here to comment on any of these meetings we ask that you look in the lower section of your screen for the Q&A button and if you could just send us a quick message with your name and the hearing you wish to comment on. What we'll do is we will rename you with the hearing name next to you and then, when we start that hearing we'll bring you in as a commenter and you can comment on mike.- With ike:With that being said we have two representatives for hearing twelve but I don't have any,, commenters so we should be set to go. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay do you want to bring them in. MATT HOGAN': They're already here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . This is for the twelfth agenda item. This is application 7398 Rimor Development, LLC Harvest Point Condominium. This is a' request fora variance from Article XXII Section 280-105A and, the Building Inspector's January 23, 2020 Notice of, Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a 10 foot high fence surrounding a tennis court at 1) more than the code permitted four (4) feet in height when located in tHe' front yard located at 51 Millstone Lane (Harvest Point Lane) in Cutchogue. This is 10 foot high tennis fence around'a tennis court which is in a front yard. The code only permits a maximum of 4% feet in a front yard. Let's see what else we have here, the tennis court was approved by the Planning Board on a site plan'dated 9/26/2017 and we have a survey but it doesn't really show the specific location,of this tennis court. However we have inspected the property and we do 63 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting know where it's located, where it's being proposed to be built. Can we have the applicants testify, tell us anything you'd like us know about the application, Henry? HENRY ALIA : Good afternoon everybody. I think it's fairly self-explanatory but we have a tennis court that I believe was a 4 foot high fence was allowed as per the approved site plan and we are looking to put a install if you will a 10 foot high fence around the perimeter of the tennis court. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have a letter I don't know, did you get a copy of the letter from Sacred Heart Parish the church that's adjacent to you sir? HENRY ALIA : I did not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Basically all they're saying is that they're requesting evergreen planting on the south side of the proposed fence to screen the tennis court and the high fence from the view by church parishioners. HENRY ALIA : I do not see that as being an issue at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's really the only question I've got. Let's see Nick do you have any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually I wanted to bring up that letter cause I was a little taken back by it that I actually visited the site again yesterday to better understand exactly where that structure is located or the Sacred Heart Parish on Main Rd. So while you're supportive and thank you for saying that you'll work the landscaping I'm assuming that the original site plan and approval from the Planning Board has a landscaping plan. HENRY ALIA : That is correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't see that in my packet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but is there something you can tell us about that or are you working with the approved which I would think would be all that needs to be done or do we have to enhance it in light of the neighbor's request? HENRY ALIA : We're working with the approved but we're certainly looking to work if there's somebody or a neighbor that had a comment or something that we could do. Listen it's a rather large development. There's a lot of money involved with "the development. We're looking to please whoever we can please and to plant evergreens. I don't think I think that I can speak for the owners. I don't believe they're on the Zoom conference but I am sure that plantings can be 64 f July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting done to make that neighbor feel comfortable and'happy and not have to look at a 10 foot fence if they don't want to look at it. I mean there is no buildings that adjacent property is very dense so you know you can't even see the church from where we area MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the structures are quite a distance away. I mean you know this is really the most northern tip of their property so you know while if it's something that you would like to do I don't know if that's something we should even get involved with. I mean it's' well screened and if there's a landscape plan already existing I don't know if anything is necessary in my opinion. HENRY ALIA : Just one further comment, there is a buffer there that we hold a 50 foot natural buffer so Nick if I may that maybe something that even if I wanted to do it or the developers wanted to do it we may not be able to do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We only have this very small I guess you can see this survey that's in front of us that's highlighted in yellow the yellow area maybe thank you Kim make that a little bit bigger. I'm trying to see if there's any kind of buffer on that. I presume that's your approved site plan? HENRY ALIA : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's something here, I can't read it. HENRY ALIA : Kim I did submit a large section of that. I don't know if that could be pulled up? MEMBER DANTES : I have one in front-of me, it looks like the buffer ends somewhere like just short of the tennis court. HENRY ALIA : That is correct. It's almost on I think that there's probably you know you're talking within 5 feet I think it's less I think it's within a foot or two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if there's room along there there's certainly no harm in meeting the request of the/church. The applicant is willing to do it and I think that that's a good solution, all the way around cause it's very unclear from this very small drawing exactly what kind, of, buffering and whether it's vegetated buffering that's natural buffer or whether it's a landscaped buffer it doesn't I can't see it. HENRY ALIA : You know if I lower my screen a little bit you can look out that window and see it right behind me. I'm joking but not joking. It is right behind me. There is fairly dense and you were out here, there is fairly dense (inaudible) so it may not even you know listen, we would I can speak for the owners. We would not have a problem doing it if there was a complaint. I'm 65 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting not too sure I probably have to speak to Heather Lanza and or Brian Cummings in" Planning to make sure that we could do that or we have the ability to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can't tell from what's in front of me whether you have the room. It just isn't clear enough. I would suggest BOARD SECRETARY : I do have the site plan here it's the large site plan. It does show that natural buffer area which is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim can you just hold that up in front your face and Matt can you put her on speaker view you know so that (inaudible) larger. BOARD SECRETARY : I don't think it can get any clearer than that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then forget it. BOARD SECRETARY : It does show the 50 foot natural buffer area which is south of the tennis court there on this site plan. I'm sure there's further details in the Planning Department records that we can find regarding MEMBER LEHNERT : Why would he need permission to trees in a natural buffer? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I wouldn't want it in the natural buffer it's just if there is no natural buffer of 50 feet there, 50 foot natural buffer is pretty big. You're going to have a lot of leaves on the tennis court. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that was my point in bringing this up when you spoke about the letter, I don't want to suggest that the neighbor shouldn't have an opinion but it seems that there is a landscaping plan already in place, there's a natural buffer. If the applicant wants to do something on their own that's fine but I think that's beyond our conversation. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea it's not like the church backs right up to this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No the church isn't even being used. HENRY ALIA : That's true. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's no big deal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you know what, we've discussed it enough. Is there anybody else here who wants to talk about this application? I don't think there's anybody else. We just got the letter I think that's it basically. I'm obligated to bring it up and I wasn't sure that we 6b July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting even have time but we just got I didn't think you had time to look it over and as a consequence because we have so limited surveys and site plans I don't really have the final approved site plan,in a form that I can read so I'm just simply going,to suggest that we discuss it and we'll just leave it at that. If you have a 50 foot buffer and the Board feels that that's adequate for site plan we'll leave it at that. Is there anybody else, Sherrie I guess you're representing the application also is that correct? HENRY ALIA : She's looking in she can unmute herself if she'd like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know if she wants to say anything or not. She's now unmuted. Sherrie do you want to add anything to this? SHERRIE : No I'm good. I've enjoyed listening to all the back and forth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Member Planamento seconds the motion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we have a second would you call the roll call please Kim. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Da'ntes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. Thank you this hearing is closed. We will have a decision for you actually a week from now. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting HEARING 3 7400-= ERIK SMITH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is the thirteenth item on the agenda Erik Smith #7400. Request for variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 31, 2020 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 required rear yard located at 280 Homestead Way in Greenport. Is Jennifer DelVaglio here, yes there she is. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : I'm unmuted. MATT HOGAN : This would be a good time to remind people that if you have joined and you wish to comment on one of the two remaining hearings at this point please just drop the note in the Q&A and let us know your name and which hearing you'd like to comment on. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Matt. Hi there. So this is a pool in the front yard on a property that has two street frontages. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, how high is the fence that's in place along CR48? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : I believe it's 6 feet and it's a stockade fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did that get variance relief by any chance do you know? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : It was put in by the previous homeowner so I'm not a hundred percent sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have any priors submitted on it but it seems familiar to me. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Do you want me to follow up on it and see if there's a C.O. pulled for it or a permit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be good but the bottom line is I do know for sure that I think it was also on Homestead and 48 we did grant a variance for a six foot high fence in the front yard as screening for a swimming pool a very similar application and we do have a precedent for that. Just so that you know we've all inspected the property every Board member has done so. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Okay great. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else, is there anything else you'd like us to know? JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : No I think it's pretty straightforward they have a hardship with the two front yards and the left side if you're at if 48 is to your back the left side of the property is very sloped if you try to tuck the pool behind the house so it seemed like this was the kind of the best place for them to put the pool. You can tell that you can't really put it on the right side of the house so for all of those reasons that's why we placed the pool where we're proposing it on the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well frankly even if you moved it over to behind the house it's still in a front yard. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : I know we can't win with this lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't even think you have a rear yard. You have two side yards and two front yards. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : Yea exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if the Board has any questions, anything from anybody? I'm not hearing anything. Is here anyone else Rob did you want to make a comment? MEMBER LEHNERT : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else here for this application? I don't think so. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to say to break up the noise I see that you have a proposed waterfall so crank it up. JENNIFER DELVAGLIO : I know, I know we're giving it a separate pump. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay very good. Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Can someone second the motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Lehnert seconds the motion. Kim will you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? Eg July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye.-' BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. HEARING#7387—HARD CORNERS PROPERTIES, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Hard Corners Properties, LLC#7387. Nick I believe you are recused on this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes so I'm going to switch everything off. Lou if you can buzz me when it's time to return I'd appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do want to inform everyone who is here for this application, we have the architect here Rob Brown and Kim are you going to bring up the site plan? Let me read the Notice of Disapproval. I do want to just simply state before we get going that we will not be able to close this application today because we do not have a final SEQRA determination. We are awaiting that from the Planning, Board who is lead agency. This is primarily a site plan application and we are anticipating receiving that determination as a negative declaration very soon but I cannot close it and we can't deliberate on this variance that's before the Zoning Board until that is received. So this is a request for a variance from Article X Section 280-46 and the Building Ins'pector's January 14, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct a mixed-use commercial building with accessory apartments and four single family dwellings upon a 99;208 sq. ft. parcel at 1) one commercial and four residential uses upon a single parcel measuring less than the minimum allowed 100,000 sq. ft. in total area located at 53530 Main Rd. in Southold. We have five (5) uses each requiring 20,000 sq. ft. per use and I just stated what they were and the applicant has a 99,208 sq. ft. parcel instead of 100 sq. ft. 70 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting Site plan approval from the Planning Board-is also required. Let's see, where is Rob? Rob are you there, Rob Brown? ROB BROWN : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can hear you. Are you on camera or no? ROB BROWN : Yes I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a,lot of people on so, now I've got,you. MATT HOGAN : Just really quickly, we do have as you just mentioned a lot of people here who want to comment on this so please I ask for everybody to remain muted until you're called on it will help to streamline things a little bit. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Go ahead Rob. ROB BROWN : Well you pretty much described the project. We're asking for 0.8% square footage relief on the required 100,000 sq. ft. for the structures. It's a mixed,use building on the Main Rd.; three,retail spaces and three affordable apartments above 'that and then four one story two bedroom over 55 rental units, individual homes with attached one and a half car garages. We've tried to be as sensitive to the property as we can and really if you have any questions I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before•we get to that, is there any other individual here representing this application? MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a question Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea go ahead.This is Member Dantes. MEMBER DANTES : So I'm looking at the Notice of Disapproval versus the public notice, the, Notice of Disapproval doesn't say that it says the number of buildings is the variance not the number of uses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's because the number of uses is greater than permitted by the lot area. Itis a lot area variance. It has nothing to do with the uses. They are all permitted as of right. This is simply that you need 20,000 sq. ft. for each use. They're determining that each of the buildings is a' separate use even though they' are all residential Swith you know an accessory commercial. That's why it's written that-way unless Bill Duffy clarifies it differently that is my understanding. So what's, before us is a variance for approximately 0.8% relief for insufficient lot area. All of the other major considerations will be handled by the Planning Board- as lead agency. We do have. a number of people who are in the neighborhood who have 71 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting comments. Many of them have written in I imagine because they came in so late Rob you probably don't have any of these letters from neighbors or do you? ROB BROWN : I received a copy of one letter. BOARD SECRETARY : I'll send them to him tomorrow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright we'll send all those to you but in the meantime I've got at least five letters here and what I will do and I certainly want to allow ample time for anyone in the public who wants to be heard on this matter to do so by participating live in the Zoom thing but let me summarize what some of the concerns were. A number of them made reference to environmental impacts; concern for loss of green space with drainage or the use of IA sanitary systems or what kind of sanitary'system will you be using. There's some concern for the type of plantings, whether they'll be native or not. There's a number of buildings, they want to talk about the scale of those buildings. One thing that I think is needed to clarified, this is an HB zoned property. It is not a residentially zoned property. Therefore what can happen on it is different 'in terms of density than what happens on a residential property. One individual wanted some greater'confirmation that it is not feasibly profitable if you have four buildings instead of five buildings which was part of your application. There was indication that there was no financial evidence to verify that claim that was submitted and actually a number of things that are referenced here are all matters that are things that the Planning Board would be dealing with, ingress and egress that's all Planning Board. Driveways can be moved, parking can be moved, the type of parking that's being proposed.that's all part of the site plan process. I'm simply saying this to inform individuals in the neighborhood who are here to make heard their concerns that the bigger bite of the apple here is the Planning Board hearing. They will have to have a public hearing and address all concerns voiced by the public. So Rob can you clarify any of those issues before we get to any questions from the Zoning Board members and then hearing from the attendees? ROB BROWN : The individual homes the four houses are intended to have IA sanitary systems. Possibly the front building as well probably the front building as well. In terms of reducing the number of buildings we can reduce the number of houses by clustering but then we're talking about structures that are way out of scale for that community. The distance between the houses is based on just a visual review of developments on the adjacent development in Mechanic Street and Youngs Ave. those houses are all essentially the same-'sort of spacing that we're talking about here. Yes there are a number of issues that the Planning Board will be addressing. We had a work session with the Planning Board earlier this week and we are in the process of addressing some of their concerns none of which have anything to do with the variance that we're requesting here. July'9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob let me ask