Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/05/2020 Hearing Regular Meeting November 5, 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 November 5, 2020 9:47 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 JOHN BURKE—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant 1 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Phillip Lim #7402 8-17 8100 Hortons Lane, LLC#7433 17- 26 Barbara and Bob Martucci #7431 26- 30 loannis John Zoumas# 7438 30-38 Robert and Wendy Lehnert#7432 38-41 Jane G. Weiland #7434 42 -48 Alison M. Byers#7436 48- 55 Esteves Holding Corp.,Jerry Cibulski #7437 56- 66 Elizabeth McGrath # 7439 67 -71 Cameron Dowe and Meg Stricker#7421 71 - 76 AFJG, LLC, Alexander Jedynski # 7435 77 - 85 Susan Cohen Wachter and Paul E. Wachter#7429 85 -91 2 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 HEARING#7402— PHILLIP LIM — CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome everyone to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of November 5th with public hearings. I have to make this announcement, due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19 the Zoning Board of Appeals will not be meeting in person. In accordance with the Governor's executive order 202.1 the November 5, 2020 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting with public hearings will be 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. Details about how to tune in via video conferencing and how to make comments during the meetings are on the town's website and you can phone in using any phone, smart phone or otherwise. I'm now going to turn this over to Liz Sakarellos our secretary who will review with all attendees how they can participate in the Zoom meetings. Liz would you please do that now. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. If anyone wishes to comment on an application we ask that you send us a quick note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or you can click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and you can let us know which application you are here for and we'll give you further instructions on how to participate. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much Liz. I'm going to begin the meeting with item number three on the agenda, the SEAR reviews. New applications by resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5© including the following: Phillip Lim, 8100 Horton Lane, Barbara and Bob Martucci, loannis John Zoumas, Robert and Wendy Lehnert, Jane Weiland, Alison Byers, Esteves Holding Corporation, Elizabeth McGrath and AFJG, LLC Alexander Jedynski so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. All in favor? Kim do we need to call the roll on this do you think or I can do this, I can have people raise their hands and I will then read into the record what I visually saw or do you want to call the role? I don't really care it takes up a lot of time. BOARD ASSISTANT : What do you folks think? MEMBER DANTES : I'm fine with just raising my hand. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I agree. 3 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 _ MEMBER LEHNERT :Yeah that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so raise your hand if you're in favor of those resolution that resolution. I'm seeing every hand raised, the motion carries unanimously. Now we have a possible resolution to close the following hearing, Anthony Tartaglia and James Howell #7396. Is there anyone in the attendees who is representing that application? I don't think so. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I see Stephen Keily. He's one of the attendees. I don't know if he's here for that matter. BOARD ASSISTANT : No it would be Anthony Portillo. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look we have received the information on the load bearing capacity of the accessory building which is what we held it open for so I think it's time that we close this. I'm going to make the motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second from someone? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim would you call the roll on this please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. 4 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. The next matter is Michael Kreger #7420. This was a hearing that was reopened in order to complete the record by obtaining only a written document from the Building Department providing the attorney for the applicant with time to receive it and review it and make comments if he so chooses. We have not yet received that document. I checked again this morning, it is in process of being written and so I have no alternative but to suggest that this matter be adjourned to the Special Meeting at which time I anticipate definitely having that memorandum and hopefully in time so that it would be provided to the applicant's attorney. If it is not sufficient time for the attorney to respond if he so chooses then I will continue to hold it open until such time as he's satisfied. BOARD ASSISTANT : Leslie we have a raised hand so I was wondering CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to ask what that is. BOARD ASSISTANT : It's Stephen Keily. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the hearing is still open so but it's only open for written testimony.John do you have any advice here. I mean I'm happy to entertain anything regarding A.T.A. BURKE : I don't know maybe he just has a procedural question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's procedural that's not a problem at all. Well Steve knows the drill very well. 5 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Can I promote him in? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah promote him in. Hi Stephen. STEPHEN KEILY : Hi everybody, good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning,;so I guess you heard what I just said. STEPHEN KEILY : Yes so I'm not offering anything of substance, I just have some questions. How did this happen, when did it happen, I was given no notice of it. Was there a deliberation to reopen, like I just want to know what happened. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was a discussion publicly at a meeting at the prior meeting about the fact that in the process of reviewing everything in our transcript the Board believed that it was only fair because there was a lot of testimony about how the Building Department had historically interpreted town code versus building code, state building code and so on.There was a lot of that in the record and we felt that it was important to get the Building Department's confirmation of their perspective on that in writing to complete the record before we finalized a decision.So we reopened it strictly and only for that written commentary with the understanding that a copy would be provided to you Stephen and that if you so choose to respond in writing you would have the opportunity to do that. If you thought it was fine the way it was and had no further comments cause you had made considerable you know testimony in our record about those issues but that's entirely up to you and in fairness we want to make sure you have a copy and a chance to respond if you wanted toJ-Then we close it and then we write the draft and get on with it. STEPHEN KEILY : It's just that as you could,probably imagine my clients are very frustrated. We weren't given any notice that it was going to be even entertained to be reopened. There was no notification to me that it was reopened and you know it's just by me calling to say you know what's going on with the decision you know sixty two days coming or you know or it's passed that's how I found out about it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the bottom line is,that was an open meeting and your applicant or you could have been there to have heard it firsthand and I'm sorry that wasn't the case. However the matter is now with the Building Department and with Bill Duffy and with the Town Attorney's Office and I'm doing everything I can to move this as swiftly as possible. I would suggest Stephen if you have any further questions that we're not in a position to answer them and you need to talk to Bill. A.T.A. BURKE : Stephen if you want to give me a call we can talk about it too. STEPHEN KEILY : Alright, no I just I was just 6 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 _`rw CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand your frustration but this was a piece that was missing from our record. STEPHEN KEILY : I understand that but that could have been done when cause you know the Building Department knew for a long time that I was seeking an interpretation on this so if they wanted to chime in they had more than an ample opportunity to do that and I'm fine with it but I'm just a little disheartened by the process because at least I could have been given the heads up that it was even going to be reopened which I was CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did not know that until we discussed it and we discussed it STEPHEN KEILY : But it has to be put on an agenda, somebody has to bring it up to you to put on an agenda CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was, it was on there for possible deliberation. STEPHEN KEILY : How when it was closed how is it on for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because we were about to consider deliberating and realized we didn't have a full record. STEPHEN KEILY : Alright well I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have to stop this Stephen because this is not this is not STEPHEN KEILY : No I'm fine, I'm moving on I'm moving on and I'll speak to the Town Attorney's Office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine thank you very much. STEPHEN KEILY : But I have one other question, nine to ten you have on the agenda that you're in executive session right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes. STEPHEN KEILY : 9'oclock, is that a standing executive session you guys have every meeting? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pretty much. It doesn't we don't always need to enter into it in which case we simply recess until the hearing portion. STEPHEN KEILY : Alright no I was trying to figure out my timing. Well thank you very much for entertaining me. I understand that you normally don't allow people to speak but thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're very welcome. Let's move on to the public hearings portion. 7 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 HEARING#7402—PHILLIP LIM CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The first hearing before the Board today is Phillip Lim #7402. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's February 7,2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" reconstruction of an existing accessory deck and an "as built" deck addition attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) accessory deck is less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) deck addition is less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 2070 Hyatt Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Southold. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning everyone can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes. MIKE KIMACK : I'm representing the applicant Phillip Lim and the request for two variances. As you had stated, one was for an "as built" pool and deck and I'll deal with that one first. It sits at the edge of a bank and it has resided in that position since 1989 and at that particular time it was issued a Certificate of Occupancy May 30,x'1990. It preceded the passing of the CEHL which was October of 1990 and at that particular time it was in conformance with the side yard setback under Section 100-32 which was 3 feet and obviously since that time there has been a change of the code to 15 feet. The deck had been rebuilt obviously after thirty years and that triggered the requirement to do a variance because there was construction within the new side yard setback. As far as the upper deck is concerned it's 75 square feet which is almost like a platform which sits next to the walkway coming down. It's well constructed and pretty much out of everyone's visibility out of everyone's (inaudible). Do you have any questions of me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you know we've all done site inspections and it would appear that there are some the Trustees have reviewed this, do you want to talk to us about that? MIKE KIMACK :Yeah I can.At your request I'went to the Trustees first under both 275 and Chapter 111 because we obviously (inaudible)within the CEHL and the Trustees issued on September 22, 2020 their permit which essentially found that the Board of Trustees have found the application to be consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and that it meant the standards of Chapter 275 and Chapter 111. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well because as you know there's a disagreement with the LWRP coordinator Mark Terry who disagrees with that Trustees approval. MIKE KIMACK : I talked with Mark on that one and I looked at his LWRP recommendation. He was referring to a bluff and I mentioned to Mark that I wanted him to reconsider that because there's 8 Regular Meeting'November 5, 2020 not a bluff there. It's a bank and if you look at-the-survey it specifically the distance from the toe to the top is only about 10 or 12 feet. Had it been a bluff I would have had another variance request before you but I do not. I only have a side yard setback for that and I've got a side yard setback for the deck the upper deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's part of the problem, we are not the review board for anything in the CEHA, as you know we have no jurisdiction over it and unless it's been approved as structure within the coastal erosion hazard area our hands are pretty tied when it comes to making it consistent with LWRP. It's a little confusing as to how to proceed. MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure I mean his concern was that it might cause erosion primarily and that was a sea bank or a sea bluff which is not the case. So there is what he's looking at is simply not before you in terms of the fact that we're not dealing with a bluff we're dealing with a bank. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well those get to be technical questions about definitions that MIKE KIMACK : Well they would have been answered by the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's pretty unusual along that part of the Sound to have banks rather than bluffs.The whole thing is basically a bluff along the Sound along Hyatt Rd. I mean it's not it's pretty steep but let me ask you something though about the fence. That fence that's up there around that pool is nothing but chicken wire. I mean that you could fall right off that deck down the bank or bluff or whatever you want to call it and it doesn't appear in a photograph. So I don't know who put it up or when it was put up but it's certainly not safe. MIKE KIMACK : Well that would be a Building Department requirement to basically put up a 4 foot fence in conformance with their standards and we would certainly do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if the Board has any question Mike, Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually Mike if we could start with the conversation relative to the access to the house. While there appears to be a front door the subject application seeking some sort of like a platform you're labeling it a deck. You described it as a 75 sq. ft. area a platform, can you explain to me why it's not on grade with the entryway. There's a graded window well right to the left of the door whether it's the front door or the side door, I don't quite know how the house is used but you've got this platform that's raised up. What benefit does it serve and why is it like that? MIKE KIMACK: Nick I wish I could. It was done by the prior owner obviously and it had been there. Mr. Lim did not realize that it had not received the appropriate permit but it is raised. It's really like a 2 x 10 raised simply the height of it about 9 inches above that. It almost looks like it was 9 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 simply used to put plants on it in that area. It's not something that people can sit on it's just an area that's surrounded by a lot of vegetation and you know there's no chairs or anything like that it's not a deck where people actually sit. It's just like a raised deck or platform whatever you want to call it and it's well constructed. If you 'look it's got a design which basically (inaudible) of it showing how it's constructed it's in your portfolio. In terms of its function and why it was done the way it was done the only thing that I ever saw on it was basically some plantings along there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So let me ask a different question relative to it,you just stated that the prior owner is the one that installed it without the benefit of a permit;this owner not recognizing or maybe knowing it did not have a permit.reconstructed the as built structure. MIKE KIMACK : No oh you mean the one down on the bluff? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I'm speaking of specifically to the I guess it's to the west the side entrance to the house. MIKE KIMACK : Nick that was there.That had been there when he purchased the house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right that's what you just offered as far as testimony but the wood material etc. is all new. We're here because it's a reconstruction of a previously as built structure that did not have the benefit of a permit. MIKE KIMACK : Are we talking about the 75 sq. ft. deck on the side of the house? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes. MIKE KIMACK : Okay, I'm not quite sure if I'can give you an answer in terms of when it had been reconstructed. I wasn't aware of that. When I went I was basically brought in to basically get these permits. At the time it was existing I did not prior to that whether or not it was reconstructed within his ownership or prior to his ownership I really don't have the answer to that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay it would appear to be you know new wood. It's not as if this is o something aged or old but with that said it sounds like it serves no purpose other than something aesthetic for the owner to place plants is what you're saying? It does not serve as access to the house or as part of the actual physical deck where the stairwell is? MIKE KIMACK :Well the walkway basically is right adjacent to it between that and the house.The deck is off of that, from the drawing that I,�gave you, you can see the wood step going down to the wood walkway that leads to the stairs MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm looking at it exactly. 10 Regular Meeting November.5,-2020 MIKE KIMACK : and that basically is alongside of it andit's raised up. I can't give you an answer as to why it was originally constructed Nick and if it had been reconstructed by my owner I suspect that he just assumed he just wanted to put in better condition if it had been in bad condition. I can't tell you when it had been originally done but I think I don't know if they redid the wood but I don't think they did the (inaudible) and the concrete footings those were in place along with the beams. I took a look at those and those had been there for a while. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When I looked at them the sono tube sort of you know the material that is this foundation support looks relatively new. That's just my opinion. So answer one last questions and I guess we'll move on, am I correct in your statement that you just said that the owner is using it to place plants on or do they have a purpose a use of that raised deck that I'm missing? MIKE KIMACK : Other than not speaking for my client but primarily because he's in the process of renovating the house,that particular deck whether he would want to position some chairs on it, it would be up to him but I did see a plant on it when I was there. I mean I'm not saying that that's all that it's going to be used for but he basically obviously wants to be able to have that in place. He asked me to get the variance for it for whatever use he would like to do it in conjunction with the house and his recreational use of it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have any questions Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : I still don't understand the difference between a bank and a bluff. I'm looking at the definition online and it says, land presenting with precipitous or a steeply sloped base adjoining a beach or a body of water. The purpose of this chapter with grade of twenty percent or more and 20 feet between the toe of the bluff and top of the bluff. MIKE KIMACK : That's correct. You look at it under 280-116 which the definition was taken from the Trustees. So you really have you have to have both the percentage and the height (inaudible) situation and in this particular case if you look at that survey Eric you'll see that the toe is a 12 and the top is a 26 and even if you wanted to go further behind the pool at 28 you'd still be less than the 20 feet so it's a bank by definition within the code. 11 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the setback from a bank? MIKE KIMACK : Well the setback from the bank the Trustees have jurisdiction of 100 feet. The jurisdiction for the Trustees for bluff and bank, the jurisdiction for the zoning (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But then we have a rear yard setback. MIKE KIMACK:Yeah but that wouldn't start from the bluff that wouldn't start from the bank that would start from the back line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would start from the property line that's correct. MIKE KIMACK : Yes Leslie. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eric you just brought something up that maybe you can clarify or Mike feel free to chime in.You offered a definition of a bank versus a bluff and you shared that it needs to be 20 feet. Now on the inset of your survey you illustrate section AA as being 32 feet. So does that change the definition of a bank? MIKE KIMACK : No, no that's the base line across the bottom.You have to look at the two points, elevation 14, elevation 26. That has to be 20 feet or more Nick. MEMBER DANTES : No what I think we need to know Mike is how many feet are there between elevation 12 and elevation 32. MIKE KIMACK : It doesn't the footage at the bottom doesn't come into the formula into the definition. MEMBER DANTES : Right but it's 20 and 20 so it says bottom of bank at 12 so then MEMBER PLANAMENTO : it's (inaudible) at 14 the survey shows 14. MEMBER DANTES : It shows 12 on mine. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the inset? On the survey it does say 12 but on the inset for Section AA it says 14 so that's an error. MEMBER DANTES : It should be 12 and then we need to know how many feet if there's 20 feet distance between 12 and 32 then it's a bluff. MIKE KIMACK : You don't take the distance,you take where the bank where it begins to make an inclination at the toe. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah it says 20 and 20 so you take the 20 feet 12 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020. MIKE KIMACK : then you take at the top where it basically level's off. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah which is well if you go you take the 20 feet from elevation 12 is 32 so if that's within 20 feet then it's a bluff. MIKE KIMACK : No you're wrong. MEMBER DANTES : That's what it says in the definition. I mean that's the plain (inaudible) language. MIKE KIMACK : Read that to me again the definition. MEMBER DANTES : Bluff sloe face shall be faced with a slope of 20% or greater and a height greater than 20 feet between the top of the bluff and MIKE KIMACK : and the toe. MEMBER DANTES : and the toe. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah it doesn't say anything about the baseline. It says simply it's a height elevation between the toe and the top. It could be 32 foot it could be 48 feet it could be 3 feet, there's no difference. It's simply the inclination between the toe and the top. It's got to be 20 feet and 20%grade and I went through this calculation with the Trustees on another matter. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Both of these sections that are provided are greater than 20%. One is 44% and one is 67%. MIKE KIMACK : You're right but it has to be an (inaudible) situation, it has to be not only percentage of 20%greater and greater than 20 feet in height. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look you know what,this is putting us behind you know MIKE KIMACK : In any respect I'll go back to the if the Building Department felt it was a bluff they would have required a variance. It's not before you on an appeal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My concern is that it is located in the coastal erosion hazard area,that is my concern. It is sitting right at the top of a slope. MIKE KIMACK : But in all due respect Leslie that was Chapter 111, that was a Trustees dealing with that issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but we also have LWR'P we have to go by what LWRP says and LWRP disagrees with Trustees and therein lays our problem and we are not the reviewing Board for anything in the CEHA that has to be done by the Town Board and the Trustees did not send 13 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 this to the Town Board. ] just want to enter into the record that those are the challenges we're looking at because as you know we cannot approve anything that we can't find mitigation for when it comes to being consistent with LWRP. MIKE KIMACK : But in all due respect I would say to you that was the argument we just had or the discussion we just had between bluff and bank, the LWRP took it upon themselves to make it a bluff which it is not and that was the inconsistencies they gave you. Their argument there of the inconsistency they were talking about the steepness of the slope but that's not before you because the Building Department deemed it not to be a bluff but the (inaudible) looked at it and the way they looked at it they thought it was Mark thought it was and I said I did talk to Mark indicating it was not so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well here's the thing,what we're looking at is a deck side yard setback okay. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah at 6.8 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and apparently it was built to conformity previously and then it was rebuilt and then it was enlarged. Is that correct? MIKE KIMACK : No it was built in the same location, it wasn't enlarged. It was rebuild as it was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so the code changed and then it was determined to be non- conforming. Why is this now before us? MIKE KIMACK : Because they had constructed they had rebuilt it within the new code setback of the 15 feet. So the work had been done under then new code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright but if they had a Pre C.O. why was that determined to be an issue? MIKE KIMACK : With the Pre C.O. I'm assuming the Building Department felt that even with the Pre C.O. with the change of the code they felt that we should have come back for a variance because we were doing work within that 7 or 8 feet of the deck that now was within the setback of the side yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just wanted the record to reflect the clarity of what's going on here. MIKE KIIMACK : It's a little complicated but 14 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020- MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie to that point, Mike would you be able to get the original survey and the application for the pool permit that would illustrate that the pool deck was built to code at the time in 1989? MIKE KIMACK : I can give you a copy of the C.O. and I can MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the C.O. does not illustrate the survey of the citing of the deck as you just stated. MIKE KIMACK : I've got a copy of the I'll see if I can I think I've got a yes I think I might have a copy of the old survey Nick that shows the deck being in place that went along with that primarily and I can get that off to you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :That would be helpful and the other thing if you don't mind, we didn't ask for any prior decisions to help support both variance requests but could you find anything within the Hyatt Rd. neighborhood, Hyatt Rd. East, Hyatt Rd. West or Hyatt Rd. for similar variance relief? MIKE KIMACK : You know I think I've looked. This is a very highly unusual and unique situation where you've got something that had been constructed with a permit within a zone that became CEHL prior to becoming CEHL and so it really (inaudible) had a lot of triggered to it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm not necessarily we had the discussion as Leslie pointed out relative to the coastal erosion hazard line so while that's an important part of the dialogue I'm just looking for area relief relative to side yard setbacks. MIKE KIMACK : I'll take a peak and if I find anything else I'll send it off to you. I might have already done it but I didn't really see anything that was specific but I'll take another look just to make sure it may broaden my scope and if I can get the old survey to you. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Just to point out for the record that Suffolk County Soil and Water does refer to the property as a bluff and it also does show that fence on it that we didn't have a picture of it, Soil and Water does show that wired fence. MIKE KIMACK : I saw that too. It's easy to say bluff if you're standing on the top looking down but you've gotta run through the calculation in order to show it's either a bluff or a bank. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what's important regardless of what it's called are the environmental impacts and the detriment that any kind of non-naturally regulated feature intruding into that area is going to cause to the subject property you know over time with erosion and (inaudible) 15 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 MIKE KIMACK : Can I make a quick comment to that and I think it's a fair statement on your part Leslie, that has been in place for thirty years and it has caused relatively no damage to the vegetated slope in front of it which is in very,very good shape.Actually it was pointed out actually in the report by Suffolk County that it was a well vegetated slope.Yes they did find a little erosion on the pathway which is open and there's no vegetation there but the massive one in front of it is all vegetated and remains so and is not being touched at all and there's no finding of erosion as a result of that pool and deck being in its location for thirty years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Mike my question now is do you want me to hold this open subject to receipt of that survey? MIKE KIMACK : I think we would be able to get that to you by the Special Meeting. Would that be appropriate? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Say that again, I'm sorry Mike. MIKE KIMACK : I can get that to you in the next couple of weeks for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll just adjourn it to the Special, I can adjourn it subject to receipt and then you can just get it in when you get it in. MIKE KIMACK : That'll be fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with everybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine. BOARD ASSISTANT : Closed subject to receipt or adjourned to? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to close it subject to receipt unless everybody feels there's going to be a need for more discussion on this. If you feel that we've had enough discussion the issues are all in the record now and we're just waiting for confirmation about getting the original survey showing the pool and the deck in place at the time that the C.O. was issued. We'll just close it subject to receipt. Is that what the Board just nod your heads if that's what you want to do. Okay I'm seeing yes. Let's do this then, I'm going to make the motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of a survey showing the pool that was originally built with its deck in place prior I guess to the coastal erosion hazard line being established. Is there a second on that? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento, Kim call the roll please. 16 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. Thanks Mike. BOARD ASSISTANT : I guess Mike is staying for the next hearing. HEARING#7433—8100 HORTONS LANE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This next application is 8100 Hortons Lane, LLC#7433.This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-13 and the Building Inspector's September 9, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted maximum two and one-half(2%)stories located at 8100 Hortons Lane (adj.to Long Island Sound) in Southold. So the Board knows the history on this property Mike. There was an approval for a prior design and then the applicant chose to construct a completely different house but we're still looking at third story plane where on two and a half are permitted basically. This is deemed to be LWRP consistent. The applicant is moving the house out of AE zone elevating it per FEMA and it's the FEMA elevation that is essentially causing it to appear to be more than two stories. Is that correct? MIKE KIMACK : That is correct. 17 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 i CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I have a couple of questions, is there a shower in the cabana? It sure appears to be. MIKE KIMACK : A shower in the cabana? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes at the ground level there's a let me grab the plan, yea if you go to AE.1 the architects plan and you look at the cabana there is a sink, a toilet and a shower in the cabana. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's what it shows. MIKE KIMACK : Chris Coy are you on the line? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the architect here? MIKE KIMACK : Yes the architect is available. BOARD ASSISTANT : Who is it? MIKE KIMACK : Chris Coy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You want to bring that person in. BOARD ASSISTANT : Sure. CHRIS COY : Good morning members of the Board this is Chris Coy, I am the architect for the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning. CHRIS COY :The question is, is there a shower in the cabana bath, there is. I wasn't aware that is that a non-permitted use? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe so,full bathrooms are not permitted. It has to be an outdoor shower. CHRIS COY : Okay we can change that to an outdoor shower. I'm sorry it is permitted in other jurisdictions I've worked so that was just a mistake. We'll remove it and make it into an outdoor shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. What is the at grade patio made out of? CHRIS COY : Well the at grade patio would be made out of some sort of stuff stone we haven't chosen the exact stone yet but it would be of masonry material. 18 N• --. _ _ Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Okay just wanted to make sure that it wasn't any(inaudibl-e)-than that. Are the walls of what we'll call the storage area/garage are those breakaway flow through with flow through vents? CHRIS COY : Yea they have flood vents they're not breakaway because we're not in a velocity zone but they will have flood vents sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's all I have for now. You said you were proposing landscape screening on both sides of the property lines. I don't see any plantings shown on the westerly side yard. CHRIS COY : We haven't submitted a landscape plan yet. I wasn't aware that it would have been part of this consideration but yes we do want to screen you know that's for the benefit of the neighbors and the owners you know just for mutual privacy so that'll be done with landscaping. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright, let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob anything you want to ask? MEMBER LEHNERT : Not at the moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No not right now, I'm good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I do, I mean when we approved the original approval for the project it was basically based on the house having minimal impacts on the neighborhood. So can you guys walk us through how this is the same as that. I mean they had a whole presentation of why it should be approved, how there was minimal impact on the neighborhood and how the third floor really wouldn't be noticed. Can you guys walk us through how this is the same in this design has the same impacts as the original. CHRIS COY : Yes I'd be happy to, actually we designed this to have less impact than the previous design because we shifted the access of the main wing so that it's perpendicular to the road not parallel as was the case with the other design and we also increased the amount of transparency as a design element so on the ground level we have a much larger walkthrough that's higher and wider and you see straight through to the beach. On the upper level we have transparencies from north to south that are unimpeded by any opaque material, it's all glass and then the main wing of the house as I've mentioned it runs north to south which presents less of a front to the street or to the beach. So we actually believe this has less visual impact than the original design and that was we were very conscious of that when we were designing it to work with the site. We 19 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 also of course designing it to work within the parameters to make this an as of right project as much as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as was the case in both I'm now looking at the (inaudible) as was the case with in both situations it's an improvement of what's there certainly not only visually but it's getting it out of you know a higher velocity zone. You're still incorporating an IA system? CHRIS COY : Yes. MIKE KIMACK : Yes that's going in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike would you mind clarifying something for me? MIKE KIMACK :Yes Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : While I understand that the concept of the technical third floor application is because we're raising the house up to make it FEMA compliant so you got the freeboard issue, the third floor historically as I understood it in the original application was to allow access it was like a glass vestibule which led to a stairway into the two story house. This project has more massing on the first floor which is not considered a floor but for our purposes is the third floor or you count it as the first floor versus the living room floor, versus the bedroom floor which is the third floor but when I look at the plan the elevation, it shows that the top line of the roof is at 41 feet. MIKE KIMACK : We're starting at 7 though Nick.You have to take 411 believe Chris correct me on this one if I'm wrong, but the elevation is not from zero. It's the fact that the existing grade is 7. CHRIS COY : Yes all elevations are shown from sea level, that's what we typically do on all waterfront projects. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I saw someone that was in the chat room who is a neighbor opposing the fact that this is 2 % stories, I mean more than 2%stories. Is that person in the attendees list? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie I sent them a message saying to raise his hand if he would like to comment, so let's see what he does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I see, alright let's see. I'm'here so okay that individual is in the attendees list. I think you should move him over so that the architect and Mike can address any questions that they might have. 20 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 _.- LAWRENCE MANFREDI : Hi good morning folks. This is Lawrence Manfredi. I'm a neighbor-1n the area of 8100 and I guess I just had a question about why the applicant MEMBER LEHNERT : Excuse me can we get your address please. LAWRENCE MANFREDI :Sure 7870 Hortons Lane. I'm just curious to know why the applicant does feel the need to have more than 2 % stories and I'm not totally familiar with you know all the regulations around FEMA and elevation and what that does and I heard there's some ways they are trying to mitigate having beyond 2 % stories but I'm just curious to know why that would be structurally necessary. CHRIS COY : Well I can answer that, good morning sir this is Chris Coy the architect. Eight,percent of our work is waterfront so we're'always dealing with this FEMA issue so FEMA is the first thing we look at to comply with and that gives us a very unequivocal height above sea level that we have to place the first habitable floor level on so once you do that then if you're going to accomplish the program of a normal house and this is a rather small house at 3,000 sq. ft. you know you gotta have two living levels unless you have such a large lot that you can spread out horizontally. So we're sort of put into this sandwich where we have no choice but to have the first habitable level at what FEMA tells us to,then we have a normal ceiling height,then we have a floor package then we have another normal ceiling height. So while it keeps on being defined as a third story it's really the second living level, the first ground level there's nothing there it's storage and a pass through and it's largely air, cars parked in the garage stuff like that which is a permitted use. So you know we always find ourselves in this position so there's no way we could have done 2 % stories because what the half story be, it would be you would be bent double trying to walk around in it so it wouldn't even be to code. LAWRENCE MANFREDI : Okay that makes sense cause I just wasn't sure how much of a story you know the ground level for the pass through for FEMA took up so that makes more sense. MEMBER DANTES : I can answer that for you too, basically the state building code anything over either 6 feet or 8 feet has to be considered a story regardless if it's habitable or regardless if it's storage regardless if it's used. That's part of why he's doing it but what I'd like from you guys, Mike if you can draw I don't see a drawing that shows if the houses within the code conforming what is it 35 foot building height. MIKE KIMACK : Can you show A4 again? CHRIS COY : Well if you subtract 7 from 41 you know you'll get 34 so that's height above grade. As I mentioned before we do all elevation heights as above sea level. So the grade there is 7 so you got to subtract 7 from the 41 you get 34. 21 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 v CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very confusing to the average individual because we're used to feet from what appears to be the visual grade that you're standing on as opposed to sea level grade so it gets confusing particularly from people who are not (inaudible) with the FEMA requirements and you know one of the things the town has to come to grips with is the fact that when waterfront properties are now being required to become FEMA compliant they will change the character of the neighborhoods because they have to be elevated so high above the first habitable story and this is something the Town Board needs to look at carefully and to deal with because you can't build unless you're FEMA compliant for insurance purposed and other reasons you know within a high velocity zone or even an AE zone these days without looking at what FEMA requires for safety. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie to this point can you walk me through the map again? If grade is at 7 feet so I'm assuming like the zone is AE 7 or something and maybe I shouldn't introduce that in, if the grade is 7 feet MIKE KIMACK : The zone is AE 12 Nick. The natural grade is 7 which is the requirement from natural grade. MEMBER LEHNERT : Instead of making the grade zero they're just using 7 for sea level and working from there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I guess the short end without getting deep into an education for me and I thought I understood this at some point but it's very easy as Leslie shared to be confused, it's code conforming ridge height the top roof line which is indicated at 41 feet is in fact under the 35 feet allowable. MIKE KIMACK : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. MEMBER DANTES : It would help our file just to have a drawing that showed natural grade height above natural grade.That's all I'm asking for. CHRIS COY : I think we have such a drawing where we indicate grade and then we indicate the 34 feet from grade to the top of the roof. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to look at the elevations that's usually where it is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't see it. BOARD ASSISTANT : I'm sharing the screen here right now, does any of this show it? 22 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 MIKE KIMACK : No that's-the-regular one. MEMBER DANTES : That's the one I saw. CHRIS COY : Correct that's all sea level. So you see the ground level 7 feet,you see the top of the roof 41, you subtract the 7 from the 41 and you get 34 so we're sorry for the confusion but in order to keep things straight you know for construction we always use sea level purposes because sea level doesn't move. MEMBER LEHNERT : And he's showing it correctly for FEMA also. MEMBER DANTES : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah 7, 14, 15, 17, 6 you know just showing you where the floors are stacked at what height and so MEMBER LEHNERT : It's confusing if you don't understand FEMA but if you understand FEMA it's alright. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Leslie the only other thing I wanted to add was, in our discussion Mike you previously requested a de minimus won't call it an application but this is clearly a different application from what was previously approved so one of the things that the Board at least in our discussion when reviewing your de minimus request was just relative to the placement where the architect sort of described most of the living area is running north, south with this height so the one thing that we noticed as a Board was just the visual massing that when you're driving down or in this case north on Hortons Lane it sort of dead ends at what is that more massive structure before the road turns and runs west. In the original plan and I don't have it before me it just seemed like a less massive structure to have immediately in front of you, do you want to again comment on those changes and how it fits into the character of the neighborhood? MIKE KIMACK : Chris could I take that one? CHRIS COY : Yes go ahead Mike. MIKE KIMACK : As you come down the street I've put a picture in there too I took a photo if you look at it of what it looks like coming down the street. Actually it's full of vegetation so obviously it may be a little different but this is before the other landscaping. The new proposal is actually two foot less in width and the same height as the old proposal. Now granted the garage moves it forward a little bit but if you look at the drawing the garage comes forward about twenty feet into that little V section which is towards Hortons Rd. but from a visual point of view from what you're seeing from Hortons its actually somewhat less mass than the original from that 23 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 perspective and you're not going to be able to see with the vegetation full you-wouldn't be able to see the see through the base anyway because it would be completely blocked off and the rest of the building steps back half of the building steps back to a location that had been presently designed as so the only.thing was that little nub sticking out where the garage is that actually points towards Hortons but the overall mass looking from Hortons is somewhat less than the original design and certainly no higher than because both met the 35 foot or less requirement. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You said two things that sort of contradict but just being an area resident maybe because I was naive, when I looked at the original plan it struck me as being a very airy open view to the beach through the dune scape under the house, today it's a different plan, you still have that view shed and you're absolutely right that the growth at Hortons Lane is kind of thick and substantial so you really don't see anything but does the applicant propose to have it open that passersby would have a view or is it going to be landscaped or fenced that you would not have a view into that dunal landscape that was discussed? MIKE KIMACK : It's going to be further landscaped without a view. It's going to be closed in. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the only other thing that I wanted to ask about is, the proposed driveway is right at that bend, I don't know how that sits as far as you know currently the owners have a driveway there but Sunset Path is a private road and it sort of cuts the driveway off half. Is there an agreement in place or is there any consideration relative to driving over Sunset Path? MIKE KIMACK : There wouldn't be a need to go over Sunset Path because I think the driveway would curve out quite a bit and they'd back into Hortons and back into North Sea Drive. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm just looking at the survey the way it's proposed, the way it's proposed pervious gravel driveway, it's I'd say at least 50 feet if not greater percent on-Sunset Path. It shows an area of almost 12 feet of a driveway that is I don't see a width on the driveway, 23 feet. MIKE KIMACK : No, no it's not 23 foot wide. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It says it right there. Oh no that's the parking area, sorry. CHRIS COY : Yeah we usually do driveways at about 12 feet. MIKE KIMACK : It could be reconfigured Nick without actually involving or interceding with Sunset. There's enough room to swing it back toward North Sea easy enough. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I don't know maybe the people on Sunset Path have no issue. I don't mean to make an issue where it doesn't exist but I just wanted to bring it to your attention. 24 -- --Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 - MIKE KIMACK : I appreciate thaf,thank you Nick. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright look in the interest of some time here for other applications does the Board have any other questions and is there anyone else in attendance who would like to address the application? If you're in attendance and you want to say something please raise your hand or enter it into the chat room and anything else from the Board? LAWRENCE MANFREDI : I just want to say one more thing if I could about the driveway on Sunset Path. Whatever is done there, Sunset Path they do kind of intersect a bit and so visibility coming out of Sunset Path and going into it it's kind of on a bend so just to be aware of considerations around you know cars coming and going I just think I don't know the specifics of it but I'm right near there so it's just something to keep in mind. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there is a code about you know cone of vision when it comes to intersections that you know you need to make sure they can enter and exit driveway safely or turn corners safely so I'm going to assume they are going to take that into consideration and any potential landscaping that they incorporate into their project. MIKE KIMACK : We're going to keep the visibility open Leslie at that point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for everybody's safety including the subject property. MIKE KIMACK : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you Lawrence and hearing no other further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? 25 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7431— BARBARA and BOB MARTUCCI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Barbara and Bob Martucci #7431. Request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 4, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" addition and construct new additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 360 Goose Creek Lane (Private Rd. #31) in Southold. BOARD ASSISTANT : Anthony Portillo is here. I've promoted him to panelist. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright, good morning. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board;thanks for having me.This might be a little bit simpler than the last two conversations that you were having. My name is Anthony Portillo, AMP Architecture 1705 Franklinville Rd. in Laurel, New York. So to start off the discussion,the owners purchased the home from a developer at the time and the deck was built without a permit. The existing deck is the shape of like a bay, basically the corners are cut off.The deck is 40.2 feet from ' the rear yard. Something to mention about the lot is you'll notice on the site plan the lot is very long and it's not that deep it's only 139.24 feet deep and a lot of instances lots are usually you know 200, 250 deep and 100 wide somewhat more common. I think there's some restrictiveness due to that with the 50 yard foot setback which doesn't really allow them to put a decent deck on the back of the home. The home itself and the front yard is 43 feet so basically it's 3 feet behind the front yard setback. The existing deck as I mentioned is somewhat cut at the corners it's the shape of a bay like a bay window and it's 22 feet off of the existing house. Our proposal and one other thing to mention just so the Board knows if you were to look like at a Google map or the tax map there is a 30 foot right of way in the rear of the home that really is never used I think it's a utility right of way possibly a you know to get vehicles back there to deal with any utility issues. The proposal is to basically square the deck off, we're not requesting to exceed the existing deck line basically squaring the deck we would maintain still 40.2 feet off of the rear 26 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 setback line I'm sorry the rear property line. The owners are also requesting and I'm proposing to the Board and the town to build a screen porch will be the entire depth of the deck and it will be 17 feet wide and really you know this is to block out the sun and insects since they really don't have many trees in the back yard so they can sort of enjoy the deck and the high noon of summer. As indicated we're just trying to legalize what was done you know in the past incorrectly or not filed for. The owners were surprised to hear from me that they had a rear yard setback and that we had to go to the Zoning Board. They just figured that we'd be filing to the Building Department. That's about it, if you guys have any questions I'm here to answer. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well just to let you know of course you already know I'm sure, we've all been to the property and inspected the site and the surrounding neighborhood. The rear yard is very heavily screened with natural vegetation. The house itself is virtually at a dead end facing undeveloped lot on the opposite side of the street and it's a pretty big backyard still. I don't think that it will even be seen from any of the other properties. Let me start with Nick, do you have any questions or comments? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually just one and it might be an oversight but Anthony maybe you can walk me through this, the existing as built deck when you're looking at the survey that you provided Kim that was up on the screen just a moment ago. In the original survey for the Board of Health septic approval shows the septic is under the septic tank is under the existing deck. So how do you deal with cleanout or septic issues? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well if that is the scenario I need,to pull up my survey. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The original survey shows and it doesn't mark the distance that the septic box is off the back of the house but there's like that bay window and where Kim has the rear yard setback highlighted at 40.2 ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh I see yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :just come more into the midpoint of that part of the deck the proposed deck extension is over the septic and I'm not talking about over the septic leaching field but over the septic box. ANTHONY PORTILLO :So the clean out will still be accessible,the deck is raised. It's approximately one second let me look at the elevations, the deck is approximately 4.2 feet off of grade well 4 foot 3 inches so 4.2 feet off of grade so there would be access to the deck. I think more to focus on it cause this again has been existing and they've been dealing you know they've been using that cleanout throughout the life of the home. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Now you're putting a porch over it, it just seems awfully complicated. 27 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 ANTHONY PORTILLO-: Well underneath the screened in porch is still open, it's on top of a deck' structure so we're not making any solid walls they would just be the lattice going around where the posts are and then there would still be access underneath the deck for the cleanout. MEMBER DANTES : You can't put a deck over a septic system, there's no way they'll let you do that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So the requirements on a septic system is 10 feet from the house and then if it's a slab in this case it's a basement but if it was a slab it would be 5 feet so I don't think that there's any I mean I can research that but I don't think there's any laws against building a deck over the septic system. As long as there's access to the cleanout which there is now and there will be maintained after this is you know basically built I guess you know added on to since it's really not being built it's just being added on to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you happen to know whether there are any other rear yard setbacks that are non-conforming along Goose Creek? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Actually the two neighboring properties which are being called corner lots due to the right of ways have been approved for variances have received relief for variances. One was for a deck which was in what they called the side yard because of the corner lots but it actually received relief on the front yard setback and on the side yard setback for a carport and a deck and that was in 2004 April. BOARD ASSISTANT : Do you have the appeal number,the file number? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure and I could also send this in I can submit this. It was reference#5491, that would be the neighbor to like the southwest and then the neighbor to the east or to the southeast I guess you can say in this scenario also received sort of the same thing and this was for a side yard setback and a front yard setback and this was actually for an addition of the house of the dwelling unit and that was granted as well in 2002. BOARD ASSISTANT : What's the number? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That one is 5223. 1 can send these to Kim if she'd like. BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes. MEMBER DANTES :Anthony what's actually over the septic system, is it the screened porch area or just the deck area? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So the screened porch to be clear is built on the deck. So the deck there will be no opaque walls or anything there won't be foundation walls to hold up the screen porch. The screen porch is basically going to be posts, there's four posts going down the sides of it and 28 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 then I'm running a header above it and putting-'a roof on top. Essentially it's almost like a covered it's really like a covered area you know because the screens are just being added for insects so it would be built very similar to like a portico or something along those lines. MEMBER DANTES : You're using like a sono tube or something like that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's going to be sitting on a sono tube. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay look let's move this along. This is a Building Department issue you know, is there anything else from the Board? Is there anyone in attendance who wants to address the application? Would you please raise your hand or enter into the chat room. I don't see anything from anybody. Alright everybody okay now?Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. We have at least Anthony if you'd be kind enough to just send in those priors over to Kim, we have the numbers entered into the record so I don't need to hold it subject to receipt. So close reserve decision so moved is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento, Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you'vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. 29 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 _ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. Hopefully we have a decision in two weeks and before you go away Anthony you know earlier this morning we closed the Howell/Tartaglia application. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Great thank you so much. Guys enjoy the beautiful weekend coming. HEARING#7438—IOANNIS JOHN ZOUMAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for loannis John Zoumas #7438. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 14, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 75 Clearview Ave. in Southold. BOARD ASSISTANT : Would you want Liz to repeat the instructions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah why don't,we do that, this would be a good time to do that. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS :Just a reminder, if you are here to comment go ahead and click the raise hand button or send us a quick note via the Q&A and for people using their phones, in order to let us know that you would like to speak please press *9 to raise your hand and we will allow you to speak and then you can let us know which application you are here for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. So would the applicant please unmute so we can hear you and if you're on video you can also do that. BOARD ASSISTANT : I just also chatted to ask him if he wanted to speak. I don't see Mike Kimack back in the attendees list. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me enter into the record what the actual application is for. This is to construct a new single family dwelling, four bedroom two story, two car garage with a front yard setback at 29.8 feet where the code requires 40 feet and this is a corner lot. OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : Liz is calling Mike Kimack right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Donna. Well we have a proposed conforming setback of 50 feet from Clearview and a non-conforming 29.8 foot setback from Gardiners (inaudible). Does the applicant wish to address this at all or are you waiting for Kimack to BOARD ASSISTANT : We've been trying to contact him but he has his and we promoted him and he's muted and he has his camera off and we tried to chat with him. Here he is. 30 Regular Meeting November-5,-2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.That's the applicant not Mike: Eet me just mention that this property was the at the time owned by Blazowski was the subject of a prior ZBA decision recognizing the lot as a single and separate lot. That was done so in part on the basis basically of Building Department records that showed a lot that they determined was single and separate with a proposed survey showing a conforming building envelope for a proposed dwelling that had been the recipient of a building permit that was never acted upon. We now have a proposed dwelling on the property which was clearly purchased by Zoumas that shows one setback, front yard setback non-conforming. Now either Mike needs to answer this or Mr. Zoumas you need to let us know why you're proposing a non-conforming front yard setback when part of the lot recognition had been viewed as a survey that showed a conforming building envelope? Can you address that for us sir? MR. ZOUMAS : Hold on this is Mike trying to call me. He was supposed to Mike you're supposed to be on the meeting they're calling you. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah what happened is I was on and it kicked me off and I'm trying to get back on again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what Mike, to be perfectly honest we can hear you very well right now if Mr. Zoumas holds his cell phone. MIKE KIMACK :Well look, I appreciate that.This is a request for a front yard,we have a two yards setback two front yards basically and it's a modest house. It's a rectangular piece of property, it's very much in keeping with the houses in the area and I do want to I did make complete lists in fact I direct your attention to it I did prior finding deliberations determinations in the area and there were a number of them where the Board has previously allowed front yard setbacks at less than the required 40 foot. The one that's closest to this lot it's very interesting and you can look at the map that I did, it's number 6 which is file #6231, it happens to be a corner lot actually on the other side of the street basically that particular section and it had two fronts on that one and that particular one they knocked the house down and they basically did demolition on the old house and allowed a setback of 57 and 31 feet. We're asking for 29 feet I believe and it's within the setbacks of pretty much what has been granted there simply because there's small lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When I looked at the comps that you submitted they were for additions and alterations to existing dwellings not new MIKE KIMACK : Number six was an improvement it was a new dwelling (inaudible) a demolition of the existing building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes and was that a front yard setback relief on that? 31 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 MIKE KIMACK :Yes that was setback-relief of 31 feet on that particular one and if you look at the location it's kind of like right down the street, it's almost like the near opposite of this lot being on a corner on the other corner with two fronts. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the number on that one? MIKE KIMACK : 6231 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that also a corner lot? MIKE KIMACK : Yeah also a corner lot yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll take another look at it. MIKE KIMACK : Number three basically 2306 was a new dwelling but they didn't give a setback they just basically said less than the code required front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah that's what I noticed that's what I have on my notes here. I mean it did say relief but it didn't say how much relief,that's 2306. MIKE KIMACK : That was 2306 but 6231 does. MEMBER DANTES : What year was 2306? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 1977 when they put nothing in decisions. MIKE KIMACK : It makes it difficult I prefer that they have something in there. I did a map that showed all of the ones and where they were in relation to the subject property basically with that one. I numbered them in correspondence with the list that I provided for you. There all fairly close you know I mean number two is like right down the street from there but it basically that was an approval to a garage in a front yard no less than 20 feet to Gardiners Lane. So obviously there's been a lot of construction and a lot of approval with less than the setbacks-simply because the configurations and the size of the lots. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 110 foot wide this lot. Well let's just ask this question, the Zoning Board always asks this question, when someone is building a brand new house why can't it be conforming? MIKE KIMACK : In terms of the size of the house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just why can't it be conforming. I mean this is a four bedroom, two story, two car garage home that's being proposed and the question that the Board always asks everybody is, when you're building something new why can't you make it conforming to the code? 32 Regular Meeting November 5,2020_ MIKE KIMACK :You basically would end up with a very narrovv`house in essence basically because you got a 15 foot essentially we chose it basically the rear yard because when you got two fronts you can choose your rear yard so one side basically is 15 and the other side is 40 take away you know 55 basically you don't really have that much left. The house was turned that way in order to have a back yard so that if they did want to do a swimming pool at a future date that would not require another variance. I mean there was a choice as to which became the direction of which the driveway was going in, the owner chose to do Clearview simply because of the rectangular shape of the lot and aim it towards Clearview which basically then created a back yard going back towards Pine Neck basically CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's 104 foot setback in that back yard.There is no reason why that house could not be turned'facing Gardiners and you know a pool can still be put in. MIKE KIMACK : But then you've got no back yard. If it turns to face Gardiners primarily then it doesn't CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then it's a side yard an enormous side yard. MIKE KIMACK : I mean in essence you're coming back all of it your deck you've got a very, very short distance to the property line there. By the Way it is now you got a really decent back yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike if I could just interrupt, Leslie I want to just ask a point of clarification cause we're going to have a similar application later in the day, because this is on a corner Mike just defined that where the front of the house is with the garage the front yard and this application is on Clearview which creates a rear yard of 104 feet avoiding the need for potential variance for future swimming pool. MEMBER DANTES :You will need the variance anyway cause the Building Department is going to call it a side yard for the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean the problem is yes you know they don't care where the front of your house is. They're going to define frontage as front yard road frontage and in this case no matter which way it's facing they're not going to call a rear yard they're going to call it a front yard a side yard. MEMBER DANTES : You're right Nick if you turn it you're still probably going to have 80 feet to put a pool in. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well no what I was thinking is if it is facing Gardiners Lane the house is now in a conforming location with a 40 foot setback cause you'd put it on the corner depending on where you want to place it you can slide it but then you still have sufficient space cause a pool can be as close as 7 feet can't it in the rear yard, but that would be the side yard. 33 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 MIKE KIMACK : You can be closer to rear and side as long as it meets the 40 yard setback from the front which is Gardiners and it can because the pool can be long to the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right that's what I'm saying. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First of all you don't even have a pool in here now. You're speculating about the MIKE KIMACK : It was a consideration I just wanted to point out the fact that that was an option and basically that becomes the rear yard and the reason for the rear yard is to have something like a pool back there or recreational facilities etc. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's a future determination for the Building Department and here we are looking at a variance based upon a hypothetical of maybe putting in a future swimming pool. MIKE KIMACK : But looking at it in terms of what you basically allowed to occur in the area in terms of the setbacks and basically there are a number of decisions made where even in number five there was a proposed second floor addition to an existing one story dwelling which allowed 28.5 foot setback from (inaudible) and 33 feet adjacent to Main Bayview. So we're clearly within what had been permitted and allowable in past actions in terms of these setbacks for a front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I understand your argument Mike and in some ways I see it's relevant but as you well know the Board does not view additions and alterations to an existing dwelling the same way we view a brand new dwelling. MIKE KIMACK : And that's why I put (inaudible) primarily because that was essentially a knock down and a new dwelling and that allowed 31 feet from the (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll take a close look at that. What was the date on that? MIKE KIMACK : That was the closest one there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was the date on that? MIKE KIMACK : Hold on a minute let me see, 6231 that was fairly recent. The date on this one was 2008 December 26, 2008. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll take a look at that. Go ahead Eric. 34 { Regular Meeting November 5, 2020- MEMBER 020MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at the it looks like the survey by this LKNA it says zoning information and then it says front yard setback minimum 50 feet but that's not the that's where the house is placed on this Clearview Ave. that's not a code requirement. MIKE KIMACK :The code requirement is 40. MEMBER DANTES : I don't understand why it says zoning information. MIKE KIMACK :That was the architect I think interpreting it basically I got that he set it back that far in order to make sure he had enough distance. Of course he was he forgot that he had two roads,two fronts. MEMBER DANTES : We should just cross that out then. BOARD ASSISTANT : Well the front yard is 40 but the rear yard is 50. MEMBER DANTES : It says that too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm looking at this survey that was stamped with our decision reviewed by ZBA decision 7365 dated 6/25/2020 so that was recently that was the Blazowski decision and here we have 50 foot setback on Clearview Ave. and a 40 foot setback on Gardiners Lane. I think that it's just that they want to build a bigger house. They have plenty of room you know for a rear yard for future pool with that it's just that they want to build a wider house. MIKE KIMACK : Well the house was basically designed and it was all ready to go to be fair. Unbeknownst to the owner he did not realize that there was another front yard situation so it had been all placed and staked out and prepared to go until they were held back because they had to come to you in order to ask for the variance but it's not a house that's out of balance with the neighborhood or the most part. It just happens to be turned that way in order to take advantage of the land the rectangular property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I understand but you also understand that the Board of Appeals by law is obligated to only grant variances when there are no alternatives, reasonable ones. MIKE KIMACK : I understand yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the law so, alright well anything else from the Board? MR. ZOUMAS : Can I say something, I think the Building Department told me if I would have flipped the house I didn't have enough backyard or something. Is that true? I suggested it to them when they told me I had to go for variance I said what about if I flip the house and they said you're not going to have enough backyard something like that. 35 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know why, becausefthen they were looking at your survey in the following way, if you flip the house so that what you have now was facing Gardiners Lane instead of Clearview what they're saying then is the space behind that with it facing Gardiners is very small. MR. ZOUMAS : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You would have a very big side yard. MIKE KIMACK : They would treat that as a rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah so the point is you'd have to have a side yard variance to put in a swimming pool. Well what's the difference you can have a conforming house and need a variance for a pool as opposed to a non-conforming house which has a much bigger impact than a swimming pool. MIKE KIMACK : But if he had flipped so Gardiners became the main front primarily and as the Building Department is saying he would not meet the rear yard setback so he would need a variance for that even if he flipped it to meet the front yard variance. MEMBER LEHNERT :Yeah but Mike that's using the existing house plan that you have. MIKE KIMACK : That's true. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean there's no reason why that house cannot be MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) if you flip the house and you're back 40 feet and you have a house that's twenty or thirty feet wide you still don't meet the 40 foot setback from the rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you take that 10 feet off that's causing the 29.8 setback and add it to what would be behind the house so then you're going to have a 90 foot rear yard and you have all conforming front yards,two of them. Leave it facing Clearview just add that extra footage that is in the non-conforming front yard on Gardiners add it to the back of the house if you have to have a house that big. MEMBER LEHNERT :There's no reason this house MIKE KIMACK : (inaudible) by the owner. MEMBER LEHNERT :There's no reason this house can't be redesigned to comply. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Leslie, the question I had that I started to ask earlier, if you were to flip the existing house plan the way that it sits right now facing Gardiners you would have in theory a less than code conforming rear yard setback. However what Mike said and what I'm 36 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 confused about is that when you're on a corner he said you have a choice of where your back yard is. Now there's a similar application later today it's the same sort of thing, how does one define what is the back yard because if the house was flipped to meet Gardiners Lane and the garage instead of coming on Gardiners Lane came on Clearview Ave. can't they say that the side yard 104 feet is really their rear yard? MIKE KIMACK : I think once you establish which one is the front primarily and you're putting the house there I think automatically the Building Department looks at the opposite side of it as being the rear Nick and you don't have that choice. MEMBER DANTES : No look at the other surveys Nick of the proposed houses that are code conforming MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right. MEMBER DANTES : If you take out a ruler and go from the corner, that little corner off the back of the house is the rear yard. Like opposite Clearview is a side yard, opposite Gardiners is a side yard and then you got a corner at the back of the house there MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right. MEMBER DANTES :that corner is the rear yard. If that makes sense to you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But didn't Mike say and this is what I've always been under the understanding that the applicant when you're building a house gets to choose their no you're shaking your head. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Department determines what it is and they have not been consistent MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and that's the problem then. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and it's not real clear in the code either. We've always felt that we call it the architectural rear yard because it is behind the front of the house. Having no real great clarity you know from how it's being handled so that's what we have typically done and MEMBER DANTES : But they have two surveys with approved permits so that the thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes they do.So anyway I mean there are some choices here and I think we've kind of covered what all the options are. We do have some priors we can look at in the area but again the goal here is to create conformity to the code wherever possible and that's what we have to consider and I think everybody has made their case. I want to see if there's anybody else who's in attendance who wants to address this application. I don't see anybody 37 Regular Meeting November 5,.2020 numbered that way. If there is anybody there please raise-your hand. Is there anything any Board member wants to say anything more on this? I think I'm Mike are you still there? MIKE KIMACK : I'm still here Leslie, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora, Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes-aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman,votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING 3 7432—ROBERT and WENDY LEHNERT MEMBER LEHNERT : Leslie this is me so I'm going to recuse myself. Ray is here for me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just so it's clear]n the record Rob let me just do this. This application is for Board Member Robert and Wendy Lehnert #7432. So Rob is represented by his architect and I'm going to ask him to recuse himself. We will call you back. MEMBER LEHNERT : I recuse myself and I'm turning off the video right now. 38 - Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll call you back when the hearing is over. -- MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Ray how are you? RAY NEMCHUCK : I'm well how are you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is application #7432 a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280124 and the Building Inspector's July 10, 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 side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) located less the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 240 Wicks Rd. in New Suffolk.So the variance relief requested here is for additions and alterations with a side yard setback of 7.1 feet where the code requires 10 feet minimum and a combined side yard setback of 13.4 feet where the code requires 15 feet. Take it from there Ray if you would please. RAY NEMCHUCK : I think it's pretty straightforward from where we stand. He's adding a proposed one story addition like you said the side yard is going to be reduced on the western portion of the lot from the required 10 feet to 7.1 if granted and the total side yards will be reduced from 25 to 13.4 as total side yard.There's no other conformity requirements that aren't being met. He has lot coverage, he has met all other setbacks and by adding one bedroom to his existing two story framed house it's a single story addition and there's well there's not much more to say about it. I guess other than if there's any questions I'm happy to answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why do I have the Notice of Disapproval saying 7.1 when the survey shows RAY NEMCHUCK : The survey shows 7.1 but also it has 7.25, it's just (inaudible) a little bit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at is this Nat Corwin's survey I'm looking at here? RAY NEMCHUCK : Oh no, no you're looking at my site plan (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So are you going by your site plan or by the survey? RAY NEMCHUCK : I'm going by my site plan at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So tell us why this is the only option for this addition at this location. Just so we have in the record why you know certainly it's not a major addition but the point is why is this the most feasible place for this addition as opposed to something that might be conforming in the side yard? 39 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 . - RAY NEMCHUCK : Yea I mean it's inconsistent with the neighborhood and with the houses surrounding, also I do believe that it's minimal at best to encroach another 3 feet or less than 3 feet actually into the side yard but it just it definitely makes for a better design and layout for the house rather than creating more of a (inaudible) house look to it than a longer floor plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so is it a layout consideration of the way the rooms are relating to each other? RAY NEMCHUCK : Exactly it definitely lays'out better, it gives more light to the space you know this is going to be a bedroom addition obviously and you know it lays out better for the lot too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do want to point something out here and Board Members tell me if you found this to be the case also. In the application it states that it's 29% relief for a single side yard setback but then they have down 53% relief for the combined side yard setback. I believe that's 10.6% not 53%. 1 think that's in the application incorrectly. A 53% would be a pretty big deal, 10.6% is not quite so significant. RAY NEMCHUCK : Sorry about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see if the Board has anything. You know we've been out to the property and so on and looked around. Most of the lots there are quite narrow so you know it's not unusual to have non-conforming side yards. Let's see whose got what, Eric questions? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, yeah the!difference 13.4 at 15 feet. Do we have any priors in here? Do you know of any other non-conforming side yards along Wicks or so we have it in our record? RAY NEMCHUCK : I think the neighbor might be non-conforming as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can check that. RAY NEMCHUCK : to the west. 40 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ray do you think you can just check it out and see if you can fihd-any other non-conforming side yards on Wicks or around there and get those in to us? RAY NEMCHUCK : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's likely that there is. RAY NEMCHUCK : Yeah the neighbor I'm certain to the west is I just need to get it into to you that's all and make it part of the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good thank you. Is there anyone in the attendees list who wants to address this application please raise your hand if you do or tell us so in the chat room. Okay hearing no questions or comments from anybody else I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing I don't think we have to do it subject to receipt I'm sure you'll just get that in to us. RAY NEMCHUCK : Yes definitely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date, is there a second from someone? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento, Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. We should have a decision if you get that in pretty quickly we should have a decision in two weeks. 41 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 "-HEARING#7434—JANE G. WEILAND CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is for Jane G. Weiland #7434.This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXII Section 280-105A and 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's August 10, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and construct a six (6) foot high fence at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 3) fence is more than the code permitted maximum four (4) feet in height when located in the front yard located at 6485 Nassau Point Rd. (adj.to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. BOARD ASSISTANT : I also promoted a Jane and an Ed Weiland. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at single family dwelling additions and alterations with a 36 foot setback from the top of the bluff where the code requires 100 foot minimum and a side yard setback at 10.7 feet where the code requires 15 foot minimum and a 6 foot high fence in a front yard where the code permits a maximum of 4 feet in height. ROB HERRMANN : Good morning, how is everybody? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good oh we're just great. ROB HERRMANN : I know first time I've seen you in this form. We have a lot to cover but I'm going to try to do it as quickly and concisely as I can. Basically it's an application for three variances related to proposed improvements to a propertythat's been improved with the current dwelling since prior to 1957. Two of the variances that you just noted relate to the proposed additions and alterations to the dwelling itself and one to the proposed fence. So I'm just going to try to focus on the two related to the dwelling first. One we're requesting a bluff setback relief as the existing dwelling is located 33 feet-from top of bluff so it's not possible to expand the dwelling here in any way without some kind of variance relief. As the Board knows like this property most of the properties not only in'the immediate neighborhood but generally along the east side of Nassau Point Rd. are improved with dwellings that are located substantially less than 100 feet from the bluff because they were developed long before institution both the Chapter 275 required 100 foot bluff setback in 2004 and the required 100 foot setback from bay bluffs . that was first adopted into your Chapter 280 zoning code only five years ago.So while justification for our request is still certainly upon the' fact that we're seeking to renovate and expand a dwelling that is located in a pre-existing' non-conforming location, the applicants and their architect have really taken great care to design the project in a way that respects the bluff setback. We do not encroach further upowthe existing setback and remains consistent with the character of both the neighborhood and the subject property here.Specifically and I see you have the site plan on the screen thank you; at its nearest point the dwelling is located 33 feet from the 42 - Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 top of bluff. The neare"sfTbotprint expansion is a 60 sq. ft. first floor addition which is setback 44T feet from the top of the bluff. That's actually located underneath an existing porch roof so that's not actually an expansion outward beyond the existing footprint it's just a small conversion of a small porch space into habitable space.The primary addition as you can see there is on the south side of the house and we've established a minimum 50 foot setback for that addition in fact most of the addition is actually situated landward of the seaward limit of the existing dwelling and there's a proposed raised patio that's setback 36 feet and a proposed opened deck that's at the south end of the dwelling additions that's setback 45 feet. The second variance request is for 4.3 feet of relief from the northerly side property line as the design includes an upper story dormer addition that you can see there on the plan and you have the 10.7 foot setback highlighted there. So you can see that currently the existing house is actually only 9 % feet the setback just to the right of that on your plan there, so again we're stuck with where the house is but again we've been careful to respect that existing setback here by actually in setting the dormer addition a little bit farther from the property line from where the existing side of the house is so we're asking for 10.7 feet where 15 is required and 9 % is existing. So we're not getting any closer to the northerly neighbor by keeping the addition a bit farther away and also the side of the property between the house and the north property line is actually very well screened by tall substantial vegetation. Now I don't know if you can allow me to share my screen but if not in the photo array that we submitted with the application you can see figures 3 and 4 on the second _ page of the application photos give you a good image of that side property line. Kim can I share my screen quickly or no? BOARD ASSISTANT : I can make you cohost if it's, it's up to the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's okay. ROB HERRMANN : Okay to do it or okay as to don't worry about it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you can do it. BOARD ASSISTANT : I just made you cohost so you can share your screen. ROB HERRMANN : So can you see that photo? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. ROB HERRMANN : Okay so that's looking that's standing in the lawn area between the house and the bluff looking north so there's a taller house the neighboring house to the north is actually somewhere beyond there but you can't see it and I'm going to scroll down here, this is looking from the front so now here on the left side of the photo you can actually see that neighboring 43 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 house to the north but you can see the vegetation in that area. I will see if I can give Lip my screen share here or maybe Kim can just ax me out of it. BOARD ASSISTANT : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First you do know that we've all by obligation visited the subject property individually because we are required to do that before a public hearing so we've seen what the conditions are on the property and surrounding it including you know the screening that exists natural vegetation and so on and the condition of the bluff. ROB HERRMANN : So thank you so you're back with me now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yep. ROB HERRMANN : So in the case of both of these variances, not only are the conditions similar to the multitude of other pre-existing properties throughout the neighborhood but the relief we're requesting is specifically similar to that which has been previously granted by the Board to several such properties throughout the neighborhood. We have noted those in the application but quickly for the record, relief was granted in May 2016, 7125 Nassau Point Rd.which is just six properties to the south for a deck addition which was situated 20 feet from the bluff which is case #6929.,Relief was granted in December 2016 at 7324 Nassau Point Rd. eight properties to the south for the construction of a replacement dwelling situated just 34 feet from the top of the bluff which was case 7003 and the no record of an associated variance determination could not be found.The dwelling and swimming pool on the adjacent northerly property were constructed with a 50 foot bluff setback in 2017 pursuant to a town wetlands permit. With respect to similarities for the side yard request, case 7196 relief was granted by the Board in September of 2018 for additions and alterations with a side yard setback of 9.8 feet at 7525 Nassau Point Rd. which is ten properties to the south and in January 2007 variance relief was granted for the construction of a replacement dwelling situated 10 feet from a side lot line at 7425 Nassau Point Rd.which is nine properties to the south and that was case#5929.The third variance as we noted at the outset is for a 6 foot high fence along the southerly property line which results from the Building Department's characterization of the adjacent right of way known as East Club Rd. as a front yard but similar to the twenty some odd other right of ways created by the founders of Nassau Point for providing community access to the bay, East Club Rd. provides no vehicular access to the subject property or for neighborhood thoroughfare and cannot be used as a front yard for any practical purpose by the applicant. It is a wooded pathway to the bay which allows members from the community basically to get down to the water and it does you know by all measures does not act or resemble a front yard. We noted in our application that the Board recently spoke to the nature of one of these similar right of ways in case#7171 in July 2018 for a property that's less than a mile to the north where a new dwelling was being proposed only 30 44 r -Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 feet from the right of way and in that decision the Board recognized that "the requested front yard variance is not from the Nassau Point frontage but rather from a foot path on the south side of the applicant's property line that provides beach access but also creates a second front yard". In that same decision the Board noted that the dwelling construction the relief requested for the dwelling construction was requested not from a "heavily trafficked road" but from a "likely traffic footpath providing access to the beach".So we're basically mimicking those arguments here.This for all intense and purposes is a side yard and it's being used by a number of members of the public basically and so to try and gain some reasonable and customary privacy for the side and waterside of the house they're proposing this fence. Finally with respect to the potential impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the property, we have listed in the application a summary of how the design helps with that and also some of the other (inaudible) noted and I'll just quickly read those. As noted the existing dwelling is located 33 feet from the top'of the bluff. All additions and alterations have been carefully designed to remain in line with and are farther landward so as not to create any additional encroachment on the bluff. The primary one and two story addition to the south end of the existing dwelling are setback 17 feet farther from the top of the bluff compared to the existing setback. The non-conforming septic system which consist of a single cesspool will be removed and be replaced with a low nitrogen IA sanitary system located more than 100 feet from the bluff and as the Board knows unlike conventional systems which are not designed or equipped to treat nutrients such as nitrogen an IA system is designed specifically to reduce nitrogen loading into the ground water and ultimately the surface waters and of course the storm water drainage system consisting of roof, gutter leaders and drywells is designed to capture and recharge roof runoff both from the existing and the expanded dwelling and other developed surfaces including the driveway. In other words the drainage system that's proposed is not designed solely to address the expansion but really to upgrade the drainage system for the entire property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Okay let me also mention,that we have comments from Soil and Water Suffolk County Soil and Water and it indicates that the bluff appears to be well vegetated and stable and we also have a decision form the LWRP coordinator that recommends this to be consistent with the LWRP. You need to go to Trustees after us Rob? ROB HERRMANN : That's correct, pending the outcome of this process we would then file an application with the Trustees accordingly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Alright let's see if the Board has any questions, anything from anybody I'm okay I have enough, Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob 45 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 MEMBER LEHNERT : No I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No you've covered everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I completely agree but I still have to ask a question I'm sorry Rob. Why is this not a demolition? You're taking the roof off the house, there's substantial change to the existing, there is an addition and I suppose it would just be the risk of recognizing that if this becomes a demolition. ROB HERRMANN : We actually discussed that both with the owners and with the architect and I know it's not the common thing to do anymore to actually preserve and use the existing house. The design has made a careful decision to utilize the existing house that is usable. It's integrity is good, it's enjoyed bythe owners and that this is the way to go with it. I know Jane and Ed Weiland are here, I don't know if perhaps Jane would like to add some personal color to that Nick. Kim do you want to see if Jane would like to respond to that specific MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you end up at the same place, it's just a matter of declaration. I think that if and-when relief is granted that there is you know provision that reminds the applicant BOARD ASSISTANT : Jane are you here we promoted you to the panelists list. JANE WEILAND : Yes I'm here can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can. JANE WEILAND : Thank you so much. This house was built in 1929 and it is extremely charming and well-built and we want to retain the scale and character of it keep it as it is in its charm as an oldie on the bay and just expand it a little more for our use ultimately full time. It is very small and uncomfortable as it is, it's only 1,400 sq.ft. but we really love it and would like to just expand it for comfort and keep it as a charming oldie on the bay. It has a moose over the fireplace and all the trimmings of the era in which it was built. ROB HERRMANN : Thank you Jane. MEMBER DANTES :That's not exactly what Nick is saying. What he's saying is, if you go through later and you gut the house then the Building Department is going to classify it as a demolition then send you back to us for further relief it's kind of in our decision you have to sign an affidavit saying that it's not a demolition. 