The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-08/06/2020 Hearing Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 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 August 6, 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 JOHN BURKE—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant 1 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Laura Flavin #7391 3-7 George and Lynn Krug#7392 7 - 10 J Daniel Wright#7395 10- 13 Paul and Kelly Demato#7407 14- 19 Wendy Davis#7397 18 - 21 Mike and Mary Beth Petsky (Breezy Shores Cottage #10) #7408 21 - 23 Joseph Devito#7401 23 - 29 Andrew and Linda Toga #7403 29-37 Hard Corners Porperties, LLC (Deliberation & Decision) 38 - 42 Indian Neck IV, LLC# 7409 42 -55 Indian Neck II, LLC#7410 42 - 55 Indian Neck III, LLC#7411Gerald Milito#7405 42-55 Gerald Milito#7405 55 -58 Sean Magnuson for HNF Resorts, Inc. (Eastern L.I. Kampground)#7384SE 58- 63 1925 Grandview Inc. Patrick Treanor, President# 7390 63 - 74 Donna M. Wexler, Donna M. Wexler Revocable Trust and Rodney T. Quarty 74-85 2 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 .HEARING#1391— LAURA FLAVIN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN My name is Leslie Weisman and I am the Chair of the Zoning Board. Before we get to today's agenda items I have to make just a few introductory remarks which will be followed by some instructions on how everyone can participate in this Zoom' meeting. Pursuant to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's executive order 202.1, in person access by the public to Town Hall buildings is not permitted at this time due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19. Therefore today's meeting is being held by video conferencing using the Zoom online platform.Today's public hearings during those 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. This meeting is being recorded and will be available for viewing along with a transcript at a later date. Now before we get started on today's agenda I want to turn this over to our VHB consultant Matt Hogan who will review the format and guidelines for participation in this Zoom meeting. MATT HOGAN :Thank you Leslie, good morning everybody.Just a few quick notes before we get started. This is being recorded and if anybody wishes to comment on a particular item on the agenda or particular application we ask that you just send us a quick note via the Q&A tool at the ; bottom of your screen. So click the Q&A button and you can send us a quick test message. If you're unable to do that or it would be easier for you to speak on microphone, when we get to that particular application you can just click the raise hand button and we will quickly allow you to unmute and let us know what you're here for and I'm going through and everybody has their full names listed. We just have one person in here who is listed as Eileen and I believe that may be Eileen Wingate but I'm just going to allow you to unmute and just verify that really'quickly. EILEEN WINGATE : Eileen-is here. MATT HOGAN : And this is Eileen Wingate? EILEEN WINGATE : Yes it is Eileen Wingate. MATT HOGAN : Great, thank you very much that's all I needed and with that I believe we're all set to go thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're very welcome. MATT HOGAN : We do have Joseph the architect here Joseph when you're ready I can allow him to,unmute and talk. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can unmute them now if you want. I mean I think Eileen Wingate is not a part of this application. She should probably go back to the attendees. 3 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MATT HOGAN : She's already on the attendee side. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh fine. Let me read into the record what this application is about. This is Laura Flavin #7391. This is a request for variances from Article VIII Section 280-39 and the Building Inspector's December 4, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 50705 Main Rd. in Southold. Let's see whose here for this,Joseph yes can you Matt can you unmute (inaudible)video for Joseph if he has video unmute him. Member Planamento is recused from this application. MATT HOGAN :Joseph you should be able to unmute, you can go ahead and talk. JOSEPH PAGAC : Yes hi, good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning. So let me just say that this is for additions and alterations to a single family dwelling, an in-ground pool with a fence, an outdoor shower and legalize an as built shed. It needs review by Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission, it needs to have a Certificate of Appropriateness issued by them. A front yard setback of 29 feet where the code requires 50 feet minimum and a side yard setback of 9 feet 6.25 inches where the code requires a minimum of 15 feet for side yard. What would you like us to know? JOSEPH PAGAC :Just to clarify, the project has already gone to the Building Department without the shed dormer which I believe is the you know the reason why I'm in front of the ZBA today. The project has been hear by the Historic Preservation Commission and approved including the shed dormer and the Building Department bounced this back because of the setbacks. The floor area currently exists on the second floor it just isn't habitable, they're two dog house dormers on the back of this house and we're proposing to change those dog house dormers that restrict the headroom and make that one shed dormer. I believe it's 100 sq. ft. total per the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right so what we basically have you're also proposing to demolish one shed and to the other 96 sq. ft. shed to be moved to a conforming location is that correct? JOSEPH PAGAC : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so these dormers are simply they're setback farther than the wall of the house from the side yard and they're simply going to be on the front elevation. You said you already have a C of 0 from Landmarks a C of A rather sorry? JOSEPH PAGAC : Yes a Certificate of Appropriateness from Landmarks and it's not the front elevation it's the rear elevation. 4 1 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh the rear elevation. JOSEPH PAGAC : Yea the back of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay rear thank you. JOSEPH PAGAC :There are two dog house dormers currently and we're proposing to change that to one shed dormer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now is that on the rear or the front?You're talking about the front. JOSEPH PAGAC :The rear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a,ll on the rear sorry about that. Okay, actually I have no questions. I think this is really quite a straightforward application with no adverse impacts that I can see. Do any board members have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : I do. My question is I,don't understand the Notice of Disapproval, if we're just approving a dog house dormer on the house why does it mention the swimming pool, why does it mention the sheds?That's what I don't understand. CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN : I can't tell you why but they're not before us for any of those things. BOARD ASSISTANT :They don't need relief for them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They don't need relief. I don't know why it was written that way. I guess the only thing we're doing is looking at (inaudible). MEMBER DANTES:That had me confused cause I assumed it was a swimming pool variance cause it mentions a swimming pool. _ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think they were just describing what the proposed you know plans were rather than what specifically was before us. MEMBER DANTES : Should we have the Certificate from Landmarks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you all see, Kim just put up on the screen, can you see what we're talking about here? MEMBER DANTES :Yes. The only other thing that I'd like is a copy of the Landmarks Certificate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Joseph can you get that for us? JOSEPH PAGAC : Absolutely. 5 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just drop it off at the office.or mail it in or scan it and email it to Kim- anyway that it's easy for you. JOSEPH PAGAC : It will be going out to Kim momentarily. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay perfect. So, anything else from anybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : It will be nice to see it fixed up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah really. I don't believe there's anybody else present for.this application. Matt do you see anybody else present for item number one. MATT HOGAN : No,just a reminder if you do wish to comment on this you can send us a note in the Q&A tool or you can click the raise hand button but I don't see anybody else listed right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay sounds good.,Alright Joseph thank you, I'm going to make a motion to close well if he's sending over the C of 0 we don't need to close it subject to receipt do we? Do you want that Eric or we can do it that way if you want. MEMBER DANTES : It doesn't matter to me-it's just nice to have that's all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well then let's just close it. So I'm going to make.a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? ro MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim would you call for the voice vote.•, BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Memberbantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : He's recused. BOARD ASSISTANT : Oh sorry, Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? 1 6 Regular-Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. Okay thank you Joseph we'll have a draft probably in two weeks on August 20th JOSEPH PAGAC :Thank you very much. n CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN ,: Okay Nick, we need to,bring him back Matt. MATT HOGAN I sent him a message, and he's back. HEARING#7392—GEORGE and LYNN KRUG CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for George and Lynn Krug #7392. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 16, 2019-Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet,'2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) located less-than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1175 Second St. in New Suffolk. I believe Charles Cuddy is here and George Krug is here. Matt if you could let them come in as panelists please so they can speak. MATT HOGAN :We also have a neighbor Matt Lyons is here now so I'll bring everyone in just one second and they should all be as panelists. Okay welcome back everybody here for agenda item two should be able to unmute and speak now when ready. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi there. Charles do you CHARLES CUDDY : I'm here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There you go. CHARLES CUDDY : Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good to see you so to speak. Welcome the Krugs are here also. So it's a front yard setback at 22.1 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35, side yard setback of 3 feet the code requiring'a minimum of 10 feet, combined side yard setback,11.1 feet the code requiring a minimum of 25 feet, lot coverage of 23.9% the code permitting a maximum of 20%. There's a proposal to finish attic space, proposed second floor, 11 X 14 foot balcony with trellis, Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 a 4 foot by 3.2 feet addition iWthe rear and a proposed pergola that's 11 feet by 14,in the side yard. Did I miss anything? CHARLES CUDDY: No. If we may go ahead. I'm here with Charles Thomas and his assistant Megan, Charles is obviously the architect. The application is for,variances that really don't change anything the dimensions of this house as far as the side yards and front yard go.There's a'dormer that will be placed in the front that will allow them to have a family room. It doesn't increase the number of bedrooms in the house.There will be a balcony that comes overthe front of the house again it doesn't extend beyond the existing lines of the house. The pergola on the side of the house it's on an existing patio. I assume that you have the letters form the neighbors.3here are two neighbors that endorse this application. Mr. Lyons who is on the south and Mrs. Bunderchuck who is across the street. They both are obviously in favor of it. Do you have those letters? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes we do. CHARLES CUDDY : I don't think there's any significance-to this application in the sense that it meets all the requirements of the state code. It certainly is not an impact on the neighbors who indicated they favor .it. It doesn't have .any environmental impacts. There's little alternative because a lot in New Suffolk is like all of the lots nearby, very small. They haven't extended into any particular yard at this point so I would_ask the Board, based upon the fact that this is not a significant intrusion into any yard to approve-this application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if any of the board members have any questions. I for one don't, I think it's everyone knows that every single property around there is non-conforming in some way or another pretty much. Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric any questions from you?' MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wow look at that. Okay well does the neighbor want to speak, did they Want to say anything? I mean they're here and took the time to be present. 8 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MATT LYONS : Sure this is Matt Lyons can you hear me-okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes just fine. MATT LYONS : Great, really just to reiterate what I said in my letter. As Mr. Cuddy indicated, I'm the neighbor to the Krugs directly to the south. I think if anyone was going to be impacted,by their,proposal it would be me given where the property is situated and I've reviewed the architectural plans, discussed them with the Krugs and really see no negatives and actually some positives to the neighborhood for this renovation so I fully support it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much that's very helpful. Okay well hearing no other 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 LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim would you call the voice vote please and you can remove the survey from the screen. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member'Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously we'll have a draft decision iri two weeks at our next meeting 'which is August 201h. It'll be another Zoom 'meeting our,Special Meeting where we deliberate.There's no testimony taken at that time it's not a hearing but you can listen if you want to to us deliberate on the decision about your property. You don't need to be there 9 F Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 but if you'd like you're welcome to be and we will mail you out the decision. I'll just go in and sign it as soon as we vote on it and it will go to the Town Clerk and then it will be mailed to you. HEARING#7395— DANIEL WRIGHT MATT HOGAN : Just a reminder before they get things going, if you're here to comment on the next agenda item which is number three go ahead and click the raise hand button or send us a quick note via the Q&A. I do see that we have a Nancy Wright, I'm not sure if there's any relation' to Daniel Wright on agenda three.,Yep there goes the raised hand great Nancy I'll bring you in as a panelist. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have the site plan or survey on the screen. I'm going to read into the record what this application is all about.This is Daniel Wright#7395. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15,Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 31, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and reconstruct a new single family dwelling at 1)-located 'less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) existing garage located in other than the code required rear yard located at 2105 Orchard Rd. in East Marion. Is there,a Michael Chuisano? DANIEL WRIGHT : Mike is not here, he's not able to connect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we were very lucky to be able to have this meeting given there's no Wi-Fi in Town Hall, people are on their cell phones. DANIEL WRIGHT : We were thinking this can't be postponed anymore. 'CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean first it's COVID and then now on top of it we have a tropical storm. DANIEL WRIGHT : Mike says we should go play Lotto. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea really. Alright let me enter into the record what this is all about. This is a demolition of a single family dwelling, building a new one with a front yard setback at 26.12 feet, the code required a minimum of 35 feet. A side yard setback of 6 feet 04 inches the, code requiring a minimum of 10 feet, a combined side yard setback at 19.45 feet the code requiring a minimum of 25 feet and a new single family dwelling locates the existing accessory garage in a front yard where the code requires a rear yard. This is on Sylvan Ct. this is the lot think a through lot isn't it two fronts?So you're fronting on Orchard and Sylvan Drive? 10 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 DANIEL WRIGHT : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's a through lot and the lot is only 40 feet wide. Are you proposing an IA system a new innovative wastewater sanitary system with this new dwelling? DANIEL WRIGHT : No not the new system. It would be the plan is already pending and approved -by the Suffolk County Health Department pending the variance. It's the three pools. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should say that the Board frequently almost indefinitely has been requiring IA systems to be installed when there's new construction. It's one thing if you're already on an existing septic and you're just adding an addition to your house another bedroom or something. So I just wanted to throw that out there as more of a question. NANCY WRIGHT:This really isn't a tear down.They're considering it a tear down because it's you know going over the percentage of the value I guess. We're not tearing the walls down. DANIEL WRIGHT : We have neighbors that are afraid we're going to tear down our cottage and we're explaining we're not tearing down the cottage we're renovating the cottage. NANCY WRIGHT : Beicause of the (inaudible) the cost exceeds whatever percentage value of the structure that currently exists so they're considering it a tear down but it's really not. It's an addition and a renovation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking away because I'm taking notes so I make sure I have everything correct in terms of what people said. We do have a transcript but I like to have my own notes too. Okay that helps a lot.Alright let's see if the Board has any questions. Pat anything from you? _ MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I'm glad that was clarified because it states that it's a demolition. DANIEL WRIGHT : We tried to make that very clear, we're absolutely not tearing down the cottage. ) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well at least you entered into the record the explanation which is what the law requires. It's based,on an appraised value what you're doing (inaudible) technical demolition but you're basically maintaining the existing footprint. DANIEL WRIGHT : Right and that's exactly, we want to stay in the perimeter and we want as we said put it in our application we want to stay consistent with what it is. We don't want to turn it into something it's not. We want it to still look like the same 1930 cottage that we fell in love with and why we're there. We just need it updated and a little more space. We're not turning it into a me mansion or something we're just using the existing structure, the existing footprint 11 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 going out that extra 10 feet and the addition-up top in the back but absolutely we want to stay consistent with the structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Mr. Wright did you say you already have an approval from the Health Department? DANIEL WRIGHT :We submitted that, it's pending approval of the variance. We went three times to the Health Department but they (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from Rob anything from you any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No you guys answered my question. The plan showed a renovation, the Disapproval showed a demolition so no my questions are answered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good, how about you Eric anything? MEMBER DANTES : No I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I agree with everyone, the question was more about the demolition versus renovation so thank you. DANIEL WRIGHT : Like I said I want to run out to the (inaudible) tell people what they're looking at NANCY WRIGHT : We're,not demolishing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Go with your yellow poster thing. MEMBER LEHNERT : The plans were clear it was a renovation but the wording you know would confuse people. DANIEL WRIGHT : A lot of people do read the yellow posting. I can't tell you-how many people pulled up and read that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what the law requires us, we need to provide the public with notice of what's going on in their neighborhood as any of us would want to know. Okay well we don't have anyone else in the audience sorry Eric what were you saying? MEMBER DANTES : This was the right way to do the application because we get a lot that they say renovation and then they give them a Stop Work Order and send them back. I think the application was done correctly. 12 I Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah that way when we grant this there won't be any issues.We don't like to have people following a process that isn't smooth and straightforward so we like to make sure we get the language correct so the Building Department doesn't have any problems going forth with permits and so on. Okay I think that's good, there's nobody else to testify for this. So hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : I'll second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Kim would you please remove the survey and call for a voice vote. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do,you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. Thank you for attending, we'll see you well you don't have to present, we're going to be doing a Special Meeting on August,20th where .we will be discussing the draft we will'have prepared of a decision on your application and you're welcomed to sit in. There's no testimony being taken, it's not a hearing but you can listen if you want to, you can call the office the next day. We will mail you the copy of the decision and send it to the Building Department., DANIEL WRIGHT :Thank you very much for your time we appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome and that time I think is probably going to be 5 o'clock. 13 t Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 HEARING#7407— PAUL and KELLY DEMATO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are now on agenda item #4. This for Paul and Kelly Demato. Is somebody here for that? MATT HOGAN : We have the applicant. I'm going to go ahead and bring them in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is Brooke here? MATT HOGAN : I don't see Brooke listed no. Just a reminder for anyone out there, if you wish to comment go ahead and either send us a note via the Q&A or click the raise hand button and we can allow you to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Matt. MATT HOGAN : The applicant should be in now. Go ahead and unmute if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kelly Wood is that the MATT HOGAN : Kelly your muted can you unmute so we can check your audio real quick. KELLY DEMATO : Hi good morning, I apologize. Yes I just recently married my husband and I'm still in the process of trying to change everything and I apologize I'm not a techy so I'm showing up as Wood but it is Demato. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay fine, now we know what's going on thank you very much. Don't you love these virtual backgrounds are you enjoying MEMBER LEHNERT : I love the palm trees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to can you see the plans here up on the screen? KELLY DEMATO : Yes I can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to enter into the record what the relief requested is and this is additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a front yard setback of 23.5 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. The existing front yard setback is non-conforming by 6 feet and it looks like the Demato's are wanting to add a front porch entry with an open second story balcony above it which will make the let's see 28 feet 5 inches what is that it's like 100 sq. ft. for this front porch. Is there anything that you'd like us to know about this application? KELLY DEMATO : So currently and I apologize I don't know what happened to my architect. I can only surmise that they have no power or Wi-Fi.This is going to be our last house that my husband and I are going to live in and right now it's currently a very small beach cottage, two bedrooms. 14 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 The-bedroom we use doesn't even have a closet in it so we're looking to do`a small extension on the back of it. We're looking to remove the deck and do a'small extension. We do have three children so we want to try to at least make it livable so that when they do come to visit for holidays and what not they have a place to stay. They're all grown you know two of them are married and one ofthem has a child so we really would love to have our granddaughter you know come and stay with us periodically. Unfortunately the property is already non-conforming and that's how we find ourselves here in front of you today. We have two side doors and no actual front entrance to the home so what we're proposing is to get rid of both side entrances and put an actual front door with a small patio. What we're looking to do is actually we would love to have this patio because we currently face south and we're putting in a new IA septic system that's required in the front,yard so that will preclude us from I think planting any trees that you know the roots may you know invade the system so we're looking to do the small porch just so that we can provide some shade to the front of the house and'also you know we love our neighbors so we would like to be actually sometimes to be able,to sit outside maybe have you know coffee with them or something like that so that's what we're looking to do with the front porch. Our required-setbacks are okay on both sides and in the rear. That's basically what we would love to do. We did speak to some of the neighbors. The only one I didn't see is,one of them and she's not on so I'm assuming she has no objections but they're all in favor of it because right now it's currently.a very, very small home and just to live in it full time would be difficult for us'based on its current size so I hope you'll consider it. We love the neighborhood and this is where we want to retire next year so we're looking forward to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN,: Did you say you were'upgrading the septic system or you KELLY DEMATO : We are, we're going to put a new IA System in and abandon the old one in the back yard. We have approval from the Suffolk County Department of-Health already and that's I guess pendingthe it is approved so all we need is the variance and the okayto do the construction and then we can do the septic system. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you,have a certificate from the Board of Health relative to that approval and how many bedrooms? KELLY DEMATO : I have an email from them and,it's going from,two bedrooms to three bedrooms so one bedroom upstairs. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the approved system is for a three bedroom house? KELLY DEMATO :Yes and I can forward that to you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So would you please,give that to Kim. 15 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 KELLY DEMATO : Sure. I would also,like to note,that there are several homes on our block that also don't meet the required setback. In fact we're,not looking to go any farther in front of any of those. We'll still remain beyond the ones that don't meet the required setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and just so that you're aware everybody on the Board has already seen the property. We do that with every application on our own. Each one of us goes by every property to drive-around the neighborhood to see what it looks like, see exactly what's going on on the property you know if side yards are screened whatever it is we go and inspect it prior to a hearing. Somebody has raised a hand, ah Anthony I wonder if that's your architect. KELLY DEMATO : It is. MATT HOGAN : Anthony I'll go ahead and bring you in, give me just a moment. Your screen will blink and you'll rejoin as a panelist. Anthony can you go ahead and try to say something? ANTHONY PORTILLO :'Hi Board thank you•for your time today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm glad you could join us. We did go over everything already in terms of what is being requested. Mrs. Demato was here and explained something about the character of the neighborhood, what the plans,are and that you have an approval for an IA system subject to the variance relief_requested and she's going,to submit that. We know it's for a front porch, front door with a second floor balcony and it's a front yard setback. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I apologize I thought we were for 10:45 I'm not sure why that's what we had on our calendar-so I'm sorry about that if I'm running late. If I can just add,I had a couple of notes that I just wanted the Board to hear. We're proposing a three bedroom as Kelly or Mrs. Demato indicated, we did file already with the Health Department. We have received approval for a new IA system that will be going in the front yard. I can have my office,provide that to the Board. I just wanted to mention the first floor is a real modest floor plan. I mean you can see the bedrooms aren't large, it's a pretty modest sized first floor so we're trying to'stay within the lot coverage as well.That's something that when we were considering the design was not to exceed lot coverage so that we won't be requesting for more relief. We really wanted to try and keep that and Mrs. Demato, Kelly understood that we should do that as well so'we're trying to comply as much as possible. The idea was just to.really square off the front of the building so we're not encroaching the building any more than it's already existing non-compliant. The porch is being added and the thing with the porch is it's the water view that's where she's facing the water so again I think it's a pretty modest sized porch. We didn't go across the entire building and we tried to keep it at a pretty modest depth. We only went out,only requesting for a five feet and that's enough really,to get a chair and maybe a cafe table out there so I just wanted to mention that. As I heard Kelly mention I do have a few addresses that I looked up, I don't have surveys for them but I was able to (inaudible) off Google Maps assess about where they are off the road, so 185 16 Regular Meeting August 6;2020 Riley is approximately,16 feet'off the road, 195 Riley is approximately 11 feet off the road 'and then another one that's pretty close is 625 Riley. I think if you know Mattituck if you know Riley Ave. this road it just really because of when these homes were built and what they were built as for the use you know as these like summer cottages that are not really turning into you know full - time residencies you know I think that these a lot of these homes were built non-compliant on the front yard. You can really see that down the road it's just the character of the area. We tried to keep the second floor,like a low profile so it's not a full second floor, it's somewhat of a cape in a sense. Towards the back we salt box it just to get the headroom,but in the front if you look at the front elevation we really tried to keep it you know low with the roof rafters coming down on the top plate on the first floor and then utilize the living space you know sort of the middle of that gable. I think we really tried to think about the design and also sticking you know what the neighborhood characteristics are. That's basically all I had, if you guys have any questions that I can answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it looks like you really have technically two front yards. I mean you have a right of way which is (inaudible) considered a front yard also and you know I don't really have-any questions. IT think it's pretty straightforward. We have inspected you know we know Riley Rd. we looked around the neighborhood, we see the house across the street was renovated and things like that. It's not at all uncommon to be enlarging homes out here that started out as very modest-cottages.-So if you can just send us along the IA system approval-from the Health Department that's all for me. Let me see if anybody else has any questions, Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay nothing from Eric, Rob anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : No this looks pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :'Okay, I think no one else is here for the application. Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date and you'll get us that IA email from the Health Department right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes. 17 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second on that motion,to close? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Seconded by Member Planamento. Kim would you call for a voice vote please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER•ACAMPORA : Aye: BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. ' BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. _k CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We will have a decision on August 201h which is our next meeting. We'll be deliberating on the decision and,then it will be mailed a day or two after that and you're welcomed to sit in on that if you.wish. It's an open meeting, there'll be a Zoom link like there was on this one but there's no testimony taken, you just listen to us talk about you know your application and vote or you can call the office the next day whatever you like but it will be available. Thank you for your time have a great day. HEARING #7397—WENDY DAVIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have Eileen Wingate is here for agenda item number five and Alan Longo. MATT HOGAN : I have Eileen Wingate and Wendy Davis. I don't see Alan listed but just a reminder if you wish to comment on this go ahead and either send us a note either in the Q&A or raise 18 Regular Meeting August'6, 2020 your virtual hand a'nd with that I'm going to promote Wendy and Eileen 'to panelists. So'your screen will blink and you're going to join us in just a moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Meanwhile I'll read the Notice of Disapproval into the record. This is an application for Wendy Davis #7397. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 27, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 200 Pierce St. in Cutchogue. This is a proposal for a front yard setback at 15.2 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet and this is a corner lot with two front yards. It's for a proposed 304 sq.ft. 19 x 16 foot sunroom with an entry deck and let's see what else it looks like the existing house setback is 13 feet. The house is at an angle on the property so that's all I'm going to,say in i way of introduction and I'm going to turn this over to Eileen. Are you with'us? MATT HOGAN : Eileen you should be able to unmute and turn on your video if you'd like. EILEEN WINGATE : There I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wendy you can do the same if you wish. EILEEN WINGATE : Wendy is here with me, we're sitting okay. Hello Board how are you today? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine thank you. EILEEN WINGATE : Okay and the reason I'm sitting here with Wendy is I have no internet at my house but it's all good. So the reason that we're before you as you said was because we're on a corner lot. Wendy has a hundred year old bungalow that she has don&an amazing job in keeping the architectural integrity. The problem with this hundred year old house is that it is on a corner lot and that it's kind of small and it's kind of dark. So this sunroo,m is really about getting some sunlight in this house and a little bit more room. Unfortunately well not unfortunately but while we were designing it we decided that we were going to try to step it in and give it as much space as possible so that we would intrude on the front yard setback on the side well which is our side yard as little as possible. We tried to keep-the dimensions really controllable. It is a three season room. It will not be heated and we hope that you like the drawings. We believe that the additions honors the integrity of the bungalow and that's really about all I have to say about it. It's unfortunate that we just we have the corner'lot situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we've all seen the neighborhood, we're familiar with it we've driven around let's see what else. I also want to put into the record we have nine letters of support from neighbors as part of our public record. Let's see if the Board has any questions, I'll start with Pat do you have any questions about this application Pat? 19 r Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I really don't have questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No it's pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions but just a statement, any addition that they wish to put on this house it would not meet minimum front yard setbacks of 40 feet so there really have a space that they have a valid grievance. EILEEN WINGATE :Thank you Nick. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody does anyone else want to speak on this or are we good? I think hearing nothing I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim would you call for the voice vote please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. 20 Regular Meeting August'6, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Chai`rperson Weisman votes aye. t CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously we'll have,a decision in two weeks on August 20th HEARING# 7408—MIKE and MARY BETH PETSKY(BREEZY SHORES COTTAGE#10) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who do we,have here. It looks like the,applicant; Mary Beth Petsky and do we have Rob Brown here, yeah or Karen. MATT HOGAN : We have the applicant and we have Karen from the architect's office. Let me promote everybody to a panelist. Oh we do have Robert Brown I do apologize. Let me bring everybody in as panelists. We've got Karen, Mary Beth, Mike and Robert Brown so we've got everybody for this one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Great, let me read into the record the relief requested.This is for Mike and Mary Beth Petsky, Breezy Shores Cottage #10; #7408. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's January 2, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing seasonal cottage at 1) a non-conforming building containing a non-conforming,use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use at 65490 Route 25 (Breezy Shores Cottage#10, adj.to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport.We've had many of these over the years and this one is for again very small additions'and alterations to the seasonal cottage and because there are multiple dwellings on here it's considered a non- conforming use even though it's residential. We,did just so you know we did get your letter yesterday indicating that there was an erroneous omission indicating that a new foundation was t going to go in place and the cottage will be lifted back onto it. Rob or Karen can you address that? ROB BROWN : This is Rob Brown. Very simply we want to raise it up to conform with FEMA regulations for flood plain and to provide a more stable structure underneath the cottage than it currently has. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you need to do anything to the septic or anything like that on this, probably not it's such a small ROB BROWN : No we're reconfiguring the bedroom and creating a storage closet but we're not adding any bedrooms or any other amenities inside aside from enlarging the bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are within the 3% ROB BROWN : Yeah we listed as 3% but technically it's 2.97. 21 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I have 2.9%. You're going to replace the-rdof?, ROB BROWN : Over the area where the extension goes yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have a letter don't we have a letter from the association? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes we do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're in support as usual. Okay I don't have any questions it's straightforward enough. How about anybody else, Rob you got any? MEMBER LEHNERT: No my questions were answered with the correspondence about raising the cottage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the elevation on that Rob Brown? ROB BROWN : I don't have that right in front of me bear with me one second. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie on the plan it shows 7.5 feet but I don't know if that's the elevation or the actual grade. ROB BROWN : No that's the current grade elevation. MEMBER LEHNERT : Finished floor height to be above elevation 8. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's not basically it's not going to look much higher than it already is. MEMBER LEHNERT : No. 4 ROB BROWN : No it's a minimal elevation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rob are you putting skirting or something around the piers? ROB BROWN : We hadn't planned on'that. It's something we can consider. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Many of the houses have like lattice work. ROB BROWN : That would be up to the Petsky's and how they want to address that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see an answer in here from OM that says sure. Short and sweet. ROB BROWN : There you go we can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From Mike Petsky. Thank you Mr. Petsky. Boy this Zoom stuff is fun. It's a learning curve for my generation. We got a you're welcome back. Okay anything from 22 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 anybody else? I don't think that there's anybody else here for the application. Nothing else from anybody? Okay I'm going to make a•motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. ' CHAIRPERSON,WEISMAN :Seconded by Member Lehnert, Kim would you call a voice vote please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We will be deliberating on-the 20th of August in two weeks and we'll have a decision for you then. ROB BROWN :Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome have a great day. HEARING#7401—JOSEPH DEVITO MATT HOGAN :Just a reminder if you wish to comment go ahead and send us a note via the Q&A tool or raise your virtual hand. With that we do have Dr. Devito here for agenda item number seven so I'm going to go ahead and bring you in as a panelist. It looks like that's the only person we have who is involved with this item. 23 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 _ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see you but I can�hear you. Alright well as long as you clan'see us and we can hear you•that's good enough. Well Kim our Board Secretary is putting stuff up on the screen here so we can all see and we have paper copies also. Just so you ;know we've all visited the property so we've seen the neighborhood, we looked at your property, we've looked at the stakes you put out as to where you want to put the shed so let me read this into the record. This is,Joseph Devito #7401'a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 8, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory shed at 1) located in,,other than the code required rear yard at 100 Lighthouse Lane in Southold. So this shed is in the front yard where the code requires a location in the rear yard.The property is actually surrounded by three roads so you have three front yards basically. It's a 10 x 14 foot shed and I think those are all of the pertinent pieces of information with regard to the relief requested. Is there anything,that you'd like to tell us before the Board begins to ask some questions? DR. DEVITO : Yes the only thing is that you know the where the zoning regulations require the shed to be with the setback and the depth of the shed it would have put it square in the back in the middle of my back yard behind the house which would have been MRS. DEVITO : Where the septic system is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is your septic system? MRS. DEVITO : In the back. DR. DEVITO : I don't think the septic system is going to play a part. The septic system is on the north most part behind the house and it's in that area in the middle'of the setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's beyond if you're looking at Pine Neck it's beyond your deck, your wood deck? DR. DEVITO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I see what your dilemma is and I understand why you would not want to have it smack in front of an open view. We know that it's a kind of wooded from what you're rear yard is looking that way the property next door is wooded. I'm wondering though it's going to be pretty visible from Pine Neck which is a very busy road. I'd like to-see that shed pushed back from Pine Neck substantially, more than what you're proposing, you're proposing 10 feet. You could push that back a lot more and still not you know staring at it from your back deck. DR. DEVITO : If I planted some shrubbery some arborvitae or something to block it to screen it from the road would that be an issue? 24 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well screening would help but given'that you know and certainly I don't have a problem with you having a shed and we understand the burden of three front yards but I just don't see why you, you can plant whatever you like but I still think it should be shoved back farther from Pine Neck. I just don't see any reason why it can't be. What is your objection in doing that? DR. DEVITO : Again it's just pushed out into the middle of the yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it wouldn't be in the middle. I mean not at all MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie is a front yard setback 40 feet? It's,40 feet which is required. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct for a principal dwelling. So I would say at least 25 feet instead of 10 or 20 feet. It'll still be in the same location just farther from Pine Neck it'll still be over by the side. MEMBER LEHNERT : I mean you're making the argument about a septic system being in the way but we're not showing it and I still don't see a reason why this can't conform to the 40 foot. I mean you'll still need the variance but why can't it conform to a 40 foot? DR. DEVITO : I think it's unsightly to stick a shed in the middle of your property like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well look, I don't know if I can, can I get a cursor to let's see isn't there a thing that I can have like a mouse on here so I can show them on their actual survey what we're talking about? MATT HOGAN : Under the top of the screen where it says viewing there you go. It looks like you got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well.Kim has it I don't. I want to try,and what I'd like to see it let's give them some open space in their back yard but what I'd like to see is let's see the corner of the house from Pine Neck to the corner of the house where their rear yard starts technically.what is that? MEMBER LEHNERT : 51.9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if you know if you brought that to say 35 feet you're still going to have it like in front of your house on the side of your house you see what I'm saying? DR. DEVITO :So it would still be 10 feet from the rear property line but further into the property. 