Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/01/2020 Hearing Regular Meeting October 1, 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 October 1, 2020 10:25 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA – Member ERIC DANTES – Member ROBERT LEHNERT – Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO – Member KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS – Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN – Office Assistant 1 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Cameron Dowe and Meg Strecker # 7421 3 Deborah Winsor # 7423 3 - 10 John Bellando # 7424 10 - 15 John and Mary Anne Cassimitis # 7425 16 - 18 Scott and Stacy Bowe # 7426 18 - 22 Estate of Thomas Eiring by Stephen Gutleber, Executor # 7427 22 - 28 Mini Cedars, LLC # 7428 28 - 51 Susan Wachter and Paul E. Wachter # 7429 51 - 66 Michael and Vanessa Rebentisch # 7430 66 - 69 Anthony Tartaglia and James Howell # 7396 69 – 74, 81 - 92 Timothy Frost # 7413 74 - 81 2 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone, I’m Leslie Weisman the Chair of the Zoning st Board of Appeals. Welcome to the October 1 Regular Meeting with Public Hearings. I need to read the Governor’s Executive Order related to COVID-19 which is let’s see what number is that well just for the record due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19 the Zoning Board of Appeals will not be meeting in person. We are all as you can see on Zoom in accordance st with the Governor’s executive order 202.1. This October 1 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting with public hearings is being held via video conferencing and a transcript will be provided at a later date. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and will be permitted to speak. HEARING # 7421 – CAMERON DOWE and MEG STRECKER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public hearing Cameron Dowe and Meg Strecker # 7421 we th have a request by the applicant to adjourn this hearing to November 5 and so I’m going to honor that request to put it to then. We need to have the vote of the Board. All in favor of adjourning th to November 5 please raise your hand. Alright let the record show that the vote was unanimous th and this application will be heard on November 5 at the Regular Meeting. HEARING # 7423 – DEBORAH WINSOR CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is the second item which is # 7423 this is Deborah Winsor. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-105 and the Building Inspector’s June 26, 2020 amended July 7, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an “as built” 8 foot fence in the side and rear yards and an “as built” 6 foot fence in the front yard at 1) fence more than the code permitted maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard, 2) fence more than the code permitted maximum six and one-half (6-1/2) feet in height when located in the side and rear yards located at 45 Platt Road in Orient. I believe Martin Finnegan is here. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie may I interrupt you a minute. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You may. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Can I read what people have to do? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh of course. Liz is going to tell everyone present how they can participate in this hearing go ahead Liz. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask that you send us a quick note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen 3 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 or click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and let us know which application you are here for and if you’re ending in a phone number we will give you the instructions as far as what to press so that you can it’s *9 to raise your hand and once we know who you’re here for we will tell you how to unmute the phone. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have promoted Martin Finnegan to the panelists list. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning Martin. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning everybody how are you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I am joined here today I hope by Deb Winsor and also Channing Redford. Channing Redford is also I think in the queue there I would ask that they could be joined as well. BOARD ASSISTANT : So I have Deb and Channing. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Deb, Channing are you there? I guess they’re there they can hear us. So good morning again we are here today to request relief as Leslie mentioned from the fence height restrictions in the code. I have submitted some photographs and a memorandum of law in support of our application. Additional photographs to the ones that were part of the original application just because this is kind of a big picture application. If you had the chance which I presume you have to visit the property you know that this is it’s a bit of an island. It’s kind of a little slice of Orient charm stuck in the middle of hell. So we are surrounded by to the south and the east by properties that are pre-existing non-conforming essentially a junk yard and as you know this lays to the north of the Main Rd. and across there are commercial properties, a gas station so it is somewhat uniquely positioned and that is really the basis for our relief. The sections of fence the 6 foot section lays along a small about a half of the road frontage on the north side of the property. The vast majority if you approach this property if you’re driving by walking by whatever the part of the property that is really visible to the public for the most part has a compliant picket fence around it. That’s to the west and south sides of and all around the front part of the house. Really the sections of fence for which the relief is sought primarily the 8 foot section is substantially screened or not even visible to the public. It would be visible to the properties obviously to the south and to the east but they are the very reason why the fence was installed in the first place so you know that is really you know why we’re here. I also submitted an aerial photo which if you haven’t had a chance to go there you can take a look at that so it should give you a little sense of what we’re dealing with here. So the reasons clearly for installing a fence of this height particularly along the south and east sides of the property are really for 4 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 screening of the conditions on those properties which are you know deplorable at best and for safety because there have been incidents of theft where because of the old cars and all the old equipment and junk that’s there people you know come by and want to grab a part of whatever so there’s people that are traipsing through these properties and have found their way onto my client’s property and you know that’s something that we want to prevent and really to allow this property to be what it’s supposed to be which is a beautiful residential property in Orient. Just to address the criteria briefly, as I said I submitted a memo of law but we clearly do not believe that allowing these sections of fence to exist as they are would have any impact on the character of this neighborhood this area and certainly not a detriment to nearby properties. Arguably these fences improve those properties, they really are not visible the 8 foot section are barely visible to anybody because of the existing vegetation on the property. Yes there’s a portion of the 6 foot fence that you can see if you stop when you’re driving by on your way to the ferry but it really is not I mean the intention of the front yard height limitation I don’t believe is defeated here by this fence. Why is that there, we don’t want to have you know fortresses and we don’t want to have a safety issue on a corner lot that’s not the issue here. That section of fence is well back off the corner, there’s no safety issue with respect to traffic flow. Moving on to the benefit, what is the benefit in order to be able to enjoy that rear section of this property and have some relief from you know road noise from the ferry traffic from people filling up their car with gas you know that section of the fence is essential and clearly the 8 foot section I mean 6 ½ feet is just not enough to screen what’s going on, on those neighboring properties. Is it substantial, we don’t believe so I mean essentially minimal relief necessary to enable us to be able to continue to enjoy the use of the property so obviously we don’t believe the self-created aspect of this ever preclude recovery. The difficulty stems from the actions of neighboring land owners and that is why we’re here seeking the relief. I do have Deb Winsor this is a situation where Deb sold the property to Channing and her husband and so I have both the prior owner and the current owner here who have Channing has written a letter to the Board and has joined in this application and the request for relief. If there’s any questions I’d be happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make a comment, in the chat room there was a question from someone as to whether or not the letters of opposition has been received by the Board and yes we have received them. One comment, we were never robbed until the fencing was put up. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie maybe you can share who’s asking these questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s no name on it but I’m sure we can find out. BOARD ASSISTANT : Someone by the initial J but we don’t know who they are. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And there’s no registration of participants? BOARD ASSISTANT : No, so maybe this person J can tell us who he is. 5 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me do this, I’m going to ask if anyone attending wishes to make comments or whatever. Let’s see what the Board has to say in response to counsel’s (inaudible) that’s the proper way to do it. Martin the concerns were about in some of those letters the visibility of traffic on Main Rd. coming from Platt Rd. to where the stop sign is. Now sometimes I just want to verify, the cone of vision the town code requires you have to have a clear shoulder for that purpose so that there’s some safe sight line so you don’t go out onto oncoming traffic particularly since there’s so much ferry traffic along there. Can you once again address the safety issue as in terms of exactly where the 6 foot the 4 foot high fence is nothing that’s along Platt Rd. but the 6 foot fence along Main Rd. how far back do you know exactly from the surface of the road that is and where the stop sign is? You stop after the fencing or do you have to stop before the fencing? MARTIN FINNEGAN : You stop after so if you the survey is helpful to visualize that but that 6 foot stretch of fence is on the east end of the property and only stretches it’s less than 50 feet of it. the rest of if the whole western end of well northwestern end the corner of the property there is the picket fence. There’s also a pretty significant berm that lays north of the fence such that if you pull up to the stop sign you’re really just looking at a grassy berm to your right you don’t even see the fence there’s another bush and vegetation there. It has no impact whatsoever on visibility to the Main Rd. from Platt Rd. I think that there’s probably a couple of pictures that were provided that can verify that but if you look at the survey you can see where the edge of the pavement is and the curbing that comes around and the location of the fence has no impact on safe access. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Let’s see if the Board has any other questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No Martin I appreciate your answering that question. I’ve used that stop sign myself, I’ve not perceived there to be an issue. My only thought would be and hopefully your client would comply if it was if relief was granted that it would have to obviously conform to the town’s cone of vision and I think Ms. Redford is saying yes. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s amazing how one gesture can save a lot of work, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, Nick you just brought up that was you know my only concern. I didn’t see a problem when I went out there. I had no problem making a left hand turn. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And if I may Martin I’m sorry, clarify on the survey and Leslie maybe this is just a fundamental mistake, you call the front fencing the small picket fence 4 feet in height, my understanding from the survey it’s 3 I didn’t measure it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It is actually 3 feet it is. 6 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So just a point of clarification it’s 3 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s the stuff on Platt Rd. right? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On Platt and Main Rd. the lower picket fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it’s quite low. Well let’s ask this question, I think you’ve already answered it I just want the point to be clear. Six foot high fencing in a rear yard 6 ½ feet is permitted by code, the justification for making this taller had to do with the sight lines to the property because there are objects on there, old equipment and so on that’s higher than 6 feet is that correct? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yeah essentially, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure we understand the justification for all of this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And in Martin’s memo he actually showed I believe it didn’t indicate the height of the fence but it was implied at the yellow line across the photos that if you didn’t have the fence the sight line of the stuff that’s stored would be literally right there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have all the photos and as you know we’ve inspected the site and we looked at the surrounding properties you know in the area in general and we’re all familiar with the commercial businesses across the street on Main Rd. Billy Hans you know mechanical and so on. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie excuse me, J was Jill Franke and she would like the ability to be able to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course okay we’ll get to her in a moment. You want to bring her in as a panelist? BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes I’ll bring her in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While that’s happening did you have any questions Rob? You have to unmute yourself Jill do you know how to do that? JILL FRANKE : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes now we can. I was just asking the rest of the Board if they had any questions at this point and then I’d like to ask you to tell us what you’d like us to hear Ms. Franke, Rob anything from you at this point? 7 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER LEHNERT : No Nick answered my question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from anybody else? Okay Ms. Franke what would you like to tell us? JILL FRANKE : Well the letters that were submitted pretty much say everything. We were never robbed over there or had people over there snooping around until this 8 foot fence went up. Some of the sections of fence are actually 8½ feet high. It’s a non-conforming property. They were there my grandfather bought the property and was there in the thirties and fifties. He’s the one that built the gas station across the street that Billy Hans owns now and he purchased the property across the street to keep the overflow of cars and vehicles and they used to take parts and stuff off of those cars and they would restore them. My father purchased a Jeep for my daughter to restore that’s on the property now it’s in one of the pictures that was submitted and that has been so stripped that we have to junk it because since this fence went up there’s nothing but people on there. I put a camera up and it’s like a freeway of people that are going through there since this fence has been put up. She’s had renters living over there, she speaks at one of your ZBA meetings that the Air B&B and the VRBO or whatever it’s called is the best thing that’s ever happened to her place and she’s not there. She’s had renters and I believe they’ve destroyed the inside of her house in one of the meetings if you read the notes and it’s just been I’m glad she’s leaving. The house has been rented without permits too so here she’s going after two valid properties that have been there forever. The situation was like that prior to her buying the house why would you buy a house across the street from a busy gas station and next to two other businesses do you know what I mean? It’s farm equipment, Orient is farmland. I grew up out in the potato fields. Some of it is farm equipment some of it is cars, repair shops and cars that’s what it is. I don’t know those letters basically pretty much speak for themselves. She used to mow the front out on 25 there’s on the outside of the fence and down Platt Rd. she used to keep that mowed now it’s not mowed anymore. The County has had to come mow it, there’s so much (inaudible) and wisteria and brush growing over it you cannot see. My father’s almost been hit coming out of his driveway you have to be way into the gutter almost over the white line in the road pulling out of Platt to see that he even has a driveway there and it’s also dangerous for Lathams Farm that is adjacent and behind those two properties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you, the letters are all in the public record. We have them on file, each Board member has a copy, we also have a number of letters of support that are also part of the file. The Board will weigh everything very carefully. Is there anything else from any Board member or anyone else in attendance who would like to speak to this application? We have two Q&A’s here. MEMBER DANTES : That’s just Jill Franke. 8 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : So we can ask those who are attending if they want to speak they can raise their hands and we will move you in to speak. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While you’re doing that Kim, Martin if I may ask you a question and I believe Ms. Redford you’re now the new owner, the neighbor Jill just brought up a question I’d forgotten to ask about. There were letters of support from prior tenants, while it’s not a matter of this application, does the house have a valid rental permit? MARTIN FINNEGAN : The house isn’t being rented, the house was sold and the new owners are living there. I mean the house sold we closed a month ago so I don’t know Channing if you want to do you have any intention of renting it? I don’t think it has any relevance to what we’re talking about here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I understand but just for part of the folder or the file rather. I do understand that when a rental permit is issued it’s valid for two years and it’s transferable it stays with the house. So I don’t know if the prior owner had that but provided it was conforming DEB WINSOR : I can speak to that. MEMBER DANTES : It doesn’t really affect the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really. Who said they can speak to that? BOARD ASSISTANT : That would be Deb. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Deb do you want to say something? I don’t know she’s still up on the screen but I don’t see a microphone. We’ll wait a second to see if she wants to answer a question. There’s one hand up. MEMBER DANTES : It’s alright I mean in all honesty I mean if the new owner wants to get a rental permit that’s kind of her business it’s not really part of our file anyway. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Are there any other questions that anybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really. I think we’ve unless Deb wants to speak we were waiting for her I don’t want to hold the whole Board up. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It looks like she got kicked out for some reason. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well I think we have all the information we need. We’ve got you know complete testimony and have done our site inspection and we will probably have a draft decision ready within two weeks at our Special Meeting. We try to do that. We have more time but I see no reason why we shouldn’t just close this hearing and then we’ll proceed to 9 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 deliberate at our next possible meeting. So 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 the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. HEARING # 7424 – JOHN BELLANDO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an application for John Bellando #7424 a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Artic IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector’s February 11, 2020 amended March 11, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize an “as built” accessory shed at 1) shed located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1370 Jackson St. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in New Suffolk. Let me just enter into the record that this is an addition and an alteration to a single family dwelling and to legalize two (2) “as built” sheds. This is a 22% lot coverage where the code permits a maximum of 20% and a 10 foot by 22 foot shed that has a side yard setback of 2.3 feet, it’s actually for pool equipment it’s a pool shed the 10 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 code requires 15 feet for a rear and a side yard setback. The LWRP indicates that the lot coverage is inconsistent but that the shed (inaudible) that’s pretty much the story. It’s a proposed kitchen addition. We have it circled in blue, we have the shed for the pool and then right on the front of the house we have a small addition proposed. Lizbeth what else would you like the Board to know about this? LIZBETH THALHEIMER : If you could bring in my client John Bellando is here as well. BOARD SECRETARY : Okay let me see if I can find him sure. LIZBETH THALHEIMER : Yes it’s existing the house right now is existing non-conforming and as you stated earlier 20% is the allowable coverage. It exists as 21.7 and we’re requesting the .3% to add to the kitchen and a small entry and powder room. My clients recently retired, they plan to live there full time. BOARD SECRETARY : I’m not seeing John Bellando. If he can raise his hand maybe it’s under a different name. Okay it’s under Ellen so LIZBETEH THALHEIMER : Oh I’m sorry that’s his wife. So really the increase we’re requesting is .3%. The two sheds that we’re requesting to legalize were both on the property before my clients purchased the house. You can see the sheds on a survey that goes back to 1988. I submitted the two surveys and the other one is from 2019 or 2009 right before they purchased the house. I spoke with a neighbor across the street and Marino what I sent in the contacts she did have a few questions and you know after playing phone tag of course five, six times I explained what we were proposing to do and where the addition was going and she has no objection to the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so the shed that contains the pool equipment just so you’re aware I’m sure you probably have realized we do site inspection of every property before a public hearing so that shed is very, very heavily screened by a tall hedge row from the adjacent property. It is practically sitting on the lot line but you can’t really see it and it’s certainly being used strictly for pool equipment and swimming pool equipment. The lot coverage is a small addition but it basically a consequence of a very large percentage of the lot being covered by a tennis court and I just want to confirm that that is correct. LIZBETH THALHEIMER : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if the Board has any other questions. There was one issue actually did you say that one of the owners was here, is that Ellen? LIZBETH THALHEIMER : Yes, they’re muted right now. 11 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we did notice when we did the site inspection that there is a Certificate of Occupancy for a second story addition to an accessory garage and that that was for storage playroom. It was not meant for habitable space. However we’re aware of the fact that both the first floor of the garage and the second floor of the garage is conditioned space, it’s heated and cooled and it is being used for something other than storage. When somebody comes before the Board what we want to do is make sure that everything even though this is not cited in the Notice of Disapproval we want to make sure that everything is legal on the property. So we’re looking at the two story framed garage. Does someone want to address this perhaps the owner could do that. JOHN BELLANDO : This is John Bellando can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes hi thank you Mr. Bellando for attending. JOHN BELLANDO : How is everybody today? You had mentioned Ms. Weisman the first floor of the garage I’m not clear of how you define that but that’s a standard garage where we pull our car in and trash I’m not sure how that was described just now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I was just saying that it would appear that it’s conditioned space, there’s heat in there and there’s heat upstairs on the second floor. JOHN BELLANDO : The former owner had put heat upstairs and in fact we do have a bed upstairs that is occasionally used in the event we might have more extra guests that need to stay overnight but it’s very seldom used and downstairs I’m not sure how conditioned is defined but it is purely used as a garage for automobile storage and bicycles and things of that nature. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the upstairs is there any plumbing is there any bathroom? JOHN BELLANDO : Yes there was plumbing installed by the prior owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that include a shower? JOHN BELLANDO : Yes it does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well that would not be in compliance with the Certificate of Occupancy for that building which limits it to storage and playroom. I don’t know what a playroom means but it’s probably not a bedroom with a bathroom. So the previous owner probably pushed the envelope a little bit here in terms of what their use of that second floor addition on your garage is about so that really needs to be legalized one way or the either, either by discontinuing the use. You’re allowed to have a half bath in an accessory structure that’s legal. You are not allowed to have a shower in there and you are not allowed to have somebody sleeping in there unless it’s an accessory apartment in an accessory structure which you could 12 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 apply for, for a family member if that’s what you’re going to limit it to and then you could have a little kitchenette, you could have a full bathroom and you could have a bed of sorts with a closet but that’s a Special Exception Permit application. So I think the choices are either to apply for that that’s a separate application or discontinue the use on that second floor for anything other than storage. JOHN BELLANDO : We’re happy to discontinue the use. I don’t want to slow down this process and I’m not sure it would but if that’s what it takes you know I’m perfectly content to discontinue the use and then explore the application at a later date. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that would mean to be fully compliant it would also mean removing the shower and it would also mean removing any heat in there and if you chose to think about it and decided you didn’t want to do that then you’d have to come back with an application. Either way it would not slow down the deliberation on what’s before this Board. Take care of that but again when we look at an application we’re obligated to look at everything on the property. JOHN BELLANDO : Totally understood. In terms of removing a shower versus removing the inherent plumbing, is that part of it or must I go through a physical you know removal of tile and things of that nature? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Building Department could inform you as to what would be involved with removing the shower. You don’t have to remove a half bath that’s allowed in an accessory structure and I think what we can do as a Board is condition approval for your shed and your lot coverage based upon one or the other within a certain time frame. So I’ll give you some time on how you want to proceed but after that amount of time you’ll either have to remove you know become fully compliant by removing the heat and just using it for storage and you can use the half bathroom and removing the shower and the Building Department can tell you what that removal would consist of. It may mean cementing just the pipe. JOHN BELLANDO : I see and tell me if I opt to apply for I don’t know how you described it but LIZBETH THALHEIMER : Special Permit. JOHN BELLANDO : as an apartment will that slow down this process at all or CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not for this application but you would have to apply come into the office you know go online and get that permit it’s on our website, you can print out the application form, it tells you what you need to submit you know just like you did for this one basically. JOHN BELLANDO : Could you just describe that permit application how 13 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 LIZBETH THALHEIMER : I wrote it all down John. BOARD SECRETARY : Call the office and we will help you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The staff is available to help. It’s limited to occupation by either a family member or someone who you could rent to on the affordable housing registry one who qualifies for being on the affordable housing. JOHN BELLANDO : We have no interest in renting, it really is only for family use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so then you could apply for family use, you can charge a dollar a year rent it doesn’t matter but it has to be limited it has to be a rental agreement actually. The law was improved in order to allow families who had say children who got married and couldn’t afford to find a place out here to live, to live where they grew up basically or for aging parents to move into an apartment and give the house to their kids or to rent out something to provide some affordable housing in the town. So it’s a good law but we’re not wanting to see second dwellings you know on properties. I’ll leave it up to you, you can talk to Lizbeth or whomever and this will not affect your current application. JOHN BELLANDO : Understood thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re welcome, anything else from anybody, anything from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would just like to share for the record, I think the discussion about the tennis court may be causing some of the lot coverage issues. While I think it’s a benign increase beyond the 20% allowable I think because of the lack of dimensionality of a tennis court it’s a different application that other people may be seeking a variance for greater lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s a difference between a structure that’s you know multidimensional that has volume and mass and a tennis court. The most egregious thing about a tennis court is a) it’s not pervious unless it’s grass or clay and b) it’s the required fence you know otherwise you wouldn’t even see it. LIZBETH THALHEIMER : It would be so under if it wasn’t for the tennis court. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure but you have a huge property so we’re aware of that. Okay anything else from anybody? Alright hearing no further questions or comments BOARD SECRETARY : Let me see if there’s anybody else, raise your hand if you would like to speak, any attendees? 14 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No one else, alright making 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 call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We’ll have a decision for you at our next meeting in two weeks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie a quick question, is there a time frame you had suggested a time frame as far as the applicant letting us know what they want to do or how do we address that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I would suggest maybe six months. Things are moving a little more slowly you know that gives them time to get an application together if they so choose and also gives the Building Department time to get out there to inspect the interior and to give them some guidance on precisely what needs to be done to be in full compliance with the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Bellando do you agree six months is enough time for you? JOHN BELLANDO : Yes I think that’s fair thank you. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Okay the hearing is closed thank you very much. 15 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 HEARING # 7425 – JOHN and MARY ANNE CASSIMATIS BOARD SECRETARY : Okay for the next hearing I’m going to move a Mr. Cassimitis and his representative Robert Stephenson. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. John and Mary Anne Cassimitis # 7425. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s February 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 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 4355 Pequash Ave. in Cutchogue. So this is for a front yard setback of 20.9 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 and a rear yard setback of 17 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. This is LWRP consistent and the proposal is to add a second floor with no expansion of the building envelope. Please enter your name into the record. ROBERT STEPHENSON : Good morning my name is Robert Stephenson I’m an architect and I’m representing the Cassimitis family in their application for a variance. The project consists of adding a second floor to the existing residence. They are looking to have four bedrooms and one bath on the second floor, relocating the bedrooms from the lower level to the second floor and to repurpose spaces on the first floor to a home office, family room and kids playroom/toy room if you will. As the property exists it’s a non-conforming lot on a zone R-40. The property is a corner lot which has two front yards of 35 feet, one rear yard at 35 feet and one side yard at 15 feet. As the house currently exists it is over one front yard by 14 feet and one rear yard by 18 feet. The proposed addition is intended to extend the existing walls up on three sides and leaving a 10 foot portion of the house as a single story. The design is intended to provide additional space for the Cassimitis family and looking to do so without going to big. I believe it’s done in a manner as not too increase the degree of non-compliance since we’re going straight up and not expanding outward. The architectural design of the house is intended to provide visual breaks in materials and in plains of the building as not to appear as though it is a large box. It’s my belief that this addition is in keeping with the neighborhood and it is also very similar to an addition that was done to the property next door of the same design. So with that said I’d like to respectfully request a variance to construct the second floor and I’m happy to answer any questions that anyone might have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Pat do you have any questions. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No questions at this time. 16 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No, no questions this is pretty simple. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also are obligated when we do a site inspection to look at the entire property the neighborhood rather and noticed that there are a number of houses that vary in size, many of them are two stories some of them are one story and there are some non- conforming setbacks in that neighborhood but when you’re building over an existing non- conforming you know footprint this is what has to happen. I don’t have any questions either. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this application if so please raise your hand and let one of our staff members know so they can bring you in. Nothing in the chat room, okay 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 LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim please call the roll. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. 17 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously thank you very much, we’ll have a decision it two weeks. ROBERT STEPHENSON : Thank you and I’d like to thank the Board for their time have a good day. BOARD SECRETARY : I’d like to ask Liz to give instruction again during the meeting for those attending. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Just a reminder to everyone, if you’re here to comment go ahead and click the raise hand button or send us a quick not via the Q&A at the bottom of your screen. Thank you. HEARING # 7426 – SCOTT and STACY BOWE BOARD ASSISTANT : We just had someone who just raised their hand Carol Weber. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to find out what application they’re here for. ROB LEHNERT : Who is it? BOARD ASSISTANT : Carol Weber. ROB LEHNERT : Fred Weber is the architect for the next one. BOARD ASSISTANT : Okay so I’m going to bring in Stacey Bowe she’s the applicant and then here we go hi Stacey. STACEY BOWE : Hi how are you guys? I think Fred is on Fred Weber I think he’s under his wife’s name. BOARD ASSISTANT : Carol Weber? STACEY BOWE : Yes please. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me read this into the record. This is the fifth item on the agenda. This is for Scott and Stacy Bowe #7426. Request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s June 19, 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 260 Oak Drive in Cutchogue. This is an addition and alteration that will result in a front yard setback at 30.3 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet. We have a couple of I think three letters of support from neighbors entered into our record. This is an addition of a second floor and it 18 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 appears to be at the same 36.9 foot non-conforming front yard setback and an attached garage on a one story section at 30.3 feet. I believe their one story portion is conforming. Okay, hi Fred. FRED WEBER : Hi everyone. I’m using my wife’s laptop so I think I came up as Carol Weber but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did but you don’t look like a Carol. FRED WEBER : Hopefully not for her sake not mine. So the property is a non-conforming lot in the R-40 zone. The existing house is a ranch house containing three bedrooms and small living spaces a total of 1,154 sq. ft. The owner wishes to expand the house to create more living space and a total of four bedrooms which are more generous in size. This will be accomplished by extending the first floor and adding a second floor. In addition an attached two car garage is also proposed with storage above. The logical place for these additions is on the west side given the house location and the need for driveway access to the proposed garage because the existing house was originally built at an angle to Oak Drive these additions will extend closer to the front property line resulting in a 30.3 front yard setback at the kind of extreme west end okay there we go. I do not believe turning the additions on an angle to the existing house would be a good look. The proposed garage would be centered on the side of the existing house and on the connecting one story mud room which I think would have a good appearance. The front façade has some small metal roofs and other architectural details I think that would enhance the look and make it fit in with the neighborhood. So that’s an overview and the owner and I would be glad to answer any questions from the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if the Board has any questions, Pat we’ll start with you. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I noticed that the garage will have a second story in it, are you planning do you have plans for other than storage in it? SCOTT BOWE : No I don’t. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are you putting electricity up there? SCOTT BOWE : I haven’t really thought about that but I plan on using it for tool storage. Do the plans reflect that for electricity up there? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you would need electricity in the building. SCOTT BOWE : Yeah definitely on the first floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going to put in any plumbing? SCOTT BOWE : No. 19 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any heat? SCOTT BOWE : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just open rafters? SCOTT BOWE : Open rafters, I don’t know I haven’t really gotten to that level of CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m talking about in the storage part. SCOTT BOWE : I might go plywood or something like that or something to STACEY BOWE : (inaudible) aesthetically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well as long as it conforms to what the Building Department would determine to be unfinished storage space. STACEY BOWE : Of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So make sure you talk to Fred about what that means. Alright I don’t have any questions, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No this is again pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions, I agree with Rob. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Wouldn’t this be an attached garage though cause I’m looking at proposed one story addition and proposed garage storage. I mean I understand it’s a variance but this is an attached garage it’s not an accessory garage. Wouldn’t he be able to finish it as per code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it’s attached by a mud room which is conditioned. MEMBER DANTES : So if he want to put a room up there I don’t see an issue with that. I know he’s planning to use it as storage now but I don’t want to put a condition on the decision that will then take away something that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I wasn’t planning on conditioning it but it probably since the plan now calls for storage it would probably be appropriate if you wish to in future time finish that off in some way or another as conditioned habitable space that you go back to the Building Department you know with a building permit. Just to make sure that all the C.O.’s have the same information on (inaudible) later on. I mean we don’t want to limit your options. 20 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER LEHNERT : As attached that use is allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. SCOTT BOWE : I mean that’s not the intent for it, it’s going to be a four bedroom house so MEMBER DANTES : I understand what you’re saying but what happens is it says storage they get a variance and then you want to finish it later on and they’re going to send you back for another variance cause it say storage on it. STACEY BOWE : Got it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s all. STACEY BOWE : Thank you for the flexibility. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean you have property rights too but the thing is we just want to make sure it continues to be legal that’s all. If a Fire Department doesn’t see on file something that says habitable space and they think you’re just storing boxes up there and there’s a person sleeping up there at some point that can be an issue (inaudible) emergency. Okay I don’t have any questions, anyone else in the attendees list that wants to say anything? BOARD ASSISTANT : Anybody raise your hand if you want to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did get support letters from neighbors. STACEY BOWE : Yeah I think there should be four actually from both the neighbors on either sides of the adjoining adjacent lots as well as the neighbor on the north and on the south so we actually shared more detailed plans with them just being neighborly and wanted to kind of share with them cause obviously it will disrupt them as well and they were all very supportive and had no objections. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good okay well you know there’s a lot of houses there with attached garages in that neighborhood very common. Okay anything from anybody else? BOARD ASSISTANT : I just want to remind those who are attending by telephone in order to raise your hand you would have to press *9. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Kim. Alright I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Would you call the roll please Kim. 21 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We’ll have a decision in two weeks. STACEY BOWE : Thank you very much have a good day. HEARING # 7427 – ESTATE OF THEODORE EIRING BY STEPHEN GUTLEBER, EXECUTOR BOARD SECRETARY : I’m going to bring in Pat Moore and I believe the applicant Stephen Gutleber into the meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to read the legal notice into the record while we’re bringing them in. This is item #6 on the agenda Estate of Thomas Eiring and Stephen Gutleber, Executor # 7427. Request for a variance from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector’s March 2, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet located at 4077 Main Bayview Rd. (adj. to West Creek) in Southold. Is Pat with us yet? PAT MOORE : Yes I’m here can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi Pat yea. PAT MOORE : Oh hello everybody my computer couldn’t tell if I was on or not, thank you. 22 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay this is a flag lot more or less or it’s a lot that’s behind a road frontage lot accessed by a right of way and it’s undeveloped currently and this is for a front yard setback at 35 feet where the code requires a 50 foot front yard setback. It’s LWRP exempt, it’s on West Creek and there are some tidal wetlands. What else would you like us to know about this Pat? PAT MOORE : Yes thank you very much and I do have my client Mr. Gutleber out there in ether land. This lot was created by the Zoning Board in 1973 with area variances and 280-A access. As you pointed out it is a private road that goes behind Main Bayview Rd. and a series of I want to say maybe four lots. It’s a little difficult to identify exactly how many lots have access off this right of way but there are at least three. The lot itself is a conforming 40,012 sq. ft. acre lot however because West Creek is part of the dimensions of the property the actual upland buildable area the adjacent area is less than 20,000 sq. ft. and we attempted to create as much a conformity on all setbacks we have conforming to the 40,000 sq. ft. lot requirements of 15 and 20 for a 35 foot combined setbacks. The rear yard setbacks are quite large because they go to the opposite side of West Creek so we don’t have an issue there. What we tried to do is expand the distance as much as possible to the wetlands to conform with Trustees and D.E.C. policies and in order to increase the setbacks from wetlands we obviously had to move towards the front yard the street side. We did try to maintain what would be a conforming setback on an undersized lot which would be 35 feet. We would have liked to have moved even more towards the street but we think that this is a reasonable request a reasonable application. We have made an application to D.E.C. and D.E.C. does require a variance due to the fact that it’s less than 75 feet. We have not received our variance from the D.E.C. yet but we’re hopeful. It is a lot that predates the or actually it was approved by the D.E.C. back in the seventies as well. So we oh I did send over and I apologize I usually do it prior to the date of the hearing, this one got caught up in the COVID transition so I do apologize. I sent over by email this morning the neighboring area variances that have been granted and in one of the files there was a very nice front yard setback average setback that was showing from Main Bayview Rd. Alternatives from the records I gave you the tax map numbers of the lots that were being depicted and then I also placed where this lot fits in relation to that diagram. So you can see that the front yard setbacks actually on Main Bayview Rd. are significantly non-conforming and the lots within the right of way those are just too difficult to ascertain it’s a mish mash where pretty much the rear yards of most of the properties so they look pretty close but are hard to decipher from the three or four lots that are there. I think that’s all I have for, I’m certainly willing to answer any other questions you might have or any comments and as I said I sent it by email so hopefully you have it in front of you. I know you don’t have an opportunity to review it but it is pretty straightforward. It is all the area variances that are within the immediate neighborhood of this property. Thank you. 23 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s see if there are any questions from the Board, Nick we’ll start with you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Like the other projects that we just heard it seems to be clear cut. I understand the reasoning and the distance from the flagged wetlands. The only question I have is Pat would your applicant or rather would your client mind discussing perhaps increasing the front yard setback by reducing the size of the deck? It would seem because of the curvature along the wetlands or the salt meadow you can probably gain another 5 or maybe even 10 feet. The deck plan on the application included sort of shows a large living area accessed by the dining room, I don’t want to suggest that people don’t want a larger deck but maybe if they cut off or reconfigured the area of the decking on what would be the northwest side in front of the kitchen window. You can push the house back a little further which would still allow that same 50 foot setback. PAT MOORE : Well I mean we’re trying to come up with a reasonable building envelope and the deck I mean as it is we are conforming in all other respects 35 feet is what any lot under non- conforming lot would be to code. So I’m reluctant to shrink it anymore. I was very judicious in creating this building envelope. We purposely conformed to larger side yard setbacks of conforming 40,000 sq. ft. lot when we are dealing with less than 20,000 building envelope. So it just seems to me that we’re devaluating the property by shrinking this anymore and the deck I mean everybody along this area has a deck, you would expect a deck for particularly what is generally a year excuse me a seasonal home you know I’m usually very willing to adjust but I do want to leave a little bit of discretion that if I have to move things back for the D.E.C. so if the D.E. C. says to me well we want you to cut the deck back a little bit to move it away and the shortest area we’ll do that. We obviously need to get a variance from the D.E.C. but I don’t want to move the house any further back. In one area the deck is 75 feet from wetlands, in the other the closest point it’s 56 and when I looked at the surrounding community and all the surveys that I gave you from wetlands of the homes that seemed to be the kind of common denominator the setbacks of decks was pretty consistently in the 50 to 30 setback range. So you know Nick you know I’m always trying to accommodate the Board and trying to be reasonable and in this case I thought I gave you an extremely reasonable application right from the start so I’m a little reluctant to move things around. Obviously when you guys deliberate if you come up with something we’ll live with it but I don’t want to push I think 35 feet is really the minimum we want to leave room for the IA system and for a driveway so you know we have our limitations here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I guess part of the question I mean obviously the wetlands is going to be an issue. You’re going to need Trustees approval on this also? PAT MOORE : Correct yes. 24 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And D.E.C. PAT MOORE : Correct. I already have the application for the D.E.C. that was filed probably even before shortly after the application was filed with you so it’s been sitting there for a while. They’re working remotely so I think that they review it from home. They have alternating visitation into their office so things move a little slower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well it’s good that you’re putting in an IA system here and you’ll you know anything we would grant would be subject to approval by D.E.C. and Trustees. PAT MOORE : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie, what about letting D.E.C. and Trustees go first cause it seems to me if the D.E.C. wants them to move it back I don’t want to be restricted by a variance that we grant or deny. I mean if the D.E.C. says move it back then we have more of a basis for an approval as opposed to right now there really isn’t that much. PAT MOORE : I’m okay let me try to think, I have an application to the Health Department and they need your variance first. However they also need D.E.C. and Trustees so if you want to leave the hearing open I really have no there’s really no technical reason that it can’t be left open. I don’t disagree with you Eric, if the D.E.C. gives me this great. If the D.E.C. starts making me adjust things then it could potentially cause me to have to come back to you if they say really we want you to move 30 feet from the front yard rather than 35 or 32 or whatever crazy number they come up with. It would be great if I don’t have to come back to you either with a de minimus or even a new application. I’m okay with that, really they’re running neck in neck. I could get it tomorrow or I could get it three months from now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well rather than closing subject to receipt because we may need to do additional discussion depending on the outcome of these other approvals do you have anything into our local Trustees yet? PAT MOORE : No usually they don’t allow me to apply until you’ve got it so if you send over a memo that says we’d like you to review it, I really like to get the D.E.C. first and foremost because they’re the ones that are most difficult I would say. The Trustees we have a pretty reasonable application, our house location they want to make sure that you’re kind of consistent with your neighboring homes. I don’t think we have any issues with that and 56 and 75 is not an unreasonable wetland setback particularly with the topography here because you know as a crow flies we’re 56 and 75 but truly the topography is somewhat elevated from the creek so elevation wise we’re Zone X so we’re at least eight or nine the building envelope it actually at 9.6 if I’m reading the survey correctly. 