Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/03/2020 Hearing Regular Meeting December 3, 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 December 3, 2020 10:12 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant 1 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page. Estate of Thomas Eiring by Stephen Gutleber, Executor#7427 7 -9 Robert and Kim Cagnazzi #7440 9 - 18 Mini Cedars, LLC#7428 19- 32 1750 Sterling Lane, LLC#7441 32-41 Claudia Cebada-Mora LLC#7442 41-43 Kristopher Pilles#7443 43 -48 Carrie Tintle#7444 48-52 AGK RE Management#7446 52-59 Robert Kevin Mclean #7447 59- 62 Richard and Tara Jernick#7445 62- 66 2 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome everyone to the Public Hearing portion of the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for December 3, 2020. 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 December 3, 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. I apologize for the rough rocky beginning to everyone who is attending. We had some problems with the IT Department that inadvertently caused us to get knocked off of the meeting but we're all back and ready to go. So without any further delay I'm going to ask Liz Sakarellos to explain to those who are attending how they can participate in the meeting. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. If anyone wished to comment on an application we ask that you send us a note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or you can click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and then you can let us know which application you are here for. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me get rightto the SEAR reviews. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast request as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR)6 NYCRR, Part 617.5 © including the following: Robert and Kim Cagnazzi, 1750 Sterling Lane, LLC, Claudia Cebada-Mora LLC, Kristopher Pilles, Carrie Tintle, Richard and Tara Jernic, AGK RE Management, Robert Kevin Mclean, so moved is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. All in favor please raise your hands. Let the record show that the vote is unanimous. The first item on the agenda here this morning is for AFJG LLC, Alexander Jedynski#7435. This application was adjourned from November 191h. We were looking for information on the septic system. We were looking for an amended lot coverage and some prior variances comparable in the neighborhood. We have received that information at this point and so unless the Board has anything else they want, I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing adjourn decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. Kim will you call the roll. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 3 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 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. This application is closed. The next item on the agenda is a draft decision for Michael Kreger#7420.This is a draft that began as an interpretation of the code relative to 2 % stories, % story. There's a lot in this draft, everyone has read it I presume? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because there's a lot of legal matters in here relating to code interpretation essentially, Bill would you very briefly walk us through the gist of this determination. T. A. DUFFY : Certainly, essentially the applicant was appealing a Notice of Disapproval for construction which the Building Department determined was an impermissible third floor. The applicant contends that because the area in question meets the dimensional definition of half story that is found in Section 280-4 and is silent as to use that the construction as proposed is permitted,the Building Department has consistently and as in this case found that anytime that an area is finished it constitutes a full story not a half story. While it's true that the definition of half story does give dimensional requirements and doesn't speak as to use you can't read that definition in a vacuum you have to consider the other definitions. When you look at definition of story it states that, if any area if a floor is finished then that area between the finished floor and the next floor or the finished floor and the roof beams is in fact a story therefore the Building Department was correct in their determination because they are proposing to finish that floor. So even though it does meet the dimensional requirements of a half story, because it is finished it also meets the definition of story so the Building Department was correct to make a determination that this area as proposed is to be counted as a story and not a half story so the 4 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 application to deny the application overturn the Building Department's determination would b'e denied in this decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there any questions on what Bill just described? I think it's pretty clear. We've all looked very carefully at all of these definitions of you know what is third story, what is state code, what is local code, what is half story and I think we've arrived at a determination that is a correct one. I'm going to make a motion to deny the MEMBER DANTES : Can I just make one suggestion? Just on the very last sentence just say approved the Building Department's determination. Just so that there is no question. T. A. DUFFY : Sustained not approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have to say uphold. T. A. DUFFY : Or sustained. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you prefer Bill? T. A. DUFFY : Either on but if you're more comfortable with uphold, sustained is more of a legal CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll put sustained if that's what you prefer. So to sustain the Building Department's determination. Alright so moved, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'll 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? 5 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 _- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. The next application is for Susan Cohen Wachter and Paul E. Wachter #7429, this was tabled. Basically we've hear I think all the testimony we need and we're just basically waiting for a survey from Bruce Anderson that's updated to show conforming side yards thereby eliminating one variance. We have not received that to date so I think we have no alternative but to continue to adjourn until we do receive this. I rather adjourn it to a specific date than without a date cause I think by now we're fairly close to we're pretty close to getting the survey and if we adjourn it without a date then they're going to have to do remailing and all of that which we don't want to put them through. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the next ZBA meeting date which is December 17th to the Special Meeting. 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. 6 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 _ HEARING#7427—ESTATE OF THOMAS EIRING BY STEPHEN GUTLEBER, EXECUTOR CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The application before us was adjourned from the prior meeting and we're looking for information here this is a I don't need to read the legal notice because it's an adjournment, is Pat Moore here? BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes I'm promoting her right now. Pat I promoted you to panelist so unmute yourself and also your client Steve Gutleber is also promoted as panelist. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we left off looking at the impact that the proposed variance relief might have based on comments from D.E.C. and Trustees because of the wetlands adjacent to water property. We got a survey right I think you sent us in recently the survey. You want to mention what that does. PAT MOORE : Yes, the D.E.C. returned comments during the time the changes the D.E.C. requested were relatively straightforward and minor, the non-disturbance buffer was increased to the 40 feet so you see the flagged wetlands 40 foot distance is now a non-disturbance buffer. It had in the previous plan been both a non-disturbance and non-turf. They wanted all non- disturbance.They then also asked that the silt fence be placed at the limit of the non-disturbance the landward limit. They only asked about whether there were walkways because they wanted us to show any walkways that-Were included. We don't have any walkways around the house so =f that did not need to be changed and we will just express that in the cover letter. But otherwise unfortunately the variance was will be granted once we submit this survey based on the size and location of the house so we've implemented all of the D.E.C's requirements and we anticipate that there won't be any additional comments. The Trustees should not have any issues with this because we are implementing what would be the Trustees actually it's even greater than their typical since it's a full non-disturbance rather than a non-disturbance and non-turf. So hopefully the Trustees are true to their consistent in their prior reviews. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to reiterate cause it's been a while,we're looking at a front yard setback of 35 feet where the code requires 50 feet and you are installing an IA system? PAT MOORE : Correct, the design includes an IA system, it's showing in the front yard. I did provide for the record the average setbacks that are on Main Bayview because if you recall from your site inspection, this is a little offshoot private road that goes to this property and adjacent property that is owned by Peter Jacks and I'm not sure if that property is yes there is a house on that property but it's situated pretty far east and towards the water. A significant part of Peter's property is natural so you wouldn't you would think actually that it's a vacant lot next door but it's just a larger lot with his house that's moved over to the east and north of our lot. This house all really you see is the back yard of the McMann Schrieffer home and then the roadway does a U, it's a little U shaped private road that then comes back out on Main Bayview Rd. It's a pretty 7 _ Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 , isolated property. It is consistent by way of development here consistent with the neighborhood. Many of these properties are non-conforming,this lot actually comes from a subdivision that was approved the three lot subdivision where the McMann house was existing and then this parcel and the adjacent parcel were the lots. We think we've given you a very reasonable application. Remember that our difficulty here is one, maintaining proper setbacks from the wetlands and the fact that the lot while it's dimensionally over the non-conforming more than 20,000 sq. ft. the setbacks that are applicable are for a lot that is over 20,000 but in fact the buildable area is significantly under.So our 35 foot setback would be a code compliant setback if the code allowed just use of the buildable area in the lot area calculations. So there's a technical issue here why we're applying a 40 foot front yard or 50 foot front yard depending on which code the zoning code setbacks but in fact we have had to shrink the front yard setback to a 35. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have everything we need. We could you know always make a determination subject to approval by the Trustees which is pretty standard. PAT MOORE :That's not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't expect problems from them either. Alright let's see if anybody has any questions any of the Board members, Nick any questions on this one? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No just out of curiosity, Pat do you know is (inaudible)-,Neck Rd. technically the road name or it's just someone's sense of humor? PAT MOORE : I have a feeling it's somebody's sense of humor because if you meet Mr. Dooley who is in the front and Peter Jacks they all are kind of quirky, lovely people very quirky and I wouldn't be surprised that it's a name they adopted. It's not to my knowledge it's not an official town name but you know honestly I'm not I didn't research that.The name was so odd I thought oh that's typical of I know Peter personally and Mr. Dooley very lovely came in cause we were dealing with Health Department and setback of well to sanitary so Mr. Dooley was an impacted neighbor and we offered to according to the Health Department rules we are going to pay for him to connect to public water which is the requirement when you have a sanitary system that is within 150 feet of somebodies private well. So that is being done here, we have a notarized statement which we sent back to the Health Department saying yes we're going to connect him to public water. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you for sharing about the public water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright, Donna thank you for sharing the survey with us. So hearing no further questions, is there anyone in attendance who wants to comment on this application? If so you can raise your hands. 8 -----Regular-Meeting December 3, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT: We don't have anybody raising hands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to assume there's nothing in the chat there's nothing in the Q&A. Alright I'm going to assume there are no other comments from the public, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. We'll have a decision at the next meeting. HEARING# 7440—ROBERT and KIM CAGNAZZI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me read into the record this application. It's Robert and Kim Cagnazzi #7440. This is a request for a variance from Article XII Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's August 11, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to convert an attic to a third floor habitable area (home office and gym) at, 1) more than the code permitted maximum two and one-half(2 %) stories located at 12700 New Suffolk Ave. (adj. to Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. This is to as I said convert what appears to be virtually the entire attic area into a 9 -:- - - _1— Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 third floor to consist of a home office and a gym. Pat what would you like us to know about'this application? It's under construction, we went out there and saw pretty much nothing. PAT MOORE : I know when you asked for a picture I said really you want a picture of construction okay. We did give you the set of plans, you have the survey. Did I also give you the landscape plan? It was a color rendering and I don't recall because it was given to it was part of the Trustees application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to look at my paperwork and see. PAT MOORE : If it's not it's not a problem I'll just send you after the hearing I'm going to ask to incorporate some additional documents but we have a color rendering of the Trustees the non- disturbance buffers, the landscape buffers. We have an extensive plan that was prepared when we were submitting this application to the Trustees and to the D.E.C. so I want to make sure BOARD ASSISTANT : Is it a survey from Fox Land Surveying? PAT MOORE : No it was a site plan prepared by Austin Patterson CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we have that. PAT MOORE : I wasn't sure because we were dealing primarily with interior spaces but our comments are going to be also related to the existing conditions of the property so I thought that might be helpful and in support of our application. So I'll be asking to submit that after the hearing. Just procedurally what would be easier for you, as a PDF color rendering by email and just BOARD ASSISTANT : Also two prints, two hard copies. PAT MOORE :Two prints and the PDF not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let me just begin with the following question, this is a brand new home under construction, we don't have floor plans for anything other than the attic space to be converted. We do have sections and elevations, so I don't know exactly how the layout is in the