25 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct setback from Pine Neck about 25 feet let's say 30 feet your` house is setback 51. If you put that 30 feet from Pine Neck and 10 feet from the side property something like that DR. DEVITO : The minimum amount would the less the better as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are you going to use that shed for? DR. DEVITO :Lawn equipment, snow blowers, tools. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I still don't understand why they just can't put it 40 feet back or in the actual required rear yard. If they_just continue moving it north it would be in a conforming location. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They just don't want to MEMBER ACAMPORA : They don't want it near the house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The deck is on the other side of the property and you can seethe stairs going down facing north and that whole area is lawn. MRS. DEVITO : Well there's trees also. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I remember seeing the large rhododendrons, there's only I don't have a photo here but MRS. DEVITO : There's got to be about six or seven oak trees. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to say a limited number. It's not like it's wooded or anything. DR. DEVITO : So if we went to the other corner of the property with the same setback would that still be a problem? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Say that again. DR. DEVITO : To the northeast corner with the same setbacks that I have proposed would that still be a problem? It's off of Pine Neck now it's on my you know private road. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's on Lighthouse. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean you want to put it on the opposite corner. 26 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 DR. DEVITO : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : I don't,have a problem with it on Lighthouse because it's just a 1 MEMBER ACAMPORA : That's what I was thinking when I looked at the property, why-isn't it on Lighthouse. MEMBER LEHNERT : I agree with Eric on that one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so then I'm hearing the Board saying that you can have it in your front yard but let the front'yard be Lighthouse and we want it 10 foot from Lighthouse and 10 foot from the side yard. DR. DEVITO : Fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with everybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA,:Yeah that's fine. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well 10 foot from the right of way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes the 30 foot wide right of way. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea I would say 10 foot from the right of way. ,CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes which is Lighthouse Lane. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct. DR. DEVITO : The lane doesn't follow the exact right of way it's a little bit off. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it seems that the Lighthouse Lane right of way which is 30 feet is divided between the different owners so in this case the applicant only has like a 15 foot portion of the right of way where the neighbor to the north shares the other half of the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah I would make the setback from the right of way not the property line but yeah I have no problem with that northeast corner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright so what we're going to need from you Dr. Devito is we're going to need to have an amended survey submitted showing the we'll call it the it's not really alternate relief nor is it an amended application because it's still front yard. You're asking for a front yard and'you're going to get a front yard but it's changed. So we'll just call this we'll call it an amended application but it really is the same relief. Does everybody understand that? 27 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 DR. DEVITO : Yes. ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I need you to go back to the surveyor and get that shed located where we're talking about, putting it in that northeast corner with a 10 foot setback from the edge of your rightbf way on Lighthouse and 10 feet (inaudible) okay we good with that? DR. DEVITO : Okay with that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well 10 feet from the property line the right of way line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 10 feet from the right of way and 10 feet from the side property well actually their rear property. It's the one to the east the side the yard to the east. So we understand everything? DR. DEVITO : Yes we do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So is there anybody else who has any questions or comments? I don't think anybody else is on the call for this application. You think your neighbors are going to be good with that? DR. DEVITO : I don't think there'll be a problem. I have rows of shrubbery along that roadway there. It's going to block the view so I think it should be okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That sounds great that's fine. Alright so hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey showing the shed located in a different location as per our discussion. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Acampora seconds the motion, Kim would you call for the voice vote. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? 28 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. As soon as we get this application from you the updated survey you don't have to do anything else just submit the survey we will start working on a draft decision and we will vote on that on the next possible meeting that's scheduled. We are scheduled for a meeting on August 20th, I don't know if you can get this done by then but DR. DEVITO :'I think so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright well if you can do that and send it'in to the office it's very, very probable that we will have a decision for you on August-20th. Thanks for your time. HEARING#7403—ANDREW and LINDA TOGA MATT HOGAN : Just a reminder if you're here and you would like to comment on an upcoming item on the agenda send us a note via-the Q&A or please click the raise hand button and with that for item number eight we do have the applicant Andrew Toga and the representative Bruce Anderson so I'll bring-you both in as panelists. Andrew and Bruce if you can give us a quick audio check. BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi Bruce. BRUCE ANDERSON : Hi, how is everyone today? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good trying to-get over a COVID tropical storm I guess. What a mess. MATT HOGAN : Andrew Toga if you could please just click th,e unmute button and make sure we can hear you please. No audio from Andrew. Andrew can,you go ahead and try speaking for us please. ANDREW TOGA :This is Andrew Toga. MATT HOGAN : Perfect we hear you loud and clear. 29 1 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Very good.,Okay let me read into the record what's before the Board. Andrew and Linda Toga #7403. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 30, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 2425 Mill Creek Drive (adj. to Arshamomaque Pond-Long Creek) in Southold. So we have the survey up'here. This one has a fairly long history, we'll just review it briefly. Well what's before the Board now is a rear yard setback of 41.3 feet where the code required a minimum of 50 and the proposal is to maintain the existing non-conforming rear yard setback but on a new foundation and a two story dwelling. 'It is LWRP consistent and you know Bruce as you know we know the property we've just been out there recently to take a look and it would appear the foundation sits the original application was granted the foundation is now deteriorated such that a new one is required and is the existing sanitary in the front yard? BRUCE ANDERSON : Well yes I believe so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're putting in a new IA? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I mean this is just a very difficult property with enormous slopes and right at the end of a dead end. I know you did request.a deminimus ,but a demolition can never be considered deminimus and that's why you're back here basically with the same situation you had before. Let's see if anybody on the Board, Bruce did you want to say anything first or should I just go right to the questions the Board might have? BRUCE ANDERSON : Well only that our initial application where we can incorporate that analysis into this record so that I don't have to go through it again it's probably the easiest way to do it. I say that because none of the setbacks in this application changed from what's-been approved literally by every regulatory agency we've been to. Of course what happened was that we were (inaudible) to file for a building permit and when they shut down the house and they turned off the heat and they ,started-preparing the house for construction the foundation received significant water damage and.so the Toga's hired an engineer who inspected the site and concluded that the water damage was so severe that they had a mold problem and it was structurally deficient. So that's what drove the demolition and that's why we're here today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me start out with Rob, any questions or comments from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I do have questions and comments. I remember going through this the last time. You've got a blank slate now and I ask this all the time we have a blank slate, why do we need a variance if we have a blank slate? 30 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 BRUCE ANDERSON : Because the granting of the variance, the`board in its prior decision made certain findings and those findings included that the,variance that is requested was it would not cause impact to the neighborhood. It, was consistent with the physical and environmental conditions of the site. The site was suited the rear of the property towards the road contained a septic system which we could not move and that the prior application also featured demolition within that 9 feet and a rebuild. There is a brick patio which has a kit house a glass sunroom on top of it and it was always disclosed that we would demolish that and rebuild and that recognition appears in your earlier variance determination. So the Board looked at a demolition within the setback and a rebuild and still felt that it was it met the criteria for the granting of a variance. So what we're talking about here is foundations to the side and behind it that had to be demolished. That's what's changed here but the application and the prior determination always recognized that we would be demolishing the sunroom and the plans submitted always recognized that (inaudible) new,foundation in. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Bruce I'm sorry to interrupt,you say it's a demolition historically, it was never a demolition. It was addition and alteration. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct it was a renovation. BRUCE ANDERSON : No the decision reads MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm looking at the decision. BRUCE ANDERSON : If you go to the relief requested. The applicants requested a variance to complete additions and alterations to their residence by removing the existing sunroom, that is demolition and the plans accompanying showed that new foundation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that was for the additions,this is a demolition of the house. BRUCE ANDERSON : My point is,the demolition approved in the prior zoning variance is the same setback that we're proposing today so you've already made a determination that you can demolish and maintain that setback by a prior variance. That is why I requested a deminimus letter. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Bruce that was based on the existing house remaining, now the existing house is being demolished and you got a clean slate. It's basically a vacant piece of land. BRUCE ANDERSON : As you know this Board takes the position that any construction within a prohibited area requires a variance that's per the Walls decision okay so we disclose that we would be demolishing'a portion of the structure within the setback at the same setback you're looking at today and rebuilding including the foundation and the building that would occur ori top which was two stories. So that really hasn't changed. In other words to put it in a different 31 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 way the Board could have taken the position, since you're demolishing that part you can't rebuild it. MEMBER DANTES : Let me ask this question, what's the hardship to moving the structure back 9 feet as proposed? BRUCE ANDERSON : Because we can't move the septic system back.The setback from the road if you will is controlled by the septic system and not because it's a new alternative septic system and that is why we can't move the house towards the road. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well then I mean did anyone think of redesigning the house? BRUCE ANDERSON : Well Mr. Toga's been at this now for several years. He's been out of the house now for quite a long time and out of pocket for much longer. Our feeling was, since the demolition within the setback was approved by this Board that all the changes here is we're taking down a portion of the house substantially all of this, most of this is house that meets the setbacks so we're just talking about 9 feet from the water. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea but you know again you're referencing the old variance you're referencing the old application and the old application basically states the proposed additions and alterations landward of the existing residence are within the current building footprint. I mean there is no building footprint anymore, it went away. BRUCE ANDERSON :The house is still there, if you were at the property you'll see that. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah but Bruce the minute the house comes down all that prior stuff goes away. With the demolition the variance goes away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes but that's why they're back here. MEMBER LEHNERT : I know that and that's what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's why I say it's not a deminimus. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However I do want to point out another thing. They are abandoning the old system. They are LWRP consistent despite the non-conforming waterfront setback. The property dips dramatically between where it's shown as proposed garage and the street and it's a very tough site. It's an irregular site, it requires retaining walls and you know basically the house isn't any bigger than what it was going to be before so there are other things to consider. I mean they're putting in a new IA system. 32 Regular Meeting August 6,2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's a requirement anyway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it would be but they voluntarily are doing it. BRUCE ANDERSON It's not a requirement we offered MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think as a Board we often make it a requirement. , CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who is Bret? BRUCE ANDERSON : Bret Kehl is the builder. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'm going to allow him to talk. BRET KEHL : One of the reasons we can't move closer to the road is we have all these distances between propane tanks, wires in the road and coming in, the septic system and we're trying to maintain all the setbacks as far as possible plus like you said we have the retaining wall issue because of the grade. Like you said it's a very difficult piece of property and in order to do anything the septic system is what's requiring most of the room for our minimum setbacks. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, on the survey it says 20 foot minimum if you look at the septic system it says 10 foot minimum on one corner and 20 from the other what is that? BRET KEHL:The 10 foot is from the side of the septic galleys to this retaining wall and the 20 foot is on the end that's required for the minimal. MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) foot to what? BRET KEHL : To the retaining wall. MEMBER DANTES : And that's an engineering spec or BRET KEHL : That's because of expansion of the system. They have to require you to do 50% expansion and so when you out another tank in you have to have that room. MEMBER LEHNERT: Is there any reason why that retaining wall can't move back to the(inaudible) BRET KEHL : Behind it there's a propane tank towards the road which you l=ave to maintain 10 feet from anything. You have to remain 20 feet from the septic system to the propane tank and plus we have electric there coming in there's electric panel or service right off the road at that -end of the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A question about the proposed garage 33 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 BRUCE ANDERSON : The septic system so that you know went through a very extensive process with Suffolk County Department of Health Services culminating an approval from Suffolk County's Board of Review. There were hearings on that, the relief was granted for that system because it was the minimum relief necessary and to redesign the septic system or go in that direction would be an incredible hardship for the property owner. We're at this for literally years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bruce did you have did you submit a copy to us that approved IA system? MEMBER LEHNERT : I believe he did it was in the last application. BRET KEHL: Plus we have the issue with the wells in that area so that if you notice the well is just to the right of the two story dwelling and we have to maintain our distances from the neighboring one. That was part of the issue with the Board of Health. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look I'm only one vote but at this point quite frankly normally I would say if you have a blank slate but there are so many constraints on this property and there's a heck of a lot of utilities going on under ground here and you know and it's at a dead end and I believe there are probably some other non-conforming setbacks from Arshamomaque Pond along that road. BRUCE ANDERSON : In the prior hearing which I made reference to, the Board granted an approval for a deck 19 feet from the rear lot line. That places that structure in front of us significantly and I'm talking the house if you're looking at the survey the house immediately to the right or to the east and we put that variance determination into the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Bruce can you explain to me the need for an attached garage versus an accessory garage that would be free standing? BRUCE ANDERSON : There would be no place to put a detached-accessory building based on the septic system, the retaining walls and what we're trying to do here is to the greatest extent as possible occupy the flattest part of the lot because there is significant slopes everywhere and it becomes more constrained as you move north or away from the water due to wetlands, sloped, gulley's etc. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :And you're saying you can't put a garage where the proposed driveway is that you just pull straight in as is common for many waterfront homes? BRET KEHL : No we can't because we would be encroaching on our setbacks of the one of the septic system. We also have a drainage at the end of the driveway we have to put and that still 34 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 has—t-05 stay a certain amount away from the foundation.We couldn't get it in there. It looks bigger than it is but it's not that big because our setbacks on the to the right of that expansion and those galley's we still have to maintain 10 feet clearance from any structure and we got to be able to get the equipment in there to take care of the septic system. These septic systems require maintenance and you can't drive over that so if there's any problem with the septic system we can't even get to it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well my suggestion had been if you have an accessory garage and it's not my place to design it but as Rob Member Lehnert had shared that you've got a blank,slate, if you push the house back the 9 feet you can put the garage it would seem in the location you say proposed driveway which would still be out of the expansion area of the septic. You're not even going anywhere near the septic. BRUCE ANDERSON : But you couldn't it would be too close to the septic system. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The survey that I'm looking at that Kim Fuentes put on the screen in the location where it says 27.4 feet the distance between the northeast corner of the garage and the lot line it would seem that you could put a garage in that location that you pull straight in from the,road. BRET KEHL: But then you have a side yard issue and then you have also you're going to encroach on the proposed 4 foot distribution box and then you come out the driveway BRUCE ANDERSON ':That could not be done. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm not familiar with the distribution box that you're speaking of. BRET KEHL : Proposed 4 foot distribution box yea right at the corner of the garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And how far away can'the structure be from that? BRET KEHL : It's probably 10 feet on a distribution box. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) plastic right those (inaudible) concrete rings? BRET KEHL : I don't.know what they are on these IA systems but they probably are plastic yeah. MEMBER DANTES : That's the problem with the IA's the plastic pieces it's not like the old the traditional concrete ones that you can roll over all day long if you BRET KEHL : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know we have made proposals to require conformity and I think we've got sufficient answers as to why there are so many constraints on this property that 35 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 b this is not a you know it's just not a realistic proposal. The-only way they can do it is to make the house a whole lot smaller really. So they also need to have some turn around room to get in and out of the garage. I mean I honestly don't think that this is out of character with the neighborhood. I think it's not going to have the kind you know Mark Terry is a stickler and if he says this is consistent and the Health Department has granted approval for the system and you got enormous slopes here and you have all kinds of underground utilities and code required setbacks from you know wells and propane tanks and distribution boxes I think there is a time when variance relief is going to be more of if you look at the balancing test it's going to be more in favor of the benefit to the applicant than any detriment to the community and that's in the end the balancing test. The question we have to ask ourselves is the benefit to the applicant outweighing any detriment to the welfare to the community or the environment and you know honestly at this point I have enough information for myself to feel like this is one situation in which a variance is justified but that's one vote. Everybody can feel the way they want to. Normally when there is a tear down I totally agree the Board does everything it can to say you need to be conforming, why do you have to go back in the same footprint especially if it's a new foundation. When you look at this piece of property it is unique, it's really unique a very difficult building site. We'll see where the Board lands on this but that's my thought. I don't really have any more questions unless Bret or Bruce if you have anything else you'd like to say to us. BRET KEHL : Yes, we were-going to try very hard to use the pre-existing foundation and what happened was, once we turned off the heat in the house we didn't realize that the basement furnace was actually supplying the hot air and it was blowing hot air to the basement drying the basement out and once we shut it off we found water coming through the wall and then we got some frost and the frost started cracking everything and then we ended up with mold in the basement so this is I mean believe me we wanted to use the basement but then once we found out that the basement wouldn't hold a new structure and not leak cause in order to waterproof it we were going to have to dig out all around the house and that would actually cause probably more encroachment than trying to put a new foundation in and we've tried like I said we were very willing to try and use the existing foundation but then once we saw the water coming through we were like we can't build a brand new house on a foundation that's going to be full of mold and never be insured that it's going to be water tight. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course not. It's every homeowner's nightmare. BRET KEHL : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, any other comments or questions from the Board, Nick or Rob or Eric or Pat? Everybody good, alright so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't close this hearing. I don't think we're going to get any more information or questions. 36 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Leslie I have a quick question, I must have missed it, what 'is66 actual setback? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 41.3 feet for the rear yard from the rear yard which is waterfront. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only thing Leslie then to that point, do we need the survey to be corrected because it shows 41 feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what's interesting is the well 4.3 MEMBER DANTES :This one says 41 plus or minus. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 3 inches approximately so no I'm fine with this survey. 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 DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes, Kim would you call for the voice vote please. BOARD ASSISTANT: Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 2 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. Bruce we'll try to have a decision on August 20th which is our Special Meeting stay safe. 37 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 J HARD CORNERS PROPERTIES, LLC-#7387 (Deliberation & Decision) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome back to the afternoon session. Nick you're going to have to recuse yourself. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie should I turn off my computer? Matt if you could call me back, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's look at the SEQRA determination. The project that's the subject of this determination will need site plan approval and it should say addition to the variance requested from the Board. See where it says additional? In addition to the variance request from the Board go down a couple of lines and let me see one,two,three,four and I think the fourth line toward the end it says and therefore not determination it should be no determination and keep on under SEQRA has been made it should be a period and then a capital therefore a new sentence. Then on the next page under the second paragraph under additional information second line at the very end it should (inaudible) Planning Board then for some reason there is no boiler plate here for failure to meet the conditions herein will render this variance null and void. We generally have that when it's a conditional approval so I'd like to add at the end failure to meet all of the conditions sited herein or required herein will render this variance relief null and void. It should have been in there I don't know why I guess (inaudible). It's not a it's just text it's not a condition. BOARD ASSISTANT :You have where it says any deviations from the survey CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not in there. In fact actually because site plan approval is required and it could wind up being different from the plan we stamp I would like to delete that paragraph. I want to are you here John as legal advice? A.T.A. BURKE : I'm here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm talking about is we have a standard text that we any deviation from the survey or site plan and architectural drawings sited in this decision will result in delays and possible denial by the Building Department for a building permit may require a new application and public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals, this is not the type of determination that that sort of thing applies because it's possible the Planning Board will change something on you know the site plan that doesn't affect the variance. So I'm thinking it might be advisable to simply delete that and instead reiterate the idea that the conditions have to be met in order to codify the variance. Does that make sense to you? ' - A.T.A. BURKE : It does I'm just trying to think if we have to do anything at all but yeah it makes sense. 38 -- Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we'll do that then.That's all I had to say on this so what we have here is language in this decision that will assure that because this requested relief for variances literally deminimus less than 1%and because we are confident that this will not deviate from our normal procedure this will not set a precedent for other situations because you're rarely going to see a variance that is so deminimus in a commercial project. I don't really-need to go does anybody want to talk about this, is there,anything in here that you'd like to add or'discuss, Rob or Eric? MEMBER DANTES :Yea I have two questions,should we shorten the time frame to less than three years just to make sure that they keep going through the Planning Board process?The other one is this is just more of a question, how come Planning won't even declare itself lead agency? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe it already has. I'm not sure the Planning Board did declare lead agency but cause it says and as such the proposed action is applied forth to this Board will have no significant or minor adverse environmental impacts, they've already indicated in their comments as lead agency that they support this application this very modest variance. MEMBER DANTES :So should we cross out that part that says Planning Board has not (inaudible) BOARD ASSISTANT : Let me know if I need to create (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible)the first paragraph we delete A.T.A. BURKE : I think that Planning is going to become lead agency after this fact. MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay so they haven't done it yet. 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they already have really but it's look A.T.A. BURKE : I think that we all know that they're going to, I'm not I mean I can make a call and see if they have but I'm not sure. MEMBER DANTES : Maybe we just delete CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does appearthatthere is some created confusion aboutthe process. That's part of the problem the whole process is quite unusual.' MEMBER DANTES : Right, I'm just saying let's just delete that one line just say at this time a determination under SEQRA has not been made therefore as set forth below that's all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where in a condition? MEMBER DANTES : No its SEQRA determination the first paragraph you go down four lines. 39 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me read it. MEMBER DANTES : I think it kind of cleans up our decision a little bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we just simply say the ZBA Chairperson and staff have consulted with the Planning Department staff and determined that the Planning Board will declare lead agency for the purposes of SEQRA but will. MEMBER ACAMPORA : That's good. A.T.A. BURKE : I spoke to Bill, Planning is not lead agency until this is passed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so but they will. A.T.A. BURKE : So the part where it says that they're not lead agency is correct and that's why there's a condition that they will become lead agency but there's no question that they're going to do that. This is a Planning issue where they just won't accept the application until we do this. They won't become lead agency until they can accept the application. We're just trying to get this thing into Planning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we do this, will declare lead agency for the purposes of SEQRA once this variance determination is rendered. MEMBER DANTES : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just be very clear about it. That alright with you John? A.T.A. BURKE : Yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : once this variance determination in the SEQRA determination the first paragraph. So in a nut shell what we're looking at here is a conditional approval although it is not customary this particular application is unique in that it is virtually a deminimus determination. It is supported by the Planning Board, it is supportive by the Comprehensive Plan because it's an affordable housing development and the Town Attorney has advised us that this will not have any negative that there will be a negative declaration those are conditions for a negative declaration and this will have very little precedence value in future applications. So having said all of that does anybody else have any other comments or MEMBER DANTES : Yes, then on page three following what we did on front on page three paragraph two should we delete presumed lead agency? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what we're paginated differently depending on how you printed it. Tell me what the category is. 40 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MEMBER DANTES : No it-says page three right on top `- A.T.A. BURKE : Under request for conditional approval? MEMBER DANTES : Yep paragraph two. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I got that it's the second point? MEMBER DANTES : Yea I just want to delete presumed lead agency. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's just cross that out, that's fine. A.T.A. BURKE : Now why do we have a problem with that? . MEMBER DANTES : Cause they are going to be the lead agency it's not presumed is it? A.T.A. BURKE : I mean it's not official unti[it's official. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bottom line is it doesn't matter about the agency. In this case what is determinative in this particular sentence is that they the Planning Board favors granting the variance. A.T.A. BURKE : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because the relief-is minimal and relief you don't even have to mention lead agency here. MEMBER DANTES : I just don't like presumptions in the decisions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright that's not a problem,,it's not going to change anything. Alright so consequently we have with those changes and corrections and assurances that this very minor very (inaudible) are not going to create any concern technically or legally I just wanted to make SEQRA is very specific as we all know so based on counsel's advice and my discussions with the Planning Board. I guess we can now make a motion to grant the variance as applied for subject to the following conditions, 1) the Planning Board declares Lead Agency and as such finds that the proposed action as applied for to this Board will have no significant or moderate adverse, environmental impacts and issues a negative declaration determination' of environmental significance negative-declaration pursuant to part 617 of State regulations issued pursuant to Article 8 the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Law issues a Negative Declaration. 2)The units labeled as affordable rental apartments shall be rented to an individual who registers on-the Town of Southold's affordable housing registry. 3) That the proposed uses and improvements receive site plan approval by the Town of'Southold' Planning Board and we are adding not as a condition but as text putting back in what we generally do, failure to meet all 41 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 of the conditions sited herein will render the variance relief null and void. I so move, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : seconded by Member Dantes. Kim would you please call for a voice vote. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do"you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye.' BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. I will go into the office and I will make these corrections on here and we'll resend it out to the Board so that you have everything you know in final form and I will sign it and we will send it to the Town Clerk and we will notify I believe he's on anyway I think we was anyway there he is he's on. Charles Salice is aware of the determination and we'll send it out to them and,we'll make sure that Planning will get copies. HEARING#7409#7410 &#7411—INDIAN NECK IV, LLC, INDIAN NECK II, LLC & INDIAN NECK III, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's get back to the agenda. The first application before the Board I'm going open actually all three because there are three lots in the same general area, they are all AG properties and they're all about deer fencing. Let's see is Matt here? . MATT HOGAN : Martin I'm going to we have Martin Finnegan. Martin I'm going to go ahead and promote you to a panelist your screen will blink and you will reappear in the meeting. You'll be able to unmute and speak. Just a reminder for those of you who weren't here for the morning sessions if you want to comment on anything on the agenda go ahead and click the raise hand 42 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 - button or send us a note via the Q&A and Member Planamento you can come back in. Martin we can see your video could we get a quick audio check. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon everybody, Martin Finnegan here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to open all three of these as once, it just makes sense to do' that. So let me enter into the record what we're looking at. Indian Neck IV, LLC #7409, Indian Neck II, LLC #7410 and Indian Neck III, LLC #7411. They're all the same requests so I'll just read the one into the record. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-105C and the Building Inspector's January 13, 2020 amended February 24, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" 8 foot deer fence at 1) not permitted on vacant parcel not engaged in bona fide agricultural production located at 1985 Leslie Rd., in Peconic, 3595 Skunk Lane in Cutchogue and 3123 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. So we have 8 foot high deerfencing on property that is not yet agricultural production. Martin why don't you take over and tell us what you'd like to tell us. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Thank you Leslie, well therein lies the issue we-are actually in agricultural production. These are three related parcels which are part of the Indian Neck Farm which has been in existence in Peconic for quite some time but in the last the prior owner of the property had not engaged in farming for in the area in question but for the last two years there has been farming there. As,a matter of fact in the 2019 calendar year there was a very large squash crop that was sold and for over $82,000 which of course is well beyond the threshold established by AG and Markets for bona fide agriculture. So as of now the three parcels that are under review are engaged in agricultural production in they are not'completely planted with produce. That is the intention (inaudible) cover crops preparing them but as'you know with the proliferation of deer in the town and there's really no way for this farm operation to succeed without this deer fencing so that is Why it is there why we're seeking to legalize it'so that the crops that you know (inaudible) for this fence that crop would have never happened last year and the existing crops would be gone as well we all know that. So'I spared'you my memo on the 267 criteria, I think we pretty much addressed it in our submission. I did also I just wanted to confirm that I sent in to Kim and Liz, copies of the resolutions from the Farmland Committee and the County Legislature I just wanted the Board to be aware that this entire farm operation has been accepted into the first agricultural district recognized by the County as an active farm operation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, all three lots? MARTIN FINNEGAN': All four lots. There's four lots here but yes the three lots that you are reviewing have been'included into the AG district. BOARD ASSISTANT : Was this resolution 500-2020? 43 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes-and, I had sent.one yesterday, I just got the County Leg one that's--the 500-2020 the preceding resolution was just the recommendation by the Farmland Committee to include the parcels into the AG district and that was acted upon so it's at the point where,the County Legislature has approved itand it just has to get the final seal of approval from AG and Markets which is we believe that doesn't occur until September and with everything going on in the world it could be a little bit later but it's sort of BOARD ASSISTANT : They just received it today. It was-just emailed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay because I haven't seen it. So they are already recognized as a bona fide Ag operation? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they're part of the Ag district are they getting Ag exemptions? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes applying applications are pending. I think we got through the inclusion process and I believe so, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the applications for Ag exemptions are pending. MEMBER DANTES : Is that why you're here then; because they the Building Department won't give you a deer fence permit while the Ag exemption is pending? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Quite honestly we were expecting this to be done a long time ago but we did not at the time of the original application for a building permit which is nearly a year ago the Building Department did not believe that we qualified as bona fide Ag operation cause there wasn't two consecutive.years of operation at that point but that is you know essentially almost moot at this point based on the operations that were last year and ongoing in the current year. So really as a yea I don't,want to call it a startup cause they haver been actively engaged in agriculture now for two years but;we're going to need to get through this year and in order for it to continue we need the fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :What about the one of the lots that has the horse barn and horse farm on it? V MARTIN FINNEGAN : The Building Department determined it because of the fact that that had been in-existence a commercial horse boarding operation that that parcel got a permit for a deer fence but the efficacy of that is obviously dependent on the remaining perimeter, I mean it's four parcels but it's one farm. So there's no application there's no need for any relief for that parcel. MEMBER DANTES : So they're doing it by parcel? 44 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's what they do, everything has to be a separate application for each tax map number and MEMBER DANTES : Even if that's on parcels that are in production? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry to interrupt but I just got a call from Nick Planamento, apparently he's bumped off for some reason or another and Matt is it possible for you to either get him back in or resend him,the link so he can join,us? MATT HOGAN : Sure I'll resend that to him right now. If anybody has a way to text him or contact him just let him know that within the next moment or so he should receive a new link to come back in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm calling him back to tell him. He's not picking up but I did tell him that I would ask you to send him a link again so he can rejoin. Let me see I can call him on his cell phone. MATT HOGAN : In the meantime we just got a message from Judy Teveen that she is here as an adjacent neighbor so I'm going go ahead and bring her in. MARTIN FINNEGAN : My client Ernest Schalamandre is also there, I'm assuming he was able to observe this but do you have to do,anything else to include him? MATT HOGAN : I'm sorry could you repeat that name one more time? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Ernest Schalamandre. MATT HOGAN : I don't see Ernest on the list.There is a phone number ending in ****.That could be Ernest. I'm going to allow the number ending in **** to talk for minute and if you could let us know who you are that would be very helpful go ahead. ERNEST SCHALAMANDRE : Ernest Schalamandre.' MATT HOGAN : Okay.We're dealing with a technical issue right now,we'll be starting in a minute but I'm going to leave it so you can talk. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Matt what happened is Nick's internet crashed,or something his cable went. He can get emails on his cell phone and so I'm going to give you'that address and you can send it there. It's'a different email address okay. MATT HOGAN : The email is on the way. I also just received a message that we have another neighbor Barbara Farr. I'm'going to bring her in just a moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to go back to this hearing. 45 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO-: I'm back. MATT HOGAN : Leslie we also have the applicant we have Ernest on the phone as well if you have any questions for him. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So Martin was,ther.e more that you wanted to tell us?So you're saying that the horse farm lot had a prior exemption where it had a permit MARTIN FINNEGAN : Based on the Building Department's review they weren't questioning the bona fide agricultural operations there but they were looking at its piece meal they're looking at each parcel individually as opposed to a single farm operation (inaudible) so that's why CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's clear that some of these are already growing crops. Others-are not yet growing crops but intend to, is that what you're saying? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I have cover crops and yes I mean we'll be eventually rotating through that's the goal but in the absence of the fence it's a waste of money to be planting crops so that's why CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well were all of those crops recognized as part of the Ag district? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And all of them will be applying for Ag exemption cause they're certainly big enough. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes, absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright cause that was my only concern. I mean you know clearly we feel very mixed about Ag properties and the way it works with deer fencing. I mean everybody understands the crops will be destroyed without deer fencing but the code,is so complex in some ways overly complexed in terms of how to determine whether or not this is a bona fide Ag operation. Cover crops is that Ag production, probably not, not yet but it's preparing the soil as far as I understand for future crops. So part of me said well, give you a period of time to prove that this is going to be and is in fact an Ag operation and by which time all of these various things need to fall into place and production needs to be demonstrated or take the'fence down. You know give you a couple of years whatever time you need to get these crops going but if they're already admitted as part'of the Ag district you know that puts a slightly different light on it in my mind anyway. So I don't know do you want to see what other people have to say that are on this call before we see if there are any questions from the Board? How do you want to do this? MARTIN FINNEGAN I'm prepared to answer any questions it's up to you to take whatever comments you like. 46 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let the audience speak up, people who are in-attendance here. Let's see Ernest is here, there was somebody else here. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I believe two of the neighboring homeowners had joined. MATT HOGAN : We have Barbara Farr and Judy Teveen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we hear from them if they have anything they'd'like to say unless they are just listening. MATT HOGAN : Barbara and or Judy you can go ahead and unmute and speak if you'd like. BARBARA FARR :,Hi, I'm Barbara Farr. My property is 3395 Skunk Lane which is on the western perimeter of the farmland. I actually have the horse pasture behind my property and then wooded thicket just to the south of my property so it kind of comes in an L around me. So here's my issue, that the way the deer fencing was put up it forces all the wild life, deer plus other wild life basically into a dead end at my property because they also have an older fence along the perimeter of the wooded thicket. Before the deer fencing it used to be a corridor for wild life,and actually the deer used to go hang out in the pasture with the horses and you know things were pretty flowing in that whole area of the corner where Skunk and Leslie come together and now the wild life gets pulled up and they're only option is to go from property out into the road and I've' got wild turkeys, we've got raccoons, we've got all sorts'of other wild life besides just the deer and the way the owner brought deer fencing now kind 'of further into the'wooded thicket right by the corner of my property,and it just I think that the configuration needs to be looked at closer with that in mind with the fact that it's creating a dead end at my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It probably would be helpful if we could visualize exactly which one of these lots is your property. BARBARA FARR : Sure so on the map CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you seeing what I'm seeing up there you know the large BARBARA FARR : Yes you just did the green-circle around my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Kim. So I'm trying to figure out I'm seeing you know,all of the fencing and all that stuff that's on here and can you envision what kind of(inaudible)fencing might you proposed to remedy that situation? J BARBARA FARR : Well if you okay so the heavy dotted lines I don't know why those are heavy dotted lines and then it stops kind of at my property. There's deer fencing in existence you know all the way behind and then makes a turn a ninety degree turn and then a ninety degree turn again. Right there that's where you know the deer and other wild life they go they used to go 47 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 through the fields to what we scall Indian Farms is the neighborhood just south of me and now every the deer are pushed to go through my neighbors properties and the wooded thicket but then there's a fence there in between my property and the wooded thicket that they get hung up on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is this wooded thicket? Can you see this mouse that I'm wiggling.around? BARBARA FARR : It's directly to my south. It's in between my property and the next it's Catrell's. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Like here? BARBARA FARR : No, no you're on the wrong side of Skunk. Go on the eastern side-of skunk. It's the line with all the writing underneath it.At the bottom of the map it says Catrell there's'a parcel yes so it's in between Catrell's and my parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So around in here. BARBARA FARR : No. BOARD ASSISTANT : Right here. BARBARA FARR : The heavy dotted line, yea that's it. That area there, it used to be and it abuts the road all the way up to the road. It used to be yea right there'. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look I've'got an idea, let's hear okay so you have a problem now with an accumulation of wild life let me see Martin how do you feel about or how does your client feel about possibly discussing with the neighbor some slight modification to the fence to create a more fluid wild life corridor so that there isn't this problem being created. This is always the problem, as soon as you put up deer fencing it's displacing everything. It's important for an Ag operation cause they can't function that's why Ag and Markets allows it. However you know we want to do everything we can to mitigate problems created on residential properties as a result of that cause we often have houses mixed in with Ag properties. So I'll tell you what, let me just see what the other neighbor has to say or what I guess Ernest is he the owner here? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ernest do you want to reply to this? ERNEST SCALAMANDRE : Sure if Martin allows me to. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Yea go ahead Ernest. 48 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 ERNEST SCALAMANDRE : So the need for the deer fence-clearly is to support the Ag operation which is tad amount to not only(inaudible)from the neighborhood but also to you know provide some sort of an economic use for the property. We do intend to be taking down chunks of the fence as-soon as the crop the harvest is completed in October and we had been working (inaudible) with the D.E-.C. in an effort to try to be as you know to mitigate the impact that the fence would have as well as other things we are doing on a local deer and other animal population. I just point to all the money I spent to create deer feeding plots around the whole property which is 150 acres now which I can tell you that it's certainly a lot more than anyone neighbor has ever spent on feeding deer and making sure that the population is somehow you know at least the best we can at least is to (inaudible) also we are going to have there's always going to be when we have any one neighborhood sort of disruptions animals walking around on previously uninhabited land we're going to have this sort of issue. I'd be more than willing to sit down with the neighbor and figure out a little of a better sort of a solution for that but that one corner mind you I got twenty other corners of which I have other plots on six of them to mitigate this sort of issue. I would say that this is all in conjunction with what the (inaudible) not my opinion. That being said you know we're doing some other things cause we also have two honestly with an Ag operation have to move the driveway here or there and that's (inaudible) but we are you know certainly anything we're doing is a lot better than putting condominiums or houses up so that I'm more than willing to sit down with the neighbors to see what is a better solution for the area of the deer fence but we all have to be (inaudible) of the fact that you know it is private property and I don't think we certainly wouldn't do anything that is anywhere (inaudible) not in conjunction with you know local reg's but unfortunately with the animals and so forth I can't tell you that's (inaudible) introduced to the area and I will continue to do as a reinvested you know in the whole (inaudible) wildlife population. That being said I'm more than willing to sit down with neighbors and see if we can figure out a better solution if there is one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's quite reasonable and that's precisely the,kind of attitude the Board appreciates.There is someone named Judy who's a neighbor who's on here, I want to see if she has something she'd like to say. Are you there Judy? JUDY TEVEEN : Sure, can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes we can. JUDY TEVEEN : Judy Teveen and my property is right next to Barbara's so I think my name is on the map there kind of yep that's it and so I'm delighted to have an organic farm coming up behind us as opposed to houses or anything else that can be there cause that's nice to look at. I guess there are deer in the'yard but there always have and I mean Barbara has a different issue because of the way the corridor comes up there and my issue is slightly different but I wouldn't even call it an issue it's more of an opportunity. I'm not trying (inaudible) but the way the fence juts in to 49 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 r my back yard it's about at one point ab-but 8 feet away from the garage into this fence just comes in and is pretty imposing so I would love to and Martin and I talked yesterday so I'd love to lay out for him a potential idea about a slight movement of the fence and if that includes an easement or a purchase. I know it gets complicated but that's just something that I'd like to put on the table and I told Martin I'd put it in writing to him to have a conversation. ERNEST SCALAMANDRE : Who owns the property you're talking about? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it on this map? JUDY TEVEEN : I'm talking about two pieces of property, mine and yours. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And where is yours? JUDY TEVEEN : It's 3275 Skunk Lane. It's a funky shaped. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yes. JUDY TEVEEN : It kind of cuts in it cuts out it cuts over so part of my property goes behind Barbara's house, part of the ten acre parcel juts into this property so it's an interesting shape is all I'll say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep it's very unusual. Well look why don't we do this, I don't think the Board is objecting to the deer fence but I think the applicant has basically agreed to try and make some modification that he feels is reasonable to accommodate some of the concerns of the two neighbors. Martin are you okay with working with your client and the neighbors to possibly make some slight adjustments on the survey that will perhaps mitigate some of those concerns? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I had already told as Judy has mentioned that if she wanted to just clarify what she's seeking to do and send me an email that I would share that with Mr. Scalamandre. I think as he's expressed we willing to be reasonable and cooperative as long as we can you know maintain the integrity of the farm. I think there was an effort to place the fence I mean the property line goes all the way up to Skunk Lane. The southern tip of the farm is you can tell so to avoid putting the fence right up along the roadway there was already an effort to place it in a reasonable location so as not to be you know offensive to surrounding neighbors but obviously also to maximize the farm field and not to cut into it in a way that would impact the crops. Yes I mean certainly I think as a good neighbor I think Mr. Scalamandre will always be willingto discuss anybody's concerns. _ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well why don't we do this, suppose we adjourn this to the August 20th meeting in two weeks to give you some time to see what if anything you know you would like to do to make some modifications and then 50 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MARTIN FINNEGAN : Is this issue something that I mean quite honestly I feel like the deer fence is necessary. It's in a location it's not encroaching on anyone's property. I don't believe that we have a problem having a conversation and making modification_s but we would like to you know finalize the process of legalizing it so we can move on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not holding up anything it's already there, move on to what? You're farming, you're planting crops, you're doing whatever you're doing on that property. I don't see how a slight because as you well know when we make a determination we stamp a drawing, we stamp a survey. I don't want to stamp a survey that isn't, going to be accurate. If there's going to be a slight movement I don't think I'll speak for myself but I don't think the Board given all that'we just heard is going to have a' problem with a variance for these fences. I just think it's a matter of stamping an accurate plan and this is really a civil matter. I mean the Ag piece well within his rights to put up fencing on the perimeter of his agricultural property but as a good neighbor if he's willing to understand that that farmers can create problems for neighbors unwillingly not wanting to but to protect his property he's you know possibly displacing some other problems unto neighbors.This is what happens out here all the time. So if there's good will here and you're willing to you know wait another till if you can figure this out prior to two weeks you know what I'm saying. If you want to make slight amendments and you send in a revision, I don't care even if it's a hand drawn thing you know on there that says cause sometimes surveyors take their jolly old time but I mean the survey is the survey it looks like it's a hand drawn line anyway. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well because as you know Leslie it's extremely expensive to alter a survey particularly of 150 acres. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :_Exactly that's why I'saying you know if you've got a clean copy without this mark up on it or if you want to use some white out and just make slight changes into whatever wherever it's going to be ERNEST SCALAMANDRE : I'm just wondering why it's my burden. I'm not sure why I have to wait for this and why I'm burdened to accommodate a neighbor to do that. I'm not really sure why that's the case maybe Martin CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wouldn't call it a burden, I would call it being a good neighbor as you just said. You were saying you were in agreement with well you know what, let me see what the Board wants. Maybe the Board doesn't care and I'm the only one who does I don't know. MEMBER DANTES : I'm a little nervous about a precedent to that cause if you look at'all the other operations around town, A. for whatever reason they didn't need variances and they put their fence where they were entitled to put it. 51 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MATT HOGAN : I hate to interrupt but it looks-like Member Planamento's internet went down on . t him again, we've lost him. MEMBER DANTES : That's the way I'm looking at it. I mean I think these guys CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric hold on a second, let's see Matt can you resend to his MATT HOGAN : He should be able to use the same link, it just looks like his connection dropped or his internet froze up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then well he's probably going only be on once and it shouldn't be a problem so I'm just going to let him deal with it. Thank you for mentioning that though. MATT HOGAN : It looks like he's back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what does the Board want to do? I mean what do you want to do? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I honestly agree with Eric's I mean this is it's a deer fence, it's a conforming location on the-line, it's on our property as Mr. Scalamandre has indicated.They're taking efforts to mitigate the impact of that but it's an Ag operation and you know I don't believe and I'm certain he'd be willing to entertain a discussion but I don't believe the relief requested should be conditioned•upon that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not a condition Martin I wasn't suggesting a condition. I was suggesting I wanted to stamp a survey that showed the fencing where it's going to be if it's going to be changed and we don't know if it's going to be changed until there's a conversation. MEMBER DANTES : But Leslie what do Ag operations do around town? They can move deer fencing as of right can't they? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They can do that as of right but this is not as of right because the Building Department did not recognize this as a bona fide Ag operation. ! MEMBER DANTES : But I mean it's not a workable (inaudible) as to enforce. This law is a mess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think the law MEMBER DANTES : The law doesn't work. MEMBER ACAMPORA : The Building Department didn't have this resolution before when they sent the denial. 52 Regular Meeting August 6,2020 y JUDY TEVEEN : I just want to go on the record'this is Judy Teveen the neighbor, I'm not opposing what has to happen and I would love to have a conversation about how to amend whatever if there's any change that can be made. I'm not personally opposing this request so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then you know perhaps the best thing to do is just simply to proceed to grant deer fencing on these properties and then let you all work out whatever as neighbors you intend to work out, that's it. MARTIN FINNEGAN :That would be our request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So who else is here? Bill are you back or is that John still? A.T.A. BURKE : It's still me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just checking. So Nick are you on? ERNEST SCALAMANDRE : If I could just conclude one thing this is Ernest the owner, not that I want to stick a knife in anything but you know.I'm here I'm not a local but I,certainly made an effort to go out and_meet'as many of the neighbors as I have been able to knock on the door and try to not only be friendly I've actually consider some of them good friends now fortunately but I've been into both of your houses twice just to knock on the door I know it's probably trespassing for me to go up to your front door to say hello but I don't you know I certainly would appreciate you coming anytime you want and take a tour of what we're up, to and even just to start a discussion. I haven't seen that sort of effort though so I'd like to you know kind of see that at the very least so I'm more than willing to try and change something as far as we have a couple of different things we're trying to weigh here not only the wellbeing and your wellbeing is you know as a landowner as mine as well but we have to have a conversation to do so. I just don't know why this should delay this thing we've been sitting here for like how'long Martin sitting on this application it's been some time hasn't it? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Oh yea there was a delay'obviously because of'the yes we'd really like to move to a determination Leslie if we can do so today because and as indicated the door is open 'ICHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look the relief requested is the same whether something is moved slightly or not.So we can once the variance fence is granted then modifications technically can be made to that fence and we don't have to re-stamp anythingbecause once it's legalized he has the right to move it because he has the right to have it basically. I think we just have to close this. BARBARA FARR : This is Barbara Farr, I just wanted to say to'Ernest thank you very much for your offer to talk. I would very much like to do that and I would very much enjoy you know a stop over 53 I Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 to see your operation;because I've been very curious-and I very much appreciate your farm and 1 love looking at the horses in the field. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a lot nicer than a subdivision. BARBARA FARR : Absolutely. JUDY TEVEEN : Any day I'll take it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next time you do this Martin would you please Google Earth the darn thing, my GPS didn't even know where I was going. It was pretty,complicated trying to find these properties. Some of it'you can see and some of it you couldn't see at all.Anyway, okay Nick are you on? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It keeps going in and out. The only thing I wanted to add my only comment I wanted to add is'l understood by right that and I understand that it's riot (inaudible) before us for the application but they could actually fence right up to the property line as an agricultural,operation and I think.the applicant has shown by pulling it back off of Skunk Lane off of Leslie's Rd. I mean it's really it's well hidden and it should not I think be an issue because I think by right it could have gone right up to the shoulder of the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We did discuss that Nick you must have been somewhere in you know in the Ethernet. Can you hear me Nick?You know what, you're cutting in and out. MEMBER.PLANAMENTO : I hear you fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good but you're cutting in and out on your cell phone and it's weird. I mean you sounded really weird. We got the gist of what you were saying and we're about to close the hearing on all three. MATT HOGAN : Nick if you'd,rather just call in as a phone user we can just let you speak that way and avoid the network issues. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It might be better. Is there a number I can dial? MATT HOGAN : Here I'll send it to you in chat so I don't have to disrupt stuff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so I think we've covered this so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearings on application #7409, 7410, 7411 reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? 54 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim would you call for the voice vote please. BOARD ASSISTANT : I'm going to do one vote for all three correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye: BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you•vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson`Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries, all three applications are closed. We will have a decision for you on August 20tH HEARING#7405—GERALD MILITO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are not on item #12 on the agenda and this is an application for Gerald Milito #,7405. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 22, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 550 West Rd. in Cutchogue. Eileen Santora I believe it here. 55 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 a- MATT HOGAN : Yep and this would be a good time to remind-everybody that if you are here and would like to comment on this agenda item just go ahead and send us a note in the Q&A or click the raise hand button. So far we only have Eileen Santora. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so this is an ad1dition and alteration to a single family dwelling with a single side yard setback of 1.5 feet where the code requires a minimum of 10, adding one bedroom and bathroom to enlarge the house from two bedrooms to three bedrooms. We have a prior C.O., two prior C.O.'s, the side of the house will actually reduces on the survey I don't know can you see my mouse if I do this? Can you see the mouse on the screen anybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So what we're seeing is a diminishing of this side yard the house is not parallel and so one question I had, Eileen are you there? EILEEN SANTORA : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes now we can, hi Eileen. So it looks like the survey shows 1.2, 1 foot 2 inches and the Notice of Disapproval says 1 foot 5 inches what is that? EILEEN SANTORA : I have on the survey 1.2 but at end of it but in the beginning it's 1.5 where it starts. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep, yep I see it. EILEEN SANTORA : at the end it's 1.2.That is an existing driveway for the neighbor's property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well I just didn't want to have the wrong information so we (inaudible) 1.2 otherwise it would simply go with the Notice of Disapproval of 1.5 and he's showing the survey (inaudible) 1.2 that's not going to work. So since it's a greater variance from what's on the survey let's call it that. EILEEN SANTORA : Right cause that's at the end of the addition it is 1.2 which is 1 foot 3 inches. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So,what would you like us to know about this application? EILEEN SANTORA:The homeowners have made this their permanent residence. It was only a two bedroom small house.They have children that come to visit.They need another room,they need storage, they need a master bathroom which we added. We are taking off an enclosed porch screened in porch to make a small deck. We're adding we're putting a bilco in because when we put this addition it's covering their basement entrance. We're just asking for a little bit more space and with the pandemic even before this they needed the space and now you know it's a small house and they are becoming permanent they are now permanent residents here. r 56 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON-WEISMAN : Well it's also you know so add into the record is that if you-look even on the survey the adjacent property to the east that house is also it's set behind the subject property house and it's very, very close to the side yard also. EILEEN SANTORA : Yes but we do have in that yea we have 4.1 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's pretty characteristic of these long thin lots. EILEEN SANTORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions if you can hear me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All I can tell you is that when you listen to this recording and hear how you sound you definitely don't sound like yourself. You are talking in slow motion. It's your connection I mean we have no in this neighborhood we don't have any even cell phone connection that works well. So he has no questions is the main thing. Is there anybody else her for this, I think it's just you Eileen. EILEEN SANTORA : Yes. MATT HOGAN :Just a reminder, if anybody wants to comment on this raise your hand or send us a note in the Q&A but I don't believe we have anybody else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see anything so I'm going to make a motion to close the,hearing reserve decision to a later date, do I have a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora, Kim would you call for the voice vote please. 57 Regular Meeting.August 6, 2020 a- BOARD ASSISTNAT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The application is closed unanimously. - HEARING#7384SE—SEAN MAGNUSON FOR HNF RESORTS, INC. (EASTERN L. I. KAMPGROUND) CHAIRPERSON.WEISMAN :The next item on the agenda is#13 and let's see,who do we have here for that? MATT HOGAN : I don't believe we have anybody right now. If you are here for item 13 please raise your hand or send us a note in the Q&A but I don't see Sean or Eileen present. Oh we have a raised hand from Christopher Winter. Christopher I'm going to go ahead and allow you to unmute and talk. Are you here for this item? SEAN MAGNUSON-: Yes we're here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It sounds like there's more than one of you. Who is we? SEAN MAGNUSON : Sean Magnuson, Christopher Winter and Eileen Wingate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh fine all three of you are there. MATT HOGAN : Great, I'm going to bring you in as panelists, your screen will blink and you will rejoin in about ten seconds. 58 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, this is Sean Magnuson for HNF Resort Inc. #7384SE. A request for Special Exception pursuant to town code Article VIII Section 280-35B(5) and the town code Article I Section 253-1, the applicant is requesting permission to alter the existing tourist and trailer campground by removing twenty (20) tent sites and constructing twenty (20) seasonal cottages as well as variances for twenty (20) cottages measuring 504 sq. ft. where the code only allows cottages to measure a maximum of 450 sq.ft. in size-located at 64500 CR48 in Greenport. So variances for the size and then a Special Exception to permit these cottages to be built on what is already legally established campgrounds. What else do you want us to know?You all do know that we've all been out to the site, we've seen the tent sites, we've seen the property. We do that routinely for every application that comes before the Board prior to a public hearing so we know exactly what it all looks like. So would you like to address the Special Exception standards first and then the area variances? SEAN MAGNUSON : Yea I just had just a quick correction on there, it says we're going to be converting twenty (20) tent sites to twenty (20) seasonal cabins, we're actually reducing it from thirty (30)tent sites to twenty (20) cabins. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ah okay so are you removing all the tent sites then is that it? SEAN MAGNUSON : The thirty (30) tent sites that are in the woods and then the tent sites that are outside the woods will most likely stay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so you are actually altering let's correct this (inaudible) by removing thirty (30)tent sites and constructing twenty (20) seasonal cottages is that correct? SEAN MAGNUSON :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. So why don't you address the Special Exception standards first and then we'll look at the variance. EILEEN WINGATE : As far as all of our information goes a Special Exception is just a technicality. We are an existing, established campground and it's as far as I can tell it's just a ticket to be punched. We've met all the criteria and frankly we had designed cottages at 450 sq. ft. and if I can jump ahead a little bit asking for the extra 54 sq. ft. was simply as we laid out the cottages and we were trying to (inaudible) a wide range of cottages that it became very difficult for us to work with the 450 because we wanted to offer a one bedroom cottage and then we wanted to offer a two bedroom cottage and it was squeezing down-the size of the cottages so much we were pushing people outside to eat all the time. We'd like this to be a really wonderful seasonal approach and we just felt that there is on occasion inclement weather and that being able to eat inside and having a little bit more room for a television might accommodate a larger family so that they could also enjoy the great outdoors here in Greenport. 59 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you said you met all the standards, I'm looking to see where those arguments are in your application for-the Special Exception. Perhaps you've done them, I'm just looking to see if they are in here because you do have to address them at some point either at the hearing and on the application. EILEEN WINGATE : I thought the application was pretty thorough. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well you do know that hold on you do know that the Special Exception standards are quite different than the area variance standards. EILEEN WINGATE : Oh yes I know that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just looking at the paperwork here. t EILEEN WINGATE : We have all day Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don't. You might but we have a lot more hearings. Does anybody have any paperwork that addresses the standards? I got,it, I got it. I'm just going to go over these. The use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or (inaudible) because the proposed reorganization of the campground is to decrease the number of camp sites approved in the 2005 site plan review(inaudible) locations forthe cabins is adjacent to Moores Woods and provides a quiet natural environment perfect for the camping experience. Does everybody have a copy of this in their application packet? These cottages are they seasonally used? SEAN MAGNUSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the span of that season? SEAN MAGNUSON :As I understand we have an eight month season but it's been in the past May 1St to October 31"just because of the weather at both ends of the season makes it difficult. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, are these heated or unheated? SEAN MAGNUSON : They will be heated and built to permanent spec, 2x6 with as I understand we're required to do that to build a four season permanent structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN,: You're hooking up to Greenport water is that right? SEAN MAGNUSON : Yea we're doing the city sewer which Greenport handles, Suffolk County Water and then Greenport electric. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you need site plan approval from the Planning Board also? 60 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020, EILEEN WINGATE : Yes. SEAN MAGNUSON : We have our Suffolk County Water Authority'approval for the waste system. EILEEN WINGATE,: And we also have Suffolk County Water Authority letter coming as well. They've approved our application for more water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well we also have a letter of general support from the Planning Board which I'm sure you've got a copy of. EILEEN WINGATE : We do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob how about you? MEMBER LEHNERT : l have no questions right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. ti CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick if he's there. MATT HOGAN : It looks like we have lost Member Planamento again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Oh boy quite a challenge these days but we try to carry on.Well I don't have any further questions really. The variance is not a very large variance. The only reason it's not Noticed in the Notice of Disapproval is because the Building Department feels that a Special Exception they have nothing to do with it(but they do have something to do with it when variances are required and they should have you know so noted but we did and we can address it in our decision, otherwise you're not going to get a permit for those cottages at that size which is why we asked you to submit the variance application also. SEAN MAGNUSON : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's connecting, let's see what happens. He's-just got no connectivity basically it's what's going on. Alright well while he's trying to do that if he comes on in a minute I just want to give him the opportunity to ask any questions presuming we can hear him talk like a person instead of some sort of strange robot. BOARD SECRETARY : Should I call him and ask him to call in ? 61 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute,there he is. Alright he's up. Nick can ydwhear us? MATT HOGAN : Nick try turning off your video to use less span width maybe just audio will get us by for the rest of the meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like he's frozen. He's still on here but there's no video or audio at the moment. One more minute and I'm going to close this. We have a quorum but I think as a courtesy he's working hard to try and stay connected here. This is what happens with this sometimes, you get technical difficulties that just can't alright at the moment it looks like he's got MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't turn on my video, I can hear you right now. ,I'm truly sorry I have no idea what (inaudible) is going on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We basically covered the Special Exception and variance applications for HNF Resorts. Before we close do you have any specific questions about this application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then what we're going to do is I'm going to make a motion close the hearing reserve decision to a later date on both the variance and the Special Exception. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim would you call for�the voice vote please. BOARD ASSISTNAT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT: Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? 62 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CHAIRPERSON'WEISMAN : Aye. "- BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously we will have a decision in two weeks. MATT HOGAN : I have a request for our next item, it looks like Patricia Moore is in with three separate instances in the attendee list so can the real Patricia Moore please click the raise hand button so I know which one to promote otherwise there's going to be a lot of feedback. HEARING# 7390—GRANDVIEW INC., PATRICK TREANOR, PRESIDENT MATT HOGAN : I have a request for our next item, it looks like Patricia Moore is in with three separate instances in the attendee list so'can the real Patricia Moore please click the raise hand button so I know which one to promote otherwise there's going to be a lot of feedback.The 'real one I'm going to promote you to a panelist and I believe that's everyone we have. If you are here to comment on agenda item-14 please click the raise hand button. It looks like we're all set and Patricia you should be able to unmute and speak now if you'd like. PAT MOORE : Sorry I'm over thirty and it takes me a second to figure,out where the"unmute button is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm going to open up the application and read it into the record. This is for 1925 Grandview Inc., Patrick Treanor President #7390. Request for a variance from Article III Section 280-13 and the Building Inspector's January 6, 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) more than the code permitted maximum two and one-half (2 %) stories located at 1925 Grandview Drive in Orient. These are "as built" additions in which the half story typical attic space on a two and half story dwelling is a fully habitable third story with bedroom, bathroom, sitting room and so on and there's lots going on here so let's Pat just so you know we did get your memorandum of law thank you. We got photographs and it turns out it seems that I did ask one of the secretaries to go to the Building Department to see what was happening here why this application came before us and it turns out that there's an open-building permit for a creation of a basement recreational room of some sort and the Building Inspector then indicated that the third floor needed to get variance relief and so is that correct, is that your take on it? PAT MOORE : Yes as part of the we actually we were coming in on the variance right from the beginning it just took a lot longer to do the drawings and everything and in the meantime there was repairs to the basement that needed to be done and that was all done as part of the building permit. All the work at the house is being done with the property building permit. This particular 63 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 aspect of the property we obviously had to go to the Zoning Board with separate drawings so timing wise they separate it but yea that's accurate. Everything has a permit at this point.Just so that you know who I have here, I don't have my mask but everybody else does so we're all in compliance but in my office I have Mr. and Mrs. Treanor who can provide any assistance that I need. I also have Vincent Benic who is the architect that helped us in preparing these drawings and I have Thor Torkelson who is working with the permit project'but with his knowledge and he will be the one to help bring this into conformity as needed 'so I have everybody I hope that I need here and that's why I have four screens so they can see you and at some point if you'have a question that I can't answer and I'll turn it to them if they could be unmuted I would appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what now typically the Board has historically recognized that the way the code works is if something is not explicitly permitted in the code and is moot the assumption is it is not permitted if it's,not so stated that it's a permitted thing. So when people have applied included ones that you site• right on Grandview, anything in what would be constituting a third story they have been absolutely minimal.They have been as you pointed out in the two prior variances you know one is a balcony a viewing platform, the other was a very small sitting room. We have done others that are also small, the whole.thing has been sprinkled but this is an entire floor where someone is sleeping and it is a full story. Even with the height coming down it is habitable space; fully habitable space and it's very, very large with a big bathroom and so on so would you like to maybe talk about that a bit Pat? PAT MOORE : Well I yes you have my memorandum which I tried to address the code language and we have two competing principals here. We have the zoning code and we have the New York State building code. The NYS building code does in fact allow a third story provided that it is properly protected with fire suppression so that is in fact something that has been modified in the last five years I want to say and the last version of the NYS building code. The original code had a requirement to go to the State Board of Review for a third floor space. We call it third story but it's really two and a half story but anyway for that space and most recently the code was modified to allow it as of right provided that there is appropriate sprinkling of the space. With respect to the zoning code I would respectfully disagree with the analysis of it being not permitted if it's not specifically stated in that the'code defines the space it doesn't say whether it's habitable or non-habitable and we brought up other codes of the east end to give you that example of if you don't want it to be habitable it should state so. When we're dealing it's really the same analysis when you're dealing with 'the basements that may be converted to living to habitable space or living space or bedroom.The Building Department does not require a variance for a basement modification as long as the NYS building code is complied with. So we kind of pick and choose how we've applied the code but in this case we're not asking for an interpretation. I think the code by its own language is very clear that there is no prohibition of habitable. Again 64 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 it's overridden by the higher standard of the-'NYS building code. As far as your prior decisions I know for a fact that I had the decision it was I gave you the examples right in the neighborhood because it is space it's a house away and within Grandview but I had an application by Mr. Cohen when Edgewater II,the house was new construction and it was a full bedroom on a third floor, it was a variance.The gentleman that owns that used to own the title company bought the property and then he came in with a different design but it's Edgewater II, Cohen and it was a variance a full bedroom, bathroom it was just the design as it was designed was considered a third floor by the Building Department so there have been third floors that were bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry Pat which one was it? PAT MOORE : It was Edgewater II was the LLC, it was Cohen was the last name and it was an application right on Sound Ave. right across from where the new apartments have just been built directly across from that. I can get you that particular decision and I can get you that application. It was probably one of my first or second third floor variances that I had to do but in that case it was a brand new house and the Board granted it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you remember what year that was? PAT MOORE : Time flies when you're having fun. I apologize, it feels like yesterday but it could have been ten years ago. It was under the prior NYS building code because they ultimately had to get a state variance to build it. I don't want to I certainly,can discuss what's in the memorandum of law but I thought that providing you with the memorandum would be helpful and be able to get to certain issues that if you felt thaewe needed to mitigate some of the percentage that we are all here. We've offered one but we've actually come up with some additional modifications that would work to because remember our variance if in fact you know our position is sound as far as the variance is on the percentage of the half story exceeding the fifty percent, so when you read the definition the fifty percent is what would trigger if you were doing this and ,you met the fifty percent you should be able to get a building permit as of right. It's when you exceed the fifty percent that you technically would need a variance from that percentage. So we have some ideas but if you want I'll entertain any questions you might have before I go there. I also just because I had raised it in my memorandum and we just got I put in a FOIL more than ten days ago and the Building Department is very busy. We just got today the C.O. and the plans forthe house directly across the street from this house. It's a beautiful as when you walked around the neighborhood or saw the neighborhood, it's a very beautiful with)colonial design with a wraparound porch directly across from this house. It is technically the number is 305 Mulford Ct. and when I was driving around the neighborhood I really wanted to look and see what the volume of the houses are, does it look like other homes have similar designs with the, half story space and you can come to your own conclusions on that. I think that most of the homes the volumes it's hard to tell just from the street. What I did is I asked for the Building 65 1 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 Department records and F asked-Betsy to email it to Kim so it will be in your packet when this= hearing is over but it is if you look at the construction design of the house, the house was built with an attic it was built in 2007 and got a C.O. in 2007 but the construction drawings when you compare the photograph that I submitted with the design the elevations that were provided in the Building Department it's clear that there is a third floor attic space that is from all intense and purposes from the outside appears habitable and it's not because we want to throw them under the bus in any way, we're supportive, we have no issues with them but I think again it supports our position that it is within the character of the neighborhood.Also more importantly and I think this is more as a policy philosophy that the Zoning Board and the Building Department should to the extent possible encourage owners to go through the proper channels to get the variance if they need a variance to recognize that people design different ways and realistically a logical way to use your existing space. Clearly the Building Department would notice if you put in that dormer ,or something on a third floor so that it would trigger somebody noticing but there are lot of homes in the community.particularly some of the historic homes in Orient that are that have the space that these are pre-existing so their third floors are very common but even new homes that are designed to look within the character of the old the 1920's architecture. If he position the Board takes is, we never ever we do not allow you to use the third floor space I think that similar to our arguments on apartments that they existed anyway and they just were never legal and people lived like that with less than safe accommodations we should encourage and recognize that this space is a reasonable, logical space to use and have people come in and make sure that they get the property approvals. Certainly have the Building Department review it and make sure that the appropriate State building code compliance is in place because to say that it's not allowed when it is clearly throughout the whole community certainly from the street it obvious that it exists. I think that's a disservice, I think we're probably better off saying yes we recognize, we apply what the State building code authorizes you to do as long as you do it with proper safety standards and protection. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Pat that may be but then that's an argument for you to take to the Town Board to change the code. PAT MOORE : Well respectfully the code does not need to be changed, it doesn't say what the Board thinks it says. It says what it says, it's a technical definition of the height that you call it a half story based on the ceiling heights, it doesn't say non-habitable. If it did then I would not be able to disagree with you but it does not say that so I think that the code says what it says and if the Zoning Board does not want it to say that then certainly you guys have as much ability as I do to ask the Town Board to modify the code and then through a public hearing process we would certainly raise our elective objection to what I call architectural and housing sprawl because you need to expand your house and you need to sprawl and spread it out on the property rather than be economic and properly designed within the footprint and the design that you already have so 66 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 it really doesn't make sense•to encourage expanded'houses. We should be actually encouraging the economic and efficient use of spaces we have but that's an argument for Town Board not Zoning Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You just pointed out in your own application that this subject property only has 6% lot coverage so any addition would not be sprawled with 6% lot coverage. PAT MOORE : Oh yes we would certainly be able to expand but to the clients and I'll let Mr. Treanor who comes from Ireland that it's a different philosophy of what is considered sprawl and was is considered nice efficient use of spaces. Did you want me to address for the sake of completeness some of the ideas we had as far as how to bring the percentage to within closer to the 50%which is what the code says. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what you submitted was very clear in terms of lowering the ceiling heights basically. PAT MOORE : That brought us to an 11% variance. What we were discussing was the possibility of bringing it down by way of design some cabinetry. If you recall from the drawings,the dormers are part of that habitable space even though practically you know you can stand under it but it's really not useable space. We thought possibly putting in some cabinetry under the dormers to create so we came up with an ability to leave the windows, leave what's there but just build cabinetry under it so that it eliminates-the standing area of the habitable space and also be able to provide us a small closet in the living are the sitting area that we have that would eat up additional habitable space. So we could shrink by very simple'design and bring it within the 50%. It doesn't change the uses up there as far as the bedroom and the sitting area but it does change the percentage of the variance as we interpret the code to be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well the variance plain and simple is third floor habitable space.That's what the Building Department Notice of Disapproval says. So for our purposes the variance-is the entire you know third floor and that's how I mean unless you get them to change their Notice of Disapproval that's what this Board has either to grant relief from or not. PAT MOORE : I don't think that the Building I mean honestly I don't know that the Building Department would write a Notice of Disapproval any differently if it was I think that Mike wears two hats, his Building Inspector hat and Zoning hat and when we're dealing with these kind of spaces I think he applies his building code, his state building code hat rather than the zoning hat so that's I don't know that it can help by changing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's the Chief Zoning Inspector for the Town of Southold so he's certainly acting on the code of the Town of Southold but look let me see if any board members 67 t Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 have some questions and then•perhaps the applicant wants to speak that's fine or whoever you - would like to speak. Let me start with Nick, can you hear me? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes I can, can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can, let's hope it stays that way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good. It was a horrible go there for a bit thank you. Pat my first question I guess which I didn't hear addressed and perhaps I missed it because the cable connection on Hortons Lane is rather poor to my house and we're cutting out all day but can you explain how this third floor became finished. PAT MOORE : Yes, it was let my client I mean I don't want to testify for my client but I will briefly say that when he bought this house it had that entire space up there which is quite usable and his home in Garden City you know what I'll let him say he's just going to switch with me so I'll let him say it. MR.TREANOR : Hello there my name is Patrick Treanor and on my behalf everyone is here today. When I bought the house it was partially finished and one of the bedrooms was studs level. The builder ran out of money, it was in the crisis and he couldn't get an extension from the bank. So the house was bought with the intention of finishing it and we finished the basement and we finished the remaining parts of the second floor.There was an existing stairway to the third floor the attic and we finished the house not realizing that we needed a permit for the third floor.The reason for finishing it was we bought the house to finish and have basically as a house for us and our family and during the summers and maybe retire to. The reason we didn't think twice about the third floor is, we live in a three story house today in Garden City and every second or third house in Garden City has a third floor, usually bedrooms or offices. In my case I have two bedrooms and a bathroom and before living in Garden City we lived in Queens. The house we lived in there had a third floor so coming out to Orient with this big house (inaudible) third floor it wasn't finished even though the dormers were there with a view over the bay were pre-existing and we didn't touch anything on the outside.There isn't a single piece of layout of the house that was changed. We were under the impression the house was incomplete and we completed it. So that's really the reason we did it and we didn't realize we needed a permit until much, much later on. The builder was starting on it we had worked with him to do repairs on our house in Garden City for about a year. It was an old house from 1928 it was in bad shape so we needed somebody who can do work on plaster and plumbing, electrical with sensitivity and we got a recommendation for this builder who was starting out on his own and he did a fabulous job so we asked him to come out to Orient to finish this new house we had bought because it was partially built. So he eventually decided to move and go to California and said New York wasn't 68 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 for him eventually but he wasn't from the area and hen'ce-`the reason we met with Thor and we've worked with Thor ever since and we didn't know Thor at the time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Mr. Treanor do you live at 109 Strafford Ave? MR. TREANOR : I do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that's your house? MR. TREANOR :That's right. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the question that I have then in light of purchasing this property unfinished and then making all these improvements without knowing that you needed a permit can you explain to me the ownership of the adjacent house-at 2055 Grandview Ave? MR. TREANOR : Yes, yes, yes, I,own that too. So we bought that and after 1925 and we finished 1925 before we began work on 2055 and we bought it because it was next door and wanted to know our neighbors were us. We want to come out to Orient it reminds of me of Ireland, it's green it's the furthest I can go. I could have bought much closer to where I live but I chose to go as far out as I could because I wanted to find something that was very rural. So being out there when the house next to it was in foreclosure we couldn't afford to do two houses at the same time so we finished 1925 Grandview Drive the house we're looking at here first and then as I said the builder I had moved to California, he decided to have a different lifestyle and I asked for the recommendation for a local builder'since I was comfortable with the area and comfortable with the people I met and it was at that point we met Thor and Thor guided us through 2055. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I don't understand though is part of the application at 2055 you' have a ZBA variance granted #6512 issued November 2011. J ' MR.TREANOR :Yea,so when we started to work on 2055 we bought 1925 in 2010,we started to work on a plan for 2055 about eighteen months later and working with Thor that's when he told us we needed a variance to do work. Now the difference with 2055 is we actually built a dormer on each side so we didn't just have repair to the inside or sheetrock the inside beams we actually changed th'e structure of the house. We changed two things majorly. The first is the dormer and sides we squared off to make the room livable and at that point we changed the shape of the roof which means we needed to have a variance at least that was my interpretation at the time. We also changed the location of the front door. We moved the front door five feet over because it was where it was was right in the front of the stairs. You walked in you had the stairs you couldn't quite turn around it was very small so we moved the front door forward to give room to walk around the stairs but the third floor for me became a necessary variance item and Thor guided us because we were changing the structure and he (inaudible). 69 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I'm just still at a loss, so you're saying that the house that's the subject of today's application had a finished you finished it without the permits prior to 2011 when you applied in 2011 for the variance on the third floor sitting area. MR. TREANOR : Yea, yea there was a period of overlap where 1925 started in 2010 and we had a full time builder just doing sheetrock and insulation pretty much for a year maybe fifteen months on that project and then we bought 2055 and I started that with Thor pretty much in sequence. There was a couple of months overlap but it was actually (inaudible) sequential event. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And again you knew that you needed a variance on that house but nothing occurred to you on this property for basically nine years until the issue came up about finishing the basement? MR. TREANOR : Yea, so I did talk to Thor about doing having the third floor of 1925 checked.for a variance. One of the things that I think Pat you could probably talk to this when we reached out for advise we were told the rules were changing. PAT MOORE : Back to me, I anticipated you would ask that question that's good. I'm starting to realize what you ask. So Thor checked with me when it was clear that they had a situation with this house and it was right about that time that the NYS building code was changing. Had we gone in immediately we would have still needed the state variance.The state building code was within that period of having been published or having been circulated but not yet adopted,that interim period and we decided well first and foremost it takes a while to get all these drawings done, everything in place to be able to put in an application that's even without COVID. So remember that the year just kind of runs by but it seemed more appropriate to make sure that the NYS building code actually allowed for this and then once we knew the state building code provided for this space without the need for a state variance then we in the interim we were starting with the drawings and working on the process of getting a variance from the town. So we had been in touch with the Building Department but obviously it takes a while from start to finish so there was a certain amount of lag time for just the NYS building codes changes and that's it. As soon as the code changed then everything started up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a question also, we've found out that there's an open application for a rental permit on this property, it's not even for the full house it's an open application for a portion of the house to be rented. PAT MOORE : Yes, well obviously you cannot rent a house with a so they for just for financial reasons to be able to subsidize just their carrying cost they were going to rent for a month. The permit requirement is in place so we started that but we realized we didn't want to have anybody that rented have access to this floor because it doesn't have a permit. So the reason so a rental permit was filed but only for that portion of that house which was had a C.O. without issue. So 70 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 8" it's not really a partial permit it's a permit but only for access to those areas that are legal and not the subject of this variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that clears it up. Nick are you still there? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes I'm listening and processing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a lot going on here a lot to take in. Let's see if the Board has any other questions here'. I do still maintain that unless you are asking and you are not asking for a code interpretation that this Board typically does not grant sleeping quarters on a third story even with a sprinkler.There may be one instance, I've been on the Board fifteen years and I don't remember anything that was this substantial. This is an entire floor with a sitting space, a bathroom, a bedroom I mean you know it's a fully habitable third floor and whether you call it the half story or third floor our code calls it a third floor you know. PAT MOORE : No our code calls it a half story that's the whole point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It calls it a half story when it comes to the height but it calls_it a third floor when it becomes habitable. Then it is no longer an attic storage space. That's why the Building Department wrote it up as a third floor. PAT MOORE : Well I wish I don't want to say I wish, I don't believe the code-is that clear. I think that there is an overlapping of using the state building code definition applied to the zoning code definition but and that's why in the memorandum we provided both definitions because we do not define a third floor in our zoning code. If it did obviously there'd be I wouldn't disagree with you so again I've already stated I believe that the code allows this to be habitable as long as it is in compliance with the NYS building code. As you know this NYS building code overrides as far as safety standards the more rigorous standard controls and in this case the NYS building code is more rigorous than our zoning code with respect to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand we know about that code, we use it all the time.You have to meet state building codes period everybody does no matter how they're building whether it's a third floor or anything else.This particular building code requires a sprinkler system throughout the whole house for a habitable third floor but the bottom line is our code is our code and state code is state code. You have to meet both otherwise you wouldn't be in for a variance you know it would have been as of right as long as you met state building code.So there's several ways to maybe look at this, let's see if any other Board members have questions at this point, where are we here does anybody need this drawing up? I don't think so, Kim you can take that down we've seen it. Rob do you have any questions? 71 r Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MEMBER LEHNERT : My question is, is the septic adequate for the extra space? Have you guys gone to the Health Department? PAT MOORE : Ultimately we do need to amend our or have our sanitary system altered, modified is the right word sorry I had a senior moment. We are going to probably need a modification to the existing system because the original system when it was built probably it may need one additional cesspool in order and Vincent is shaking his head that yes it's one additional cesspool. Obviously we would go through you first then we would go to the Health Department do a modification and then take it all back to the Building Department for permits. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anyone? Rob oh he's frozen. PAT MOORE : Or he's giving me a real stare down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yea he's got his mean face on. At least we're all back at work. PAT MOORE :Yes we all appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric how about you, questions or comments here? MEMBER DANTES : No I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA' : Well you know I'm just wondering out loud, where the town you know says it cannot be habitable space and I'm wondering if that has to do with you had said you mentioned about sprinkler systems but I'm wondering if that has to do with the ability of a Fire Department to have the equipment to get to a habitable third floor space. PAT MOORE :Well I can tell you from my experience with for example Mattituck Fire Department my husband was the attorney or he may still be you never know, with the Fire Department they do have ladders, they do have the equipment that can reach remember the house has not increased in height. It's what the original height of the house and based on the building MEMBER ACAMPORA : No totally understood but if it's going to be habitable space now you have a human you know a human element in this thing and we all know our Fire Department have a lot of different equipment, some have more some have less. So if the Orient Fire Department does not have-the equipment to handle an emergency where there is habitable space on a third floor'I mean waiting for Mattituck to get there that's a problem. PAT MOORE : No, no sorry I didn't mean to say that that's I can only tell you from Mattituck but I believe all the Fire Departments have the ladder system to reach this floor and keeping in mind that most so this house if it didn't have the third floor space would not have sprinklers so it's the 72 Regular Meeting August-6, 2020 '---'-exact same house that was built there it's just that the living space on4We upper floor. So the equipment is accessible plus you have the added protection of the sprinkler system so it gives the occupants of the house the time to get out. So it never reaches the point where the Fire Department has to extract somebody that's the whole purpose of a fire suppression system is giving the occupants the time to egress. Remember you also have not only sprinklers you do have egress windows so that's a requirement under the state building code. There are a lot of overlapping safety precautions for any habitable space. Most recently and I know from my own house I have it's one story, the Building Department made me change my window because the code changed and now it has to be a three hundred pound fireman rather than a two hundred pound fireman and so my window which clearly was large enough I had to change it and make it a little bit larger,wider because of the current code. So no matter what we have egress windows, fire suppression I mean realistically access out of the house out of the spaces. I mean you could even add an emergency ladder,we can add an extra emergency ladder if the Board wanted us to that's pretty as a kid I grew up with those metal ladders you throw out your windows as an emergency ladder. We're willing to do what is reasonable and that certainly is we would do what the Board felt was necessary to assure safety. My client wants a very safe house that is the absolute paramount here even though clearly fire suppression on an existing house is an extremely expensive undertaking because in if you need to know exactly what has to be done Thor has to tear up the sheetrock and put in the suppression the fire suppression system retro fit the house so it's not an insurmountable task but it is what it is that's (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see that Rob is coming back in here. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm back again on the phone. My power just went out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that's what happened. Okay we got you as long as you can hear us. MEMBER LEHNERT :Yea I can hear everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't know. Is there anything else from anybody at this time? Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO :_No I don't have any additional questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I think we have whatever we need so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Second from Nick, Member Planamento. Kim will you call the voice vote please. 73 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? i MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. BOARD,ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries. We will attempt to have a decision for you in two weeks at the August 201h meeting. PAT MOORE : Would you like a copy,do you want me to find the decision from Edgewater? BOARD SECRETARY : We have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim will send it to all of us. HEARING#7363 - DONNA M.WEXLER, DONNA M.WEXLER REVOCABLE TRUST and RODNEY T. QUARTY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is application for Donna M. Wexler, Donna M. Wexler Revocable Trust and Rodney T. Quarty#7363. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's September 30, 2019 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a subdivision of merged properties at 1) both proposed lots will be less than the code required minimum lot area of 40,000 sq. ft. located at 1275 West Hill Rd and 1175 West Hill Rd. in Southold. MATT HOGAN : Just a reminder if anybody is here to comment on this last agenda item send us a message via the Q&A or just click the raise hand button. 74 Regular Meeting August 6,2020 PAT OGRE : I have Donna here in my office and Rodney, Tom in the office too'so I like to be surrounded by my people. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright, Kim do you want to put that survey up.The proposed two lots, lot 22 and lot 23 which were voluntarily merged in order to put an accessory garage on the. property which they could not do without a principle use so that was the history on that and that was built and then there was another dwelling an apartment I guess in the upper floor of that garage and what was (inaudible) I just want to look at the Notice of Disapproval is basically saying. Lot 22 would wind up_at let',s see I'm,looking at the percentage not the percentage of variance I don't care about that 23,202 sq. ft. the code requiring 40,000 in that zoned district and lot 23 would not only be non-conforming in size but it would have them need a rear yard setback and the width for the existing structure and the width of the lot is 100 where the code requires a minimum of 150. So I think those are the dimensional issues. Pat please correct me if I'm wrong. PAT MOORE : You'just brought up Mulford Ct. I don't know why but BOARD ASSISTANT : Oh I'm sorry . PAT MOORE : The other one was the permit I sent you but okay. So let me just clarify or correct some of the information just for the record. These are.lot 1 and lot 2 on Calves Neck subdivision. Actually Donna and Tom did not merge the property and that was part of the problem that the Building Department thought that they were merged and issued a permit for the accessory building but in fact the lots have not been they've merged by zoning but they have not been merged by title. There were bought separately and they've continued to be in separate ownership. There was a waiver of merger, I know you know that, and that'was denied under economic hardship arguments at the time but because of the fact that there was a waiver of merger application they have made an application now for an area variance.