25 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think all this sounds reasonable. The D.E.C. is far more restrictive and nobody wants to be going back and forth and back and forth on this. PAT MOORE : No I actually appreciate that thought yes and you know I do take that as a very reasonable recommendation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’ll tell you what then, let me see if there’s anyone else who wants to address this or if there’s any more questions, Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions on this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anyone else attending that wants to speak? BOARD SECRETARY : Please raise your hand if you wish to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see the applicants are here but they don’t want that’s fine. You don’t have to say anything. PAT MOORE : Do you want to say something Steve? STEPHEN GUTLEBER : It’s more of a technical comment. It’s the Estate of Theodore Eiring and not Thomas Eiring just so you have the proper information. PAT MOORE : Oh thank you that was somehow another again I’ll excuse it to COVID I apologize. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’ll just make a note of it so we can put it down correctly in the decision. I’m just going to make a motion then if there’s no other comments or questions. To hold the hearing open until receipt by the applicant with a D.E.C. permit and then we will probably have a very quick hearing. Once we know what the result is then we’ll be able to know how to wrap this up. I don’t anticipate that we’re going to have to have much testimony or anything like that. I do want to leave it open in the event that we have to change the setback variance and we need to talk about it rather than closing it subject to receipt. BOARD ASSISTANT : I just want you to know if it’s adjourned without a date there’s a fee involved so if we adjourn it to a specific date like maybe December quite honestly. PAT MOORE : I think that’s fine December is we should have plenty of time. Stephen is there any are you okay with December. I know it’s kind of its only two months away so I mean 26 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 STEPHEN EIRING : We’re anxious in getting done. I understand everything that needs to be done so PAT MOORE : Would you just I guess leave the possibility that if for example D.E.C. comes back to us right away I can go to the Trustees in advance of the ZBA just so that when we come back to the ZBA we’re done, would that make sense? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s fine that’s perfectly fine but Kim is right, as a courtesy rather than just leaving it open adjourning without a date just to be fair fee wise so that you don’t have to re-notice and all that kind of stuff we should just pick we’ll pick December and then Pat just call the office and bring them up to date and we’ll figure it out from there. PAT MOORE : Call the office and do what I’m sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Once you know what’s happening with D.E.C. or your PAT MOORE : Oh yes of course I will keep you informed absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a plan, I’ll just make a motion to adjourn this hearing to December what’s the date in December? rd BOARD SECRETARY : 3. rd CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : December 3 Regular Meeting is there a second on that motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento, Kim please call the roll. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? 27 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. HEARING # 7428 – MINI CEDARS, LLC BOARD ASSISTANT : Mike let us know who you want to bring in with you. MIKE KIMACK : Can you hear me now? BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes I can hear you. MIKE KIMACK : I believe the owner is on line and I believe the architect is also on line. BOARD SECRETARY : Okay can I have those names. MIKE KIMACK : It would be David and Lisa Murray and it would be Guillame Bich is the BOARD SECRETARY : Okay so I’m going to move them over I have them both here. I’m going to move them over as a panelist. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to read the Notice of Disapproval into the record. This is the seventh agenda item Mini Cedars, LLC # 7428. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-18, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s July 31, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for a lot line change and the construction of a new single family dwelling at 1) proposed lot is less than the code required minimum lot area of 40,000 sq. ft., 2) proposed lot is less than the code required minimum lot width of 150 feet, 3) proposed dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 4) proposed construction more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 905 Stephenson Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Orient. Let me just read you a couple of quick facts here so we can get on with the presentation. This is a proposed lot line change that will create a lot that goes from a non-conforming 36,155 sq. ft. where the code requires 40,000 sq. ft. minimum but it will still be non-conforming at an enlarged size of 38,286 sq. ft. The lot width will be 129 feet where the code requires a minimum of 150, the new dwelling will have a proposed front yard setback of 29.9 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet. The lot coverage will be proposed at 29.9% where the code permitted maximum lot coverage is 20% and there are a number of issues involved. The Planning Department will also have to look at this application. I will tell you now that we will take all testimony today but will be holding this open until the next month because we have not yet been able to receive comments from the Planning 28 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 Board which are critical to our deliberations and they have requested that we hold this open until they can get us comments. I’m sure we will have them in the next week or two and we’ll make them available to everyone but they want to do a site inspection so I have informed them and I’m telling you right now that this matter will be reviewed (inaudible) next month. So who Mike do you want to make some comments now? MIKE KIMACK : Yes good morning everyone. I’d like to there’s a four variance request here and I’d like to take you through this as quickly and as clarified as I can. First you have (inaudible) the fact that the existing lot does not meet the bulk schedule primarily in terms of its width and in terms of its area. One thing basically I looked up and I’m going to send over to Kim that there’s Appeal #2168 which is specific to this lot done in 1976 that gave permission to divide this lot with insufficient width and lot area so I will get that off to you. There is another one 2402 which is on the lower area there that the lot width the bulk schedule for permission to construct a dwelling on an undersized lot so I will send that all to you. I just wanted to put that into the record because that really addresses the two first points. This particular lot obviously rises up it’s fairly well vegetated. It has not been the CEHA line comes up about two thirds of the way leaving roughly about 38,000 sq. ft. or so and it leaves about 13,246 left and 20% of that is about 2649. Have you had a chance to visit the site anyone? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we’ve all been there. MIKE KIMACK : I hope you picked up some of my stakes. I did stake everything out but it’s not easy to walk back in there and mostly down the side. I do want to go back to and intermingle with it basically the memorandum that came out of the LWRP where they basically are generally recognize it as (inaudible) Suffolk County Health Department setback from the well that’s the reason for that little addition of the triangular piece. They basically on Policy 4.1 in that area he does acknowledge that part of the lot is a 15% grade I will point out to the fact that if you looked at 202 on your site (inaudible) you’ll see that particular small section within the CEHL zone it’s not part of any construction. Everything that is being constructed is less than (inaudible) a small area that happens to fall within that a little bit close to 15% or so on that particular area. I think that being in the LWRP which goes to the (inaudible) of it is that they basically indicate that the locations structures of these locations to be minimized and not exceed the bulk schedule requirements and that essentially goes to the heart of our variance request which are the other two there which are the setback of the square footage and also the lot coverage. Obviously it was limited because of the CEHL line and what was remaining. The owner with the architect chose to spread this out basically rather than go up primarily. If you look at the footprint you’ll see that it basically was designed to conform as much as possible to the way that that particular jags over there. There is roughly an additional 1,100 sq. ft. beyond the 20% that makes up the additional percentage. Actually I can correct this, it’s no longer 29 it’s now 28.3% and I’ll get a correction 29 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 from building on that particular one. We took out a lower we took out a lower patio basically in order to bring it back as much as we could. The reason this was done was twofold. Number one was to be able to not have more visual aspect more vertical than is necessary for the area and certainly for the neighborhood and also primarily to keep it down as much as possible. Half the house the southern part of the house from the grade to the finished grade to the ridge line is 21 feet. The other half from the finished grade to the ridge line is 25 feet. The owner and the architect I think did an excellent job of trying to maximize a house on that property that met all the owner’s requirement but also he’s taken into consideration the visual impact that it may cause some of the neighbors by keeping it low but in doing so it created the requirement and the request for two variances one of which would need to be in exceedance of the 20% by about 1,100 sq. ft. and I think because of the oddity of (inaudible) being cut back there we can meet the 40 foot (inaudible) on half of it but we couldn’t meet it on the other half. Beyond that I think I’d like to turn it over to Lisa Murray to give you a description of the house the construction and what’s on each one of the floors. LISA MURRAY : Hi I’m Lisa Murray with Murray Design and Build. The house was designed as it’s going to be a primary residence for a person for the owner for a good portion of the year with a master bedroom, living room, kitchen, dining room on the main floor support structures for mud room and garage and then in the lower level three additional bedrooms, recreation area for another living space and mechanical space. So really nothing extravagant and room numbers or sizes or anything like that and basically just the constraints of the lot (inaudible) shaped off set from one another which required a little bit more square footage to make it work. If I had a box to work with I can (inaudible) everything but it requires more hallways and things like that which elevated the square footage number slightly but I don’t think any of the rooms are necessarily excessive given the exposure that this lot has and what our clients were looking for. I’m happy to answer any questions specifically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s a very, very long history on this property where prior applications were submitted to this Board to the Board of Appeals for construction of a dwelling and I’m wondering if there’s someone either Mike that you can do this or someone on I believe is Tony Pasca here? Is there somebody here representing the neighbors? BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes. If you want me to bring them in we can do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’ve received an awful lot of documentation you know both from the applicant and from a lot of the neighbors and also we’re waiting as I said for Planning Board comments and I would like to have a very clear history of prior attempts to appear before this Board by anyone else going back to Edson and others and hi Mr. Pasca. Do you can you provide that or Mike Kimack can you provide that? 30 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 ANTHONY PASCA : I can only provide this is Tony Pasca for the record and I do represent I’ve submitted a letter and I represent several of the surrounding neighbors. I could only tell you what I was able to find online through the towns it’s a very extensive system but sometimes it’s tricky finding things but I can tell you what I did find about that which was 1) with respect to this specific lot there were a few wetland applications and coastal erosion type applications that seemed to have been filed over the years generally for much smaller structures and as far as I can tell none of those required a variance or asked for a variance from either setbacks or coverage or anything like that. So I was able to find some of those and I did provide at least one copy of a survey that I pulled of I think it was a 1990 application that showed a much smaller house with conforming setbacks and other than that I was also able to find which I think the Board needs to get to the bottom of. The original Donald Stephenson variance application that is referenced in the applicant’s application materials and is referenced on the subsequent C.O.’s for the larger lot, what’s a little bit of a mystery is that that decision when you read the actual Zoning Board decision one of the conditions of the variance that was given to Mr. Stephenson was the creation of an 80,000 sq. ft. set off area on the large lot and the reason it’s relevant I think at least to get to the bottom of it for this application is that there’s a Roderick Van Tuyl survey that was not provided by the applicant but I was able to pull off the town’s website that shows the 80,000 sq. ft. area and that 80,000 sq. ft. area encompasses the small triangular piece that is now being proposed to be transferred to the smaller lot. So we have an outstanding Zoning Board variance for the large lot that required a set off area of 80,000 sq. ft. as a condition and now part of that 80,000 sq. ft. is being proposed to be transferred and the applicant has not addressed that or dealt with it or tried to explain it in any way so that’s the extent of what I was able to find and I did spend a few hours looking through various files to try to determine whether there were any other applications. Those are the ones that I found that seemed to be relevant to what you’re dealing with today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know the ZBA file number on that decision? ANTHONY PASCA : On the Donald Stephenson decision? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. ANTHONY PASCA : I believe I referenced it in my letter, I think it’s actually I thought the Zoning Board decision was actually provided by Mr. Kimack as an attachment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I bet we have it in the file. ANTHONY PASCA : Yea as an attachment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have such a massive amount of materials we’ll look for it. We can get it if we don’t have it but I suspect we probably do have it it’s okay. 31 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 ANTHONY PASCA : I pulled it out of the online file. MEMBER DANTES : It’s in my file I have it. BOARD ASSISTANT : I think it’s like twenty for something. MEMBER DANTES : 1976 Appeal #2168 July 1976 the applicant represented by Irving Price. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay great thank you. MEMBER DANTES : It’s not a very detailed decision it’s just one paragraph. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s how it was done then. It appears now that in order for potable water to wind up on the subject lot by transferring this little triangular portion I think Mike Kimack stated this, it’s required in order to have enough setback from a proposed well cause it currently has no location for potable water and a proposed septic system. So do you know if historically when these lots were divided there was any consideration to the location of a well and other septics or was that because the other properties were not developed yet and we didn’t know where other sanitary systems were or what? ANTHONY PASCA : Are you asking me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or Mike anybody who can answer. ANTHONY PASCA : The only thing I’ll say is that I looked at the subdivision file that well it was really a Zoning Board file that approved the division of this plot E. So the plot E was owned by the Terry family and I think it was 1976 or so around there Zoning Board approved a division of that lot into what is now the Mini Cedars lot that is before you and the parcel that’s owned by my client Susan Magrino Dunning and at the time 1976 I believed it predated most of the current sanitary code that the Health Department applies and predated coastal erosion law and predated wetland regulations so it sort of made its way and gotten approval from this Board without I believe any real I mean the way we would modern analyze these things or compliance with setbacks and separations between septic systems and wells and all that stuff. So I think that’s the reason why that’s never really been looked at before. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I gotcha thank you it’s what I wanted to know. Do you want to continue Mike or do you want to MIKE KIMACK : Yes Leslie let me I did reference that same 2168 and it was a short paragraph that subdivided the property which was a (inaudible) into two lots and they were both undersized that was the 2168. I’m going to send it to you again. BOARD ASSISTANT : It’s in the packets. 32 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we have it Mike. MIKE KIMACK : Okay great, as an anecdote to following what Mr. Pasca basically said in terms of this being done in 1976, for the Board the creation of the CEHL line really was done in 1988 but not adopted by the town until October of 1990 so in many respects this lot and everything that had occurred on it had occurred also before the CEHL line which is now being proposed on it too. So I’m unsure as to when those other applications came before you. I think it’s irrelevant to the point that we are now before you we feel is a good use of the property respect of the CEHL line that had not certainly been there when the lots were created very limiting in its performance. We also to let you know that we are before the Suffolk County Wastewater Management now for an IA system approval and also for a subdivision for that particular lot for them to be taking a look at. So we are doing an IAOWTS system and to that basically I might as well continue. I know that you had received comments relative to the neighbor’s concern about the location the proposed location of the well on the property as it may affect their well and also the location of the septic system as it may affect the neighboring wells or whatever. It’s an oddball area for the most part and I’ve never seen too many we’re not dealing with a (inaudible) angles lots (inaudible) like that. The neighbors way in the southwest corner of the original property primarily and it’s right along the shores I think the name is Susan Melamud if I remember correctly, her concern was any impact on her well which happens to be on the Gentlemens Ridge property a five acre piece of property. It’s roughly about 300 feet onto the property and has a 5 foot easement back, that well primarily is now about 200 feet south of the well that serves Gentlemens Ridge and about 250 feet south of the well the proposed well that would be on Mini Cedars. Now having said all of that I went through her concerns and I would simply suggest this, that her concern generally are handled by the Suffolk County Health Department primarily. We’re there, we submitted the IA system, it has a setback we indicated a setback from the well plus the other wells around there and a proposed well going in. They will look at in terms of volume of the well itself that has to serve a three bedroom lot. Health Department has on occasion I’ve got one right now, if they find they want to put a test well down for whatever reason they’ll require us to put a test well down but I do not believe that the questions that were raised by Ms. Melamud are really before this Board. You simply will condition us to do an IA system granted and the well basically is a component of the of all of the lots they’re probably as a matter of fact one of the lots next Ms. Melamud the well over there is probably closer to her well than this one anyway which is right off of the Main Rd. So in essence the questions raised in her letter really are before the Suffolk County Wastewater Management people both for the septic and both for the well. MEMBER DANTES : Wait I’m confused Mike. So there were prior wetlands applications made on the property, were those granted or were those denied? 33 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MIKE KIMACK : I’m not you know what I will feign ignorance on that particular one. I don’t think anything on that vacant lot had been approved. I mean it’s still a vacant lot. MEMBER DANTES : I think if they were approved I think it helps you, I think if they were denied that we should know why. MIKE KIMACK : These were not I don’t have them in front of me, these were not part of the C of O and everything that I submitted in? MEMBER DANTES : I’d like to at least take a look at them. MIKE KIMACK : I’ll tell you since we’re going to be doing that I’ll take a look Eric I’ll take a look at it and I’ll see if I can come up with anything that might have been subject of any decision or lack of decision subject to that particular lot in the past. Whatever happened though nothing has been carried forward with it. MEMBER DANTES : Even if it’s a Trustees decision it would be nice to see it, to read it. MIKE KIMACK : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe there’s some attendees that we should probably bring in. BOARD SECRETARY : I’ll bring in a Wendy Lomas if you’d like. ANTHONY PASCA : I’d also like to make a few more comments when I can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can do that now. ANTHONY PASCA : Okay you mind if I go first? Wendy is one of my clients and so I may some things that will save her some time. I know she is here and she wants to speak. I generally don’t get involved in opposition to applications but I do have several clients in this neighborhood who are very concerned and when I started looking at this application there are just too many it felt like it was being pushed through at least at the Planning Board level and this is the first time you guys have seen it but it felt like it was being pushed through (inaudible) is not a big deal this application. Well I think it’s a very big deal and it needs a lot more careful review than what’s happened so far. I submitted a letter a couple of days ago that I just want to draw your attention to a few things. One is what I raised earlier which is a pretty serious question about this appeal 1844 Donald Stephenson’s appeal at least on its face appears to be a direct conflict with what’s being proposed. So we have to get to the bottom of that and if the applicant is bound by a condition that says they had to create a setoff of this are then they’ve got to go back to the drawing board and figure out something different. Number two is that we got to keep in mind that the same ownership group owns both of these properties. So we have a five acre lot and a very undersized lot when you look at the buildable area and that’s what we’re talking about re- 34 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 subdivisions and subdivisions we look at buildable area. We don’t look at the net area including coastal erosion lines. That’s very clear in the code both in the zoning code and the subdivision code that lot yield is determined by buildable area. So we’ve got an applicant who is sitting on a five acre lot and proposing to make what’s in essence a 13,000 sq. ft. lot slightly bigger, just big enough to fit a well on there and that too I think needs to be looked at pretty seriously because there may be a hundred options to this ownership group to create better lots than these two very out of sync lots and when you combine that with the 80,000 sq. ft. set off requirement we sort of have a jigsaw puzzle of how to you know if they really do want to create a second building lot here how do they do that in a way that doesn’t require such massive variances and the creation of a lot that is as constrained as this 13,000 sq. ft. is going to be. Aside from those kind of legal considerations, if you’re going to entertain an application for a specific building proposal on this lot which is in and of itself difficult lot this is way too much house for this tiny lot and what I think is the one part of this application in that I don’t like to use words like disingenuous but it’s a bit misleading to say that 4,500 sq. ft. is required. I mean that’s their justification for this entire application where you have a large coverage variance, a large front yard variance on a constrained lot that has no frontage on any road and their sole excuse is well because of the coastal erosion line this is the only way we can get the required amount of space. Whose requiring that amount of space? This is a vacant lot being for all we know built on spec or just to get a building permit to sell to somebody else but if you want a 4,500 sq. ft. house you don’t buy a lot like this not knowing that you may be squeezed down to something that’s a fraction of the 4,500 sq. ft. and that’s why I went back to some of the older applications where we were able to find at least a couple of surveys that showed what prior owners had proposed for this lot and they were much smaller applications for smaller houses that they were able to show conforming dimensions and if they were able to do it it’s not a legitimate position to say well we have no alternative because we require 4,500 sq. ft. even if they didn’t require that. So I know my clients are particularly concerned about the impacts of such a large house and I’m not going to speak to how it’s going to change their enjoyment but it’s a unique area and everybody shares a private road that was created over a hundred years ago not according to modern standards of road creation so every time you deal with an application like this that really changes the nature of this community they’re all legitimately concerned about how it’s going to impact them so I’m not going to run through the five factor test I did that briefly in my letter but if you’re going to entertain an application like this there’s no there’s just no way they can meet the five factor test on the scope of what they’re proposing right now. Maybe there’s something out there that could be justifiable but not something like this. MEMBER DANTES : What do you mean by a set off area in the survey? ANTHONY PASCA : I’m sorry. 