you something just for the benefit of those attending, our Zoom meetings this was also a work session done on Zoom, our Zoom meetings are all public records. They're all recorded live and they are all available for viewing on the, town's website at some point or another and a written transcript is also available. So anybody who wants to hear what.the discussion was at that Planning Board work session can have access to, that conversation. Rob are there any other kind of green technologies besides the IA systems that are going to be involved in this project-? ROB BROWN : At this point no we're just trying to keep the impact minimal. A large percentage of the property will be left as original growth. We're just providing a lawn area surrounding the houses and surrounding the new structure but other than.that between the parking lot and the houses and•surrounding the houses is all natural vegetation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because what we have is a site plan but we don't have a landscape plan so We don't know what existing deciduous trees are remaining and so on but the Planning Board will have all of that information. ROB BROWN : We had that discussion with the Planning Board already. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the•Board had anything Rob do you have anything else you want to say? ROB BROWN : No I'm just ready to•answer`any questions you might have,. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : okay let's see what the Board members want to hear. What board member wants to go first? Eric do you want to•start? MEMBER DANTES : I don't really have a question, the site plan I have does say natural' vegetation on it but no I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob how about you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions right now. / CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I have no questions either at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, well perhaps we'll open this up then to the 'people in attendance and listen to what they have to say about it. Let's see-who we have here, we have a lot of people in attendance. Who is number one, Charles Scalise: 73 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHARLES SCALISE : I am the partner and owner and also Gail Wickham my attorney,is out there as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you want to add anything? CHARLES SCALISE : Not really, I mean we've worked very, hard. I'm also the previous owner of Feather Hill across the street and I own several properties in the neighborhood. We worked , very hard at making this conducive to the neighborhood needs and because it's HB it could have been much more commercial retail oriented and we chose not to do that. We met with many town people about the 55 and older which is something that is a need for the community as rentals and the affordable housing is something that is a request of the HB zoning when developing so that's why we did that as well. We also brought the`55 and older cause it helps with the Health'Department and using new hybrid systems. So there wa's a lot of thought that went into this prior to spending the money to do the drawings. We thought it was the best use of the property versus some of the previous-site plans I've seen for this property in years past. I've been part of the community for close to thirty years and we're here to be good neighbors. We're not here to be disruptive and something will get developed there whether it's I or someone else but we thought this was the best approach. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay' thank you. I do want to enter into the record that we did receive requested comments from the Plarining Board on June 24th and they are in support of this application for this small variance based upon the fact that there is a great deal of need for the affordable rental housing especially for seniors and that it is supportive both by the location in the hamlet business center and for compliance with the recommendations in the town's Comprehensive Plan. So that's what Planning Board comments were.-Let's see what let me let in Andrea Weiss. Can you unmute yourself or Matt can you do that for her? ANDREA WEISS : Yes I'm here, I have a few questions. One is, our household there's four houses on our private road and our house was the only one notified of this meeting. Why was that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Kim can answer that. The staff looks at the various go ahead Kim. BOARD SECRETARY If the property shares the actual property line they would get a mailing. Do all the four properties share the property line with particular subject lot? ANDREA WEISS : Yes because they yes, there are only four houses an.d. we all share what we share is our private road abuts this property. BOARD SECRETARY : All of them abut this subject lot you're saying? 74 July'9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No they abut-the shared road. Andrea in order to be in receipt looks' there's a yellow card that's posted, that's'what's supposed to notify'anybody passing by and allow anybody who is interested to be notified. The mailings are only required for people who share a property line not a road. That's why you got it. ANDREA WEISS : I see okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else? ANDREA WEISS : Yes, I want to know why if the developer knew from the beginning that what he was designing was too large for the property why that is what he designed? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you want to answer that or Charles? ROB BROWN : I can just say that we felt that the variance we would be asking for was of such a nominal amount that it was worth requesting to do this development properly. ANDERA WEISS : Okay I have another question, you mentioned earlier about that you were going to be leaving some of the native-vegetation but we've been watching the native trees come down on that lot over the past year while the invasive species have been left to take over. What is your definition of the native vegetation and what are you planning to do in those areas? CHARLES SCALISE : Rob let me answer part of that. I mean the landscape plan has not been; finished yet and a full survey of trees. When you speak about trees that have come down, trees' have only come down per the town visiting the lot with us what we deemed possibly dangerous okay. There are old and rotted trees there. I would hate to see ones come down which even of recent two weeks ago no two,months ago I'm sorry iri'a storm on'e came down onto the street over on Wells and we immediately picked it up and disposed of it within a day. So it's more, about hazard and liability than it is about clearing. ANDREA WEISS : However that lot is vastly cleared from how it was a.year a year and a half ago when you first bought it. We now can see excuse me? CHARLES SCALISE : I can assure you that it's not the case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want.to interrupt here for a moment With all due respect, we need to address what is before the Zoning Board. Buffers and those kinds of things are all the purview and jurisdiction of the Planning Board. What is before us is a variance for insufficient lot size which is less than one percent relief than what the code requires. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting ANDREA WEISS : If I might just say one more thing, I understand that a lot of our concerns that have been raised are for the Planning Board but it's a kind of false distinction between over building the lot and the kinds of concerns that we have about native vegetation, leaving green zones and so on. So the fact that what he's asking for is slightly larger rather than something smaller than what the-law allows means inevitably that the available green zone is going to be shrunk by that. ROB BROWN : I just want to state that in terms of overbuilding, we're proposing a lot coverage of just over 13% and we would be allowed by code lot coverage of 40%. So I would not call this overbuilding this lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Rob, Eric you wanted to make a comment? MEMBER DANTES : Right, my question is I know the applicant said his attorney was on the call as well, should she be brought in as a panelist to speak or is she just here to observe? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She can be brought in if she wants to be that's Gail Wickham. MEMBER DANTES : I just don't know if they had that intention or'she's just waiting for her turn I don't know, does she want to be a panelist? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you send I'm looking to see if there's anything in here. MEMBER DANTES : Does Charles want her as a panelist? CHARLES SCALISE : If we can find her and it doesn't slow you down yes please. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a problem for us. Matt can you contact,Gail Wickham and ask her if she would like to join as a panelist?She's listening in as,an attendee. MATT HOGAN : I can promote her very easily just a moment. Gail would you like us to promote you? You should be able to unmute now. Wondering if her audio wasn't join. Oh hi Gail can you hear us? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gail are you there? MATT HOGAN : What I'll do I will promoting her anyways because it forces a reconnect with the audio so let's see if that helps just a minute Gail. Gail can you try speaking you should be unmuted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is unmuted but nothing's happening. �76 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MATT HOGAN : Gail very quickly if you go to the lower left hand corner on your screen by the mute button there's a little up arrow, look for audio settings and you can choose your microphone make sure you have the right device selected there. It looks like she's having some technical difficulties if we want to maybe try again later. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just carry on. I think Kim I think you can probably get rid of this site plan so that we can all see each other a lot easier instead of taking up that screen. Hello everybody, it's just easier for me to navigate from speaker to speaker this way. So let's go on to another individual, I think Greta Schiller is here and she wants to say a few words. Greta would you unmute yourself please. GRETA SCHILLER : Hi. I had a few comments. Number one, whoever from the town supposedly went and cleared trees from that lot they don't know trees. I know trees and what they did was they cut out some of the beautiful old red cedars, oak and wild cherry. What is left on that lot is one black walnut and all the Norway maples. Norway maples are an invasive species which have been banned from sale so someone is not telling the truth there. The other thing is I had a question of the whole Main St., Einstein Square and (inaudible) spaces in Feather Hill (inaudible) especially affordable housing (inaudible). I wonder what the ZBA thinks about that because it just seems like inappropriate building on the space. The other question in had was will the parking be gravel. (inaudible) is hot and leads to runoff and poisons the ecosystem so I'm very concerned about those questions. The last question for now is how would you define affordable and who (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me try one, two, three. First of all, retail uses that is a permitted use in the HB zone. We have no authorization so deny anybody applying for that. If they fail as a business that's on them. We just have no authority to do anything about it, it's permitted by law. With regard to the permeability of the driveway that's absolutely an appropriate question but it's for the Planning Board. It is not before the Zoning Board. We have no authority to determine anything about driveways and the second one was what the one in the middle Greta I've lost track. GRETA SCHILLER : That's alright we're all like in COVID zone thinking. I was just saying that whoever is so called monitors the trees doesn't know trees and that's a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I do know what the other question was now, you wanted to know how do you determine affordability? GRETA SCHILLER : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The town has an affordable housing registry and individuals must apply. Individuals qualify based upon several factors. This is not subsidized housing. This is for 77 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting people who are basically working and living in the town of Southold who have incomes more or less what a teacher would make or a nurse would make. So there is a process and in fact people who are on that list, if they want to apply to say one of those units there's a lottery. There's such a long waiting list that there's literally a lottery that's conducted to see who's lucky enough to get one of the units. GRETA SCHILLER : Which underscores my other point which is making that into all affordable housing benefits the town a lot more than building more commercial space. I know that (inaudible) to the owner of the property and architect I'm just throwing it out there this makes a lot more sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what, why don't we ask some of the applicants here, do you have any idea what the proposed retail spaces would be used for or not? CHARLES SCALISE : We've had some interest in professional and medical which is something that is always in demand and to the point of staying in business medical supports the community and in time throughout the year and I have several other medical sites on the Fork and they've performed very well and serviced the community. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're not necessarily considering a retail store in there? CHARLES SCALICE : I'm considering whoever is willing to pay the rent and works well with the space but at this point and time if you're asking the question I've had interest in medical again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay again this comes all back before the Planning Board. Let me just explain something, the state statutes that the Zoning Board has to apply in determining variance relief were put into place by the state as a kind of safety valve for anybody that wants to do anything that's not specific to the letter of the law. It's to provide relief from that law when reasonable and reasonable comes down to six different state statutes which are right in the application. It's character of the neighborhood, it's do they have an alternative, it's what is the percentage of relief is it a big relief or a very small. In this case it's less than 1%. What is the impact on the environment, we care about that too that would be more drainage and things like that and it's a balancing test. So we have to balance all of those factors and in the end we have to determine whether the variance relief potentially granted benefits to the applicant outweigh any detriment to the community or vice versa. So that in a nut shell is kind of a zoning 101 for variances which is very different from planning issues. Let's see, we do have other people on here that I would like to hear from. There's a Lisa, Lisa Schiller do you want to unmute yourself and make any comment and ask any questions. LISA SCHILLER : You're doing a great job on holding this together and making everything so coherent. One initial question I have is you know this I don't know if it's Germaine at this point 78 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting in time but why is it considered five uses when there's three retail stores and there's two apartments above that so that's five and then there's four houses. That seems like nine uses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is a Building Department determination and they are basically I don't know Bill are you still on here? Bill Duffy that's our Town Attorney. Can you come on and explain why the Building Department would determine five buildings or five uses and not based on the number of units in each of the building? T. A. DUFFY : It was really just a code interpretation they were going by whether that's how the code is worded whether something is square footage based on use or based upon building. This is HB isn't it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it is. T. A. DUFFY : So we did a recent determination that it doesn't go'by use it goes by the building size I believe. Wasn't that our recent determination? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what the Planning Board asked us to interpret in the hamlet business zone, yes. LISA SCHILLER : So you made the decision that it was five not nine? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn't the Building Department is going by what the prior determination by the Zoning Board interpreting the code was that the Planning Board requested us to do. T. A. DUFFY : The determination was based on a prior many years ago the ZBA looking at the same exact language the then ZBA looking at the same exact language in the different zoning district made that determination so when the current or almost current board was asked to look at it they're really kind of their hands were tied because you're looking at the same exact language that had already been interpreted in other zoning districts so kind of did the same interpretation there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know this is complicated. It was for a different zoned district than this one but we said that the prior determination which was for a business zone also applies to a hamlet business zone which is what this property it. It wasn't for this property that they asked for this determination. LISA SCHILLER : So that determination has been made and there's nothing you can do about it even though frankly it doesn't seem logical? 79 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Eric Dantes. Basically the thinking was if five little stores or one big store it's the same use it's the same impact. LISA SCHILLER : It's the same impact. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) develop smaller retail spaces rather than to kind of keep the mom and pop stores in the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one of the things you do you have to understand is that we're looking at something that's called the Bulk Schedule which has to do with the dimensions and that's side yard setbacks, front yard setbacks, lot coverage sand they're only before us for a lot area variance which is less than one percent of what (inaudible). Now they are allowed to put 20% lot coverage on there and with all those uses they're only proposing 13 is that right Rbb? ROB BROWN : I think we're allowed 40 but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh right 40 cause it's hamlet business. ROB BROWN : But we are showing 13.3% lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it gets very complicated. LISA SCHILLER : I understand every single thing you're saying and when you look at that lot and what the building coverage is and when you consider the actual number of uses because of the way it's split up you know you can you know it's open to interpretation but that's just my opinion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it has been interpreted and here's the point, if you really want to get logical about it you've' got four and a half residential buildings which is one use- residential and you got one floor on one building as retail. You can see that as two uses if you wanted to. T. A. DUFFY : Also square footage don't forget square footage per use is just one thing that kind of controls the intensity of the use. You're also going to have sanitary flow from the Department of Health reviewing this and that's going to limit the amount of uses. Parking requirements can also limit the amount of uses going on so it's not just square footage. They have to meet several other criteria besides just having enough square footage. LISA SCHILLER : What is the reason they're 32 parking places if it's just three small retail stores? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's a site plan issue again but that's determined ,by how many parking spaces per residential unit are required by code, correct Bill? 80 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting I T. A. DUFFY : Yea 1' mean I don't know I haven't looked at examined if they're exactly meeting what's required or if they added a couple of extra I don't know. LISA SCHILLER : They added two or four extra spaces. BOARD SECRETARY : There's calculations on the site plan that you know counted how many parking spaces. i CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ': There's a code and they'll be required if they're doing more than what the code allows they'll be required to get a variance for it and they haven't applied for any of that. You got to understand that it's a work in progress here and there'll be much done, through the Planning Board. Rob sorry I interrupted you. ROB BROWN : I'm sorry I just wanted to say that there is a parking calculation on the site plan and the number of parking spaces required is based on the square footage of'retail and the number of residential units. .CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me do this, let me move on to some of the other neighbors who want to make some comments. There's George you're on, can you hear me can you unmute yourself please. GEORGE TIETJEN : Thank`you very much'. First time participant although I do speak from time to time. I'm in Department'of'Management and Development business but on a much bigger scale' but I think what the perspective owners are proposing is very, very reasonable. It is a lower density that is permitted. The commercial proposal fits in with the neighborhood. You have a bank to the west, you have a shopping center to the north and you have a walkable commercial district to the east. They're providing affordable housing in an area where it's drastically needed and you're providing single family dwellings that are very, very walkable. I think that a less than one percent miss in terms of the size of the parcel is de minimus quite frankly and I'm personally as a resident here I'm in complete support of what they're proposing. Tietjen, George. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you George. Richard is there a Richard there? Did you want to say something please? RICHARD MOORE : Yes thank you Chairperson. First of all I'm coming from Houston where we can all see the issues that happened if you don't have zoning. It's more than an academic issue! and so I'm very sensitive to these things. I think the committee has gotten the email I sent last night and I think the representatives of the applicant has as well. Can I just confirm that and if so I won't burden I'll just keep this very short. July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You sent a letter an email? Let me see if I got that. Yes I did. RICHARD MOORE : So if you got that and there's no decision being made today I'll try to hit a couple of high points quickly. First of all I do my wife and I we think that there's a problem using the economics as a justification you know which is explicitly in what's in by the applicants is a rational to override you know the zoning requirements without putting those economics before the committee and before the public. I think it's an unreasonable assertion to say that the difference between three houses and four you know makes or breaks this project and I think if that's going to be a bases for the application a basis for the decision that should be a matter of public record in either just asserting that I won't make enough money isn't sufficient. I would touch briefly on the it's only one percent argument. I would argue that there's clearly there would be four usages, four usages would be 80,000 sq. ft. and so when I think about the incremental usage the incremental fifth usage is 19,000 sq. ft. so it's really a deviation of 5% you know 19,000 over 20,000 as opposed to 99,000 over 100,000 because the four units you know four buildings are clearly allowed by the calculation so I think the deviation is really 5% as opposed to 1%. 1 think it's a little bit of a false narrative to say well we could have just you know built fewer larger buildings. I think at the end of the day there's a natural complaint in terms of what could be built on that site plan given the grade and given the narrow footprint and it's not reasonable to think that you could have just built one big long building along there. The constraints around parking, the environmental constraints allowable in terms of you know ultimately saying you know the drainage was okay would of constrained that so I understand why the applicants have gone to the three small the four the small houses down the road as a way to not have to level the whole thing which I'm sure wouldn't have been acceptable from an environmental perspective but I don't think that there's any need for the fourth house. So again put some of this I writing I don't need to belabor the committee's time if there's not going to be a formal decision here but I just wanted to highlight those for the broader group. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Richard. I do want to make one comment. We did receive a letter from Ruth Metcalf who inquired saying that she would not need to comment if in fact we have the letter. She wanted it read into the public record but honestly all of these letters are part of the public record and I don't know that we really need to read it in. We all have copies and I'm going to make sure that staff provides copies of all these letters to the applicants and their attorney. I did hit upon some of the concerns that she indicated in this letter which was the number of buildings to scale, traffic impacts. Again we all know I mean I live in Southold. I'm in Feather Hill and the Drugstore, Post Office everyday practically and so we understand the nexus of wells and you know exactly what that I remember when that property was going to wind up a CVS and that's when I went berserk so it's hard to see something that's green change but it is zoned properly for what they're proposing. Certainly we all understand how desperately needed affordable housing is. Traffic impacts will all be part of SEQRA. The l July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting Planning Board that's why' I can't close this hearing cause we don't have that SEQRA determination and they will be picking it up. They will be sending us their determination and as' soon as I get it which we are anticipating a negative declaration. It wouldn't matter what it was, they're going to continue with it anyway but we do have to have it in our record for me to close it. So traffic impacts, aspect of safety along that in that corner,.) think Greta asked the question about the retail uses already you know what are the .economics there. Then there are some environmental concerns that we've talked a bit about and so I think that probably covers this letter rather than reading it word for word it's fairly lengthy. I'll make sure everybody has it, is that going to suffice? Ruth if you want to come in and just send me just put in the Q&A just indicate that that was sufficient. I see you're still in attendance. You want to just type in your. answer. I don't want to neglect anybody who wants to be heard. MATT HOGAN : Hi Ruth you should be able to unmute. RUTH METCALF : Hi. I actually do have a couple of questions based on some things that were said today. You said that the Zoning Board was'related to character, it there's an alternative and environmental reasons. I know that Rob Brown hit ori the character of the neighborhood but he actually hit on the character of a neighborhood that is east of where this is. The character of the neighborhood that is directly in line with that proposed development has'half acre zones, properties that they're larger not the small properties that he's speaking of. So you can choose which character you want but you should really take into account all of the character of the neighborhoods surrounding it. The other thing I have to comment on is, you comment on whether there is any alternative there is a very obvious alternative here which is removing one of the houses on the property and that would alleviate you being with the Zoning Board and alleviate this issue. The