-The area variance standards are not which size these properties are in relation to the zoning that's obvious that they don't conform but the standard is are they in fact the same size as the rest of the neighborhood and the community. I provided the facts in support of the variance. We did a lot of research, Donna herself did a tremendous amount of research and I did provide that for you initially in the application process and it was a table that she prepared where she actually took every lot that is showing in what we call Calves Neck but technically Calves Neck subdivision is just these eight lots. The rest of the area is a developed community that was developed around the 1950's or prior to zoning the zoning enactments of actually the one acre zoning of '71; because I was having a hard time finding the actual subdivisions that were part of this property I gave you the names of the subdivisions I found but they were generally south of Wells Rd. on the other side of the creek. What it turns out is and I actually speaking to Kevin Webster, Kevin and I both were quite surprised by this that all of these lots in this community were described properties.That means that prior to or without subdivision review they were all created by deed 75 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 and our code now recognizes the lots that were created by deed prior to 1983 we kind of don't go into how they were created because of the really sorted history the town has on how they created lots. So it made it simpler for I think for the Building Department and the town in general to create a particular date that if you're lot was single and separate prior to 1983 it is a recognized lot. So all of the properties that Donna actually listed in that table and the drawing where she wrote out the address of each of these properties are described properties and when you look at the tax-map you see that they're all very uniform and that's why I was quite surprised that they were described properties cause you would have thought that it was one large subdivision and in fact that's not the'case. They are lots that were developed and they are all comparable in size and many I would say are smaller than Donna's lots. At the time that Calves Neck subdivision was done and that was it was approved in 1971 and the map filed by 1972 up zoning occurred about that time in 1972 when one acre zoning came into effect. So this was one of the last subdivisions that the Planning Board and Town Board recognized and allowed to proceed through the development process you technically,got grandfathered. It was a relatively small subdivision, it was only seven lots. It constituted well today it would be a major I don't know if they had majors and minors at the time but in any case approval from the Planning Board it went to the Suffolk County Health Department and got approval from the Suffolk County Health Department and in fact the things that I brought up in my memorandum in reviewing the subdivision file of the Planning Board and the review of the subdivision it was somewhat'remarkable that the Planning Board in '71, '72 quite frankly the subdivisions were a piece of paper with a line and processed. In this case I believe it was Ehlers it was the owner of the property, they did extra drainage because of some we#'spots that were along the road these were town roads at the time but they used this subdivision to clean up some of the drainage problems that the town had and this subdivision actually had to add additional drainage. They actually had to build out the road to town's specifications it's fifty foot road and it actually connects to the rest of the Calves Neck subdivision that are all now town roads. So we are West Hill Rd. is a town road, it's on the corner of Wells Ave and West Hill both of those are town roads. These two lots not only were they anticipated for full development the developer actually the extra improvements of dredging the canal and creating what would be bulk heading for the end of this Jockey Creek canal. So there was a tremendous amount of infrastructure investment here and the two properties are pretty easily developed and again looking at the standards that have to be applied on an area variance we meet all the standards. It really these lots do match the rest of the community. With respect to how these I mean I responded to LWRP and the Planning Board, the comments are very general they're very they're not specific really to the property they're general objections like oh you know cumulative impact, well this is one lot that has been in existence since the seventies, has been taxed with the expectation of paying for all the infrastructure that is normal on a property. She continues to be taxed she tells me what her tax bill is$5,775.27 that's her 2020 tax bill or 2019-2020 tax bill.That's not an insignificant tax bill for what is essentially a vacant lot that 76 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 we have no through zoning has been sterilized for its independent development.What Happened here is Donna obviously was very upset by the waiver of merger denial went and spoke to the County, spoke to anybody that would listen to her quite frankly and I'm proud of her she's very tenacious and the County and everybody that she spoke to did not understand why this lot could not be developed. Sure enough ultimately what they decided to do is alright let's put something _ on it for now and in the meantime then decide what to do about getting the area variance application and I know she came to me and I just pulled my hair, it's a frustrating application but nonetheless she's absolutely right. The lot is each lot is independently buildable, independently recognized by the Health Department, independently complying with all of in particular the accessory building complies with NYS building code, it complies with the Storm Water Code, complies-she's put in extra drainage that is natural indigenous vegetation along the bulkhead, she's done everything that is proper to do and environmentally sound and here we are. Really what she asked is to recognize what would be a lot that to anybody walking along the street would expect to have to be a separate lot or looking at the tax map or looking at a subdivision would expect that this lot has no issues and would clearly be developed. No variances would be necessary for the development of the individual lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How can you say no variance would be necessary? PAT MOORE : So as a separate lot the setbacks CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you talking about the lot that has the accessory structure on it? PAT MOORE : Yes, yes because the other one is existing, it's an existing house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So is the garage its existing. PAT MOORE :True but if you were to separate the properties the garage could be a single family house. As a single family house it would meet all of the zoning setbacks that would be applicable to a single family house. MEMBER DANTES : But the existing house on the property would need a setback from (inaudible) wouldn't it? PAT MOORE : No well the existing house has a C. of 0., it was built in the 70's. MEMBER DANTES : Right but according to the last waiver of merger decision it says, a waiver would result in the creation of a non-conforming lot that is oddly shaped and it says that the house would need a setback for rear yard line and side yard line. So wouldn't that be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right. 77 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 PAT MOORE : I'm returning these lots to their original configuration,'they were designed this way oddly shaped that's how they were designed and approved by the Planning Board when they were created. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How was the this was originally an accessory garage, now to say that people would presume them to be two lots if driving by there's a perimeter stone wall around both lots that suggest one,there's a driveway that starts on one and goes onto the other. I would suggest they look exactly like how they've been treated which is as one lot. Now having said that when was the apartment created above the garage? PAT MOORE : There is no apartment, it's an open space. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'm looking at the building permit for the garage which was issued on March 17, 2017 and it says, lots must be combined before the C.O. of 7422 and 7423 construction of an accessory garage as applied for per Suffolk County Health Department and the D.E.C. letters. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And Pat why if there's no apartment is there a separate septic system on that lot? PAT MOORE : It has a bathroom. It was built as an accessory building, it has a bathroom but it has not been made into any kind of apartment or living or equivalent apartment. In fact that's you know I don't know what to tell you. Well let me just answer the question just asked of me. A building permit was issued, this variance would be necessary prior to a C. of 0. so the choice for her would be either formally merge the lots by deed you take a deed and combine it as you know or you need an area variance to separate these properties officially. Then we can get a C. of 0. and convert this accessory building into a dwelling and complete the space as a dwelling with an amendment to the building permit. That would be the steps that you would take. So this permit for an accessory building would have only been issued because the Building Department was saying alright I'm going to treat it as if the properties are merged until you go to the Zoning Board and get area variances to allow it. So it allowed them to build on the property but before the C. '0. is issued there has to be a final determination of the area variance or no area'variance. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Why wouldn't the Building Department then state that in writing? PAT MOORE : That's how they I think that's the way they well they're telling me that's how they stated it so that's but by the paperwork that's how it would be. MEMBER LEHNERT : There's two building permits here from 2017 and 2019 that both state that the lot must be combined, so why would they have gone ahead with construction of this building knowing the lot had to be combined? 78 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely. PAT MOORE : Well the choice to combining them well because either you have an accessory building on one property MEMBER LEHNERT : But they applied for it. PAT MOORE : As an interim step, as an interim step. It doesn't stop you from being able to go and make an application for an area variance. I think ultimately that has been her wish since the day she asked for a waiver of merger. MEMBER LEHNERT : Then why pull two permits over a three year period to do this but both said you had to the lots had to be combined. PAT MOORE : Well the permits expire. The first one MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes the permit was expired and then granted again and construction done. So somewhere in this they knew they had these lots had to be combined. PAT MOORE : And the bottom line is that you can't build it, either you have to combine it or you need an area variance but that's your option regardless. So let's say you built a garage on your house and you say well I want an area variance so that I can eventually make it a single family home.,That's the process. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea but wouldn't I' do that before I actually went and constructed the building and rolled the dice and hoped that this would happen? PAT MOORE : You needed a building didn't you?Yea I mean Tom wanted a building so you build a building when you have the money and when you want it so he didn't use it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's the choice you made then. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's the choice you made. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was agreed to merge the lots. PAT MOORE But understand something, we're not penalized for having a building on the property. Our application is for an area variance.This isn't oh geez you know we have this building and you know we want to make it into a house. . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but now if you get the area variance what you have is a non- conforming accessory structure without a principle use on that other lot. 79 Regular Meeting August,6, 2020 PAT MOORE : No, no, no if we get the area variance this building permit: application will be amended for a single family dwelling. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand that but it is not now a single family dwelling. How many square PAT MOORE : But it can be technically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know because you can't have unless it's an accessory apartment which you could do. PAT MOORE :Yes,it could be an accessory apartment but only if the individual is a resident of the Town of Southold and I wish that they change the code because this would be highly desirable somebody who wants a family to be there but they unfortunately live someplace else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They have the choice if-they wanted to be their family to live there. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea but you're also asking (inaudible) PAT MOORE : But that's not our application or our application CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What looks to me what is happened is that you just did what you wanted to do on there and then you said well forget about it we'll do something different later and you know if that was if that lot had not been developed if there was nothing on it if there wasn't a driveway coming from one lot across to the other lot with a wall treating them as one lot that might have been a different story. Then you're looking at clean variances which would then require some non-conforming setbacks of the existing principal dwelling cause that thing is now going to have a side yard that it's basically sitting on top of. I do have a question about I PAT MOORE : I apologize but which building are we talking about having a side yard and sitting on top of it?The existing house was built in the seventies when there was no doubt in anybody's mind that it was on a separate lot. The merger law came into effect after that period of time so we the town created a non-conformity okay. The house where it is today was approved with a building permit and a C. of 0. with the dimensions of lot 2 of Calves Neck subdivision. It doesn't have to be changed at all.The other property meets setbacks today Would meet setbacks if there was amended to be a single family dwelling. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim could you excuse me Pat, Kim could you put that site plan back on please. Look here's the lot line, can you see my mouse on here? PAT MOORE : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This going up and down you don't see that? 80 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 PAT MOORE : No. Oh I jusfsaW something fly by. r CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This? PAT MOORE : Why don't you identify which line you're looking at and then CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's try this. See that lot right there? PAT MOORE : Oh yes, yes that line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You see the red? PAT MOORE : Yes now it shows up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So where I just did a red line look where the house is. PAT MOORE : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's practically on top of that line. PAT MOORE : Well it's probably a setback of 5 feet, 7 feet,yea but that has a C.O. oh it's 10, we think it's 10 but in any case yea it probably is 10 but it was built remember it has a C. of 0. based on lot 2 so we're arguing over something that was built under the with the dimensions of lot 2 of the subdivision. F CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is this wrap around down here this bulkhead stuff? Why is this lot shaped like that? PAT MOORE : Because that's how the Planning Board approved it back in 1970's. I think it was in order to give lot 1 canal access so both lots 1 and 2 have'direct access to Jockey Creek practically that's how I mean that's what it is today but that's how it was designed back in when the subdivision was created. Remember this is I'm going back to original lot lines. I'm not reinventing, I'm not redesigning this in anyway. I'm going to its original lots. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat, not to want to change the subject and I know where Leslie was going with the red line but I'm still very confused, if lot 2 merged in 2005 how were the deeds not filed and then if they weren't filed how was it still recognized that a waiver of merger was denied later that year and then ultimately PAT MOORE : No, no, no let's back up. Let me go to the history here, I had something that had a timeline I mean I'm going by my memory at this point. MEMBER DANTES : In the last decision it says when they were merged the old denial of the waiver of merger. 81 Regular•Meeting August 6, 2020 PAT MOORE : Right it was well I'm not sure that that was accurate but so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well on January 26th there was a challenge and it was denied. PAT MOORE : Yes but it was under standard of economic hardship was the consideration for a waiver of merger at that time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it was still a denial. PAT MOORE :Yea alright so it was denied and you're recourse if a merger is denied your recourse is to then go in for area variances,they're complete different standards. Remember a merger the merger law has different standards than area variance. The area variance what? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know. PAT MOORE : Yea I know you know yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean what you're really asking for is a subdivision which requires area variances in order to get it. If they were going to be two conforming lots you just go to the Planning Board and you're done but you know a subdivision requires in this case area variances for insufficient lot area per code in the zoned district and then site plan approval by the Planning Board. I mean (inaudible) for a subdivision. PAT MOORE : Yes the Planning Board actually has a provision, a re-subdivision to recognize previously'subdivided properties so there is a kind of an off shoot of a subdivision because this is a filed map there would be no filing requirement. It has Health Department it's an existing there are two existing lots on the filed map so it's going to the Planning Board to re-subdivide based on the area variances that would allow us to put these two lots CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand but then we have something from the Planning Board you know not recognizing, not wanting to see this happen. I mean they do not support this determination this request rather. PAT MOORE :Well I have not seen yes I mean I have not seen it in thirty years the Planning Board ever support an area variance on a subdivision. So I think that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very rare but it's mostly because up-zoning was a very important decision the town made in order to you know to try to prevent over development on small lots. PAT MOORE : Well and here we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to ask yourself when is it going to be supported. I mean if we keep going back to making these smaller lots again you know then there is a cumulative 82 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 impact. We don't look at that tHEy`do which is why that's how they address it. We look at site `y specific circumstances that is what the law requires us to do. Although based on environmental impacts in one of our standards but we can look at those kinds of issues. This is waterfront you got you'll be creating two waterfront lots instead of one and you know it's just a very anomalous situation with the way in which'this lot was developed,the way it was treated,the way there was denials and yet the applicant clearly wants to ,get whatever financial equity or whatever relief they want despite understanding the complexities of these codes and what they're asking for and going ahead and building on it anyway just because they said they needed a building, he wanted a building. Well he's got a building. PAT MOORE : Okay well all those things I mean the rock wall is aesthetics, it's privacy it doesn't negate people having two separate lots as I mean you've hear from me enough that these are two existing lots. The subdivision was approved right before up zoning so had the Town Board, had the Planning Board wanted to really jam them up we know they have the ability to do that and it could have been stopped then and there and it could have been that subdivision could have been changed when the zoning changed but that's not what happened. These lots I mean in a sense when you're in a community that is completely developed as this one is and we decide that Donna should bear the burden of merging lots that no one else h,as been required is being equally treated equally. It's very unfair and I can understand why she was she's MEMBER DANTES :Why(inaudible)true though Pat?She bought the lots after they were merged they were PAT MOORE : No, no that is when she bought the lots Devlin was the owner who had gotten it from as an inheritance from Collins and Mr. Devlin believed that he had two separate lots and in fact the application for the law merger the unmerging was before well it was by Devlin was the applicant at the time so it was you know it was very frustrating because I know you're trying to show me something but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But again the applicant was aware of the merger. PAT MOORE : Well only after when after the fact not before and ever since she's been very frustrated by it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Well the Disapproval was in April and the parcel was sold in June,that's two months. PAT MOORE : Yea but it was contractually bounded unfortunately. Mr. Devlin participated and helped but he was quite surprised by it and unfortunately they were under contract and there was no out so she got stuck so but from the time that she took title it's been two separate owners 83 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 so she's continued the separate nature of the two properties a stone wall does not make-0them merged. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well let's see, does anybody Rob, Nick, Pat anybody have any other questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I have no more. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Pat Moore anything else he wants to say or clients want to say? PAT MOORE : So Tom is just providing some input it makes it easier if I just speak. So the ultimate design here would be the rock wall would open for its own driveway so you know having these lots be separated would things would be shifted around and it would have its own driveway just for you know for each lot'would have their own opening,their own entrance on West Hill Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They'd have to. PAT MOORE : Well not necessarily actually it could have a common driveway if that makes the Planning Board happier. I don't know if they would care I mean they certainly would that's okay with them as a design so I mean back to the Planning Board, the Planning Board could say you know we like the idea of one entrance and have a common driveway and that certainly would be within their prerogative so those things are to the Planning Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, what do you think Board are we ready to close, close this hearing?. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then, hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Seconded by Member Planamento. Kim would you call for a voice vote please and you can take down this survey please. BOARD ASSISTNAT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. 84 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously.We'll try and have a decision for you at the next Special Meeting on August 20th.This meeting is recorded so I want to thank everyone for their attendance and their patience who was part of this meeting to remind everyone that a recording will be posted on line as soon as possible and the next ZBA meeting will be our Special Meeting held by Zoom on August 20th when the Board will deliberate on decisions about the applications we discussed during today's public hearings. I'm now going to make a motion to close this meeting, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by member Dantes. Kim will you call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. ` BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. 85 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. The meeting is formally closed. 86 Regular Meeting August 6, 2020 CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :August 20, 2020 87