basement and in the first and second floor but when you're doing a brand new home I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to find room for a gym and a small home office somewhere in a conforming area without having to go to a third story. Could you address that please. PAT MOORE : Yes sure, it's a combination of legal and architectural so I'll deal with the legal and then I'll turn to the architectural design. Under the legal, when the architects were reading the code and interpreting the code and preparing the design they do work throughout the east end of Long Island so from East Hampton so the North Fork and beyond obviously. When they were reading our code there was no language that was in the code that would prohibit or even limit 10 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 the use of that space the former or what we call attic space as part of the 2%story structure and the code does not define an attic and then it goes on and I saw that you had another decision and I wasn't aware of the other decision that was pending that you just made but that seemed to be an interpretation of the Building Department determination that it's a third story. We've been arguing throughout that the 2 % story is a permitted use and when you go to town code 284 the definitions of floor area, livable it is defined as all spaces within the exterior walls of a dwelling unit. Then it goes on to say and I break it up into chunks here because yes we all agree it's all space within the exterior within the exterior walls of a dwelling unit,then you go onto read exclusive of garages, breezeways, unheated porches, cellars, heater rooms and approved basements having windows area of less than 10% of the square foot area of the room. So you can use your basement as livable floor area provided that it has adequate ventilation, lights and egress windows and then the code goes on that same floor area livable is defined as usable floor area shall include all spaces not otherwise excluded above such as principle rooms, utility rooms, bathrooms, all closets and hallway openings directly into any rooms within the dwelling unit. So when you read livable floor area really it's from the top from the roof to the basement you can it's all potentially livable floor area with the added supervision overriding umbrella of the NYS building code.So they read the code,designed the house with the space above all complying with the zoning code of the height limitations,the 2%stories which is identified and defined as a story half, again any space with a minimum clear height of 5 feet partially within the roof framing where the clear height of not more than 50% of such space between the top floor beams and structural ceiling levels is 7 feet 6 inches or more. So when they were designing and I'll turn to the architects for the design because I will correct or clarify the plans,the design is not from end to end all living area it is limited to that portion of,the percentage of the lower floor which is the defined area that is permissible to be converted or used as living space. So that is the legal technical reading the code and what the code says. In addition, when they submitted the plans to the Building Department,the Building Department comments were well as long as you're not using it for a bedroom. They had seen throughout the years approval of spaces of the finished attic let's call it a finished attic to be used as livable space but it always had to be reviewed by the Zoning Board. In part, many years prior to the change to the state building code you couldn't convert that space without getting a variance from the NYS because of fire suppression rules. Now as you know the code was changed the NYS building code was changed and as long as you provide appropriate fire suppression that space is livable can be habitable. So that was the combination of yes you might have to go to the Zoning Board and the clients really thought that that space was certainly beneficial. It was already on the plans, it ultimately got a building permit and in anticipation of having to go to the Zoning Board for what we anticipated would be yes we need fire suppression and because historically the Zoning Board was asked to review anything that was above the second floor whether it was interpretation which I'd have to read and see what your prior what you did with the interpretation but the half story issue because again that 11 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 architect or that whatever that appeal was and I'm not privy to all the facts there, architects, contractors people that don't necessarily know the history of ZBA decisions would read it to be that it is permissible and that's the direction that they were going. When you see also the design of the house you see that from the back yard it's a waterfront house, obviously gorgeous views, this particular(inaudible) and the reason that I want to include the landscape plan because there was extensive efforts at minimizing even though it's a large house it's a very large piece of property, minimizing the footprint creating more than 100 foot setbacks from the wetlands we created significant non-disturbance buffers and non-turf buffers on the one existing garage in the front yard was demolished in order to create more green space, more landscaping. The clients love this property,they want to limit the footprint and use the space that's existing.That became even more apparent after COVID hit because we're all looking for space to run Zoom meetings and looking at your background Patricia Acampora looks like she's in her basement. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I am. PAT MOORE : Cellar or basement. I guess it's a well we don't really know we have to look at the window openings. Again the code it's interesting because the Zoning Board and the Building Department has never had an issue with using a basement as living space again provided you meet the criteria. One,you get a building permit because it's finished space and two, it has proper well now you have to it's mandatory to have egress windows so you have to have proper egress. Life changes and again what is and we'll turn to the customary accessory and I think we're behind the times in what is really needed in this community. We have a policy of trying to limit mcmansions,we have a policy of trying to encourage setbacks from wetlands and code provisions of that, we incorporated drainage criteria to address any issues with respect to storm water. It's frustrating because only most recently since the Grandview decision, was the Board not inclined to approve in any respect the use of these spaces as livable and that is contrary to what the code says and unless you know the Board's decisions that have been coming down the code has not changed. The design professionals have no way of having notice of this interpretation or new or change in direction by the Zoning Board. That being said I'm also going to ask that the record of the Grandview appeal be incorporated into the file because we did submit an extensive petition, a memorandum of law and while this application is not asking for sleeping quarters, has no bathroom is an office again accessory to the single family. It's a gym, gymnasium which if you didn't have the room you'd be doing it in your living room but if you have the room wonderful you have space and you can exercise without dealing with unfortunately the scenario with gyms and the restrictions of COVID. I'm going now turn to Tim to testify regarding the plans-and we will submit also the full plan, it's extensive so that's why it would it's all part of the building permit application but we're happy to submit it to the Board if you want to know the rest of the plan of the house we'll submit that. The clients had considered an alternative plan B and the plan B was to have to build a rebuild the garage there that was recently demolished and it's in the front yard 12 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 because and that one is about the only area that is open not restricted by wetlands and it is north of the