46 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 ROB HERRMANN :We understand. I impressed that upon the architect from the first day that we discussed the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good. We just found historically that you know if we all work on the same page people don't intend to have a demolition and then they start building and rot is in the walls and mold and there's this and that and then it winds up a demolition. So what we're simply doing is requiring people who are doing major, major renovation to be on notice in our decision with common language that we're using now that if a demolition should occur they have to contact the Building Department and so on so a process is in place to handle that and you've now Ms. Weiland addressed the reason why you don't want to demolish the house and you want to try and preserve it so I have I think we're all okay. Is there anyone attending who wants to address the application? ROB HERRMANN : Leslie just as one housekeeping measure, I just wanted to make sure that you are also working off the most recently submitted site plan that was updated September 151. 1 think it was September 1st, let me just make sure. It was a resubmission of a plan that I think addressed some questions from the Building Department (inaudible) revision resolved but also update (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says partial site plan demo on here proposed site plan. Is this the one the combined there's an inset it's a Jeffrey Butler SPI ROB HERRMANN : Yep CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and let's see what was the date on it, 5/15/2020 ROB HERRMANN : If you look in the upper right hand corner there's a revisions box and the last one should say 9/1/2020 MEMBER DANTES : I have that one. ROB HERRMANN : Okay then you've got the right one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yep we got it. ROB HERRMANN : I figured you would because Kim is more organized than I am if that's possible but I just wanted to make sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We got it. Anything else from the Board? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second from someone? 47 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora, Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. We should have a decision in two weeks at the earliest but we'll try and make it two weeks. ROB HERRMANN :Thank you. BOARD ASSISTANT : Rob is going to stay with us for the next hearing. HEARING#7436—ALISON M. BYERS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is Alison M. Byers #7436. Request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18, Article XXIII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's June 16, 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) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, 2) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 10075 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. This is a new single family dwelling after demolition with a front yard setback of 35.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 and a bluff setback of 50 feet where the code requires a minimum of 48 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 100 feet. There's a proposed IA system and a 15 foot non-turf buffer that goes along with that. This is for a one story two bedroom beach house with a roof deck. What you are demolishing is 28.6 feet from the top of the bluff and now you're going to be setting it back 50 feet. It's LWRP consistent by the way and Soil and Water sees some erosion but moderate to poor ground cover in vegetation under the stairs only and some sort of a black pipe that's halfway down the bluff under the stairs that discharges water. I'm just bringing this up to expedite the issues Rob so you could address that pipe and we already know what improvements are being proposed for this application. Alright I'm going to stop now and let you take over. ROB HERRMANN : Thank you. So similar to the prior hearing we're faced here with the need to seek less setback relief and the context of the Nassau Point neighborhood which again as I've described in the prior hearing but two seconds for the record just has to do with the fact that the property was developed prior to zoning code and before institution of the 100 foot bluff setbacks associated with Chapter 275 which were adopted in 2004 and set the 100 foot bluff setback associated with bay bluffs that were adopted into the Chapter 280 zoning code in 2015. This property is especially challenging as one of the,last three properties literally facing the bay bluff on the east side of the land mass that forms Nassau Point. It's basically at the southern tip of Nassau Point and the properties total lot depth as Nick alluded to is shallow.The depth between the front lot line and the bluff ranges from little more than 100 feet to 140 feet so a conforming bluff setback would put us in the road an onto the neighbor's property. So faced with that challenge we are requesting both bluff setback and front yard setback relief because in the process of building a new home here in place of the aging dwelling that predates zoning code. We have attempted with the owner and the architect to find the best achievable balance between the bluff and the adjacent roadway which is not Nassau Point Rd. proper but the road (inaudible) at the end of Nassau Point Rd. known as Mitch Rd. We have taken great care here to retreat the new dwelling landward and farther away from the bluff. By doing so the existing bluff setback is being increased by close to 80%. 1 think it's about 78% increase from 28 feet to 50 feet but to achieve that setback we must also propose to reduce the pre-existing non-conforming setback which is 44.4 feet now by an additional 8.7 feet to 35.7 feet. The rest of that gain is achieved through the architectural design of the house creating a longer and narrower dwelling as opposed to what you might have on a deeper lot. We believe this new balance between the bluff and roadway achieves the greatest good both for the applicant and the surrounding neighborhood without having any adverse impact on the one property that's located on the opposite side of Smith Rd. Just reading.from the application, due to the configuration of Smith Rd. there are only two properties facing the unpaved roadway which is the applicant's and the property located directly opposite to the west which is 10375 Nassau Point Rd. and we argue that the request relief will not have a detriment or impact on that neighboring lot because it is elevated well below the roadway and the applicant's property significant. Vegetated screening exists between the neighboring property and Smith Rd. and that neighboring property is actually 49 _: .Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 similarly characterized by an even more highly non-conforming front yard setback of roughly 23 feet to a two story detached garage which (inaudible)was constructed pursuant to relief granted by the Board in December 2005 in case #5734. The variance determination there the Board characterized relief as insubstantial and recognized that with "continued maintenance of the existing landscaping and screening"the front yard setback relief would not cause an undesirable change to the neighborhood character. So we're going to adopt basically that same argument here. The requested bluff setback relief is also consistent with previous relief granted by the Board. For example relief was granted in December 2016 at 7324 Nassau Point Rd. which is approximately one half mile to the north for the reconstruction of a new dwelling that was 34 feet from the top of the bluff, that's case 7003 and in March 2018 relief was granted to 9775 Nassau Point Rd. which is four properties to the north for the construction of additions and alterations and a swimming pool located 51 feet from the top of the bluff which was case 7128 and in June 2018 relief was granted at 9475 Nassau Point Rd. which is eight properties to the north for the construction of additions and alterations 45 feet from the top of the bluff which was case 7170. Finally I think it is important again just alluding back to Nick's initial comment that we're faced with a difficult challenge here,,to list for the record how you know the well balanced placement of the dwelling that we believe we've achieved integrates with a number of additional environmental mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project to ensure that it does not have adverse impacts on the physical environment. So lastly here I'll read that list from the application which also provides a good summary of some of the setbacks I just described. Again the existing dwelling is 28 feet from the top of the bluff and the new will be at least 50 which is roughly 78% increase in the setback and there's also an existing patio surface currently located 15 feet from the top of bluff which will be permanently removed. There's an existing non-conforming conventional septic system that's located only 71 feet from CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What happened? MEMBER ACAMPORA : It froze. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We're okay but 11 think we just lost Rob. I don't know if he can hear us. His screen is up there in blank with his name on it. MEMBER DANTES : Do we have a list of those variances in our packet here or is he just reading that off his own notes? BOARD ASSISTANT : I wrote them down just so you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if he doesn't have them I mean he can submit them. Let's see he's gone maybe he's trying to call back in. The world cannot live without band width not anymore. 50 Regular Meeting November-.5, 2020 MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's worse and worse out here now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sure he realizes what happened so. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is Alison able to speak, maybe she wants to tell us a little bit CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She can if she wants to. I think everything that Rob is repeating actually is in our application. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Yeah he has it already. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's very good about submitting all the (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely and the number of different surveys illustrating all of the information I don't think we've ever had such a comprehensive packet. ALISON BYERS : I am here is you have any questions but yes between the architect and Rob we have tried to anticipate your questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah well at this point I don't see anything other than improvements on the property and I don't want to stop Rob from continuing to address whatever he'd like to but if he's not able to call us back in for whatever reason you know it could very well be his connection of some sort or another I'm sure that's what it was. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have somebody raising their hand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe it's him. BOARD ASSISTANT : No I have somebody else raising their hand do you want me to move him. ALISON BYERS : It's possible that it's my architect. BOARD ASSISTANT : I just promoted him it just takes a long time. MEMBER DANTES : The only other thing I'd like is actual copies of the decisions that he referenced. I think that's the only FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can hear you. FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : I am Frank Yorganciughu, Rob is trying to reboot his computer. He said it will take another two minutes if you'd wait. It crashed while he was in the middle of the talk. He's rebooting it right now. 51 _._.Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm assuming that that's what happened. You were listening in were you? FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : Yes I was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you've heard all the comments so far. FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : Yes I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm certain that he's got copies of everything he's reading us. If we don't have them in our file I'm sure he's going to be happy to submit them. FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : I think he was just reading them from the application so you do have all the notes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought so cause I have some notes in my own notes about some of those other applications so FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : He's incredibly organized so I'm sure you have everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do, we do.;Is there anything you'd like to tell us while you're on line here? FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : Well we're trying to create a beautiful new building that's going to fit right in with the rest of the area. It's going to be a very small one story building basically that's going to be sitting on the dune and the one challenge that we had while designing the building is that from the eastern edge of the building,to the western edge of the building because it's very long and narrow also there's about a ten foot drop in elevation so there was a lot of work that we had to do to mitigate that kind of drop in the elevation but I think it's been very, very successful. I don't know if Rob has submitted any renderings of the building CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we have them. FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : If he has then you will see what we've been able to do with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as someone who taught architecture for forty five years at some major universities I congratulate you on the sensitivity with which you address the site. FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : Thank you Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Go ahead Nick what? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to ask if it would be appropriate to maybe ask if there's any members of the audience that wants to chime in? 52 Regular Meeting November-5, 202.0. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I already did and there was nobody there that appears to MEMBER DANTES : Can we just adjourn it and break for lunch and we'll come back at one? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and then if Rob wants to comment maybe momentarily when we start up we could just let him CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We could do that. I mean frankly to be perfectly honest this is out of respect for him and his preparation, I don't want to give him you know short shrift if he feels he wants to say something else. I have all the information I need, I don't know how other Board members feel. Do you want to just do that, adjourn for now and tell him to come back at one o'clock? We'll continue with him finishing whatever else he wants to tell us. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that make sense to everybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Yeah that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so maybe have you got his cell phone number Faruk? Can you give him a call or Alison? FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : I'll give him a call and let him know that we'll be back at one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At one that way he'll have time and we'll be on schedule. FARUK YORGANCIUGHU : Wonderful that would be appreciated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to one o'clock. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. I don't think you have to call the roll in this case. Kim just everybody raise their hand so we can see them. Alright, let the record show that the Board voted unanimously to adjourn to one o'clock.So the resolution carries,the motion carries and we will see you back at one o'clock. Now I'm going to make a motion to recess for lunch. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora, everybody raise their hand if they are in agreement to recess. Let the record show that the Board unanimously voted for this recess. 53 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 We will see you all back here at one o'clock. Board members just try to get back on a few minutes before so we don't have any technical problems. I'm going to make a motion to resume the hearing of the Byers application #7436. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. All in favor just raise your hands. The motion carries unanimously all members agree. We're back there and then we're going to get on to the other hearings that are scheduled this afternoon. So Rob your computer gave up on you and in the actually we talked to the architect in your absence and to Alison Byers also and the question was, you did submit all the priors that you were mentioning? ROB HERRMANN : I did. The only thing I want to make note of is in the written application and I noticed this as I was preparing to speak to,you all through this hearing is that I left out a handful of the case numbers. I'm not sure how I did that. Typically you know I give you the address, the tax map number, the proximity and the case number so in the written application just to make a note for Kim if she wants to jot it down quickly or I can just send it to her later, but on page one of my narratives the for tax lot 119-1-6.1 is case 7128 and then for 119-1-1 it's case 7170 and that's on page one and that was it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have pretty much all the information we need.We just want to make sure that we could quote the priors that you made reference to with a lot of research and it's important to have that in our record. ROB HERRMANN :Yep I appreciate that. I was sort of I think I had made it through the priors and my last which I don't have to go through,I can just make reference to the application for the record if you wish, I really was just going to review you know the environmental mitigation in addition to the relocation of the house and in fifteen seconds or less I had just mentioned while I was talking to my crashed screen the fact that we are replacing the non-conforming conventional septic system that's located 71 feet from the bluff with a new IA system that will be more than 100 feet from the bluff and ,a storm water drainage and addressing the we're proposing a 15 foot wide non-turf buffer adjacent to the top of the bluff that will be vegetated with native vegetation. I don't know if you discussed it in my absence but in connection with that bluff vegetation plan that should help with the erosion condition near the stairway that the Suffolk County Soil and Water had mentioned and certainly we're happy for you to make it a condition of the permit if you did not already discuss this with Faruk and Alison about the removal of that pipe. If in fact that is a drainage pipe that needs to be removed. Ultimately the Trustees who we have to go to after you I'm sure would 54 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're going to do the same thing anyway. ROB HERRMANN :They're looking for the same thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course Trustees approval as usual standard. ROB HERRMANN : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I don't have any other questions, does anybody else on the Board have any questions for Rob? Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Byers application? I don't see anybody,we got three Q&A's. You're taking care of that Liz you're all set with that, alright.So thanks Rob, we'll have a decision in two weeks no doubt. I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes, Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how db'you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. 55 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 HEARING#7437— ESTEVES HOLDING CORP.,JERRY CIBULSKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Esteves Holding Corp., Jerry Cibulski #7437. Request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's September 18, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 6505 Horton Lane in Southold. From what we gather here this received a building permit with a conforming building envelope and then the foundation was constructed and the Stop Work Order was placed and'a variance a Notice of Disapproval for a variance was issued. What else would you like us to know about this application? JERRY CIBULSKI :Just moving the backyard setback from 50 feet to 44.6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why was that done? JERRY CIBULSKI : The buyers for the property amended the original plan and it got missed with the surveyor when they submitted the updated floor plan. Otherwise it would have just applied for the variance to start. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So wait, I'm not sure I'm understanding. The original application for the building permit had a conforming setback? JERRY CIBULSKI : Yes and then the purchasers for the property amended the floor plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah without going back to the Building Department. JERRY CIBULSKI : No they did amend the plans cause that went in through the surveyor for the amended plans and then when they did the foundation review for the actual that's when it got caught that it was not the 50 foot back yard setback and that's when it went back through the cycle saying that if they had realized they were off by that 44 feet they would have just applied for the variance before starting. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yeah I guess what happened was, they changed their mind in process and did not return to the Building Department before executing the construction the foundation. JERRY CIBULSKI : Yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Okay.So can you give us any reasons why this non-conforming setback should be granted? JERRY CIBULSKI : It's still not interfering with any of the neighbors cause it's actually the widest side of the property so it's not the side yard setback where they're going to be interfering with 56 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 another neighbor.They're coming in off of Hortons and this is the back yard going'to the neighbor on Jennings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what questions the Board has here. JERRY CIBULSKI : It's a corner lot so it's got two front yard setbacks so it's pushing the house into one of the corners because of the confines with the two front yards. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Jerry if I can ask Nick here, if I can ask and I'm just a little puzzled about what makes the determination of a rear yard versus the side yard, can you explain how if the house is facing Jennings Rd. that's the front door how is not and based upon the floor plans and everything where the covered wood deck is in the back yard not the back but what you're calling the side yard not the back yard. JERRY CIBULSKI : On a corner property you have a choice of using either corner, so you have an address on Hortons and an address on Jennings. So it gives the option for both in that zoning allowance. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So here the front yard you're saying is on Hortons Lane with a back yard along the neighbor to the west on Jennings but why is the front door facing Jennings? JERRY CIBULSKI :That's the way they laid out the property but when you're applying for the floor plan layout you can choose which one you're coming in from so those particular owners are going to be coming in from Hortons and coming in through the garage entrance. So in terms of their use that's going to be their front yard and they just allowed the most space for all neighbors surrounding it so they were trying to site the house to not encroach on anybody any more than needed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On the Hortons Lane where you have a front yard setback of 40 feet you proposed or it's as built right now a 50 foot setback. JERRY CIBULSKI : On the front yard that's staying the same so there's no front yard setback variance request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not from Horton it's from Jennings. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I know but the issue is that the 50 feet you're only required to have 40 feet which would have granted them a proper rear yard setback greater than 50 feet. JERRY CIBULSKI : Say that one more time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You're saying the front of the house is Hortons Lane, there is a front yard setback between Hortons Lane and the house 50 feet. The rear yard is the one that's now 57 Regular Meeting November 5,.2020 at issue but had the foundation been built within the allowable 40 foot setback like the setback here on Jennings Rd. you would have been compliant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When they amended their plans they should have amended it so that it continued to be conforming. That's what'.Nick is really getting at cause it could have been done before they started digging for the you know putting in the foundation if they needed that extra 4 feet or whatever they could have gotten it and still been conforming. So this is a profoundly self-created application for a variance. That is not determinative in and of itself it's only one of the standards we have to look at but it's very difficult to justify granting variances when there was a clean slate there and many options,for building whatever house they wanted that could have been conforming. By the way I think you probably know we do inspect every property prior to a hearing so we are quite familiar with you know with that subject property and all the properties around it, what's built and so forth. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us Jerry? JERRY CIBULSKI : So you're saying the whole property could have moved 5 feet closer to Hortons from where it's cited now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could have been cause you only needed a 40 foot setback and you got a 50. JERRY CIBULSKI : From a front yard? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well hold on yeah wait a minute hold on a minute. Is that correct,the code requires a rear yard setback of 50 what about a front yard setback? MEMBER LEHNERT :A front yard would be-40 because he's conforming on Jennings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what I'm thinking. I mean the setbacks are based on the size of the property. So 40 foot is what a front yard setback has to be and instead of being 50 feet off Horton you could have been 40 feet off of Horton and had a conforming rear yard. The house being oriented exactly the way it is now. Let me ask if any other Board members have any questions, Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No other than what we were just talking about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob 58 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 MEMBEWLEHNERT : No you asked my question about the blank slate you know arid-the-chain of events that led up to this. I'm still a little confused as to how if there was amended plans no one caught this before someone showed up and poured a foundation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No because they probably didn't ask for an inspection prior to that. The Building Department would not have gone out there necessarily. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well no actually you need a footing inspection. MEMBER DANTES : You don't need a survey I mean MEMBER LEHNERT : You don't need a survey with a footing, you need a survey with the foundation. JERRY CIBULSKI : It got missed on the survey part that's where it caught everybody by surprise at that phase otherwise that's what I said if we had known it was going to be off they would just applied for a variance before starting anything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but they wouldn't have needed a variance before starting anything and just shifted the plan closer to Hortons Lane. MEMBER LEHNERT: It almost seems odd that the Building Department didn't pick up an amended plan with you know the need for a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But they never saw the amended plan,that's what we're saying.They sent it to the surveyor and they started building the foundation. They should have gone back to the Building Department. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That is where the problem the arose. Who is Lableman? BOARD ASSISTANT : I do have somebody who raised their hand,Joanne Kopman so do you want me to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the Board at the moment doesn't have any other questions then I'd like to give a chance to anybody MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I can ask a question I'm sorry, this came up in the last not the most recent hearing but the one earlier this morning relative to a similar corner lot, are there any plans for a swimming pool on this property? JERRY CIBULSKI : No 59 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There are no plans for a pool. JERRY CIBULSKI : Absolutely not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is that something that could cause when I look at what your backyard is for conforming location, with a reduced rear yard setbacks there is a dry well right where a pool in theory can go so is this something that the applicant would be willing to waive any future rights to a pool? JERRY CIBULSKI : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick I don't think that you can MEMBER LEHNERT : We can't do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think you can condition any kind of approval that might be forthcoming based upon you'd have to put a covenant and restriction on it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was going to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think that doesn't make sense because if someone wants to do something that's non-conforming in the future they have every right to appear before this Board. You can't deny them their due process. JERRY CIBULSKI : I the (inaudible) storm water containment that we're not going to move that drywell when there's an obvious issue on that road with the storm water CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh my God yes. JERRY CIBULSKI : from other properties. We wouldn't want to do anything to add to that issue and according to the Highway Department that's already been identified and they've already started some work to try to remediate that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's good because it is a swamp over there. There's nothing but a lake and ever since those new houses were built there it was always a little bit of ponding of water there but now it's just ridiculous and it's not (inaudible) this property it's all of the ones that are alright well let's see what people in attendance want to say. BOARD ASSISTANT : I do believe Joanne Kopman had raised her hand first so let's do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Joanne if you could unmute yourself just click on the little red microphone and 60 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 JOANNE KOPMAN-: Yes I did. Hi everybody. So yes we live directly across from the property iii question on Jennings Rd. Our address is Hortons like you said 6625 Hortons but our front door faces their front door. They will have a front door on Jennings. So my question is we need clarification, is the problem because the house was too far setback from Jennings or not enough? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the Jennings setback is fine. JOANNE KOPMAN : Is fine okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually what it is they're going to be facing Horton not Jennings and as a result what's behind that front door on Horton is considered their back yard. For you it would be the side of the house. If you're looking from your house at it, that would be the side of the house. JOANNE KOPMAN : So they enter their driveway and garage from Hortons? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right and so what happened was they changed their mind it was a conforming distance from for you it looks like the side yard,that was conforming and now it's too short. It was supposed to be 50 feet now it's 44.4,that's the reason they are before us. JOANNE KOPMAN : Okay but our side is okay, it's staying the way it is? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. JOANNE KOPMAN : So the only thing that we would encounter we're glad to hear that it's not any further to the curb on Jennings but of course we'd have to be subjected again to all the noise and the chaos and the debris and the pollution and everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't know that one more house creates more noise into JOANNE KOPMAN : and of course you said the floods which are independent of that but that's our added problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we all have look you know both Nick and I, Nick lives on Horton I live on Soundview so believe me we're up and down the street morning, noon and night. JOANNE KOPMAN : I know Nick of course yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know so the bottom line is, we know exactly what's going on with the flooding. This is considered a building lot, all those houses that were built on the other side of Horton they're building lots so they wouldn't have been allowed to build a house there but the problem is we're looking at all this storm water runoff and it's even though they have 61 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 downspouts, and gutters we're still you know.we have and there's supposed to onsite drainage we have some serious problems there. JOANNE KOPMAN : Yes. UNAMED SPEAKER : So are you addressing that as well? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't but the town can. The Highway Department has to do that and hopefully they'll do some drainage for us there. JOANNE KOPMAN : Because our driveway was even blocked on Hortons today, they must have had some workers working not at the house not at the new house but you know fixing the flooding problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what they're working on, yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I believe there's a gentleman speaking, can you state your name that way MARK KOPMAN : I'm Mark Kopman I'm with Joanne. JOANNE KOPMAN : Hi Nick you know us,Joanne and Mark we met you walking. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes I've seen you,thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's someone else here in the panelists list, you just unmuted yourself. ADAM LABLEMAN : This is Adam and Lisa Lableman. We neighbor the property at 6305 Hortons Lane so the property right behind the property that's being built on and you know I think it's interesting to hear that the setback that you're discussing is what they are calling the back yard when clearly the orientation of the house,the back deck is going to be abutting our property and is you know I don't even know if it's 20 feet from the line I assume it must be cause that's probably the side requirement but really I guess what we wanted to understand better is that that appears to be really the back yard of the property where the back deck is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you repeat that we lost you for a minute. ADAM LABLEMAN : Of course, the issue really is that what appears to be the back yard of the property where the back deck is, is not 50 feet from our property as a back yard you know as the back yard zoning variance would be but really 20 feet as (inaudible) side yard. So I guess you know I know it's a corner lot and that might be part of the issue but you know we were very surprised to see how close the house the foundation is coming to our property. They removed 62 - Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 every tree behind the house`#o create I guess more back yard space so I think they left two trees r and now it's just a wide open space to our house which is I mean we were just surprised by we expected a 50 yard setback. I know it's a very small lot so we're surprised that a house was being built there at all but I guess it is technically big enough, it just we would have thought the 50 yard setback would have applied to our CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The 50 yard hold on can you see that yellow highlighted thing, are you the neighbor that would be just above that? ADAM LABLEMAN : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you on Jennings, facing Jennings or not? ADAM LABLEMAN : No we're on Hortons Lane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright are you adjacent to the subject property on Horton? ADAM LABLEMAN :Yes where it says Jonathon Overton Estate that's our property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's your property. Well that is 34.9 feet from the proposed deck at the closest maybe Kim can you make that larger?This is why I love screen sharing so we can look at it all together. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It just seems Leslie what Mr. Lableman is saying and what I'm confused by, by the determination if the front door of the house is facing Jennings Rd. the applicant is arguing they're saying that their front of the house is Hortons Lane when in fact the architectural front is Jennings and the architectural rear is Mr. Labelman's house and that's where I think there's the confusion about what is the front yard back yard cause they're really using the side yard as a backyard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute, I thought this house was facing Horton. Is it facing Jennings or Hortons? It's facing Horton. MEMBER LEHNERT : The front door faces Jennings. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing that faces Hortons is the garage. MEMBER LEHNERT : What happened is, with a 50 foot rear yard setback it's easier to get the 44 foot variance as opposed to the 34 foot variance which is probably why they're calling that one side the back yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah you're right Rob. Well what I wanted to tell Mr. Lableman is that the distance between that deck that ah it's bigger. See where it says proposed covered wood 63 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 deck-and Jonathan Overton Estates, so the distance to the closest point is 34.9Jeet to the property line, it's not 20. 1 guess a conforming side yard would have been 35 so I don't know exactly what's going on here. BOARD ASSISTANT :This is the side yard right there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a side yard so probably a side yard is less. The side yard probably is conforming at 20 feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) combined is 25, 10 and 15. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah exactly.You know we have got to get rid of these corner the way the code is written for corner lots. It's just 'ridiculous, we have been trying for years to work with the Town Board on simplifying this because there are so many variances that come up as a result of having two front yards and some of them are just simply not necessary. We have one today that was a footpath a right of way. I mean a little walking path and they called it a front yard. It's very burdensome for everybody but we have to-deal with what the code is at the moment. JERRY CIBULSKI : So in the side yard adjoining Lableman that's over the minimum side yard setback cause they were trying to keep as much distance between the two neighbors as much as possible and they left CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wish they had followed proper protocol cause they could have been conforming and still gotten exactly the house they wanted and they could have been conforming to every setback but they didn't. BOARD ASSISTANT : Does anybody else want to be heard? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Kim I'll just mention what Leslie and I talked about earlier, that one of the other neighbors that lives diagonally opposite this application actually emailed me last night instead of sending you the letter they sent it to me which I didn't know that I was supposed to send to you so Amy Winters just asks in this letter that her voice be heard that she's lived in the house for forty seven years diagonally opposite and she thinks that anyone that's building a house should conform to you know the code requirements in placing a house on a new construction site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is she on Horton or Jennings? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Horton, she faces the Kopman house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Got it. Alright is there anything else from any Board members? Jerry anything else you'd like to tell us? 64 _-- -Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 JERRY CIBULSKI : Just that we had an approved plan for it and the buyer wanted to make an adjustment to their floor plan needs with the grandkids and if this had gotten sited earlier in the process they would have just applied for a variance before going forward so it wasn't a do it and ask for forgiveness later. It was actually an oversight just through the process of updating the submission and the floor plans through the surveyor.They were trying to be considerate with the layout to the surrounding neighbors so that's why they tried to use as much side yard setbacks on the original layout, it was just adding the 4 feet to the floor plan that then triggered this incidentally. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay understood, anything else from the neighbors? JOANNE KOPMAN : Just to keep us abreast of what's going on please, email whatever. I think Nick has my email. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't think the Board can do that, we can only do this and discuss applications before the public in this form but you can call the office and staff can give you an update or answer any question you might have if they're able to, it depends. We will not make a decision on this, at the very earliest it will be within two weeks from today in the evening because that's when we meet next. Now we have sixty two days to write up a decision from the time we close the hearing which will be today but we'll certainly have it before then. JOANNE KOPMAN : Because then we're embarking on the winter and they want to build and all that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. So you're more than welcomed you can check the agenda if it's on the agenda it means we have a draft decision that we will be talking about. No testimony is taken like the hearing is over but the public is welcomed to listen in and listen to our discussion and hear our vote. Otherwise you can call you know the next day and see what the decision is and of course the applicant will get a copy of the decision in writing. I have to go in and sign it to legalize it after the vote and then it's filed. JOANNE KOPMAN :Thank you, be well everyone. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie the only other thing I was going to add which I think would be helpful to the file is if the applicant could perhaps site some prior variances given in the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's helpful if their variances generally are for additions and alterations. I would say if you could find variances that were granted for new houses you know whether it was a demo and a new house or a new house from scratch on a vacant piece of property along Jennings and or Horton then that would be helpful to us. That's relevant but for 65 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 an addition or-alteration it isn't particularly comparable. So if you'd like to do that you know we'll receive it if you want to see if there's anything out there.That'll be up to you Jerry.You may know that there is or there isn't I don't know. If;you want to do that we can give you some time to do it. I don't suspect there's any I mean there's been a couple of new houses built recently and none of them came before this Board that I'm aware of. So I would assume they were conforming. JERRY CIBULSKI : Yeah some of the other corner lots that are on Hortons are larger lots so it was easier to get a conforming floor plan for it cause this is just a three bedroom ranch layout. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so I'm hearing we should just go ahead and close this, is that what we're saying? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay 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 : Member Lehnert seconds it, Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman'votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. 66 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 HEARING#7439— ELIZABETH McGRATH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for Elizabeth McGrath #7439. Request for a variance. from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 21, 2020 amended September 25, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built"/"under construction" accessory building located in other than the code permitted rear yard at 1077 New Suffolk Rd. in Cutchogue. So this is a flagged lot that does not front along New Suffolk Rd. so it's behind another property. I guess this is a result from a lot line change, was that right Bill? BILL GOGGINS : I don't know how this was created. I think it was I don't know but I do know it's a right of way off of New Suffolk Rd. that's about 306 feet long and so it doesn't abut a public highway. I'm not sure how the lot was created historically. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will say this much, in reviewing the application Bull you submitted reasons that were Use Variance standards and not area variance standards. What we're looking at here is an area variance. BILL GOGGINS : Right exactly it's, I'm not sure why that was done mistake on my part. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How is the property used? It would appear that it was some sort of farm operation. BILL GOGGINS : Yeah they're using it as a farm operation. Previously those properties were owned by somebody that was running a I believe a greenhouse operation from that location. I don't have all the details of it but presently yes they're running a farm operation. They've got chickens and Iambs and ponies so they have some different chicken coops and sheds and stuff and they decided to build one structure and get rid of all the temporary structures to clean up the property. So somebody gave them a bright idea to start building it before they got a permit. So .it is self-created but whoever advised them to do this at least they you know it doesn't you know if the south side of the property was deemed a front yard it doesn't violate any setbacks which is good but if you deem the west side to be a front yard it puts this structure in the front yard of the property and if you deem the south side of the property where the driveway comes in as the front yard then it would be a side yard structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because I guess you know the line that's shared with Lynn Wickbaum it's deemed a front yard. We've had a number of these you know where a property is behind another and it's got an address on the primary street so it's a front yard even though it's somebody else's back yard. McGrath it looks like it shares the adjacent property also, also owns it Elizabeth McGrath. BILL GOGGINS : She does. 67 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A bunch of agricultural sort of structures there on that property. BILL GOGGINS : Yeah those are all pre-existing structures. MEMBER DANTES : And those structures are closer to the street than the proposed structures right? BILL GOGGINS : I think all of them are except maybe one,there might be a greenhouse that might be even with them. I'm looking at the Google shot it appear they're all yeah they're all left of this structure under construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bill are they using that property as like one single operation cause there's a lot of storage buildings and stuff like that on there. BILL GOGGINS : I think that's it their eventual intent is to use as kind of like a I guess an animal pet farm or something to that extent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, advise them to look into that carefully because that may not be a permitted use of that zone district if they're going to open it to the public. BILL GOGGINS :Yeah I think I haven't even got to that point with them. I was just retained to help them with the variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, no I understand but just since you mentioned it in candor you know I think it's advisable to let them know that there are some limits on the way in which they can use that property relative to the public. BILL GOGGINS : Right thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see does the Board have any questions Pat or Rob or Eric? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. MEMBER LEHNERT : No I have no questions. MEMBER DANTES : No. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have somebody with'a raised hand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see what they would like us to know. PRUDENCE HESTON : Hi you there, Prudence Heston. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and Dan is? 68 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 PRUDENCE HESTON : My husband. BOARD ASSISTANT : Is here with you right now? PRUDENCE HESTON : He is not, no. He's at work right now. I would just ask that before granting any variances here that there be a plan put together for the whole property because they have been moving around buildings a lot of them certainly they've put a house now right up in less 20 feet of our property line that they told us was going to be just an office and now there's a family living in there and this is all you know part of their same complex and I understand that they've got a plan. I would love to see them be able to implement that plan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What happened was that we brought the survey back up can you see it? PRUDENCE HESTON : I can yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so where is your property relative to oh there it is I see land Wickham is that your property? PRUDENCE HESTON :Well Wickham is off to the right of that drawing and then I'm Salt Air Farms and I'm just below it. MEMBER DANTES : So you're below the second parcel that Elizabeth McGrath owns? PRUDENCE HESTON : Right and where they've now put a house right on the property line there. That also does not have any permits for it. MEMBER DANTES :That's kind of something you have to go to the Building Department for cause PRUDENCE HESTON : I have been to the Building Department and they have said that they were going to take the parcels one at a time and deal with all of the problems one at a time before you guys but if they're trying to put together a farm plan of some type you've got to look at it. There's more than one at a time you gotta look at the whole piece. What's going to happen is if you grant a permit for this and allow the variance where are they going to put that house that building then that got illegally there which had been located in a different place in the property where it was still legal and was on the parcel that you're looking at now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look hold on one sec, while you make certainly logical sense the Zoning Board can only deal with a direct determination by a code enforcement official namely the Building Department.We can't deal with what's on the adjacent piece of property also owned by Elizabeth McGrath. All we can do is look at what is on the Notice of Disapproval which has to do with that coop that's under construction. We have no jurisdiction over the adjacent parcel. 69 - _ Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 PRUDENCE HESTON : Okay well that's fine but then if you go ahead and approve this then it's going all I'm saying is it's going to present more problems for that family down the road if they don't look at it as a whole piece. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's their problem then really. PRUDENCE HESTON : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but perhaps as someone who has been in farming for a very long time you know you might as a neighbor want to go and just discuss it with them as a courtesy and give them some of your insight. PRUDENCE HESTON : I have done that and I have been over, I've tried to talk with them they are not easy to talk to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay it wouldn't be the first set of neighbors that we found that to be the case with but honestly I mean the bottom line is we can only address what's before us and not what they might do in the future or something they're doing on another piece of property. PRUDENCE HESTON : Okay that's fine. It will be a problem down the road then and that's too back because it could all brought in under one piece here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood. Anything anybody else wants to say? BOARD ASSISTANT : I,don't see anybody else raising their hand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bill anything else from you? BILL GOGGINS : No, no thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second?. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes, Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 70 Regular Meeting November.5, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. M-d-tuber Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7421—CAMERON DOWE and MEG STRECKER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So this is an adjournment this is application#7421 Cameron Dowe and Meg Strecker; because it's an adjournment I don't have to read this into the record but I think I'll do that anyway because there are people that are in attendance. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the building inspector's February 24, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" deck addition attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 35 feet located at 975 Cedar Point Drive West(adj.to West Lake)in Southold. Who is here for this? BOARD ASSISTANT : I have an Agena Rigdon and I promoted to panelist. Agena is there anybody else who is with you on this matter? CAMERON DOWE : I tried texting her. MEMBER DANTES : What are you applying for, what's the variance for? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll explain that cause I have it in my notes.This is to legalize an as built deck with a combined side yard setback at 26.9 feet where the code requires 35 foot minimum. The deck is a second story deck attached to a two story accessory garage with unheated attic storage on the second floor. It is LWRP exempt, so it's for a side yard setback at 26.9 a combined for the second story deck. Perhaps you can answer a question for us. 71 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CAMERON DOWE : I think Agena is AGENA RIGDON : Thank God for kids. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While you were busy trying to get here is the story. We went through the fact that we're looking at a combined side yard setback of 26.9 when 35 is required by the code. So Agena can you tell us how that deck got built and when and this is supposedly attached to a two story accessory garage with attic storage. Is that how that building is actually being used because why would you need a deck? AGENA RIGDON : Actually it's not, if you look to the do you have the survey in front of you Cameron? BOARD ASSISTANT : I'm putting it up also. AGENA RIGDON : It's not this side of the property it's this deck this little piece of the deck right here. Can you see it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, we have screen sharing. AGENA RIGDON :See the 11.3 side yard setback to that wood deck that's it it's not the other side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well actually it's a combined side yard. AGENA RIGDON : It is a combined yard setback but the garage with the dormer with a second story deck that's all approved that has a bull ilding permit.There was an addition to the wood deck on the other side of the property that would be the east CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The one with the 11.3? AGENA RIGDON : Correct the one with the 11.3. Keep in mind the 11.3 is to the house not to the deck. It's actually 11.8 to the deck so it's within a continuance setback of the existing dwelling. What had happened is through the transfer of ownership through the years and I believe it was the house was built in '73 it was transferred to Beatrice Lang (inaudible) she's the one that originally constructed it, then a fellow named Sydney (inaudible) in '77 owned the property transferred it to Gerard Lang and then irn '84 did I guess a renovation and he's the one that actually put on the deck. Now when Cameron Dowe and Meg Strecker bought the parcel in 2011 this deck was already there and unbeknownst to the new homeowner I guess the title company and this happens all the time, the title company sees a permit with a deck and it had a deck but the deck that had existed the time that they purchased it was not permitted it was expanded on before their purchase. So this is actually and I went back through the aerial photographs and approximately before 2001 this deck had pre-existed and Cameron like I said and Meg did not purchase the house till 2011.So it was there for a number of years and it had just came uncovered 72 _ Regular Meeting November-5, 2020. ' when they were submitting for a proposed shed for their oyster for their agriculture (inaudible) business and then the Building Inspector is the one that picked up on the fact that that section of the eastern deck was slightly larger by 624 sq. ft. so it's that little bump out of the wood deck that you see sort of in a continuing setback with the dwelling on the east side that is the deck in question that had pre-existed Cameron and Meg's purchase date so they were you know not at fault it was not a self you know contained kind of fault. It got missed in the sale, it was completely missed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what we're looking at is a combined side yard setback, you combine 11.3 with 12.6. AGENA RIGDON : Correct. It's 11.8 plus 15.1 so we have 26.9 where 35 is required.So realistically it's a side yard setback to the east property line the relief is 3.1 feet I think 3.2 feet and the combined side yard setback we're asking from the total is I'm sorry 8.1 feet. So that's what the relief is which is considerably minor. It wasn't self-created,they have a hardship the fact that you know it would they do use the deck, they are a bona fide agriculture, Mari culture home based business. They use it to enter the house, to store equipment so it's being used for a purposeful cause. So like I said they didn't do anything, it's with a continuing setback with the house so it's sort of still conforming with the setback that does exist right now. Does the Board have any other questions? So the 11.3 that's actually written on that survey is really 11.8 it's 11.3 to the house but it's 11.8 to the deck. My initial paperwork the actual relief is correct but that should have been an 8 instead of a 3. BOARD ASSISTANT : It would need to be corrected then. AGENA RIGDON :The relief I'm asking for is 8.1 feet. There was an error in my paperwork where I said the existing deck is 11.3,the house is 11.3 the deck is actually 11.8 which is correct and the building inspectors denial letter with this total side yard setback of 26.9 if you add it all up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's really interesting is that the drawings we have are elevations of the garage and the second story deck. AGENA RIGDON : It's actually a first level deck, it's elevated but it's not second story, it's actually a first level deck. It's not a second story deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there are two decks on that garage. There's one at grade and then you walk up and there is a second story deck attached to that garage what's called a garage and AGENA RIGDON : Yeah but that has a building permit, that garage that accessory apartment and those stairs that had a pre-existing permit. They legalized that 73 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Tha,t's,being used as an apartment? AGENA RIGDON : No it's I think that's what they had termed it in a previous C.O. CAMERON DOWE : No it's not. AGENA RIGDON : It is a garage addition, private one family dwelling, breezeway and garage addition that was done in '77 so that was there and there was a dormer and they legalized the dormer that is in the garage and the reconstruction of the decks to that accessory garage and that was 2/24/2020. So that side that west side of the property is completely with a building permit legal. It's just if you add up the dimension from the property line, I'm asking? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand, what I'm saying is that it's being described as a second story deck attached to a two story accessory garage with unheated attic storage on the second floor. AGENA RIGDON : Right but that's not the relief we're asking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I know I understand, you're looking at a combined side yard setback but both of those structures contribute to the combined side yard setback, the ones on either side of the property line. More importantly is how that when something comes before the Board anything on the property is subject;-to review and so I want to know how that's actually being used. Is that actually being used as u"nheated attic storage. AGENA RIGDON : Storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there some other use? AGENA RIGDON : Cameron are you on still? CAMERON DOWE : Yes. AGENA RIGDON : Okay Cameron it's storage like I said they have agriculture, mariculture business so they have a lot of dry storage but Cameron you can answer the question better than me. CAMERON DOWE : So you're right it's not an apartment it's just storage above the garage. MEG STRECKER :There's limited head I'm sorry I'm Cam's wife, there's limited head space so it's storage and unheated. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in order to access that storage above the garage are you using that second story deck to get in and out is that it you walk up those stairs and enter it that way? 74 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 MEG STRECKER : Yes and that deck was there when we purchased the'house in 2011 the second story deck and also the storage space was there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anybody else out there who wants to address the application? BOARD ASSISTANT : I don't have any raised hands. AGENA RIGDON : I have spoken with Dave Bergen on a number of occasions just to add and the neighbors don't have an issue. They said with respect to the ZBA hearing we have"no objection in agreeing with the as built decks setback encroachment. I just want to reiterate that that structure with the stairs had been there since 1977 in that C.O. Z8002. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright just so you're clear, whether or not something is self-created inevitably the case law that we are required to follow suggests that if you buy a property with things that are done without permits you should have known the law and known what you were getting into. In other words it's not a reason to say it wasn't self-created cause somebody else did it. You're supposed to know what is legal on the property and what is legally allowed. By the way that is not a determinative standard in saying yes or not to something but I just wanted you to be clear that you're probably going to get a decision that's going to say it was self-created because you should have had constructive knowledge of the law at the time of purchase. In other words ignorance of the law is not an excuse that's what the courts have ruled. So don't be surprised if you see that in there even though you think I didn't do it so it's not my fault. That's what the ordinary person would think, I didn't do it I just bought it that way. 75 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 AGENA RIGDON : I get it. I get this legalization thing all the time everyday someone buys something that they didn't know the shed or the deck or the hot tub or the outdoor shower and then I do an as built and then it turns out one thing turns into five like every day. That's why we do updated C.O.'s now. That's what we have to do every town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right good idea. I don't think there's anything else from the Board is there anything else you'd like us to know that you'd like to say? AGENA RIGDON : No I think that's it. I appreciate I thank you for your time and I so I'm so sorry for the last hearing delay. We have a little miscommunication I was on vacation so it didn't get posted properly and I apologize for that delay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright thank you. I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert, Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. BOARD ASSITANT : Do we want Liz to remind the attendees how to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's a very good idea. 76 Regular Meeting'November 5, 2020 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Just a reminder if you're here to comment go"ahead and click the raise hand button or you can send us a quick note via the Q&A and for those who are 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 then you will let us know which application you are here for. HEARING#7435—AFJG, LLC ALEXANDER JEDYNSKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for AFJG, LLC Alexander Jedynski#7435.This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 17, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 350 Windjammer Drive (aka 90 Windjammer Drive) in Southold. JENNIFER WICKS : I can hear you. BOARD ASSISTANT :Jennifer is there anyone else with you? JENNIFER WICKS : No CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a front yard setback of 29.9 feet where the code requires 35 foot minimum. Secondly, 21.3% lot coverage where 20%is the maximum permitted by code and its two front yards on the property. Go ahead and tell us what you'd like us to know about this application. JENNIFER WICKS : I just feel as far as the setback for the front yard goes I mean we see its unique the property has two front yards. They were given a variance already for the original house and I just you know they're not asking for much just to expand with the front porch. It was already hello BOARD ASSISTANT : I think Jennifer is breaking up a lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you can hear us Jennifer can you just stand kind of closer to your mic or JENNIFER WICKS : I'm back yes I turned my head. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the house itself is sitting with a 34.9 setback from Windjammer okay and you want to add this proposed porch on the front of the house at 29.9. 77 Regular Meeting November 5,.2020 JENNIFER WICKS :Yes which already is it's not going out any further than the concrete stoop that was there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The concrete stoop was already there? JENNIFER WICKS : Yes there was a variance given for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's unusual because stoop don't require you know stoops and landings that are entrances to dwellings unless they're over a certain square footage this looks pretty small but BOARD ASSISTANT : Over 5 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we do have the prior variance anyway that was JENNIFER WICKS : I think actually it was for a brick garden wall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that was for a brick garden wall? JENNIFER WICKS : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that there now? MEMBER PLANAMENTO :That is where the pool is. JENNIFER WICKS : Oh am I saying the wrong side?The east side okay I'm sorry I'm on the wrong side of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick what are you saying for the pool? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The applicant described a brick garden wall, the brick garden wall is in the general vicinity where the current existing deck/pool area is. JENNIFER WICKS: Yes I'm sorry, I just read it incorrectly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's right. JENNIFER WICKS : But it's not extending further than the concrete stoop that's already there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any way that that lot coverage I mean this is increasing what is the current lot coverage do you know? JENNIFER WICKS : I can look it up quick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh there Kim has it highlighted. 78 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Well this is the proposed but I'm looking to see if(inaudible) eicistinA here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Just above the cursor Kim it's 17.7 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : 21.358% is what you have circled. JENNIFER WICKS : That's what it will be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like 17 something is the existing. BOARD ASSISTANT : I'm just trying to see if it's on here that's all. JENNIFER WICKS : Yes it is 17.776 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh because you're (inaudible) for deck extension in (inaudible) well what I'm wondering is the front yard setback for the proposed porch (inaudible) is it's only 7 foot deep that's more than reasonable it isn't big you know deck but I'm wondering if there's any way you can think of to reduce that lot coverage, it's 1.3%. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's not a big lot. JENNIFER WICKS : Yeah it is not. MEMBER ACAMPORA :The pool takes up everything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the only thing I would say is when you look the existing deck as it's shown on the site plan, it shows the existing deck and Kim had the site plan up but there's a basically like a 20 x 12 addition I guess a 12 x 12 addition what am I saying (inaudible) is it necessary to make the deck larger or maybe even have a deck. If everything is at grade perhaps no deck would reduce the lot coverage to at least closer to the 20%that's allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When I look at it I thought ghee you know given that's there's almost at grade deck surrounding the entire pool, couldn't that be patio? I mean couldn't it just be you know pavers on grade if you wanted to have another area to sit on rather than a raised deck which creates additional lot coverage? JENNIFER WICKS : I mean the deck is on grade is that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well an on grade you know the Building Department would tell you that if it's wood and it's flat if you can get a lawn mower over it then it would be considered at grade but usually there's some joists underneath a deck that raises it minimally and so then that becomes a structure and contributes to lot coverage. I'm going to look and see with my magnifying glass is the lot coverage if those decks are included in the existing lot coverage. Yes it is 1.3%, 251 sq. ft. the pool is 875 sq. ft. (inaudible) so it's 17.7 79 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : Are we looking at the data here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The existing deck around the swimming pool is not included. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right here, existing deck on grade 1,006 feet. It's right above where Kim's mark is three lines, four lines. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's proposed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it's existing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Existing stair, existing deck on grade. Oh right it isn't. BOARD ASSISTANT :They're not showing anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause it's on grade. They're saying it's on grade so it's not calculated on the lot coverage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I think what you were saying Leslie is the raised deck that is included that's being expanded, perhaps they could just have like the front porch a small receiving area with stairs down to a terrace and that would reduce the lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You can put that at grade you'd bring that lot coverage down.Jennifer are you following us? JENNIFER WICKS : I'm not sure what you're talking about bringing to grade at this moment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Take a look at the Kim can you slide that back up? JENNIFER WICKS : I have the survey so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what we're talking about is if the back of the house right near the pool proposed deck extension okay if that can be at grade in other words come out of the house and step down so that it's also on grade like the stuff around the swimming pool, it won't be counted in lot coverage and you might even be able to conform to the lot coverage and get rid of that variance all together. I mean it's not something you can calculate in your head right this second but you know we are only allowed by law to grant variances when there's no feasible alternative so what we have to do in the record is explore some possible alternatives. Now I don't' see how you can there is no alternative for the proposed front porch you know that's the front door. You're either going have a porch or you're not and the house has whatever setback it's got 80 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 =. but we're looking at the lot coverage. What we can do is adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks and give you a chance to talk to the architect, to talk to your client you know and see what you might work out. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay so the proposed deck extension you prefer to be on grade so it doesn't affect the lot coverage correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. MEMBER DANTES : No I wouldn't say that. I mean you have a couple of different avenues you could follow that'll get code conforming lot coverage. That's what we're just kind of asking you to figure out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah that's the most obvious because otherwise you're really messing with the architectural plans, the elevations, the roof pitches cause they're proposing you know some additional things on the side of the house. We're leaving it up to you but here's our goal, find a way to reduce or make more conforming or in fact (inaudible) entirely conforming on the lot coverage. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay. So before the two weeks come to you with our you know new proposal? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah with an amended yeah if you can do it within two weeks then"' depending on how fast we get it we'll just close this close the hearing then we will write a draft and deliberate on a decision. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay but we're okay with the front porch correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well we haven't voted yet but you know you got two front yards again and here we go all over again with the same problems every corner lot has. The Board looks at those a little bit differently then you have additions and alterations. If you were building something from scratch we might have a different thought but the house is where it is, it's legally existing and my opinion just one of five votes that's not a big issue. It's only a 7 foot deep porch you're talking about. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay so I will discuss it with my client and the architect and we'll get another plan hopefully within two weeks before two weeks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would just be an amended application because you would be changing hopefully the lot coverage (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie would it help I don't want to say to expedite things but we're talking about two different things here the front yard setback which you know is benign and I think we've discussed it but we haven't obviously we're not rendering a decision but the more 81 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 important thing is the lot coverage. Based upon the table that the applicant included, if they completely remove the rear deck they would remove and it ends up being a little over 2% so they'd be conforming under their 20% if they took the deck away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The extension you're talking about? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No the entire deck. So they would just have a landing with stairs going down or a stoop. JENNIFER WICKS : Remove their existing deck? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not the one that's around the pool. MEMBER DANTES :The one around the pool is being removed on the plan and replaced with an on grade patio. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right, so to continue with that theme if they removed the raised deck in its entirety they would end up being at Like 19% lot coverage based on their own table. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if they just do a step down to more patio more pavers. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :That's what you had suggested not reducing or limiting the addition of the deck but I'm saying remove the entire deck just do your at grade patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's something for them to explore. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Of course but that would get them to 19%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Now on the second floor with expanding there's going to be more bedrooms and another bath added, is the septic system there you know able to handle all this? JENNIFER WICKS : I believe if I'm correct that somebody else was handling as far as the septic system went. I was not involved as far as them either certifying or getting a new one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You know what; maybe you can find out what their plans are because the Department of Health is going to require MEMBER ACAMPORA : You know cause you have a lot of bedrooms up there and I don't know what the Department of Health is going to'have to say about that. 82 - =v Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN': Yeah cause the house has been there for quite a while they may 4" require an upgrade of some sort so that's something to look at too. The other thing is that it would possibly help while you're going to be looking into this a little further, if there are any prior variances on Windjammer or on Harbor Lights for front yard setbacks to see if there are other non-conforming front yard setbacks on either those street nearby. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We often look for you know for those kinds of things. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just going to say what I'll do is make a motion before the Board to vote on adjourning this to the Special Meeting in two weeks,two weeks from today in the late afternoon early evening and whatever you can get into Kim to the office Liz or Donna or whatever if you manage to get everything you think we want to look at in by then we'll close the hearing and then what we can do is evaluate then if we have any more questions we'll adjourn it to the next Public Hearing but it's probably that we won't have any questions and we can just close the matter and then we'll deliberate. It's possible we can deliberate two weeks from today, it depends on how fast we get the information we're looking for but at the very latest we would be writing a draft, closing it in two weeks and then writing a draft and deliberate at our next meeting which is going to be our December Regular Meeting I think it's December 3rd something like that. BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes December 3rd CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So we would have the decision then. It's just a matter of how fast you know you and the architect and your client can work on this stuff. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay so I will find out I'm sorry MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I just wanted to add something else that Pat was talking about relative to the bedrooms, I looked at the file again it's currently a three bedroom house and you're going to a six bedroom house so I think the wastewater the septic issue is something important and the other thing it really strikes me again that this is a demolition so I think we should have a little bit of a dialogue about what is a demolition or how you move forward. MEMBER DANTES : If you're going from three bedrooms to six they definitely are going to need a brand new system. MEMBER LEHNERT : That'll get bounded in the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We're just trying to bring all of these things up now Jennifer so nobody gets blindsided along the way and we're looking at all of the issues. We like to try and work you 83 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 know with other agencies so we're all on the same page and we don't delay property owners or having things not resolved at the time a decision is made. So I think they may require that you install an IA system and abandon the old septic. If something is new construction this Board requires it but we have to see what the Department of Health is going to do. So perhaps talking to them and seeing or with the Building Department seeing what kind of upgrade you're going to be required to do because you're doubling the bedrooms you're definitely going to have to do something with that. JENNIFER WICKS : I do believe they are like I said I wasn't handling that part of it as far as the Health Department went but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the architect should. JENNIFER WICKS : Yeah I actually texted somebody right now so as soon as I get the information I will get back to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sound good, anything else from anybody? Okay I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearingto the Special Meeting on November 19th and Jennifer knows what it is we're looking to receive. Is there a second from somebody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora, Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye 84 --- Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 ;. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously, we will be in touch with you. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay thank you. HEARING#7429—SUSAN COHEN WACHTER and PAUL E.WACHTER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is application #7429 Susan Cohen Wachter and Paul E. Wachter and this was adjourned from October 1s1 so I'm just going to quickly enter into the record the variances that are requested. This is a demolition and a new single family dwelling with a front yard setback at 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. Bring us up to date Bruce. BRUCE ANDERSON : When we were last before you there were a couple of questions that came up and a couple of issues. One of them first and foremost was your request for other variances granted in the neighborhood. We presented you with a map back in the October meeting so we followed up with a memo and a copy of each and every one'of those decisions so you have those before you and we took the time to go through these variances that analyze the findings made with respect to each of the granted variances. We then compared those with the variances we have today and we're in the within the realm of front yard setbacks and side yard setbacks and the variances that have been given there. Some of the findings many of the findings consistently say that if you're maintaining the same setbacks you're not changing the character of the neighborhood and that even includes if you're demolishing a house so I tried to highlight those sorts of statements so you have all that before you.You also now have two letters of support and those are from the property owners on either side, one I emailed over to you today that came in yesterday from Mrs. Price and then a second that you already had dated November 2nd from the other neighbor which was Robert (inaudible) and Sarah Collins. So those were the two neighbors on either side that are supportive of the application so you have that. It's important to keep in mind that we are constrained by wetlands adjacent to Pipes Cove. We have an existing setback between the house and the wetlands at 50 feet which we are maintaining. We also have an existing setback between the existing house in the front yard at 23.4 that we are maintaining and as for side yard setbacks we're actually increasing the side yard setback which existing we currently have one at 6.7 feet and we've gone through some of these plans and we have extended those to 13.4 feet and frankly in speaking with Chris Fokine who is the contractor who is also very much involved in the design of the house,we're thinking that we may be able to rotate the house clockwise slightly to increase the setback to actually 15 feet which would comply leaving us only with the front yard setback. Now what made us think about this a little bit was there was a person across the street that sort of straddles our property line and the property line of(inaudible) and Collins and her complaint this was Ms. (audible) that she would be losing a view so we looked at 85 M Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 that and that's what made us (inaudible) what her view actually is she's looking betw6en1hese two houses. So if we rotate that house slightly you at least not need that variance and maybe that preserves some sort of a view. Now having said that it's an accommodation that we're willing to make but we also have to recognize that you know the zoning code of New York and local doesn't afford any specific protections to"someone's view. It's just sort of a neighborly thing to do and so in discussions earlier today we thought we might do that if that resolves any problems the Board may have. Now at the end of the day this house is no deeperthan the house we already have being wedged between the road in'the front and wetlands on the rear so we're sort of maintaining the similar depth. We've also been very careful to keep the house under the 20% coverage which as you know is extremely onerous on a property that contains wetlands because you're subtracting the wetlands from buildable land to get to that coverage. So if you have a 20,000 sq. ft. lot let's say and half of it is wetlands we're really only working with a 10,000 sq. ft. lot and your coverage would be based off 10,000 and not the 20,000 so that's important to note. Beyond that there was a question as to the elevation of the house and so we went back which kind of took me by surprise that was Member Planamento raised that and so we provided you with our septic plans and what the plans showed is that the elevations of the house are needed because that's the way the septic system is designed. It is a gravity system, it is an IA system and it is located in the southerly side yard of the property and it conforms in all respects to the Suffolk County sanitary codes. So that's where we're at with this at this point. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. If the rotation !of the house is meaningful in your right now we've designed this to a 13.4 foot setback in our latest reiteration and I don't think gaining 1 foot 8 inches is going to be terribly hard for us to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well certainly the Board always would welcome as I'm sure you know any elimination of a variance you now so if you can get rid of that single side yard setback variance that would certainly be something the Board would look favorably upon. I'm speaking for myself but I think that's safe to say in general, if we can eliminate variances that's the goal to be as conforming to the code as is practicable. BRUCE ANDERSON : If you look at the graphic although not the survey you see what I'm talking about it's that corner of that house that crosses the line so we're just thinking maybe we can just rotate it out of that setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just tweak it. That's a very simple thing to do. Bruce you know thank you for your detailed investigation of the non-conformities along Bayshore, we know there are many cause the lots are narrow there and so on, the stuff you submitted there aren't any dates on those variances. I'm sure you have them. BRUCE ANDERSON : I gave you each and every variance and they're all dated. 86 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know What, you know what I did is I printed out your summary because I didn't want to print out every maybe Kim could just do that or you can just simply give us the number and the date that's all for your summary that's all. BRUCE ANDERSON : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause you describe what the variance relief was in that summary. BRUCE ANDERSON : I can add them to my memo that's easy for me to do. MEMBER DANTES : It runs the gamut Leslie, I mean there's stuff from like two or three years ago all the way back to like the seventies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but you now I think it's well I mean I like to know who wrote these variances and when because the Boards were very different and actually the codes were different as you go back in time. I mean a lot of those old decisions granted relief without even telling you what the relief was. They just said front yard setback without how far you know what the setback itself was. They relied on a survey that was attached to the decision so sometimes it's hard to piece it together. A number of these are for side yard setbacks quite understandably along there cause they're narrow lots and a number of the others are for additions and alterations also very understandable when you have pre-existing non-conforming buildings. MEMBER DANTES : A lot of bulkheads too which we don't do anymore. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was one here it was 5516, demolish a one story dwelling construct a two story dwelling with a side yard setback less than 10 feet, (inaudible) setback less than 25.So they were again side yard setbacks and it was for a new dwelling,that's quite relevant when you're building another new dwelling but it appears that you can actually make the side yard setbacks conforming which is a good thing. Then there's a front yard setback but it's for an accessory garage and that's of course rather different than a setback for a dwelling. BRUCE ANDERSON : (inaudible) front yard Baker and Finkerson was a front yard, Yantos was a front yard as well as side yards. Myerhulse was a front yard, Swing is really interesting because that's a corner lot with one front yard setback existing but it's at 1 foot 1 feet north of the property line one inch. So you know again our problem here is we're always going to have this issue because the hardship here is really the limited distance between the road and the wetlands. So if you're going to setback from the wetlands 50 feet which is a rather minimal the reason why we've chosen that number is because the that's where the existing house is. It's at 50 feet so what we're saying is we're going to maintain that setback and so once you do that you're going to need front yard setback anyway. So the point is that you've developed a house that certainly isn't too big cause it doesn't exceed coverage even though there is probably a dozen examples 87 I Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 that I've given you vWh'ere houses do exceed coverages on the various lots. So we've tried to not make it a too big and certainly not too high. We're not asking for that relief and if we can rotate it we're asking for one variance a front yard variance and it is the same front yard variance that exists today which the Board has made many findings that maintaining setbacks is maintaining character even if you do demolish a house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if anybody on the Board has any questions for Bruce. Let's start with Eric, do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I don't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Is there anybody here in attendance that wants to address this application?Well there's several people in the attendees list. Let's find out oh somebody just did a Q&A here. Nope that's not anything. Well Chris Fokine design MEMBER DANTES :That's the builder. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have a raised hand let me see what they have to say. MEMBER DANTES : Fokine works for Bruce he's the one that did the plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Bertault if you can hear us we're assuming you're here for Mini Cedars and that the office staff did notify others in your neighborhood that this application had by request of the applicant been adjourned until December so we will not be hearing that application today. So I guess there's nobody else out there for the application before us for Wachter at this point. BOARD ASSISTANT : I know that Chris raised his hand and I moved him over but he is all CHRIS FOKINE : Yes can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes we can hear you. Is there anything you want us to know about this application? 88 Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 CHRIS FOKINE : Sure, first my name is Chris Fokine, I'm the designer and builder of this home hopefully in the future I will be building this. I just wanted to make comment that we have drawn this and redrawn this many, many, many times to try to squeeze altogether and create an application that didn't really need a lot of work. I mean the D.E.C. setback you know is actually 100 feet so we're working on that separately(inaudibly)that would put the 100 foot mark nearly in the street. So this is very difficult area as you guys know. There's non-conforming, pre-existing many, many,issues here trying to get a house to fit here but I think we tried really hard and did a lot of work with the owners over the past two years really we've been working on this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you for your testimony. This is going to need Trustees approval too I take it after we're done? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : Bruce D.E.C. is going to review this or you're going to get a letter of BRUCE ANDERSON : No we're in front of D.E.C. presently. We made the application there has been some back and forth by way of clarification and we're waiting for them to make a'decision. We expect to get that decision because again we're maintaining that same wetland setback that 50 feet and we're adding you know some environmental pluses such as you know full run off control which the town (inaudible) and also the IA system so we're hopeful that balancing you know all factors that the project will be approved but I believe by all agencies because all you have to do is evaluate what's there today environmentally and balance that against what we're proposing. So the septic system alone would be a big issue because this is served by an individual block cesspool that's already in groundwater so it's not performing it's environmental function today and that's probably true with a great many houses up and down that street there cause the properties are low. So I expect to you know it's a lot of process and the owners have been I must say very patient and have been involved in this every step of the way and you know we expect to get there but this is our first stop and first hearing at least locally because as you know the Trustees are not going to process an application ahead of the Zoning Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right the only time we do that now and I believe you know this I told Rob Herrmann this also that what we're doing as standard procedure now is if anybody submits something to us that is in the coastal erosion hazard area we ask the Trustees to go first because then they can send it over to the Town Board for a coastal erosion permit.So once those agencies then we have something to mitigate you know and make it LWRP consistent with those approvals in place. So it's a benefit to the property owner to do it that way first cause otherwise we don't have any jurisdiction over it cause it's in the CERA. So other than that you alright with any approvals we grant being also approved by the D.E.C. and Trustees? 89 . -Regular Meeting November 5, 2020 BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh yeah at'the end of the day every permit is going to match every other permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay the other thing is Bruce do you and Chris I should ask you, do you want to submit an amended survey showing a conforming side yard? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that variance can go away then? CHRIS FOKINE : Absolutely we can (inaudible) by the surveyor yep. BRUCE ANDERSON : And the reason is when you write your decision memo hoping you will approve it, you're going to reference a particular survey which will be attached to that decision and we're going to use that so we can circulate it among the other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly so we all have the same documents. Any idea how long that's going to take you to get to us? BRUCE ANDERSON : Oh I think we should be able to get it back to you within two weeks. I'm relying on Chris but he's pretty persistent:' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why don't I'just adjourn you want us to close it subject to receipt or just adjourn it BRUCE ANDERSON : I think you can close it subject to receipt and I'll add the dates back into the memo if that's something you'd like and it,makes it easier for you that's easy for me to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's easier when writing a decision to have it all in one place if you don't mind. BOARD ASSISTANT : I also have a questionafor you Bruce, when you do amend that survey or site plan make sure that it actually shows revision dates on it. So instead of changing the date] want a revision date. BRUCE ANDERSON : I agree with you yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright that sounds good we have a plan.Anything else from anybody? Okay I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey showing conforming single side yard. BOARD ASSISTANT : Is it adjourned or closed reserve? 90 Regular Meeting November 5,2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry close thank you.l'm going to close it subject to receipt of an amended survey showing conforming side yard. BRUCE ANDERSON :And the amended the memo showing the dates of the variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct yes that too. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes, Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. Well that ends the public hearing section. 91 I Regular Meeting November 5, 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 : November 17, 2020 92