35 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER DANTES : Can you define what you meant, he submitted a set off area in his (inaudible) survey? ANTHONY PASCA : I don’t know exactly what it means. I didn’t use that terminology, the Zoning Board back in BOARD ASSISTANT : It’s Planning Board terminology. ANTHONY PASCA : Yea back in the early seventies when Donald Stephenson did that that was the condition of the variance that then became part of this the main house the big house that is owned by the same group here and my understanding of a setoff was essentially that it was to create what you would call a second lot. You’re setting off a separate area, that was the terminology that was used kind of pre-subdivision lingo at least as a less formal way of doing a subdivision. That was what I always understood as sort of a less formal subdivision. If that’s true then that’s the outstanding condition there and the current main house is subject to that condition there may be a condition that they haven’t complied with yet because they never formally created that setoff area but what we at least have to get to the bottom is how do they do both, how do they create an 80,000 sq. ft. setoff area to comply with the Zoning Board’s decision affecting the big lot but then also take part of that setoff area and give it to the little lot so that it can have a house on it too. I think the applicant’s gotta really dig deep into that and answer those questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is one of the reasons why as I said at the very beginning, we’re waiting for comments from Planning because Kim is correct setoff is not typically a term that would be used by the ZBA and so we have to look at their records and see precisely what kind of language you know they’re using and what the intent of that variance was all about because variances do conditions, variance approvals run with the land. ANTHONY PASCA : But ironically back in those days the Zoning Board this was a Zoning Board decision that created that condition and back in those days and I’m not sure I quite understood how it worked back then but the Zoning Board was essentially approving some of the setoffs or minor subdivisions or whatever you want to call them and it might have been a way of bypassing the Planning Board back then. I don’t know they might not even have a file on that but the Zoning Board certainly has a file that resulted in that 80,000 sq. ft. setoff as a condition of the approval benefiting the big house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood that’s what we’re going to look into that’s one of the things. MEMBER DANTES : The thing is before 1981 or 1983 you can do minor subdivisions without Planning Board approval. 36 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is I understand a deeded easement across that lot the subject lot? ANTHONY PASCA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : to the beach and I’d like somebody to address that and how it may or may not currently impact the proposed application before the Board. MIKE KIMACK : That would be me. There is an easement that runs pretty much along the southerly boundary of the lot about a 15 feet wide easement although the actual existing way down to the beach primarily does not follow that easement. It kind of wanders away and it wanders more or less in a northerly direction and also it’s fairly wide, it’s probably in the area of about maybe 8 to 9 feet wide. It’s the intent of the applicant primarily to redirect that particular walkway back onto the 15 feet wide easement primarily. Until such time it gets past the house (inaudible) and then reconnected back to the as you see in the drawing the traveled path primarily because there’s no reason to have to cut a whole new one along the 15 foot wide easement. BOARD ASSISTANT : Right here? MIKE KIMACK : Yea the reason they did that if you look down there, to follow that 15 foot wide easement runs into that 15% grade situation on that one side. If any Board members had a chance to walk down there off to the left over there it’s not the easiest way to have a 4 or 5 foot wide pathway. The Trustees will only let you have a 4 foot wide pathway anyway through that area. So what we can basically do is within is to run a 4 foot wide pathway and then cut it back to the traveled path, leave that pretty much alone and we do have D.E.C. non-jurisdiction at the present time north of the 12 foot elevation line. Although the traveled path would certainly be within their jurisdiction but it had existed I think they put it there simply because it was convenient to do so. It was something they weren’t really able to cut along the 15 foot wide easement simply because of the topography so they really just moved it over to the easiest spot to have it primarily but it would be our intention to relocate it and then reattach it once we got past the construction of the house back to the traveled pathway that’s it. MEMBER DANTES : Who has the right to access that easement? MIKE KIMACK : I think that people it goes all the way you can see the easement goes all the way to the back section over there. I know not the Dunnings because they have their own going down there. I would imagine it would be the Greene’s behind there which would be they are in lot X, lot X. 37 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike, are you allowed to put a driveway over the easement or park a car on the easement? I’m saying for your applicant not for the Greene’s or any beneficiary of using the easement. MIKE KIMACK : We did not intend to put a driveway you mean on the easement alone, no. The easement basically has to be pretty much left for access you know with that 4 foot wide cut. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right so when I looked at the site plan the driveway shows that it works around the easement but I don’t quite understand how you have access from the driveway to the roadway. MIKE KIMACK : Which one do you have? You’ve got hold on let me see MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it wouldn’t make sense I mean that if you had the easement at whatever the Trustees allow if a car is blocking it well then or driveway or a gate cause right now the Dunnings have a gate at the end of their driveway. There’s a small turn around area in front which all belongs to the Dunnings, I just don’t fully understand how you have access to the site. The easement you can’t block the easement and the easement blocks I think the path that you’re choosing to use. MIKE KIMACK : Well I think when you look at the original deed itself it basically gave itself a right of way to that private driveway primarily. Now that right of way it doesn’t it only touches that property in a very, very small section over there where the easement pretty much cuts across it but it definitely has access from the private driveway to that road. Now this by MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well look at this Kim just changed to the site plan, I don’t see how you have access. MIKE KIMACK : Well one of the things that we wanted to basically do would be to you mean access because of where the easement is? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That’s the easement and then it turns Kim it goes north and it continues southeast. MIKE KIMACK : Well no the easement runs this way straight on it runs along the southern boundary of the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then it also runs along the southern boundary of the Dunning it says dwelling but it’s actually a garage I believe. MIKE KIMACK : It’s a garage that’s what it is primarily it’s a garage. 38 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see what he’s saying. There’s also a proposed landscaped buffer right at the beginning of that 15 foot wide easement. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just don’t think he has access for a car to get into your property. MIKE KIMACK : When we do we extend that triangular piece of property the reason we did that one of the reasons we did that to clear up that issue because it would come up against that private drive and there would be no question about access Nick. The other thing is that from an easement point of view it doesn’t mean we can’t cross it. It simply means we have to allow access for people to walk along and whether there’s a driveway going across it or not. MEMBER DANTES : Mike if you look at the deeds it says, portions of private roads as showed on subdivision map survey of Cedars filed Office of County Clerk Suffolk County July 11, 1906 file #421. Maybe you can call the Title Abstracts cause that’ll kind of have the old maps and that will clear up some of these (inaudible) MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) on that particular one I will tell you that we’re working with Planning right now. When that was done in 1906 there was seven lots that were laid out and I will give you the (inaudible) but each one of the lots was given common ownership of the private driveways within that. It’s laid out and then it says common ownership and then lists the lots again. It’s not easy to read but that’s exactly what it say. When you look at each one of the original lot layouts and when you look at the deeds they generally go monument to monument and those monuments do not include the private driveways. The private driveways were set up as undivided interest for those seven lots and remain so today. ANTHONY PASCA : I would like to address that road issue if I may? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. ANTHONY PASCA : I represent Stephenson Rd. LLC and this is not a commonly owned road. I heard that they said the same thing to the Planning Board last month but my office has been involved in the title issues relating to that road for probably twenty five to thirty years. So I have files dating back a long ways on this road and I can tell you that Stephenson Rd. LLC has title insurance over the ownership of that road. That’s how clear we were able to make it to the title company that we literally have a title insurance policy on that road. I was planning on because of what was said to the Planning Board last month when I wasn’t participating because I didn’t think I needed to, I heard that the same statement was made to the Planning Board and I was working on sending them an explanation about the title ownership of the private roads and since you’re keeping your record open I will send you a copy of that but I can tell you that there’s not common ownership on the private roads. There is the little segment if you see on what’s up on the screen right now this sort of angled segment that would be the hypotenuse of the triangle if you see it. 39 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 That’s a small driveway that’s not actually part of the original quote unquote private roads that are shown. It’s really the other side of the triangle where it says proposed lot line. So that driveway is a shared driveway where it was deeded rights given to the original Edson lot which is now Plot E which is now these two lots, the Dunning lot and the Mini Cedars lot. So that little segment of driveway is an easement over the Gentlemen Ridge property that benefits those two Plot E lots the former Plot E but other than that it’s just an easement over the Gentlemen Ridge property. The rest of the private roads that were shown on the original Cedars subdivision are not commonly owed. They are privately owned by the LLC, there is a declaration of easements that benefits every property within the subdivision that gives a right of ingress and egress over the road but the fee ownership of the road is not common it’s privately owned by the LLC. The other thing I wanted to just comment on is your all focusing on something that I know that Wendy in particular is concerned about, I know Susan Magrino Dunning is concerned about and we’re concerned about which is this front yard area is already a mess and by proposing a reduced setback you’re making it much harder to fit everything and I think that’s what they’re facing right now which is you have to have room for circulation, you have to have room for parking because there’s no other place to park and all you have is this tiny little driveway that gets you into the property. By cutting the front yard setback down another 10 feet you’re taking 25% of the setback away, you make it that much harder to fit everything and show how it’s all going to work and when we looked at this site plan and we saw the landscaped buffer and we saw how half of the parking area seems to cut off part of the easement we had the same questions that how is this possible and when you talk about impacts that are created that is a direct result of the front yard variance they’re asking for which is this messy mess of a front yard that they’re trying to create. God help us when they start constructing the 4,500 sq. ft. house, where are all these construction vehicles going to go? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Exactly. ANTHONY PASCA : I mean it’s a mess already and it’s only going to get worse if this 10 foot variance is granted. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Pasca I’m just trying to understand what you just said where you described the roadway along the hypotenuse, is the only in theory the access that I would understand for the lot as it exists today and Kim you’ve got your sort of marker right where it says 15 feet if you just move to the left of where you are is that the only location that is in theory the only location for a driveway between the spot that Kim is touching right now and then immediately north of it there’s another round dot marking the right there that little I don’t know what 20 foot stretch? I’m trying to understand cause in theory ANTHONY PASCA : Do you see the what I call the triangle there’s a line that says proposed lot line with an arrow 40 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly. ANTHONY PASCA : I think that’s either the southern not southern the outermost part of the driveway or the center line of the driveway I can’t really tell from this drawing but that is the driveway that is the private easement that serves Plot E which now consists of Mini Cedars and the Dunning property. So that’s their access, that’s the access they’ve always had and that’s the access that goes back to before if you look at the Appeal file 2168 when this Board approved the division of the Edson lot into these two parcels, the only thing they discussed was that access and they said are you sure you have the deeded access there and the attorney representing the family at the time the Terry family said oh yes we’ve certified that, we have absolute confidence and I think they talked about providing a certification if the Board wanted it but that’s the access and it always has been. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And again just to better understand what you just said, where the proposed driveway is, is where the only access is at that location it’s an easement provided they are granted relief of having a lot line changed? ANTHONY PASCA : Yes, and I actually wonder I know I’m going to raise this just because I don’t know a hundred percent the answer to it but the Notice of Disapproval did not flag the access issue. I’m not so sure that’s correct because when the Edson lot was approved for a subdivision in the prior form the Zoning Board approved the 280-A access as well and they specified that, that we’re approving a lack of access cause there’s no frontage on a road. So you normally when you don’t have frontage on a road you have to prove an access permit as well. Now that they’re changing the lot configuration I suspect that that’s a technical requirement that they should be asking for a 280-A variance as well. I think it might be worth asking the Building Inspector that question just to see if he agrees with me but since you’re taking a break until next month that’s worth figuring out. BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes I will definitely do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s see if there’s any other comments. At this point does anyone on the Board have any questions for either Tony or Mike? Let me see if there’s anybody else in attendance who wants to address the Board. BOARD ASSISTANT : We have Wendy, I brought her into the panelist if she wants to speak. WENDY LOMAS : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can hear you Wendy go ahead. WENDY LOMAS : Tony covered most of the points that I had written a letter to you people about this subdivision or this building permit appeal. My name is Joanna Wendy Lomas, my niece 41 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 Charlotte Jordan Greene and I jointly own Plot X and are adjacent land owners to this proposed new single family house. We would like to express some of the concerns we have about the proposed house plan. It’s far too big for the size of the lot. The lot is considerably undersized, the buildable area is only 13,246 sq. ft. considerably less than the required 40,000 sq. ft. It is substantially over the allowable coverage almost 30% when only 20% is permitted. They’re trying to squeeze a far too big house on a much too small lot. Much smaller homes were proposed by the previous owner and were denied. They are asking for variances on both sides of the property plus the front yard and the fourth side is up against the coastal erosion hazard line. There is very little parking accommodation and where are all these people using the four bedrooms, five bathrooms and spa going to park? All the properties in this area depend upon well water from the fragile water table. There is no city water, no potable water was found on the original lot by the previous owner trying to develop it. This site plan incorporates and relies on pending disputed lot line re-subdivision provided a proposed well to acquire water and satisfy the required 150 foot distance from the septic system. My niece Charlotte Greene and I jointly own property with a very specific deeded 15 foot easement right of way over this property to the beach and the site plan shows a landscaped buffer blocking this easement. I hope you will consider our concerns when you debate the appropriateness of these requested variances and this application. Sincerely Wendy Lomas. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have a Susan Melamud, I’ll promote her as panelist. Susan you’re muted so you have to unmute. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you’d like to say anything Ms. Melamud SUSAN MELAMUD : Yes hello can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can hear you. SUSAN MELAMUD : So first I would like to I own the property directly to the southwest which is 18603 Main Rd., our driveway runs parallel to Stephenson Rd. and the properties on Stephenson abut our driveway and I would like to discuss our biggest concern which is well water. I am not as concerned over my well as I am about the wells in the vicinity. The concern is not so much the proximity of the septic system, it’s the interaction between wells. All of our wells draw off from a very shallow thin lens of water called the Magothy aquafer and the Magothy has been showing increased fluorides over time which shows salt water intrusion. Saltwater intrusion is caused by the withdrawal the pulling of the water out of the aquafer, it draws the saltwater into the aquafer. The more wells you have the greater saltwater intrusion. Now if you had a small house on a lot, have the same size well as a large house on a lot but the large house would be drawing a lot more water and since the septic tank says the septic system says 500 gallons a day I’m 42 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 assuming that’s the water usage that’s a very large water usage. You need to consider how wells interact with each other and this requires a hydraulic study a geologic study. In other words when one well pulls it could affect the water levels in other wells such that if the five the four bedroom house started to have a large well withdrawal from a large party other well levels could drop and other houses to be starved of water. We don’t know this unless the hydraulic study between wells is performed and since it’s even unknown if they have potable water on the site what is the quality of the water? I saw that water is found at about a level of 45 and 50 feet deep other wells are deeper, will this well now starve other wells by pulling at a shallower height? I think there’s a lot it’s a very complicated issue. The Suffolk County Department of Health can approve a well but they do not typically get involved in well water quality, they don’t get involved in well interaction, because these are private wells the state does not get involved in it and I think it’s something that really needs to be examined before you can go ahead and approve any kind of a variance to make sure that it’s going to have a very bad impact on other wells in the area. So that’s my primary concern. You have my other concerns in writing about septic and storm water but the overwhelming concern that I have is more for the people that live on Stephenson than it is for my well is the overall effect of this large house on well withdrawal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have somebody else who has raised their hand a Susan Dunning so I’m going to promote her. SUSAN MAGRINO DUNNING : Thank you, I have also written and submitted a letter which I will not read in its entirety because I think most of the concerns have been raised today and I agree with them. Just to quickly topline, I think the issues on increased traffic on what is a one lane road already accessibility for police, fire and rescue would be more greatly challenged. The actual building of the home as you’re Vice Chair Planamento has already pointed out, the area in front there which we own in front of our garage which many vehicles mistakenly go down the road as it is and go there and turn around. How would we ever have access to our property during a building phase? I have lots and lots of questions about how something could be built there in terms of traffic not to mention once the home is built, you have a home like this as I understand this design obviously sanitation, landscape, maintenance vehicles you know you will have additional traffic coming in with an additional home. Finally I just ask the Board to carefully consider what’s being proposed here as everybody else has echoed in terms of size and detail. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m busy writing notes, we’re going to at least we’ll have time to transcribe the public hearing before the next one takes place cause we’re going to have to review these very carefully. Is there anyone else 43 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to add that I’ve visited the site twice and without Ms. Dunning I guess her parking area in front of her garage I wouldn’t of had anywhere to turn around. It’s a very complicated location to find. I think Pat you said you walked the property. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I walked it yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don’t know where you parked I mean clearly it’s right now MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well I had Alan actually parked in front of the whole that is right next to Mrs. Dunnings place the newer home. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : She has a gate that if the gate was actually pulled forward you wouldn’t have even had to access but it’s very complicated. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Very, very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it very confusing to try and figure out exactly where any lot lines are so the Board has been I mean I’ve got to go back again. I’m going to go back again after this hearing but look you know one of the unique things about living on the Northfork is that different neighborhoods were constructed over time in different ways and have different character and this one is clearly very unique in its topography on top of the narrow circulation among the various buildable lots or building lots, developed lots and all of those things have to be considered when you look at impacts. We want to be very careful and fair and open minded but we certainly want to entertain all of these issues very seriously. That’s one reason why as I said at the beginning we need to collaborate with the Planning Board on this so that we get their expertise and their input into any decision we might make. BOARD ASSISTANT : Leslie I’m going to bring in Charlotte Greene also, she wants to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Charlotte can you unmute yourself please so we can hear you. CHARLOTTE GREENE : Yes hello I had to pause when you’re bringing me in. I just wanted to read the letter on behalf of my mother. My name is Charlotte Greene and my mother Beverly Greene has written a letter and I’m reading it for her because she is at NYU she just had surgery. It does reiterate some of the previous points but I’ll just read it because it’s her letter. The letter is my name is Beverly Greene, as an adjacent land owner I have concerns about the appropriateness of the proposed house plan on (inaudible) property. Similar building proposals for this property have been repeatedly turned down ever since the 1980’s when the land was purchased by Mr. Lou Edson. The town of Southold will have a number of applications on file which I tried to FOIL. Due to the Corona Virus and lack of time I was unsuccessful in obtaining information on Mr. Edson’s denials by the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am surprised and disappointed to see another proposal that is too extensive for the surroundings. The building 44 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 footprint is far too large for the property covered in nearly all of the buildable land. In addition there is not now nor has there ever been potable water found on this property. Furthermore my family has a deeded easement over the property that must be preserved as written. Deeds, maps and surveys accompany this letter to confirm the proceeding points. I’ll just add this on the side, I am in Australia so I’m not sure whether all of these were sent before the noon on line deadline I think that was a change from being able to physically file but we can provide anything on request. Back to the letter, I hope you will take these comments into consideration as you debate the proposal. Thank you for allowing me to present these concerns. Cordially, Beverly Greene. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Charlotte just so you know we do have a good deal of documentation submitted by your mother. Anything from anybody else? MIKE KIMACK : I guess primarily we are going to have another hearing anyway, you are going to th be waiting for the Planning Board comments. We have that hearing on Monday, October 5 primarily. I did listen to all of the comments primarily. I did listen to attorney Pasca on his comments about the roads themselves. There may be a disagreement on that, we’ll take a look at that but I’m not quite sure whether what he basically said in terms of ownership is quite accurate I’ll take a look into it. In order just to give you a background on that, when you got common ownership undivided interest you really have to have every single one of the lot owners at that particular time sign off on it in order to create a single ownership a single association and we’ll see whether that had been done or not. Other than that when you do go back out to take a look at it I would ask you to take a look at the other surrounding houses that are in there. They all basically probably are at least as big as the ones were trying to do and quite frankly remember that whole lower section of the 4,500 sq. ft. is below ground, it’s not seen at all you’re looking at that upper section 2,200 or 2,300 sq. ft. whereas most of the other houses are all above ground and their fairly large in that one area and I’m sure that if we went through we’d probably find most of their square footages are equal or greater than the ones that we’re proposing to put on this particular lot. As far as sewer and water is concerned it’s Health Department requirements, we’re before Health Department it’s not before the Zoning Board. As far as the well and the pot ability of the water, certainly we would want to make sure we have sufficient amount for the number of bedrooms and we certainly want to make sure we have the quality for the owner to work out with the well driller. As far as the easement is concerned we would have to maintain the easement we can cross we have to keep it open for whoever wants to come across but whether it goes across the parking area or driveway that doesn’t mean that they can’t access across that. It doesn’t have to be an undeveloped all the way down. Other than that I’ll wait for your comments and do you want anything of me to do in the next week, any information you want me to gather other than what has been presented? Will I be getting a letter from Kim to that effect? 