third issue was the environmental issue. I really thing that there is a larger storm water issue, they're proposing regrading that property about seven feet higher than it currently is and that's going to create runoff that will happen onto Wells Ave. and the surrounding properties and that's really all that I want to comment on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Ruth and thank,all of you for your comments. The Board, will consider everything very carefully and Rob did you want to say anything in closing? ROB BROWN : Well in terms of the character, I was referring specifically to the distance between the houses. The design of the buildings is as important in terms of character and the type of development in terms of character. Again as you all know this is a commercial zoned and we're providing residential uses on it at a residential scale to honor the surrounding neighborhood. It could have gone`a lot of different ways but we strove to make it a minimal impact on the surrounding. In terms of runoff, yes we are alleviating a major dip in the middle of the,property nothing that would create substantial runoff. All of the structures of-course will 83 July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting have adequate drainage for the space that they take up, that's a Planning Board issue. As I said we have done our best to try to minimize the impact that this would have on the surrounding neighborhoods with the understanding that this is commercial property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are a few other people who are attending. I don't know if they're just listening in and I would just ask, anybody that is in attendance who wants to speak and hasn't had a chance to do that to let us know to raise your hand. Ruth's hand is up but we've already done that one. I just saw a hand by someone named Rose. Matt can you bring Rose in as a panelist so she can speak? MATT HOGAN : Okay Rose we're going to bring you in right now. Rose you should be able to unable to unmute now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rose can you tell us your full name and where you live please? Can you hear us? MATT HOGAN : I was going to say as a last ditch effort you should have a chat button on the bottom of your screen now that you're a panelist you can go ahead and click that and type that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing there yet. Well while we're waiting to see if we can fix this whatever this situation is, is there anybody else who would like to address this application while we're waiting for Rose who is in attendance? If so please hit your raise hand icon. Okay I'm not seeing anything so waiting to see if we can get Rose here. People have waited a long time for this I don't want anybody to feel they didn't get to be heard who wants to be. MATT HOGAN : Nothing from Rose unfortunately. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your patience everybody, just trying to make sure everybody who spent time waiting to be heard gets to be heard. Well this doesn't seem to be working. Let me say this, I don't know Rose if you can hear us. I don't believe I got a letter from you, I'm just going to look. I do not have a letter from someone named Rose. This hearing is going to be remaining open until we get a SEQRA determination so if you can hear what I'm saying Rose, if you would like to submit anything in writing you're more than welcomed to do that because the hearing is still open. Is that going to suffice at this time if we can't fix this problem? Matt any progress on this? MATT HOGAN : No I don't think we're going to have any success today with Rose unfortunately. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well she should be able to hear me. Does anybody else who is in attendance from the neighborhood know who Rose is? I'm not seeing any hands or head shaking. Alright well we did the best we could. Board members are we ready to conclude or are 84 July 9;2020 Regular Meeting there any other questions or comments anybody wants to make? Okay, that's it then I guess. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing,to the Special Meeting in one week which is July 16th subject to receipt of SEQRA and during which time any other additional written, comments can be submitted to the Zoning Board office by anyone who is present today or by anyone who was not present today. Rob I'm going to make sure that you and Charles and Gail Wickham have copies of all the letter's. If you wish to respond I think you responded l erbally but if you wish to make any written responses you'll have the opportunity to do that as well. If we don't get this determination in two weeks we'll adjourn it to the next Regular Meeting which is on August 6th and the hearing will stay open for additional input. Is that clear to everybody or does anybody have a question or something like that? MEMBER DANTES : Yes it's one week this time Leslie not two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I'm sorry I said the right date but it's one week from today. We just pushed everything to try and barrel through as many applications and decisions as quickly as we could cause people have been waiting since April you know because of COVID and we've only just now'been allowed to start conducting meetings before the public via Zoom. Imperfect though it is it's working and I thank all of you for your patience and all of you for assisting us to get through this. We're learning this as we go along as well but we're all eager to be back at work and serving the public and letting people move on with their projects whatever one way or the other. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to one week from today, July 16th. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Member Dantes, second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Dantes seconds the motion. Kim would you call the roll call. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. �S July 9, 2020 Regular Meeting BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. -' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. Okay we will be back together again a week from today. There will be no decision rendered at that time unless we get because we have to close this. Actually we may have we have the right if we receive that SEQRA we have the right to go ahead and deliberate that evening if we're ready. So we'll see if we get anymore written comments, we'll see if the applicant wants to reply. We'll just see what comes in next week. By the way I want you all to know that that meeting will be on Zoom also and we won't be taking any testimony but anybody interested can connect to that link and listen in. That is a meeting in which we deliberate and so this won't be a public hearing but it's open to the public to listen. So if you care to do that take a look at the agenda, the link is available and you can join us. Anything from anybody else, we're all set. Please bring member Planamento back in. July 9, 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. Signature J4 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :July 21, 2020 87