proposed sanitary system,that space potentially would be a gym and office but one,you're increasing lot coverage,you're increasing the footprint, you're building you're spending maybe a hundred and fifty,two hundred thousand to build that space that extra building where right now it's intended to be open space, yard landscaped and create the alternative of keeping it open as a much nicer view scape from New Suffolk Ave. So yeah that's an alternative but I think when it comes to the use of accessory buildings whether you want it as a gym or an office the Building Department I think still sends you to the Zoning Board if you want to use your accessory building as a home office. So here we are back where we came that the alternative being the separate building which is not what the client prefers. It's not what would benefit the community but that's where the Board pushes people either to expand footprints or to build accessory buildings. Again that seems to me contrary to all the policies that seem to be expressed by the Town Board and the (inaudible). MEMBER DANTES : Pat I mean if the Town Board feels that way they have the right to change the code. I mean that's their purview it's not ours. PAT MOORE : Absolutely. MEMBER DANTES : I mean if they express it that's their (inaudible) is there really an expression. PAT MOORE : The expression is based on our the master plan and all the zoning restrictions you have and the lot coverage and the setback from wetlands that's what I'm talking about. If you're saying hey the Town Board can legislate and permit the use of the attic spaces as habitable, livable spaces that's what the code says now, it's onlythis Board that has been interpreting things that would necessitate going back to the Town Board and say Town Board we want a public hearing. This is not what the community wants, it's not what a community desires. There are so many reasons why we should not be getting these decisions from the Zoning Board. We should use our existing spaces. What's the difference between any of you and your neighbors if you're sitting in your finished attic or sitting in your finished basement? Absolutely none and that's the point of impact on the character of the community. The house changes does not change in one respect, the height of the building remains, the volume of the building remains. If anything it's encouraging use the space you have don't increase it. In fact somebody on Facebook and I don't know where this is coming from was talking about, oh lot coverage increasing lot coverage and there was some conversation on Facebook and I don't know where it's coming from and it was interesting because like well what you're doing in your decisions is forcing people to increase their lot coverage or increase their footprint. Again, it's a complete upside down of what has historically been all the ZBA decisions up through Grandview decision and now whatever other decision you just adopted today which I'll read when it's published. So let me turn to Tim so that he can 13 _._Regular Meeting December 3,2020 MEMBER DANTES :The other thing Pat if I remember correctly a couple of decisions I've seen we approved third floors is they were always on sloped properties where the first floor was buried into a hill so it had limited usability. PAT MOORE : No actually on so I'm going to go back to the Edgewater decision. I just pulled it up I made a copy of it, let me look I will get it to you. That was an appeal I was involved in, it's on the North Rd. the house had a the third floor was being used as a bedroom and we needed a variance for the elevator shaft because it exceeded it was at 37 feet because the elevator wouldn't be under 35. That appeal the variance was granted the only condition being that sprinklers and that was a flat piece of property,there was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. You can compare this house with the Edgewater house almost well in that case the volumes were similar but they were taking the space that we're proposing as a gym as a full bedroom suite and that was the approval that was granted. Also Tim will talk about the fact that we have no basement here, we're by the water. It's a 700 sq. ft. mechanical room, cellar unfinished cellar. So spaces are limited to first floor and anything above. I will give you the ZBA. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Just to clarify something you just said, on the plans that you submitted it actually shows an unfinished basement. It doesn't call it a cellar, there are two crawl spaces but there is an unfinished basement. PAT MOORE : It should have been labeled as a cellar. It's not a basement it's unfinished. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you just forward us just the floor plans and the foundation plans? PAT MOORE : Right now you want them? MEMBER LEHNERT : No not now but you know in the future just to clarify some of this. PAT MOORE : Oh absolutely no problem. Let me give you the Edgewater decision because I did write down the decision #4968 and the tax map was 1000-40-1-20.2 and that was a third floor and a variance for an elevator shaft. That decision it came to mind last time I was on the Grandview appeal but I didn't have the decision but this time I printed it but I can also provide it to you so you can see.A bedroom on what the Building Department determined was a third floor so let me turn to Tim because I do want him to address the floor area and those issues and come back to me if you have additional questions. Thank you. TIM GANETIS : My name is Timothy Ganetis. I just wanted to clarify something about the area that we were proposing as the gym and the home office, that portion would measure 852 sq. ft. based on the half story definition. So it is not the full area, a good portion of that space would remain mechanical, circulation, chimney flues, AV closet etc. as labeled on the plans. So it is a proportionally small area to the overall area of the attic. 14 Regular Meeting December.3,_2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the total square footage of the attic area? TIM GANETIS : The total square footage of the attic area if we the entire footprint the same as the second floor which would be 2,515.58 sq. ft. The portion meeting the definition of half story was 1,689.4 and as a result and is at the 7 foot 6 finished headroom line or above is 764.99. We really did these calculations based on the half story definition as per the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why couldn't a gym be located in the unfinished basement? TIM GANETIS : The unfinished basement really is not a basement it is a cellar and it is only for mechanical equipment. Because of the proximity to water the basement is specially engineered with a hydrostatic slab and it really is for mechanical only.There are no windows into it, it is really purely for mechanical space.The effort was made though it is a significant house to minimize the footprint so it sits nicely on the land and doesn't overwhelm the site. The lot coverage that's proposed including all of the permeable surfaces is 15% of the upland area, we're allowed 20% so the house and the paving really could have been another 5,200 sq. ft. without an issue but we really were conscious of trying to make the house be as compact, efficient and fit in with the site as much as possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if what you're saying is the area for the gym and the home office - is 850 sq. ft. is that correct? TIM GANETIS : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that's pretty small compared to the 5,200 sq. ft. that you could have at ground level. The Board has definitely granted habitable space on the third floor, finished habitable space many times over time actually but we generally have done it for rather small things, viewing rooms. I think we have granted actually an office in the past. We'd have to look at the priors on this but I'm sure we have done that. I don't think we've ever granted a gym you know an exercise area. I mean is the intent to bring equipment in there? TIM GANETIS : The house has been structurally engineered to accommodate that. It's not going to be I imagine it's probably a Peloton, a rowing machine, other things like that. We don't have Arnold Schwarzenegger living up there so I would be it's more of a fitness room rather than gym (inaudible). STEWART DISSTON : Hi Stewart Disston here. I also just want to add that the volume in size and dimensions proportions to the house does not change at all. Everything was already approved by the Building Department, everything was there. So there would be no visible or meaningful change in any way from the street or from any exterior of this house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Stewart if I may,to that point can I ask two questions? 