45 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER DANTES : I have one more question for you Mike, if you go to the survey you look there is like a dotted line that runs from parcel one then to a couple of plots and through Plot E, what is that dotted line? MIKE KIMACK : Where are you which one on the survey? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah on the survey by Howard Young. BOARD ASSISTANT : Is it here? MEMBER DANTES : No all the way to the north side of the property. MIKE KIMACK : Is that one of two? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Where parcel one is? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah one of two right there’s a dotted line, it starts at now or formerly Ron Melman then it goes through the easement, then it goes through parcel one, then it goes to now or formerly Francisco (inaudible) and then it goes through Plot E and then it kind of ends at now or formerly Susan Dunning. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it the high water mark? MEMBER DANTES : I don’t know it’s not labeled. MIKE KIMACK : Well the coastal erosion line is labeled on it. MEMBER DANTES : I got the coastal erosion line but what is that dotted line? MIKE KIMACK : Are you looking along the Plot X over there Eric? MEMBER DANTES : It goes through several of the plots. It’s like maybe 50 feet from the tie line. MIKE KIMACK : I think I can clarify that for you yes. MEMBER DANTES : Take the cursor Kim no not that one, go all the way to the left keep going one more that one. MEMBER ACAMPORA : That one yeah. MEMBER DANTES : I don’t know what that is. MIKE KIMACK : Beats the shit out of me. UNAMED SPEAKER : I think it’s the beach. 46 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 JOE PASCA : I think it’s the bluff line. MIKE KIMACK : It could be the shoreline, it could be the shoreline to the vegetation line. MEMBER DANTES : The shoreline is that a bluff line? MIKE KIMACK : There’s no bluff, there’s a bluff on Plot W but there’s no bluff on this line. MEMBER DANTES : Can we have that line labeled? MIKE KIMACK : I can basically have it labeled. I will tell you one of the things we’re doing and I should have that today or tomorrow I’ll get you a copies over, Young and Young is redoing this particular survey to be more (inaudible) with exactly where the (inaudible) for Lot W and exactly where they are for Lot E, for the Dunning property and for Plot X to make sure that we’re doing it for Planning because they asked us to do it. They wanted to make sure because there was a question raised in Planning as to I think Ms. Greene raised it as to what was the size of the lots (inaudible) like that and when you do look at it with all of the dotted lines becomes a little confusing. They’re correcting that, I will make sure you get copies of the corrected one and I’ll ask them to make sure that they label that whatever that may be. Eric I really don’t know, it may be I know it’s not I don’t think it’s I don’t know if it’s an AE line or a VE line or whatever but it’s not listed. It may be a VE line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of them is labeled woods brush line. It almost looks like a topo line but it’s not clearly. MIKE KIMACK : The one that Eric is talking about CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sand beach down on the other side of that. MIKE KIMACK : I’m pretty sure I have been a consultant for the property that the woman for the Melamud property, that property is under contract and I have been a consultant on that one and I can tell you from my remembrance that the VE line pretty much comes across their house primarily. Their house was constructed in the CEHL line but it was done prior to 1990 so that’s why it was put in there but my guess would be that’s probably the VE line or the E line Eric but I’ll have it labeled. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well I don’t know if I think at this point there’s just an awful lot of information to ponder upon and to digest. BOARD ASSISTANT : We have one more person who wants to speak though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that’s fine. There’s someone in the attendees list who wants to come in? 47 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes an Adam Irving. ADAM IRVING : Can you guys hear me? BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes. ADAM IRVING : Kim is this just possible, this is Adam Irving I’m one of the neighbors on Stephenson Rd. can you just confirm that my letter that emailed that it’s like part of the file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is we have it. ADAM IRVING : Okay, obviously I’m not going to read the whole thing , you know similar concerns around the well water as we are all quite dependent on that. I also want to clarify the other houses on Stephenson Rd. I mean this is a family compound going back to the 1800’s, the other houses are from anywhere probably twenty one, twenty two hundred square feet to three thousand square feet other than the big house at the top of the hill which had a substantial addition put on it and it’s owned by the same ownership group that is proposing this Mini Cedars but I want to make very clear, the other houses are not forty five hundred square foot houses. Let’s call it twenty two hundred to mine is around twenty nine hundred. So you know there’s two things that I just quickly want to hit on it’s the single (inaudible) lane gravel road has been talked about but I think it needs to flushed out a bit more. I’m here with a family, I’ve got two young kids I don’t know what that horn is in the background making it a bit challenging to talk but you know I live here I’ve got two kids, my kids go down they catch the bus. The single lane road, there’s not any real space to be pulling off so it is a regular occurrence where you get these stand offs for lack of a better word where one guy is going one way, someone is going the other. It creates a pretty dangerous situation and the stretch of road that leads to the proposed Mini Cedars lot there’s bail out room. You got a hill on one side and you got a thick patch of privet and things like that on the other so again if you guys get back out here I really think you need to take a look at this and just see that it’s already crowded and these houses are barely occupied at this point and we already have issues with the single lane road and I’m very concerned for my kids walking to the bus, riding their bikes etc. That’s point one and the other point I wanted to talk about is you know people that are coming eastbound when they get to the end of the causeway you know it’s a pretty iconic spot, you see the Victorian up at the top of the hill everybody knows that just as much they know the crab shack which is on the other side of the road and the houses that are built on the bluff currently are very modest in scale, they are low slung you do not see them from the causeway when you’re heading eastbound or westbound. The location of this Mini Cedars lot will require a significant amount of clear cutting of bluff. It will be very visible to eastbound drivers and while the house is low slung as the applicants keep noting, the way that it is situated and the way the roads go it is going to be very visible and in my mind change what, what I think most would say you know a pretty iconic view shed for the negative. I just think 48 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 you’re going to see the whole length of this house I think it 87 feet wide and 60 feet deep or something like that I mean it’s huge and I really think you need to take that into consideration. I know the town has recently put forth a Comprehensive Plan and maintaining view sheds, view scapes whatever you want to call it is definitely a common theme in that Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. ANTHONY PASCA : May I follow up with one quick comment? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. ANTHONY PASCA : Just to duck tail off of something Adam said, as far as the character of this community and the scale of developments not only are the existing homes smaller than what’s being proposed but the upland areas of all of these lots is much, much greater. This is the only lot that is as constrained as of all the Cedars properties is the only one that is anywhere near this constrained and even the Dunning property that’s right next door has probably two, two and half times the upland area and when Susan went to do some redevelopment she was not required to get any coverage variances because of that cause she has plenty of upland. So they’re proposing a bigger house than anything else around other than the big house on the five acre lot on a much smaller area. I think that’s the biggest problem here looking at what they’re trying to squeeze onto this property. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you. Alright anyone else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie it is possible if we also get commentary from Suffolk County Soil and Water? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure, sure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do we need to request that via Kim? BOARD ASSISTANT : We’ll request that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone by the way our files are on Laser Fiche now so if you want to see them you will have access to them. Anything we get in winds up scanned now and because we’re doing this all via Zoom people weren’t even allowed to come in to personally FOIL files so when the building shut and now it’s by appointment so you can perceivably to that but we want to make sure that people have proper access to our records. Okay, I’m going to make a motion since there is no other comments at the moment. SUSAN MELAMUD : I’d like one more comment, can I make one more comment? 49 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. SUSAN MELAMUD : Sue Melamud, when Mr. Kimack was talking about wells I think one point is being missed. So yes the well driller is responsible for making sure that our water is potable and that the well can properly provide water to the house but and the Suffolk County Water Department will take Health Department will take a look at the construction of that well but nobody none of these organizations not the well driller, not the Health Department is going to be seeing whether there is interaction between well that new well and other wells in the vicinity and that’s why I’m bringing it up to your organization because no one really is going to be making sure that that doesn’t happen and a large house versus a small house is going to have a much different draw and different affect so if you put in an extremely large house you could end up with a well that ends up starving its neighbors wells where a smaller house would not. This is a study that needs to be done and there’s no organization not the state, not the county, not the town that mandates this other than this need for a request for a variance. I think that’s a point that’s being missed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who does such studies? SUSAN MELAMUD : A hydrogeological company. You would have to hire that company to come in. What they do is they put in monitoring equipment in multiple wells in the vicinity, then they run the test well where the intended well is located and then they take measurements of levels in the adjacent wells to see whether or not there is this hydraulic interference. They do it at different rates so you would do it with a rate of a small house and you would do it with a rate of what this forty five hundred square foot house would use and you would see if there is a significant difference in the draw and whether or not these other wells are going to be starved and I strongly urge that that study be done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And who would have to undertake that study? SUSAN MELAMUD : The owner would have to pay for that study and it should be overseen by your Board cause as I was saying with a private wells no one seems to have that jurisdiction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Alright everybody finished now for the time being? th Now I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to November 5. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim will you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 50 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We will reconvene in November and we have plenty to digest in the meantime. Thank you all for your time and for you attendance. We of course are running behind and my apologies to other applicants who are waiting. HEARING # 7429 – SUSAN WACHTER and PAUL E. WACHTER BOARD ASSISTANT : I’m going to promote Bruce Anderson and Ms. Wachter I believe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Susan Wachter and Paul E. Wachter #7429 a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s June 11, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum single side yard setback of 15 feet located at 2295 Bay Shore Rd. (adj. to Pipe’s Cove) in Greenport. So this is a demo a new single family dwelling with a proposed front yard setback of 23.17 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet and a single side yard setback at 12.66 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15 feet. The application is LWRP exempt. BRUCE ANDERSON : Good afternoon. So that is right, the applicant proposes to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling. As part of our application we put in two surveys, the first survey is of course the one that’s before you that you’re relying on the second one is an existing condition survey so it’s important to compare the two. So what we have today is a one story dwelling that encompasses 1,467 sq. ft. It has a setback from the front lot line at 23.4 feet. It has a minimum side yard setback at 6.7 feet and it’s got a 51 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 total side yard setback at 41.7 feet. So that’s what we have today. The proposed house at 1,557 sq. ft. roughly a hundred square feet more less actually. The setback from the front lot line at 23.2 feet and that’s to the entry porch and we’re 27.6 feet to the house corner. It has a minimum side yard setback of 13.4 feet and it has a total side yard setback of 42.6 feet. The dwelling is 31 feet to the top of the ridge and 21.5 feet to the midpoint of the gable. The pool deck and steps and porch amount to 932 sq. ft. This is a property that contains 29,771 sq. ft. of which 13,267 sq. ft. is buildable it’s buildable area. The property lays within the R40 zoning district. The new dwelling, decks, steps and porch cover 18.76% of the buildable area. It’s a waterfront lot fronting on Pipes Cove. It contains a beach and it contains vegetated tidal wetland and some landscaped areas surrounding the existing house. The lot is constrained by the location of the wetland boundary. The existing dwelling with deck and setback is setback from that wetland that existing wetland by 47.6 feet whereas the proposed dwelling with deck and porch setback from the wetland at 50 feet. So our variance relates to the front yard setback, one front yard setback and one side yard setback and so the initial take away should be that the front yard setback that we’re asking for is essentially the same front yard setback we already have but that the side yard setback is twice the minimum twice the distance as the existing side yard setback is today. So we looked at the neighborhood and we basically regard the neighborhood as the collection of lots going along Bay Shore Drive that sort of front on Pipes Cove because they all share a sort of you know the same sort of wetland constraints and so forth. It’s important to know that these lots were created by a subdivision known as Peconic Bay Estates which was filed in 1933 and if you look at the tax map for this, what you’ll see that many of the lots were 50 feet in width and if you take even a closer look at the tax map you’ll see these faint dash lines where that whole street frontage is sort of divided up in these dash lines 50 feet apart and that is because when the subdivision was approved or created in 1933 the lot widths were 50 feet and of course that creates some problems for some of the property owners here. Some combined two lots into one which is what happened here. This is actually lots 38 and 39 of that subdivision. There is one that seems to have three of these lots combined but it all presents difficulties under today’s zoning district but the neighborhood is residential character consists of similar sized lots although there are some that are smaller and some that are larger. We think the variances that we are asking for are minimal and should be granted because there would be no character of the neighborhood the property is typical of the neighborhood as I think I have already explained and when we compare the existing conditions of the property and its existing development we find that the existing dwelling side yard setback of 6.7 feet would essentially be doubled while we would be maintaining basically the front yard setback. The existing front yard setback and the proposed front yard setback are two inches apart. Then also the fact that a two story house is proposed should not upset this analysis as there are many two story residences are common throughout this area. Our benefit cannot be achieved by some other method other than a variance to pursue because the buildable area is restricted to 13,267 sq. ft. That is more than half the area of the lot 52 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 and it is that way because of the presence of wetlands and beaches which are subtracted from buildable area. So more than half this lot usable area is unbuildable as per the town. In addition useable lot depths the distance between the wetland boundary and the front lot line is approximately 112 feet but when you apply a 50 foot setback from that wetland boundary and if you were to apply a 35 foot setback from the front lot line which would be the road the workable area or buildable area is severely constrained. We have a limited lot width and to apply the individual setbacks of 15 feet and a total side yard setback of 35 feet the lot becomes even further constrained. We’ve submit our variances are not substantial in relationship to the pre-existing setbacks for other lots in this area. Likewise we consider the zoning relief granted throughout the neighborhood and we are well within the range of the relief previously granted. I’m going to go to a map that we prepared in connection with this hearing, here we go share screen and then we’ll go to this can you see it? BOARD ASSISTANT : I think the host and co-host can share the screen I’m not sure. BRUCE ANDERSON : Here we go. So what we’ve done here is can you see? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we can’t see it. Bruce is this something that you did not submit that you know BRUCE ANDERSON : It’s something that we put together in connection with this hearing. There ought to be a way to share it. BOARD SECRETARY : Is it something we have? BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh you have to let us share it okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea Kim is the host so she can control screen sharing. BOARD SECRETARY : I can do that if you wish. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Make him a host temporarily make him a co-host so he can share a screen. BOARD SECRETARY : Okay Bruce share your screen. BRUCE ANDERSON : So we put together a map and you’ll see these are the waterfront lots and we have A-O or P I guess and these are all lots for which variances were granted and the second sheet paraphrases that which is not shown here but I can go through them. There are in essence more than a dozen more like fifteen of these that share the same practical difficulties that we have and I’m certainly happy to share all these written decisions with you but they follow all (inaudible) that are part of this application. By that I mean a front yard decisions of the Board where we protect existing front yard setbacks because it is those setbacks that define the 53 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 character of the neighborhood. Others where we award side yard variances that are common to the area, we did find one that was denied apparently it was denied for someone that went 3.5 feet to a side lot line they cut him back to 7.5 feet. So there seems to be this sort of 7, 7.5 feet side yard setback approval standard for that. The reason why I bring this up and I’d be happy to provide all if this in writing and I can describe each and every one of them today if you wish but in essence we have cases where we are demolishing houses and rebuilding them and we’re maintaining setbacks. We have cases where we’re demolishing houses increasing them increasing coverage. Here mind you we’ve been very careful to stay (inaudible) the 20% coverage of the buildable area, again that’s the area exclusive of wetlands and beaches and there are examples in those which I will gladly provide to you where we go as much as say 26%. My point is that what we’re asking for is well within the range of fifteen or so variances that have been granted throughout this neighborhood, some in the early days dating back as far as 1970’s or ’57 all the way up to recent times. Our benefit really can’t be achieved by any other method than an area variance because of this limited buildable area. Can you imagine and if we were able to center the house on the lot we probably reconfigure it such that you know we would avoid side yard and front yard setbacks, we wouldn’t be here. The fact of the matter is because of the wetlands and the buildable area and the limited lot width that’s why we by the benefit we seek cannot be achieved (inaudible) the granting of a variance. We submit and you may or may not agree with this that the variances are not substantial in relationship to the pre-existing setbacks that exist today that is the front yard setback essentially remains the same or within two inches and the side yard setback that we’re requesting is twice the side yard setback than exists today. We submit and consistent with all the other approvals that we’ve gathered in this area that the granting of the variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood because we will and have intend to build it all in best manner and practices and project design and these practices will include maintenance and slight increase in setbacks from wetlands, mandatory compliance with the towns Storm Water Management regulations, removal of the cesspool likely (inaudible) groundwater and replace with a proposed IA system and the fact that the minimum side yard that exists today at 6.7 feet would be doubled when this application to 13.4 feet. We submit our hardship is not self-created because this and other parcels in the neighborhood were created as part of this map of Peconic Bay Estates filed in 1933 which was prior to zoning as well as wetland regulation. So when the zoning regulations came along most recently adopted and when we applied the new wetland restrictions that exist today that’s the hardship that was created and it was created by regulation not by the actions of the client. Therefore it is our contention that the benefit to the applicant if the variance were granted would outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. Our benefit would be the ability to redevelop this property in a manner that’s consistent with the neighborhood and we believe there would be no impact to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community that surrounds it. Those are my initial comments, 54 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 I’m here to answer any questions you may have. I can speak to the variances that have already been granted but if you wish I can also send them in along with our analysis but I can assure you we’re well within the range of variances that have been approved and we are of the view that we have been very sensitive to the development patterns established in this neighborhood and we spent a great deal of time trying to be sensitive to those concerns while achieving a benefit for the applicant and I’m here to answer any questions you may have. I notice that Susan Wachter is with us today. I also spoke with Chris (inaudible) who is the project is the builder on this application and I believe he is also monitoring this presentation. So with that I’m all yours. BOARD SECRETARY : Bruce can you remove the screen for now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the interest of time cause we’re running so late, it would probably be best Bruce if you gave us you don’t have to give us a copy of every single variance but at least a summary a list of the file number and what the variance was and the date and so on. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well we have them both so it’s of no effort. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just email them to Kim and then she can get them to us. BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s start with Eric any questions from you? MEMBER DANTES : Be this as new construction I don’t understand why not just comply? I mean I understand the front yard setback relief request but why not just comply with the side yard setback and make it conforming? I mean it’s not a big variance you’re asking for it’s not a big design change. BRUCE ANDERSON : You know if you consider that we have a house that occupies 1,300 sq. ft. and change we’re asking for 100 sq. ft., if we were to comply we would actually have a smaller footprint than we have today so we’re not asking you know the variance triggered here is sort of a very minor increase in the footprint in this house we’re talking about 100 feet and to remove that 100 feet and just simply go with the same setbacks that we have would not serve the interest of justice in my view. We’re not asking for a lot here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you know once something is demolished all bets are off you start from scratch. So I don’t think the argument that we’re improving the setbacks although very small one story house and building a two story house instead you know that is not a really strong argument because it is possible to be conforming but you choose to build you know a house that is larger than what would allow you to be conforming. You want a swimming pool in the back yard I understand that and you want that to be 50 feet from wetlands but if that swimming pool 55 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 wasn’t there and all you could probably push the house back to 50 feet from the wetlands and have a more conforming front yard. So there are other options. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well what we did when we designed this was to look at your records of decisions in this. So for example, if you would look at the (inaudible) decision which I will send to you which talks about demolishing a one story house and constructing a two story house. You had a lot area of 29,550 sq. ft., you had a buildable area of 16,464 sq. ft., you had a single side yard of 9.8 feet and total side yard of 20 feet, total lot coverage of 23% where 20% is required which was amended back by 20.99 feet and with all of that done the Board makes a finding that there would be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood as (inaudible) for homes do not conform with the code required setbacks and lot coverage. So we were basically trying to look at your decisions and say can we stay within what’s been a record of decisions among these fifteen or so decisions that we’ve unearthed, is that a reasonable approach in front of the Board and we think it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Bruce is that decision that you just cited for a demolition or is that for a renovation? BRUCE ANDERSON : Demolition and rebuild. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I need to see that. BRUCE ANDERSON : I’m giving you all of them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’ll get all of them. BOARD ASSISTANT : What year was that? BRUCE ANDERSON : It was 2014 and there are other examples of that. There’s the Branford one which is demolish an existing one story residence and a new one and a half story residence, having a lot area of 18.905 feet side yard setback of 8.9 feet, total side yard setbacks of 17.5 feet and the Board ruled that these setback reliefs were not substantial. The rest are additions and further expansions to the house that involved dimensional relief, coverage relief etc. So we tried to take because this whole area is constrained we just tried to look at what is in the realm of approval here and tried to design a project that would not be out of character with the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s a reasonable assumption. I mean we just need to look at them and we need to ask these questions. Let’s see who else has any questions, anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No I think Eric hit the point I was going to ask. 56 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I’m good. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may, on the site plan it illustrates the new Fuji (inaudible) system but I’m a little confused. Is that the septic tank that we’re looking at that’s closer than 50 feet on the waterside of the property? This is on the site plan. BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes we can we’ll move that, that’s a mistake. It’s a drywell for the pool that can be removed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the drywell is also there which I would think you would want it to be landward of the 50 feet. BRUCE ANDERSON : I’m relying on a survey but okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just looking at and I’m assuming that’s the septic collection tank. MEMBER DANTES : You know what Nick BRUCE ANDERSON : You are correct about that. MEMBER DANTES : It looks like it’s 50 feet from the flood zone boundary is that right? BRUCE ANDERSON : I’m sorry. MEMBER DANTES : The tank is 40 feet and then your leaching pools are MEMBER LEHNERT : The leaching pools are 53. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But shouldn’t it be landward of the 50 foot mark? BRUCE ANDERSON : No well it’s a closed structure. I mean we’re not concerned about it from an environmental standpoint because it’s really the only place it can go and it’s a closed structure. So it essentially winds up you know in a small lawn area it’s already there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re going to need Trustees approval? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything from the Board, anything else? BOARD SECRETARY : I have a concerned neighbor who wants to speak. 57 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay please let that person in. DEBRA FORNI : Yes can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes what’s your name for the record. DEBRA FORNI : Debra Forni. Good afternoon everyone. First I just have a response to what Bruce has been saying about the character of the neighborhood, part of the concern I have as a neighbor and I’m on the opposing side of the street is that if you walked down our block you would not see any home perhaps this home but it would be hard to find a home where the actual living quarters were this as close to the road as they are proposing for their two story home. In addition let’s not forget that we also have an additional front porch and landing and additional steps and the same thing with the side. That’s still buildable entities that are even closer to the road, closer to the side lots. So the nature of and the character of this neighborhood is not as he’s stating. We don’t have large two story homes right along the road especially ones that have huge driveways that are going to take up almost three quarters of the front width of the lot. So right now we have a limited view of the cove and of course this is not our property so we have what we have but by taking this home and putting it so making it so large, adding a driveway putting it so close to the road and shoving so close to Bruce’s home all I’m going to see when I look from my property is their home and cars and to me that’s not the way this neighborhood is developed. Any variances I suspect I haven’t done the due diligence but driving up and down the block any variances I suspect are perhaps for a garage. You might see some garages. A small piece of building near the road but you’re not going to find a home this close never mind a two story home this close. I will also reemphasize the same sentiment as Bruce in saying, you’re building a new home, you bought this property aware that you have limitations. You’re across from the water, you are setbacks and these zoning regulations are made to maintain the character of a neighborhood. So you bought this property with this awareness and if you wanted a home this size this big with a big driveway and a pool and a deck I mean it’s lovely but you probably should have bought a bigger lot or a lot somewhere else. That’s part of my opinion. So I just feel you should adhere to the setbacks I just want to see that’s all I’m concerned about my home’s value, I’m concerned about the neighborhoods character, I’m concerned about the size and the placement of this home so close to my home when you put it so close to the road and the neighborhood. So I think it would be good to see, this neighborhood is not as Bruce I’m sorry as the gentleman is suggesting. This neighborhood is not full of houses near the road it’s not. It’s very treed and quiet and the homes are setback on that side of the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much. The property is LWRP exempt. Did we get comments I don’t think we did from Soil and Water cause it’s not a bluff so 58 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : I mean I can always send it to them but usually the last time I sent them something that didn’t have a bluff setback they CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They didn’t respond. How about D.E.C. we don’t need anything from them? BRUCE ANDERSON : We have an application before D.E.C. so I can assure you we cannot relocate this house closer to the wetlands than we’re already proposing. I also want to make a couple of quick points and that is that you know a person’s view from across the street to the cove which I suspect what this is mostly about is not something that’s protected by any former regulation that I’m aware of and it’s not a consideration for Zoning. DEBRA FORNI : It’s not but understanding the placement of a home of the property so large close to the street is (inaudible) BRUCE ANDERSON : Well as I said in my earlier in my presentation when we say it’s a large home so large you know I caution the Board to say that you know based upon the buildable area and the fact that we’ve kept the house under 20% of that buildable area I believe the number is 18.65% (inaudible) that’s in the plans before you. It should be positive proof that the home is not quote too large and the fact that we’re respecting the front yard setback is something that should not be penalized should not be something that the property owner gets penalized on. The idea that we knock down a house and it’s like we have a vacant lot is you know even under that circumstance I suspect I know front yard setback relief would be required. So this is a house that occupies a little less than 100 sq. ft. more of a footprint than what already exists so it’s hard for me to take the position that this is some large you know out of character house because it isn’t. it doesn’t occupy substantially more land than what’s it already occupying today. Yes it is two story but you know when you go through these variances you’ll see these references to bulk and bulkiness of adding a second story and the Board this Board has been accepting of two story houses even when you knock down a house a one story house and you build a two story house, there’s records and there’s variance relief that has been granted for that so you know our position is we tried to we understand the constraints we’re in that we operate under, we get that completely and we’ve also tried to balance the environmental aspects of this with the neighborhood aspects of this squarely within the range of variances previously given up and down the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m just looking at the survey I mean cause when we went out to the site you know we’re not environmental experts you know a lot more about it than we do. I can see where the Phragmites are on the property in the back, I’m presuming that low grassy area not the lawn part is also flagged wetlands? BRUCE ANDERSON : That’s correct. 59 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause sometimes it’s hard to tell from a species you know exactly what is considered a wetlands species. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well what it is, is you have these (inaudible) that move up to the slope there and if you were to walk upon the ground and carefully looked down you will see that there is a sort of a finer material grass and there is a (inaudible) constitute the high marsh zone of the wetlands so really what you have here is you have a beach, there’s a rise in the beach, the property drops down a little bit and it will flood particularly in a Nor’easter because you have that stretch that comes straight out of the east and kind of northeast. You also notice that when you went down there that the properties adjacent there too have seawalls and the like and those seawalls that have been built extend seaward where that boundary is. So the fact that you know one of the unfortunate portions of this property is (inaudible) but for the lack of seawall we certainly in other words if we had enjoyed the same shoreline protection that exists directly next door we would likely comply with a front yard setback but we can’t and we can’t fill in wetlands and we can’t build a seawall so that is why we’re pushed back and I think also when you compare this house and I’m prepared to give you some sort of analysis on how big the adjacent house is you’ll see that it’s much larger, much higher but they have that benefit of a seawall. They have the benefit of filled land which is higher, they have the benefit of a letter of non-jurisdiction from D.E.C. and because their buildable lot area is greater so too is the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you talking about the new one that’s under construction? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the modern looking one? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wondered cause I could see that setback was substantially more, the front yard setback was BRUCE ANDERSON : But that’s why because you know if you look at the you can even see it on the survey. You’ll see the concrete retaining wall that runs along the we’ll call it the western side of the property northwest to be specific and you’ll see the return there is that return is seaward of the wetland boundary by about 20 feet well probably a little more than that because it curves in on the property so let’s call it 30 feet so if I had that benefit of that seawall I can make the front yard setback comply but I can’t and I can’t build one nor can I fill in wetlands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Bruce while you’re on that topic, it indicates that you’re putting in a low profile rock revetment approximately three feet. 60 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Now while you say you’re not filling it in will this be something that you have to actually bridge like to get over to get to the beach or BRUCE ANDERSON : This is a very low profile thing, it’s really not on the purview of this Board. It is setback the toe of this thing is setback 10 feet from the wetland boundary and it’s a very low profile (inaudible) and it’s really it’s designed is that to protect the home in the event of these Nor’easters really because of the seawall and the adjacent bulk heading water can sort of be forced or pushed if you will between these sort of shoreline structures and focused upon this property. So we thought a prudent reasonable to have a very low revetment to protect this property and this is something the Trustees have approved in the past, we know several of these types of applications and that’s why it’s featured there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Three feet is still high to step over so how do you go from the residents pool obviously down stairs along the existing grade to this three foot is there BRUCE ANDERSON : We’re going to grade to that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So in effect you’re filling in. BRUCE ANDERSON : No cause we have to excavate for the footing anyway. There’s a footing to these to the design of this but it’s not part of this application so I don’t know what would be point of (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think cause Leslie even shared everything is an open dialogue here, you’re basically demolishing a house and we’re looking at a new project it’s a vacant lot in this conversation. BRUCE ANDERSON : No it’s not a vacant lot there’s a house on the lot. MEMBER DANTES : Isn’t his argument that he’s got restrictions from wetlands so he needs some front yard variance relief and then we granted certain relief in the past that’s kind of the basic gist of what we have to decide. BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I don’t know, I think it might be important to wait for the D.E.C. application and see what they have to say about this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bruce you’re going to be submitting some priors and all that stuff in your analysis. How close are you to D.E.C. do you know? 61 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 BRUCE ANDERSON : It’s hard to say in today’s world. It’s very difficult to communicate with these other agencies. It’s much easier to communicate with the local agencies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have an application before Trustees? BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh yes it’s been filed for probably a month and a half. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they usually want us to go first. BRUCE ANDERSON : Two months maybe more I don’t remember. MEMBER ACAMPORA : When did you file with the D.E.C. Bruce? BRUCE ANDERSON : We have had comments back from them of clarity. We’ve filed them on June th 29. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I doubt that they’re going to make you go anything more than a 50 foot setback from wetlands. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have comments from the D.E.C? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes, they’re mostly by way of clarifications and so forth. They are interested in the revetment so we’re working through that as well. MEMBER DANTES : Can you send us the comments cause I mean the revetment doesn’t really apply to us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn’t impact this application particularly but it’s part of it it’s part of the file, it’s on the survey, it’s on the site plans so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You know what I’m wondering, if it’s not too much of an effort to ask for it in the elevations that you’ve presented can you show the elevation of the existing house which is at grade versus the proposed residence which appears to be like I don’t know 4 maybe even 5 feet above grade. BRUCE ANDERSON : I suppose I could. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think that would be helpful. I don’t know if the other members feel the same but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this being built to FEMA compliance? BRUCE ANDERSON : I believe we’re in an X zone. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It’s zone X according to 62 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you don’t have to, you don’t have to BRUCE ANDERSON : No the first floor elevation you know what the first floor I don’t have that information before me. I’d be happy to supply it to you but we’re trying to set this up the really controlling factor here really is the septic system it’s not the flood plain. We’re not looking for any kind of increase first floor elevations for that. We may have a depiction somewhere but I had a very busy file but I’ll be happy to supply that in writing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything else from anyone who is attending or any Board member? BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh wait excuse me, I do have that answer. The existing first floor residence is at 8.3 feet and the proposed first floor elevation of this residence is 9.5 feet and that’s depicted on the existing conditions survey and the survey that is the subject of this application both of which you have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m just confused though cause the house presently is at grade. When you’re standing at Bay Shore Rd. the front door is right at grade. The proposed house is at least six steps based on my counting of the plans up to the front porch level and the pool level is even higher. BRUCE ANDERSON : So the (inaudible) elevation right in front of the existing house is 7.84 feet and that would be MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That’s from the water level I think you’re suggesting not from the grade. BRUCE ANDERSON : That’s the grade 7.8 it shows on your existing conditioned survey you’ll see where the house indents between the garage and the one story residence. You’ll see an X and you’ll see in red 7.84 feet. It’s approximately 6 inches higher than the grade of the street. The finished floor would be 8.3 so the finished floor is about is less than a foot higher than its adjacent grade. Here the finished floor is at 9.5 I would get (inaudible) confirmation on this but my understanding is if that first floor elevation is driven by the septic system and not any particular flood plain or design consideration or anything else. I mean it’s driven by the septic system excuse me not the flood plain but I would be happy to get you confirmation on that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m just super puzzled by what you said, right now the front door is basically at grade, you can walk in you can drive your car into the garage it’s all flush with the current grade. 63 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The proposed house is raised and the elevations I’d say 4 to five 5. So I’m not understanding where the disconnect is between the existing condition that you just described and what I bring forward. Even in the property card you can see that the house and the driveway are at grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just had something in the chat room from the woman who was the neighbor that the first floor elevation is 4 feet above grade. BRUCE ANDERSON : Of the existing house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn’t say. BRUCE ANDERSON : Can you say that again Leslie, I missed it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have something in the chat room that’s for all Board members, first floor elevation is 4 feet above grade. That must be the proposed new one that she’s talking about. BRUCE ANDERSON : I’m just going by the survey so we’ll take a close look at that. MEMBER DANTES : If you look at the stairs Nick it’s one, two, three, four, five steps MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That’s the water side. MEMBER DANTES : Right but the most a step can be by code is 8 inches so eight time five is forty inches which like 3 ½ feet. I don’t know if this drawing is to scale or not but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But if you look at the property card though it’s level with the front, so in other words if you’re at Bay Shore Rd. if you walk through the front yard to the door it’s not raised 4 feet above grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright the neighbor just said yes for the proposed. Look you know what Bruce, we’re really running way behind now. We have other applications here and there are a number of things that you’ve I’m sure taken note of you know the Board would like to receive. I don’t know that we’re going to need any more testimony particularly but I’m going to adjourn this to the Special Meeting to give you time to assemble everything you want and give us you know time to get for Kim to get it to all of us and to make sure we don’t have any more questions. Maybe you can let us know what’s going on with D.E.C. if you know about it you know their comments. You can perhaps address the height and elevation of the front façade to the street and the scale. We’re going to take a look at all those priors that you’re going to submit to us for other variances, see which ones are for as builts, which ones were for demolition and new 64 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 construction or new construction and we’ll take it from there. If we have no further questions and we have everything we need we’ll just close it at the Special Meeting. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay when would you schedule the Special Meeting? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh It’s two weeks from th BOARD SECRETARY : October 15. th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : October 15 is our Special. You know we’ll have it on Zoom like we used to do in the Annex Board room. We don’t take testimony as you know but I don’t know that we’ll be prepared to deliberate. We might if we get everything soon enough. BRUCE ANDERSON : Well I would respectfully ask for more time than that because I do understand that you know you have a survey that gives a first floor elevation of 9.3 and then you have a site plan that or an exterior elevation if you will that’s showing something different but if you look at the exterior elevation they’re just showing it as zero so I think what we need to do is look at the compare those differences and that might cause a lowering of the first floor I don’t know because I’m not designing the house but I think it’s probably wise to make it not this coming Special Meeting but maybe the one after that because if they can lower it maybe that will accommodate the neighbor some more or maybe you know one of the two has to change I would say. th BOARD SECRETARY : November 5. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next meeting is our Regular Meeting with hearings of November th 5 and we can adjourn it to then and you can get us whatever information you can and then we might have some questions. Just for the record you might want to just clarify the various things that you’re looking into and enter it into the public record. BRUCE ANDERSON : No I would provide you well in advance so you can have time to go over stuff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that’s the way that’s probably the we just obviously we just want to make sure that everything is accurate you know that there are no confusing contradictions and we would be able to take a look at the priors. I don’t think we’ll have a lot of testimony on it particularly and we could close it and go about maybe making a decision. BRUCE ANDERSON : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That works okay, alright. So I’m going to make a motion to adjourn th this to the November 5 Regular Meeting subject to receipt of additional information, is there a second. 65 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert, Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries okay we’ll look forward in reading your stuff. Take care Bruce. HEARING # 7430 – MICHAEL and VANESSA REBENTISCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is item #9 on our agenda. This is Michael and Vanessa Rebentisch # 7430. BOARD SECRETARY : I know that Anthony Portillo would be appearing, can you raise your hand that you’re here Anthony. So I’m going to move him to the panelist. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to read the notice in the meantime. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15F, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s June 18, 2020 amended August 7, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and construct an accessory garage at 1) dwelling is located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) accessory garage located in other than the code required rear yard 66 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 located at 1580 Corey Creek Lane (adj. to Corey Creek) in Southold. This is a front yard setback variance proposed at 15.4 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 and an accessory garage in a front yard on waterfront property but it does not meet the code required principle front yard setback of 40 feet, it’s proposed at 30 feet front yard setback. It’s LWRP consistent. Anthony are you here, there you go welcome. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Hi. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you like to tell us about this application? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Thanks for the time today and I want to just start by saying that if you guys can take a close look at the site plan, there’s a few things here we should notice and I think the largest constraint on this site is that we have heavy wetlands area on the site and it goes landward of the property and it also goes up the side yard and sort of (inaudible) follow the line. So we are very restricted because of that so a portion so we’re using the on the addition side we are presenting or proposing an addition for a great room on the house. We located it away from the wetlands and towards the rear of the home and affectively will step onto their existing driveway, the door the landing out. Currently there is a patio structure there with like retaining walls so we did stay within that footprint, we didn’t expand it at all. I couldn’t find any record of that being filed but again it was on grade and then there was like a retaining wall around so we’re trying to you know utilize that footprint to create this space. In the current home is 23.5 feet from the front yard so this addition is getting us it’s coming closer to the property line. Another thing I just want to mention is basically the road leads to a dead end Corey Creek Lane there to a boat ramp so we don’t really have like a lot of through traffic or anything like that in that area. We also if you look at our design, we are proposing an IA septic system as part of all this work and that also was a very tight squeeze given all the restrictions, the high water marks I’m sorry the high water levels that we found there. So you can see you know this was a strategic design effort I think to try to fit these things on the site. On the garage side again really just not having a rear yard to put the garage you know and we’re proposing it on the side yard there is no current garage structure and again we’re backed up as far as we can be off of the front yard to the wetlands line you know we left a little bit of room there for excavation 7.4 feet and you know we assumed having to dig and didn’t want to disturb the wetlands that’s kind of how we made the decision there and you know that’s again just a garage would allow them to have some parking roofed parking that’s nonexistent now. That’s about it on the proposed design. I did find that the Board approved a garage on a side yard nearby, I mean it’s sort of seems like in the neighborhood there’s a lot of garages in these locations. So this was #4861 I’m sorry #4875 there was a portion of a garage located on a side yard, this was October of 2000 that the Board granted relief. This is on Elizabeth Lane in Southold nearby Corey Creek Lane. Also on Corey Creek there was an 67 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 alteration to an existing single family with a front yard (inaudible) on our home with the addition in 2020 (inaudible) that was #7375 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was for a front yard variance? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That was for a front yard variance yes ma’am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what was that setback? ANTHONY PORTILLO : 35.4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that’s a very odd shaped parcel sort of basically ends at a parking lot. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct yea it’s a lot of boaters use that ramp there at the end. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s see if the Board has any questions, Rob we’ll start with you. MEMBER LEHNERT : No I don’t have any questions, it’s pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No questions, it is a private road and I believe all the parking down there is just reserved for the Corey Creek community it’s not public. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope I’m good. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Same here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, we’ve all been out as you know to inspect the site so we know what the neighborhood looks like. Anthony do you want to submit to Kim those variances that you found? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure just mail them or email it? BOARD SECRETARY : Email them. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay no problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then she’ll email them to us so we’ll have them as part of the file. Anybody here in the attendees who wants to address this? Seeing anybody? BOARD SECRETARTY : Nobody is raising their hand. 68 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to close this hearing subject to receipt of copies of prior variance relief in the neighborhood, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento, Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries and if we get those priors soon we’ll probably have a decision a draft before us in two weeks at the Special Meeting. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : If anyone wishes to comment on an application we ask that you send us a note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and let us know which application you are here for. For people using their phones, in order to let us know you would like to speak please press *9 to raise your hand and we will allow you to speak and let us know who you are here for. Thank you. HEARING # 7396 – ANTHONY TARTAGLIA and JAMES HOWELL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Anthony Tartaglia and James Howell # 7396. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-123, Article 69 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s January 29, 2020 amended September 1, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to reconstruct an “as built” sunroom to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize an “as built” deck/patio to an existing accessory garage with apartment at 1) “as built” addition and alteration to the non-conforming accessory garage with apartment is not permitted, a non-conforming use shall not be enlarged or structurally altered or moved unless the use of the building is changed to a conforming use, 2) proposed construction to the single family dwelling is located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) proposed construction is more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 55255 Suffolk County Route 48 (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Greenport. BOARD SECRETARY : Anthony Portillo is representing this applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now since we first looked at this application we got a memo from the Trustees saying that the applicant is now permanently removing the bungalow screened in porch which was in the coastal erosion hazard area so then they now say they only need a wetlands permit to replace structures where they are. They don’t you no longer need a coastal erosion application is that correct Anthony? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so the new Notice of Disapproval ANTHONY PORTILLO : Once we’re done once this is decided then we would be going back to Trustees for these two variances. We’re also proposing an IA system here as well which the Trustees will be ruling on or allowing hopefully. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright that’s good to know. So basically as (inaudible) that all of the structures are pretty much remaining in their existing footprint, except the second story deck addition on this garage is that correct? MEMBER LEHNERT : Well aren’t all these “as builts”? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the difference is I think and Anthony looks like ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah so on the garage structure well let me start by saying that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re breaking up pretty badly. I don’t know if here’s here or not. He’s there but he’s blank. BOARD SECRETARY : Anthony. 70 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need to let him know that’ he’s no longer on. He’ll call back in I bet. Well let me enter a few more things in here to the lot coverage is proposed at 30.5% but it is maintaining the existing lot coverage I believe. It’s calculated based on a buildable area of 9,700 sq. ft. All of these structures are pre-existing non-conforming and we’re now looking at a I guess the enlargement is for the garage the accessory garage apartment above for the second story deck. So there’s a lot coverage issue, the enlargement of the garage and the reconstruction of the “as built” sunroom to the existing single family dwelling and that setback is that’s a side yard setback at 12.9 feet the code requires a minimum of 15. Is everybody in agreement with that all the Board members? Is that what you’re looking at? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, just clarify though, is that actually a garage or it’s not a garage? I don’t know what the structure is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the C.O. is for a garage. BOARD SECRETARY : Are we talking about this one here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. BOARD SECRETARY : Yes existing two story with garage and apartment on top. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s what it says but when you go and look I mean I do think there’s a driveway there and I do think they’re putting in garage doors it looks like but they also have patio doors on the waterside. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But from my two different things, I know the history of this property personally but on the driveway side on CR48 I’ve witnessed over the last six months or whatever they actually removed the garage doors which were actually sort of locked closed so they had living space like a game room down there not a garage but now they built things that look like doors but they’re not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on I just want to make sure that we let Anthony back in. He said that he’s back. They’re all pre-existing non-conforming structures and the lot coverage and the reconstructed sunroom is pretty much in place and in kind but I do want to discuss what’s going on with that garage. Anthony can you unmute yourself please. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I’m back can you hear me? 71 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we don’t see you now but we can hear you. So I kind of reviewed what’s going on here just for your information, we’re looking at 30.5% lot coverage which is the same as what currently exists is that right? You’re breaking up. BOARD SECRETARY : He’s gone ask him to phone in maybe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ask him to phone in but you know we can also if he needs time to sort this out we can adjourn this for a few minutes and go on to the next application and come back to it. I think there’s a lot of people here for the other application. BOARD SECRETARY : For this one not the next one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s true I’m looking at this. BOARD SECRETARY : So if we want we can open up the Tim Frost one and finish that one off. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I’ll call Anthony, what would you like me to tell Anthony? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just tell him to see if he can or do you want to why don’t we just give him a chance to call in. MEMBER DANTES : Tell him to call in forget the internet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all have to be very patient with this technology because to no fault of our own you know depending where we find ourselves positioned MEMBER ACAMPORA : Didn’t he say they were removing the closed porch CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes on the bungalow that’s coming off. In fact I think it’s no well no it’s still on there. I mean I went over there the other day. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes it is still on. CHAIRPEROSN WEISMAN : But that’s to be removed and now they just need a wetlands permit from the Trustees. We asked Trustees to go first basically and we left this open. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : Anthony has his hand up and I see he’s in the attendees but we’re on the phone with his office at the moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you Donna. BOARD SECRETARY : He’s gone guys sorry. He was on the phone and I was going to move him and he just disappeared. Oh here he is, Anthony. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony if you can hear us unmute yourself and try again. 72 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 ANTHONY PORTILLO : Can you hear me now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now I can hear you. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I’m back can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can hear you but you keep breaking up for some reason. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Ok let me see if I can go I think I heard was listening to when you guys were BOARD SECRETARY : Are you on the phone or on the computer? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It must be my internet. BOARD SECRETARY : Are you on the phone or on a computer? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This doesn’t look like it’s going to work very well. Anthony if you can hear us let us know if you’re on a phone or a computer. Boy we’re lucky we got to through the other hearing I guess. The mute thing is off he still seems to be there. Are you there Anthony? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Hello. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you on a phone or are you on a computer? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I’m on my computer yes I can hear you. I think I should call in though I’m going in and out. BOARD SECRETARY : Why don’t you call from your phone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don’t you just phone in. Do you have the information on how to do that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I’m going to call in ok? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perfect call in. BOARD SECRETARY : Donna or Liz does he have the call in information? OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : Yes he does we gave it to him. Oh sorry Liz did not give it to him he hung up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s see what happens let’s give it another minute. BOARD ASSISTANT : Liz or Donna can you call the office and find out what numbers he’s calling in on? 73 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER DANTES : Can we just go on to Tim Frost and get back to him? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to make a motion to recess this hearing to be heard after the next application, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes all in favor raise your hand. Motion carries unanimously. BOARD SECRETARY : I’m going to move in Tim Frost. HEARING # 7413 – TIMOTHY FROST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is application # 7413 Timothy Frost. This was reopened from the September 17, 2020 Regular Meeting and we did so in order to accept an amended site plan or survey that was discussed between Mr. Frost and the neighbor who has a garage on the adjacent property and so in order to make sure that whatever decision we make reflects the plans that you were really proposing we reopened this hearing. So tell us about the changes that you are now proposing to make in the original plan. TIMOTHY FROST : Thank you for reopening the meeting and conducting this. I believe you have before you and I apologize but I’m also operating in a disadvantage at the Shelter Island Library. I believe you have this plan which shows two things, one is that the area next to the garage of Ellen McNeilly that the deck a portion of the deck has been removed to allow her access. I’ve discussed that with Ellen McNeilly and I believe that she is in favor of that. I know that she’s in favor I don’t know if she has conveyed that to the Board. The other element is the acting on the suggestion of the Chairperson Weisman that there be evergreen plantings on that buffer area to shield it from the neighbors. Those are the two elements that were included in the application that I would ask that you act on. I’m available for any questions. I don’t know whether you can see what I’m holding up clearly but I believe it should be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have copies, we all have copies. TIMOTHY FROST : Alright thank you. I marvel at how I’ll just make one comment that I’m amazed at how poker faced everyone is in not revealing your frustration. I find it remarkable I really do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you just have to be patient with these things you know. Kim you got screen sharing up where you’re showing all your folders. Go to the Frost folder and click on that. That’s it. 74 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 TIMOTHY FROST : So you can see there was a tree there which frankly was on my property. Ms. McNeilly I think wants to protect that tree, that’s fine. I worry that it may not survive but we have cut out the portion in that corner of the platform to allow her access. As you can see also along the berm landscaping we’re proposing that it will be landscaped with native evergreens to provide a sight and sound buffer to the adjoining property. That’s acting on the suggestion of the Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What’s actually on the adjoining property to you know where the pool and the berm landscape is? TIMOTHY FROST : There is currently along probably down to where the word berm is in that filled in area on the berm about the berm landscape a 6 foot fairly (inaudible) evergreen hedge which has been there the entire time I’ve owned the property you know thirty five or so years. So that the proposal is that the 6 foot high fence would be at that height of the existing hedge. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and the adjacent property on the other side of the fence, what’s there? I mean we’ve seen a collection of small wooden structures. Who owns it what’s TIMOTHY FROST : The portion the McNeilly property goes a little longer a little deeper than that garage in fact there is a shed she owns it which I think is a former chicken coop and I think I can hold up something to show that. Can you see what I’m holding up which is the survey showing the adjoining properties? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, Kim if she takes screen sharing off then we’ll get a larger picture. BOARD SECRETARY : I don’t know what he’s doing screen sharing though. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No he’s holding it up but because yeah that’s going to help us. TIMOTHY FROST : I can’t do you have it then I’ll comment on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : More or less that’s your property so TIMOTHY FROST : Well this is my property CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. TIMOTHY FROST : This is Ellen McNeilly’s property CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. 75 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 TIMOTHY FROST : who had the suggestion about the garage. It extends further than the garage. There’s a small shed on her property, then is the property of Richard Gilooly which extends all the way down to here beyond the pool to where it jogs back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s not making sense to me. TIMOTHY FROST : This is the Gilooly property, this is the McNeilly property CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. TIMOTHY FROST : the pool will be located here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. TIMOTHY FROST : so it’s the Gilooly property and the McNeilly properties which are along that fence. What we’re proposing to be the 6 foot high fence which is covered which currently has a 6 foot hedge along all of the McNeilly property and slightly into the Gilooly property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and the Gilooly property consists of what kind of structures? TIMOTHY FROST : Well there is a shed right here, there are a number of it was the old Hummel property from when Hummel ran the plumbing supply. He had a store room on the property and there is a main house also on the Gilooly property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it is a residential house, it’s a residential property? TIMOTHY FROST : There is a residence right here, yes which is on Willow St. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and how far I’m not concerned about accessory structures, we’re concerned about any potential impacts to a residence on the Gilooly property, how close to Willow are they? How far away from that 6 foot fence? TIMOTHY FROST : Well the Gilooly property will be roughly about the residence would be about here. It’s on the corner of Willow and (inaudible) estimated at least 100 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, so because the parcel is so irregularly shaped, I’m just looking at you’re very close to what would be considered I guess a side yard you know with your compound of the garage and the pool and thank you I think has everybody got that? We’ve all seen that helped a lot cause we’ve seen small structures there but it’s very unclear as to what’s what and who’s using it for what purpose and the impacts usually swimming pools have impacts on people’s houses. They suddenly hear noises they didn’t hear before thus the proposal for some visual screening, some acoustical screening and you know you have a huge, huge area back there and I know you want to preserve open space and to put it in that corner but we have to 76 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 look at mitigating potential adverse impacts and you’ve already mitigated one for McNeilly and I just want to make sure that this structure could not be maybe moved just a little bit more away from that shared property line. Still your same plan basically, still have the garage, hide the pool you know but instead I mean you’ve got right now I guess a 6 foot setback to the berm right the walkway rather that’s not 6 feet. Kim would you bring that back up again so we can all see the same plan. She’s going to put it back up on the screen. Okay so this is what is this I can’t read the number on here. The walkway is what dimension what’s the width of the walkway? TIMOTHY FROST : Well the walkway I think is 3 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like 4 foot oh that’s to where the jog is now alright. TIMOTHY FROST : I mean I don’t have it precisely and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like it’s about 3 feet and you know it’s how high is that relative to the 6 foot high fence? What’s the elevation on that walkway? TIMOTHY FROST : The walkway will be at grade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so that’s below so there’s a 6 foot fence but 3 feet away from that is the berm now and that berm is TIMOTHY FROST : A 2 to 1 slope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and I’m looking at the width. We don’t have the width marked but it looks like it’s about 6 or 8 feet. Then the pool starts after that and the pool is what’s the elevation of the pool again above grade? You’re walking up to it over the berm I see. TIMOTHY FROST : I believe it’s about 3 feet. I mean I know it’s in the earlier plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea okay we have a section of that anyway. You see where I’m going, I just want to make sure that there’s enough space behind you know behind somebody else’s house so that we’re not going to look at you know big impacts. TIMOTHY FROST : I appreciate it and recognize that you know what is important for you is not necessarily whether the current owner consents but precedence that are being set but I know I can speak for well I don’t want to speak for Mr. Gilooly but I know that he does not have a problem with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, why don’t we bring in who else is here to participate? BOARD SECRETARY : We have Ellen McNeily that wants to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let Ellen in. 77 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 ELLEN MCNEILLY : Hello. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you hear us Ellen? ELLEN MCNEILLY : Yes I can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can hear you too. So we’ve got the new plan and I imagine you were listening to this discussion we just had? ELLEN MCNEILLY : Yes I was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just looking at potential impacts on the residential on the home of the Gilooly property which is going to be kind to close to where the pool is and Mr. Frost said that to the best of his knowledge the Gilooly’s had no problem with it. Do you know anything about that? ELLEN MCNEILLY : Only apocryphally, I haven’t talked to Dick about it so I don’t think he has any problem. If he had he probably would have told me and I’m sure Mr. Frost would have as well if he had. TIMOTHY FROST : Chairperson Weisman If it would be useful you know I’m sure I can have Mr. Gilooly you know confirm that to you if you would like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because typically we will try and put swimming pools as far away from a property line you know residential property line as we can but if there’s no problem with the other neighbor and it doesn’t impact anybody else and you know it’s okay now with Ms. McNeilly you know I think the Board has whatever it needs to make a decision. ELLEN MCNEILLY : Ms. Weisman, Mr. Frost and I had initially discussed a little bit about moving either narrowing the berm or in any way moving the fence slightly away from the hedge so that I could maintain the back of it. We basically came to an agreement that what’s going to be necessary in part because of your suggestion about putting the evergreens on the berm which would shield any visuals that might be negative to my either my property the porch that is on the back of my property. It seemed to have worked out it’s a little bit complicated because the hedge is grown to some extent into Mr. Frost’s property and I was preparing to trim it back to make it consistent with my property line but if there is any possibility of giving a little bit of easement there that would certainly help. I don’t know if that’s possible or even feasible or reasonable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know hedges grow all the time and I think it’s really a matter for (inaudible) ELLEN MCNEILLY : I’m sorry I can’t hear you . 78 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just talking about the hedge I mean the project is I understand the need to want to maintain things but as long as you’re okay with a fence my major concern was not the hedge. My major concern was any impact, noise intrusion or visual intrusion onto any other residential property not accessory structures. We’ve worked out your access to be able to maintain your structure which is a far greater thing than it is a hedge I mean it’s a building. ELLEN MCNEILLY : Yes but it is also the maintaining of the shed at the other end of it which is you know is basically a shed but I had not discussed that with Mr. Frost. He had not necessarily known that I was going to be doing what I did with it which is to maintain you know to seal it so that it would not be deteriorating which I have done and basically that’s essentially where we have ended up with all that is the fence directly up against the hedge which is not an ideal circumstance as I’m sure you know but I didn’t feel that there was any more relief that could be given on that and I may be wrong. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no I think it’s if you can provide a letter confirming that the Gilooly’s have no objection to the placement that close to their property line I’m okay with it. TIMOTHY FROST : I will take it open myself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How do the rest of you Board members feel? MEMBER DANTES : Fine by me. MEMBER LEHNERT : Works with me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause you know typically if we hadn’t gone through this process which is why a public hearing is such a good device because people get to be heard and often you come up with better ideas. We would have probably granted you alternative relief to put it farther away from that property line and you wouldn’t have had to have changed your design particularly but it would have been much more out into the generally open area. ELLEN MCNEILLY : Which had been a suggestion of mine with Mr. Frost at one point but we negotiated back to it being basically that area at the maintenance of the garage area and that’s what we finally arrived at so I think that’s where it stands at the moment and I’ll attempt to deal with as much as I can the maintenance of the back side of the hedge relative to the fence which is basically right up against it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I don’t have any other questions or comments. I think if we just get you know some indication that the proposed as amended this is now an amended site plan, if the application is the same in the sense that it’s still a front yard (inaudible) relief that you need but we wanted to make sure that we stamped the updated amended site plan not the old one. 79 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 ELLEN MCNEILLY : If there had been any ability to get relief granted for the shed maintenance as well by say a foot or whatever it would have been helpful but we’ve gone past that already. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so. ELLEN MCNEILLY : I know so I’m in agreement with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, anything from any Board members at this point? Nope I’m not hearing anything. TIMOTHY FROST : I will endeavor to get the letter from or the agreement from Mr. Gilooly into the (inaudible) in the next several days. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine so what I’m going to do then is make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of a letter from the adjacent property owner Mr. Gilooly and as soon as we get that we’ll start working on a draft you know and start deliberating. If we get it real soon we might have a decision in two weeks at our next Regular Special Meeting which is at usually starts around 5 o’clock for public they’re not hearings we deliberate on drafts. TIMOTHY FROST : Well that (inaudible) some incentives. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can listen in but it’s not a hearing. So alright I made a motion to close subject to receipt, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye, Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye, Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye, Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye, Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? 80 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. Thank you am I supposed to say good fences make good neighbors. BOARD SECRETARY : I’m going to bring Anthony Portillo back in. HEARING # 7396 – ANTHONY TARTAGLIA and JAMES HOWELL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to make a motion to reconvene the Tartaglia, Howell hearing. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Hi I’m here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeay! We’ve been waiting for you. Listen that’s okay that happens to us too sometimes. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Thank you for understanding. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So how I had a motion we didn’t vote. We can just raise hands, this was a motion to reconvene this hearing. Did anybody second it? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes, raise your hand if you’re in agreement. Okay let the record show everyone voted aye. Alright this hearing is now reopened and let’s just quickly get to the point. We know that that screened porch is coming off of the bungalow and it’s no there’s no structures in the coastal erosion hazard area. What about lot coverage, what is the lot coverage being proposed, is that still 30.5%? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes that’s no I’m sorry the lot coverage is yes 30.5% that’s the proposed lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the proposed the same as the existing? ANTHONY PORTILLO: No well the screened porch we deducted that so it’s actually less now for that reason from that removal of that screened porch. 81 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Got it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Which was approved, the administrative approval was given by the Trustees for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have the administrative approval okay. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct. BOARD SECRETARY : It might have to go back to the Trustees because their lot coverage had to be corrected so they might have to get a correction from them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that will just be technical. That’s not going to hearing or anything. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure we’ll take care of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and your reconstructing a sun room on the existing single family dwelling with a 12.9 foot side yard where the code requires 15 is that correct? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, that’s not an enlargement. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No ma’am if you look at the drawings we show the existing in dotted and then we show that going back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I guess the real question then is, the non-conforming building that can’t be enlarged there is this C.O. for a garage an accessory garage with apartment above okay, are you proposing to continue to use that as a garage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The apartment was already (inaudible) that was a separate application with the Building Department. What we need relief on is that there was a covered deck built what looks to me the same time the apartment was built. The reason I say that is because there’s a stair with a landing that goes into the apartment and then this covered deck was attached to it. So we’re requesting basically we need your relief for the “as builts”. It was built if I was to guess you know thirty years ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a replacement in kind of a second story and first it’s almost at grade deck below? I believe what they’re telling us is ANTHONY PORTILLO : No there is a pad below the deck but that’s like at grade. That’s not elevated above grade it’s less than 8 inches off grade. There’s a covered deck above that that was built without a permit you know like I said I’m basically on just the construction and the looks of the lumber and things like that. You know that was a long time ago. They actually had to repair it 82 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 a bit because of rot so that’s what the request to get a relief on an as built on that as built covered deck off the second floor apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I understand that but what was sited here is a non-conforming building with a non-conforming use can’t be enlarged unless is becomes a conforming use. What I’m asking is the deck the second story deck that you’re proposing it’s not an enlargement it’s a replacement of what was already there that was built without a permit? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That’s correct and we didn’t rebuild it we’re just repairing it we never took it down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now it’s unusual to have a garage with sliding patio doors on the seaward side and a deck. So how is this structure actually proposed to be used? Are you going to use it as a two car garage or what? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So from my knowledge that’s what they’re planning to use it for. Now I know there was like things in there in the past year that they’ve been working on the main dwelling and then they were working on the garage apartment, I’m fine with the stipulation in your relief that that needs to be used as a garage. That is the plan though, they put new garage doors on the front. I’m not clear why they wanted the patio doors in the rear (inaudible) but they’re not using it’s not finished, it’s unheated you know so MEMBER LEHNERT : Then let me ask you a question, why do you need a second floor covered porch to a garage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So that’s for the apartment that’s already C.O’d. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that pre-existing non-conforming apartment? ANTHONY PORTILLO : The apartment is existing non-conforming and then the deck was built sometime off of that apartment so that’s really that’s what all that needed relief that deck that covered deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Anthony, a question about the garage use, while I have some sense of knowledge of this property from the previous owner just driving by as a resident of Southold when they were working on the garage it would appear that the garage doors are just mock garage doors. It looks to me that when they renovated they removed the garage doors which had already had been boxed in on the inside as non-functioning garage doors being used as a game room and most recently when the current owners were working on the garage façade on the highway side they seemed to have framed it out with again just what looks like a mock garage door. So are those doors operational? 83 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 ANTHONY PORTILLO : Nick I would have to look into that. I personally have no knowledge of them doing that. The last site visit I did was when they did the framing you know on the interior of the main home and the garage apartment. At that time the garage was still a garage I didn’t see any activity that you’re explaining so I’ll be very clear with my client that that needs to be a garage. I don’t know or I haven’t heard from them that they were doing that so it would be without my knowledge. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you give us something certifying that that’s a garage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That’s fine I’ll get it from the owner and like I said I’ll make it clear that that’s the use of that space and that’s what the use needs to be. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony also from a structural standpoint the garage has a basement. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes it does. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m sorry. ANTHONY PORTILLO : It does have an existing basement. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can the decking of the garage support cars or whatever is appropriately stored in the garage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So it is you know it wouldn’t be the way I would have designed it to be honest. I think it’s a wood (inaudible) I didn’t do a structural analysis to determine that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we better find out. I mean we can’t condition it to be an unfinished unheated garage if the cars are going to fall into the basement. That’s not going to work. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It would be a two story garage. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Again I didn’t because like I said it was an existing garage with the basement and I wasn’t doing any work as part of my scope so you know I really was to be honest with you I was hired to do an apartment renovation and then the deck came up and that’s how I got involved with filing for the relief. So I didn’t even get involved you know I looked at the floor system for the apartment, checked the structure there I didn’t get into the loading of a car parking. If that’s something as a request from the Board I’m fine putting the calculations together and determining that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just think we need clarification on the use cause you know part of the issue spills over to that second floor covered deck. You know people do all kinds of things without the benefit of permits and it’s just unfortunate that you’re in this position but you know I kind of 84 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 don’t see the need for that addition on the second floor and quite honestly knowing the history of the house you know I don’t see this as being a garage. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure like I said I’m fine Nick I can present calculations to the Board and determine that. I can get an affidavit and I think if again if they did do something like you’re speaking which I don’t have knowledge of I think that they need to correct that and we can you know we can get an affidavit from them indicating that as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look the apartment has been there legally, the rest of the structure clearly was started out as a garage and then morphed and I think there’s all kinds of strange accessory structures on this property but a lot of it is pre-existing non-conforming and cause now at least out of the coastal erosion hazard area. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Whoever has a lawn mower or whatever going on can you just maybe mute your CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re muted now Rob. I think what we want to do is ensure that the C.O. is legal and that it reflects the uses. I want to see that basement use for nothing more than mechanical and or storage, non-habitable unfinished. The same thing with the two car garage, it is to be used for garage use unheated, unfinished period and if it means replacing those sliding glass doors that go out to an at grade deck you know so that it can be properly used as a garage and not some other cause obviously it was used for people being in there so they can swap out onto a deck with sliding patio doors and put an opaque you know façade to the street. So we need to return it to its proper purpose and then the apartment is fine and I don’t have a problem with the deck it’s an amenity to a habitable space. It’s an outdoor recreational thing, decks are a very common use on the sound, that’s a legal apartment and as long as it meets code I don’t have a problem with it but I do have a problem with whatever else might be going on in that garage (inaudible) the C.O. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I agree totally and I’ll be speaking with them. Like I said unfortunately this was something that we filed for back in like February so I don’t you know I don’t know what they’ve been doing since then cause that’s when they were doing the renovation on the interior and that’s when I visited the site but I mean you know I haven’t been there since then really since like I think March. I’ll have a conversation with the owner and we’ll get you verification that you know that the uses are going to be properly used and you know retain the C.O. putting everything back. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can I just add something here? Is it too much to ask to have Anthony certify that this thing is a garage and can hold a car? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not at all. 85 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 ANTHONY PORTILLO : Can I ask the Board a question here? Does it necessarily have to hold a car I mean you don’t have to park a car in a garage. I mean you can use it for storage. MEMBER LEHNERT : No but it’s got to be legit yea but can you certify it’s a legit garage? You know if I drop my lawn mower ANTHONLY PORTILLO : I’m fine calculating it as a garage the loading for a garage and determining if the structure can meet those requirements. I guess MEMBER LEHNERT : That’s fine. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I guess my question is if cannot then are you requesting that they have to reinforce that structure to meet the requirements? MEMBER LEHNERT : I think they’ve got to make it a garage for this whole thing to work. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I can chime in also on Rob’s question, if this home is sold six months from now as is the history with so many properties once they get their variances they’re immediately sold or shortly thereafter somebody may park a car in a structure that looks like a garage that isn’t. I would say it needs to support property weight of two cars or whatever the size is alternatively (inaudible) and then you know. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay understood. MEMBER ACAMPORA : We can have the Town Engineer go look at it. MEMBER LEHNERT : As long as Anthony can certify it. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea I can calculate it no problem and then that’s fine we’ll meet the MEMBER LEHNERT : and if they have to make changes they have to make changes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look it’s clear that the prior owner was not using it as a garage, it was habitable space even if it was unfinished it was people were in there not using it for anything other than recreational purposed and sleeping above. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I will say that these owners you know they bought it and all intentions of correcting you know they’re going through the proper channels correcting things and trying to make this you know because it was whoever owned it prior did a lot of things that they weren’t supposed to do. There was a deck built over the coastal erosion, it wasn’t permitted, it was you know they’re taking that out so they are being responsible in that sense so I don’t think any of these requests are something they’ll be against and I’ll just make sure that they understand that that space is a garage and that’s what is there and that’s all that they can use it for. 86 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright look before we do anything else there’s someone who, an attendee who has their hand raised who would like to come in, can you make that happen Kim? BOARD SECRETARY : Yep it’s happening right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kate if you can unmute yourself. KATE PHELAN : I am the owner next to the Tartaglia property the present owners at 55255 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you east or west? KATE PHELAN : I am to the east, the small little yellow house to the east and presently I am very concerned about the owners planned use for this property. I have a short statement that I’d like to read first. The non-commercial and family oriented nature of the area allow myself and my neighbors to enjoy the benefits of a residential neighborhood in the town of Southold. We know our neighbors and their families, some are second home owners we look out for our neighbor’s properties we help each other and (inaudible) greet strangers. This has always felt like a protective environment for my family. I appreciate the town’s diligence in maintaining the protections expected by the adopted codes. As the adjoining neighbor of this property I appreciate the improvements that are being made but as I said I do have questions about the planned use of the property. I agree with all of you that the garage is not a garage, it is an accessory building with a garage on the second floor, the downstairs had been used as a living space by the previous owners. The front doors are not garage doors they’re just pieces of wood. This is my concern as to how this property is going to be used since it is advertised on Air B&B and on VRBO and has been rented every weekend since the middle of August. So I don’t know how the owners plan to use the rest of the property but I am concerned. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well (inaudible) the house is under construction, is it the apartment that they have been renting above the garage? KATE PHELAN : Yes the apartment above the garage has been rented consistently since mid- August even in the middle of the construction of the revetment on the beach. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well you can see why we want to make sure that the C.O. that is in place is exactly what goes on there. They do have the right if it’s all legitimately legal apartment to rent it, they don’t have the right to rent it for anything less than the short term rental law allows them to rent it for. They can’t be renting it for a day or two here or there and that code changed and people have to rent for two weeks. MEMBER LEHNERT : Fourteen days. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fourteen days but that’s a matter for code enforcement (inaudible) 87 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 KATE PHELAN : I’m sorry you’re breaking up I didn’t hear CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : make sure that everything on that property is legal and is being used in accordance all right let me try again. Can you hear me okay? KATE PHELAN : Yea go ahead thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our concern is that everything on this property that’s now under renovation is being used legally and with the proper uses in place and the C.O. is for a garage on the ground floor not for living space and above it, it has an apartment. So that’s what we would like to see accomplished and they have the right to rent out that apartment because it was established before the current code about you know it’s a legal apartment it pre-existed the code. KATE PHELAN : Yes I know that and in the past it has always been seasonally to the same family who would come you know from May to September. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. KATE PHELAN : It’s just the use has been changed in the last CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) once this is all completed they will have the legal right to rent it as the code now permits, that’s the rental law. However we do want to make sure that that structure I mean I don’t have a problem with the side yard setback or lot coverage which is actually a little bit less now that the bungalow screened porch is now removed but we’re very aware of that the envelope is being pushed a lot let’s put it that way in terms of how people use things and our job is to uphold the code and to grant relief where it’s justified. KATE PHELAN : I appreciate that very much that you’re just doing what you’re supposed to be doing. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s why we asked Anthony to talk to his clients and get this straightened out. So is there anyone else here for this application? There’s a Tara (inaudible) who’s listening I don’t know if she’s here BOARD SECRETARTY : Tara do you want to be heard? Let us know just raise your hand if you want to be heard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t see anything oh something just came up in chat. KATE PHELAN : She’s just listening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay very good. KATE PHELAN : Thank you, thank you for your time. 88 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Kate. So here’s what I think we should do. Let me adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks so then Anthony you can bring us up to date on you know whatever you need to and we can make a decision there if we have everything or you know if we need to adjourn it to another hearing or if we can just close it or if you need more time but at least let’s just to that. Let’s just adjourn it you think two weeks is enough? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Two weeks yes I can determine that. I mean if the determination of the structure requires reinforcement then that would have to be filed I would have to file anyhow with the Building Department for the structural work so I would just basically write you an affidavit saying that my calculations determined either it’s sufficient or insufficient. If insufficient you know that we’re going to be repairing it along the specifications. Would that be would that suffice? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep just indicate that the basement is to be used as basement storage only for mechanical or whatever typical basement uses, not habitable, not heated, not finished storage. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and ground level is to be used as a garage. I suggest that the likelihood is that we’re going to want to have those doors removed the sliding patio doors on the seaward side. I don’t care about the deck at grade you know as long as it’s a garage with a solid wall. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Regards to the sliding patio door if they had garage overhead doors and the garage can handle the loading for cars could they still keep the slider in the back so that they don’t have to put in a new door and everything? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t see the need for that. That just encourages people to use the space the way it’s been used, illegally. If you want to put a window in fine put a window in you know what I mean. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Fine I understand yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The apartment is fine you know as long as it meets building code it’s fine. Alright are we clear? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes we are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so I’m going to make a motion MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just before yes Leslie I just want to better understand the sort of sunroom which is now being converted to conditioned space, it had originally just been a like a slate terrace that was enclosed with sliding doors and stuff which you know I don’t know when 89 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 it was done but it’s clearly not original to the structure so you know what is the history here and why can’t they make it conform? The house is literally on the lot line and while at 12.9 side yard setback is not all that egregious, given the actual structure setback I don’t understand why they can’t make it conform. This is an as built structure that in theory doesn’t exist. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I’m sorry is that a question towards me MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It’s somewhat of a question. I don’t know the history of that ANTHONY PORTILLO : or a general comment? So existing is basically a glassed in sunroom a three season room let’s call it and the idea was to use the existing slab to build the new structure which basically is going to be mostly glass Nick and you know a small we’re going to raise you know they had some rotting problems because of how it was built so we’re going to raise we’re going to put in some you know knee walls just so that we can get it get the glass off of the ground because of you know just you don’t really want that sitting on the ground and rotting over time. So that’s really the plan, we weren’t going to provide a new foundation, I was going to go off the slab that was existing. We did some excavation around it, they actually did pour a haunch so that’s how that came about in regards to leaving it the same size. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Would there be any consideration to making it conform or that’s not a possibility it’s just sliding glass doors? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean we yes the conformance wouldn’t be an issue theoretically it would just be that we would have to break up a portion of the slab and re-pour if for the footing etc. so it’s just it’s really not (inaudible) made sense to just use the existing slab and not have to break it up and then re-pour and so that’s where that came from. If we were to make it conforming we would have to break a portion of the slab, pour that haunch again around the perimeter of wherever that wall lands you know the 15 feet so it’s not that it’s obviously not an impossible thing but we figured to request the relief since the slab was existing and we didn’t want to completely remove it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick it’s very appropriate that you asked the question, it’s always good to get those things into the record so that we can get some answers you know as an important part of a public hearing. Personally I don’t really I mean you could make it conforming but I think you’ve answered why you’re trying to use what’s there and it is not a big variance considering all the non-conformities on this property. My big concern is that garage, I think that that’s the real issue here. So anything else from the Board? I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing th to the Special Meeting on October 15. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. 90 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. Thank you Anthony we’ll look forward to seeing you the motion carries unanimously we’ll hear from you soon and the matter will be discussed at the Special Meeting and we’ll bring you up to date on that. I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? 91 Regular Meeting October 1, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. The hearing is now closed. Thank you everyone. 92 Regular Meeting October 1, 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 : October 16, 2020 93