15 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 STEWART DISSTON : Yep. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You said that everything was approved by the Building Department, I'm not suggesting that they perhaps made an error but maybe I'm mistaken but on the set of plans that you submitted the permit set for the finished attic, it shows a ridge height of 39 feet inches. I'm confused I thought that we're limited to 35 feet. STEWART DISSTON :The height was taken to 35 feet is to the midpoint of the roof I believe based on the height definition not the top of ridge. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rob is this correct?You're better with that stuff than me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's correct. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's correct,they did it the right way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good that was one question. The other question I had was on the plan for the attic space that illustrates the gym and home office, it shows a stairwell entry not a pull down stair and there is an elevator shaft it's labeled mechanical room. So I guess the two questions I have is will the elevator service the gym level and was that on the original plan along with the stairwell? STEWART DISSTON : The stairwell was on the original plan. You are allowed a stairway up to an unfinished attic as per NYS code and the elevator is to the mechanical to service the floors below. We did not change the function of the elevator on this application to finish the attic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything else? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. PAT MOORE : Here I am. One question you had was I took notes, the elevator is going to the second floor not all the way to the gym it stops oh there's no bathroom up at that space. It's just an open space well the office is a you know enclosure and otherwise it's open for the fitness room. 16 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020_ __- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other Board members have anything at this time? What there anybody else in attendance who wanted to speak on this application? BOARD ASSISTANT : No one has raised their hands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'm going to just say if there's anybody in the attendees list who is here to address this application and would like to make a comment please let us know by raising your hand or writing something in the chat room. BOARD ASSISTANT : Nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to adjourn this to the Special Meeting to give Pat to give you time to submit whatever additional information you'd like and if the Board has no further questions based on what you submit we'll close it then and we may even be able to deliberate that night I don't know for sure. PAT MOORE : When is your Special Meeting? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The Special Meeting is December 17th. Is that agreeable to the Board? MEMBER LEHNERT :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay the motion has been made, is there�a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim would you call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? 17 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries and we are going to be getting a memorandum of law of prior determination and a landscape plan, was that it Pat? We had asked you for all the floor plans of the rest of the house. PAT MOORE :Yes, so let me see yes I have the Grandview petition in my list I have the Grandview petition and the memorandum of law from that file, potentially a memorandum on this but it might be already incorporated in the Grandview appeal, the Edgewater decision which I found now but I gave you the number but I'll provide you with the actual decision. The full set of plans of this house is that what you wanted or just the floor plans? MEMBER LEHNERT :Just the floor plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Floor plans all of the floors. PAT MOORE : That's fine all the floors yea that's fine. I'm going to send CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The only one we have is the attic level. PAT MOORE :Yes we didn't want to overwhelm you,there was just so much paper.That's fine if you need something we're happy to provide it. The landscape plan that was approved by the Trustees and anything else that comes to mind as I go through the file. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't think we need paper plans the PDF's will probably be alright. PAT MOORE : Oh that's great that would be better. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause Kim could forward them to us and we can all see them. Alright good enough. PAT MOORE : Alright thank you. BOARD ASSISTANT : For the next hearing I need Mike Kimack to raise your hand. Okay here we go. 18 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 _— HEARING#7428—MINI CEDARS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is Mini Cedars. LLC #7428. This has been adjourned from a previous hearing so I don't need to read the Notice of Disapproval. Let's just begin by saying we did receive an amended survey and that eliminated two variances,the lot coverage was proposed at 29.8%,and eliminated a front yard setback of 29.9 feet and now the variance that remains is for the insufficient lot area of 38,286 sq. ft. the code requiring 40. Also a lot width I believe of 129 feet where the code requires 150 feet. The proposed lot coverage now is 17.7%, front yard setback is now 40.2 feet. Is that all correct Mike? MIKE KIMACK : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So have you received letters from Beverly Greene and from Charlotte Greene? MIKE KIMACK : I have not no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One was received December 2"d, the other received I don't have it stamped a little bit before. They continue to raise you know their neighbors, they continue to raise many, many issues about the deeded easement on the property that has been confirmed by various deeds and surveys that have been submitted to this Board that the survey doesn't properly show Stevenson Rd. LLC as the owners of the roads.Thank you very much Donna I forgot to ask you to put that up. In 1973 there was a non-buildable zone negotiated and an 80,000 sq. ft. setoff map by VanTuyl for open space which includes the triangle of land that you're now proposing to transfer to Mini Cedars. Would you like to address any of those issues? MIKE KIMACK : Yes, I believe that you should have a plan there and I know that Young & Young did it as a result of the last meeting that put the 80,000 sq. ft. on there. I know it's not on this particular one but the original one that was done by VanTuyl was kind of inclusive of the existing house which is on Gentlemens Ridge and it wrapped around I'm trying to see whether or not it is in there let me see because if it was easily reconfigured in order to have the 80,000 sq. ft. primarily I'm not quite RICH GUILLAUME : Mike that looks like the old plan, that doesn't look like the new house plan, I think that might be why. MIKE KIMACK : That's the old plan yeah that's the old plan, but the old plan might have had the 80,000 on it because we were at that particular time I think we revised it with the old plan and put the 80,000 sq. ft. on there. That's not an issue I can get that to you in essence to show that the 80,000 sq. ft. would not include that little triangular piece it's only 1,300 sq. ft. The VanTuyl one when you look at it, it was kind of roughly drawn in and it basically had a couple of metes 19 Regular Meeting December-3, 2020 and bounds and basically just had some distances'but it's easy enough to reconfigure that on the plan not to include the triangle to meet the concerns of the neighbors. I think it might have already been done, I have to admit to you that we've done so many different revisions and changes it's kind of like the old Abbott and Costello who's on first on this particular one. I can certainly clarify that and get you showing you the 80,000 sq. ft. with the triangular section not part of it. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you Mike,why not just conform to code? I mean why go through the variance? MIKE KIMACK : Well the answer is let me put this back to you then basically, when this lot was created in 1976 Eric under 2168 it was created with the understanding that it was an undersized lot primarily and they had insufficient width and area and the Board found even that it was unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property but it met all of the criteria back then as a non-conforming lot it was created and granted that variance.To go one step further, under 2402 in the same area right down on Stephenson Rd.you granted a variance to construct a house on a non-conforming lot. So we don't feel that we necessarily have to go through that because now we'd have to be readjusting in order to do that we'd have to take 20 feet away from the other property we'd have to readjust the 80,000 sq. ft. There's rights of way and rights of way all the way through there, it would be creating a very,very difficult situation to do that and I don't believe we feel we have to, given these two decision that the Board previously made. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it looks like what's going on here is that there is a landscaped area in the little triangular part you want to annex which is blocking the original easement across the property. RICH GUILLAUME : I don't believe it is. I'm not sure which easement we're talking about but I believe the foot path easement for Charlotte Greene and Wendy Lomas are absolutely respected and the proposed landscaping is almost defining and around that easement rather than the other way around. Also in terms of the road, if you look at the submission Mike did you submit those new documents to the ZBA? MIKE KIMACK : Everything that we had yes new documents (inaudible) yes. RICH GUILLUAME : The documents very clearly show the lack of Stephenson Rd. LLC plot on it. If you look there's actually a hook shaped across it. It shows very clearly that it's now been modified to satisfy Beverly Greene and Charlotte Greene's request that it was added incorrectly in the original design of the shape of everything as it was defined by the surveyor. 20 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So when did you submit this? I have so many surveys here my eyes are crossed. BOARD ASSISTANT : I had sent it to you folks let me see what date it was. I believe it was on November 18th I believe. f, OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie we gave the Board each you all have a copy of it the last one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have it here I'm just looking to see if we have a date on it. MEMBER DANTES : November 17th is that the one? BOARD ASSISTANT : I'm opening up right now to see hold on. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Donna has it up on the screen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm checking that I'm looking at the right one. Yeah I've got it. BOARD ASSISTANT : November 12th I think is the one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The last building permit dated on this survey is listed as November 12, 2020.. BOARD ASSISTANT :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does everybody know which one we're looking at? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking to see if that 80,000 sq. ft. set off is on here. MIKE KIMACK : It might not have been transferred over I can get it put on. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't see that on here. MIKE KIMACK : With all of the things trying to redo it to redo the house everything else I agree I don't see it on here but it's easy enough to put it on there and get it off to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think this is an IA system I'm looking at here? MIKE KIMACK : It's an IA system, it's already in front of Health Department and you can see the 150 feet required to the LG and that's why this whole thing is being done in order to conform to Health Department standards with the distance to the well. 21 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020_ MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie to your point earlier about-the right of way, is that did we discuss plantings on the right of way. I mean I don't know can that be blocked the 15 foot wide easement and part of the driveway? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They indicated it wasn't blocking it is that right? MIKE KIMACK : Yeah the one you see there now that's the existing pathway the traveled path as it exists presently Nick. It doesn't follow the 15 wide easement all the way down. MEMBER DANTES : I think what Nick is asking Mike is if you're looking at the 15 foot wide easement it's showing that's there's bushes in it MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Landscaping planted in it. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah but it's next to it's next to the open pathway. If you were on the site what you see there if you're looking down there that's the pathway as it now exists the walkway. So there's no reason to cut anymore in there and all we're doing is planting alongside of that walkway that now exists. RICH GUILLAUME : This is Guillaume, I don't think that those plantings were put there on the drawing to show that we were going to add back. It's more to show the definition and the new cutting of the pathway to respect Wendy and Charlotte 'Greene's easement. It's our understanding that the town will only allow us to clear 4 feet and so that's what we've done here and put the plantings to show where we won't clear but if during clearing it should be cleared to 15 feet and the town were to ask us to respect that then we would up until the point where the D.E.C. says we can't clear. There's no problem there. MIKE KIMACK : I apologize, you're right the pathway is being moved over into the easement primarily because for whatever reason the pathway (inaudible) and I think you'll find the reason it did so is because if you look at the contours, they get a little steep and sloped as you're going down there it goes up and then it goes back down again and I think they moved it over, over the years in order to have ease of travel but this is simply putting it back into the actual easement itself from (inaudible) because for right now it's outside for the most part outside the easement area. MEMBER DANTES : So you're saying the D.E.C. won't let you clear more than 4 feet of it? MIKE KIMACK :The Trustees won't let us clear more than 4 feet of that and the D.E.C. was a little bit more you'll find that the D.E.C. is a little bit more flexible but the Trustees hold you to 4 feet. RICH GUILLAUME : So this is really our attempt to satisfy all parties and do the right thing here. Again the 15 foot wide easement if you go further down somewhere into if you look at the 22 -. — Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 elevations-near 14, 12 etc. it's basically unpassable even for an avid hiker let's say it's completely non-flat so we're trying to leave it so that it continues to be useful to Wendy and Charlotte. MIKE KIMACK : Even though it's not in the easement area itself it's very convenient to them to traverse back and forth because you're right Guillaume is right the other one would be very difficult for them if you stay within the easement contours or the perimeter of the easement. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think they're in attendance they may want to make some comment about that. BOARD ASSISTANT: I have a Wendy Lomas and Anthony Pasca who is waiting to speak. I will bring Wendy in if you'd like. Hello Wendy you have to unmute. WENDY LOMAS : I clicked the wrong thing. Unfortunately my sister's internet got knocked out from the storm on Monday so she's also with me here. So she'll also be using my computer connection to speak, Beverly Greene. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Would you state her name also please or let her state it for the record. BEVERLY GREENE : My name is Beverly Greene. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. So we have two people under Wendy's name,,2 BOARD ASSISTANT : We also have a Charlotte Greene that's on the attendees list. Did you want me to bring them in? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bring in Tony Pasca also, bring them all in and we can see TONY PASCA : Good morning,this is Tony Pasca. I wonder if it would be okay if I go first because I may be able to cover some ground that Beverly,Wendy and Charlie might want to cover as well. is that okay? CHAIRPERSON WEISAMAN : Sure TONY PASCA : I just want to start by saying that we were emailed a couple of plans a few weeks ago but I've been checking the Zoning Board's microfiche website pretty much every couple of days and I have not seen anything new uploaded to it. What I'm most concerned about is that there's this talk about a survey that shows the 80,000 sq. ft. setoff area. We've never seen that and it was a big deal from what we were talking about the last time how they were going to accommodate this. They say they have accommodated it but we have yet to see a survey that actually shows it, either sent to us by them or offloaded onto the Zoning Board's information so I want to start by that and say we want to see that and we want to have a chance to look at it and comment on it if that's going to be something that's put in the record and they're claiming 23 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 to satisfy the old 80,000 sq. ft. setoff condition we want to see how they're doing it. So that's number one. Number two is that this lot the lot that exists today is unbuildable.That's the reason why we're here, is that they need the extra triangle in order to get water to this lot because without that triangle the lot has no water. So right now it's not the same thing as saying we have a buildable lot, we want to make it a little bigger. You have an unbuildable lot that you want to make bigger and reconfigure and I understand why they want to do it but because they are doing that this does have to be looked at as under a modern lens not just say well back in the seventies it was created so let's just perpetuate the poor planning that existed back then or the reasons that existed back then and shut our eyes to the modern requirements that we now look at today when we're creating lots. The fundamental issue that really still exists is access. I brought it up the last time and I haven't heard an answer to it but that original lot did receive a 280-A variance because it lacks frontage and they didn't apply for a 280-A variance on this and I'm not sure why. I still think that that's when you're creating a new lot like this it should require a 280-A variance and I haven't heard a reason why that hasn't been sought or flagged. I think the reason it's important is because access is kind of critical here when the only thing serving this lot this new proposed lot is a 10 foot wide driveway, it's actually a common driveway. If we were designing that today that wouldn't happen, we wouldn't design a common driveway 10 feet wide with no shoulder areas and no cleared areas, no contingent plan for emergency turn around nothing. I think the modern lens of stuff like this you have to look at fire apparatus requirements that really went into effect in 2011 and 2015. What I'm saying is we really should be looking at the whole package of the access to this lot which is a very big concern for Susan Magrino-Dunning who is one of my clients and she's the one that has to share this common driveway with something that was previously unbuildable and now is going to have a lot on it. It may be solvable,there may be ways to solve the access problem but the way it's shown now a mere 10 foot driveway, I don't think it's sufficient when there's no turn around area anywhere for emergency vehicles. I'm going to renew the request that it be looked at whether a 280-A variance is needed and that we would like to see how the access is going to be designed in a way that would meet modern standards not just perpetuating 1970 standards where emergency access was not really considered.That's basically what I have, we would like just to recap we'd like to see the survey that shows the 80,000 sq. ft. setoff area, we'd like to have a chance to comment on it and we would like to see how they are going to accommodate access under modern view of what that means. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Tony. Wendy, Charlotte anybody else want to comment? WENDY LOMAS :This is Wendy Lomas. I just want to say I am a little concerned about the access of the right of way and also what is that silt fence that goes across the whole property? Am I going to be able to get over that silt fence? What is a silt fence? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike do you want to answer that, Kimack? 24 .---- Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 MIKE KIMACK : Well the silt fence is put in as a function of the construction and then—after construction is completed it's removed if that's what she's referring to. WENDY LOMAS : I guess the plantings you're saying that that's the existing brush that's on the property there going down the right hand side of the easement or is it going to be planted bushes and landscaped plants and things,trees and stuff? RICH GUILLAUME : It's Guillaume, currently the plan is just to do the clearing.Those bushes again were added back to the drawing to show the restriction that might be placed on us by potentially Trustees to not clear 4 feet wide not because we're going to clear it 15 feet and then plant to make it 4 feet after that. WENDY LOMAS : I don't think there are any bushes on it now. RICH GUILLAUME : I'm pretty sure it's completely brush. WENDY LOMAS : But that's the traveled walkway. MIKE KIMACK : The existing traveled walkway does not follow the easement and the existing easement the 15 foot wide easement is all brush. WENDY LOMAS : On,the-lower part but not the upper part. In the upper part they coincide. MIKE KIMACK : If you look at it the existing pathway leaves the 15 foot wide easement for almost it's entire length. WENDY LOMAS : Only after it passes the building. MIKE KIMACK : No, when it gets to the corner at the turn over there it's past it right at the corner turn, right at the right angle turn it leaves it at that point. So at the present time that pathway is not within the easement. WENDY LOMAS : (inaudible) excuse me? RICH GUILLUAME : I was just saying I think you may be looking at the proposed pathway that we're trying to do to balance your request and make sure that your easement is respected down to the beach and at the same time moving it up top to make room for the house and putting it back in the 15 feet easement as it should be where it can be. WENDY LOMAS : I don't know it doesn't look that way to me but that's I guess I'm having trouble it's so small I couldn't blow it up to really study it all that well. BOARD ASSISTANT : Is this what's being shown on the screen right now? 25 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 WENDY LOMAS : It looks like traveled path. Oh I see it now alright. That wasn't on my what was sent to me. BOARD ASSISTANT :This was updated. WENDY LOMAS : We didn't get any updates. We didn't get the 80,000 sq. ft. update, we didn't get this update either. BOARD ASSISTANT : Well we can send it to you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This particular survey doesn't show the 80,000 sq. ft. which is what we are all interested in having added to this survey. Where is the proposed well for this subject dwelling,the proposed dwelling? Is that in that little triangular WENDY LOMAS : (inaudible)triangle,that's the only way you get the 150 feet from the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand I just want it in the record. I see it says proposed well right down there in the triangle thank you for whoever is doing that cursor Donna. I see where it is I just want other people to see it. WENDY LOMAS : Well those were my three objections. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay it there anyone else who wants to address'the application? BEVERLY GREENE : This is Beverly, I'd like to speak if I may. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. BEVERLY GREENE : Thank you, my name is Beverly Greene. Thank you for allowing me to speak this morning. Our previous objections to this development proposal still applies. Additionally the recent amended survey submitted by the developers did not resolve the concerns expressed at the prior ZBA hearing. First, my family has deeded easement over the property which must be preserved as written. We have previously provided to you deeds, maps and surveys to confirm this. Blocking or relocating a deeded easement violates easement law and as you can see they have done both with landscape vegetation and silt fencing. We insist that this easement specifically referenced and drawn in the Young (inaudible) agreement remain intact. Following along with the land ownership the recently amended survey still does not list Stephenson Rd. LLC as the owners of the road as all other privately owned parcels in their survey are listed. This needs to be corrected and made perfectly clear. We again ask for a corrected survey to include both current land ownership and also the location of both underground and above ground encroachments on our property as these will need to be relocated. In addition, no other easements are shown on the survey. Our no build zone negotiated on November 1, 1973 Liber 75351-1360-1 is conspicuously absent.This agreement is the one which allowed for the expansion 26 - : —,.--Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 of the Mini Cedars house and again must be placed on the survey and remain intact. We have previously brought up the 80,000 sq. ft. set off as mapped by Roderick VanTuyl on October 5, 1973 and it has again been ignored in this submitted survey. The set off is an older term from what would probably now be called open spaces and now as then is an integral part of planning in high density land use which this became. The boundaries of this set off were specifically and precisely marked by the Town of Southold and are easy to locate.The triangle that the developers propose to transfer to Mini Cedars is totally located within the set off and was a requirement for the Cedars addition to be built. The land cannot be carved out of the set off for re-subdivision. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak and I'll turn the table to my daughter. CHARLOTTE GREENE : I have nothing to add.You already stated what needs to be said I think. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike what Beverly just stated into the record is the letter that she submitted to us and I'll make sure that you'll get a copy of that and a copy of the one by Charlotte Greene and I think we should also make that available to Tony Pasca. Let me just see if there's anybody else who has any additional comments that they'd like to make at this time. Eric, questions or comments. MEMBER DANTES : Yes I had a question. Ms. Greene said the land being carved out in a triangle can't be taken from the set off area, but as long as he's not building on that triangle why can't that land be taken for the other property? BEVERLY GREENE : It's my understanding by town records that it was set off and open spaces have agreement to allow the addition to the house to be built and we have the documentation from the town printed up from the town for that. MEMBER DANTES :So you're saying,because that land was part of the development of the house it can't be part of the development of another house? BEVERLY GREENE : That's basically yeah. TONY PASCA: I would say the same thing that it was a condition of the Gentlemen Ridge property when they got a variance many, many, many years ago to set off the 80,000 sq.ft.of that property in order to get that benefit that they were seeking back then. So it would be sort of a double dipping I think to get credit for the set off that was necessary to get that old variance and then double dip and try to use that to give to another property that's completely unrelated to that prior variance. MIKE KIMACK : Can I comment on that point Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes sure. 27 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 MIKE-KIMACK : You're going to find that the 80,000 sq. ft. when we go around- it-includes the existing house basically the whole framed house,the pool and everything else. It's not open land the 80,000 sq. ft. goes all the way around and over that whole circle through there so there's complete development within the 80,000 sq. ft. it was part of the set aside so it's not just undeveloped land. TONY PASCA : I'm not sure that that's why we need to see it because I'm not sure that would be consistent with the old variance. MIKE KIMACK : The old VanTuyl survey and it includes that whole survey, that whole circle through there. You'll find when we put it on there, Tony that it includes the Guilluame house we're not talking about vacant land we're talking about no more development within a certain area with the development has already occurred and that particular triangle is not being developed and I kind of agree with Eric's point. BILL GUILLAUME : This is Bill Guillaume, I iterated last time that the VanTuyl survey does not the documents don't show a specific area to be setoff. It only discusses a unarea of 80,000 sq. ft. that was to be setoff and there is no discussion at to the location of that 80,000 sq.ft. other than it should encompass the house so that no further development be done around the house to stop the house from getting bigger not from other houses or anything else to happen. So moving it slightly only 1,500 or 1,300 out of the 80,000 sq. ft. doesn't seem to me like a big deal. Lastly to add to,to respond to Ms. Beverly Greene we're more than happy to fix also the survey to show that the road is owned by Stephenson Rd. LLC. As you can see the document it was emailed to Anthony Pasca, it didn't seem to be forwarded to Wendy somehow I'm not too sure why I don't have her email address but I forwarded it to all the attendees here out of good faith very clearly shows the absence of that road in the document. So we're halfway there, we apologize for not having fixed also the survey and we will be doing so Young & Young is working on it and they have been working on this 80,000 sq. ft. setoff. For some reason they just haven't forwarded it and any number or emails and traffic can show that Mike and I have been working on this for weeks, and weeks, and weeks to get all this done and satisfy as many of the requests that the neighbors have requested and immediately shrank the house. We're doing all this in good faith and we're doing our best here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Where do we want to go with this. I mean we had a couple of hearings, we have tons of information and we know what we need to get in the way of an updated survey. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have somebody else to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Susan Magrino-Dunning just said thank you. Let me find out, is there anybody else in the attendees list? 28 -�Regular-Meeting December 3, 2020 BOARD ASSISTANT : She's raised-her hand so I'm going to move her in. SUSAN MAGRINO-DUNNING : A couple of points very quickly, I did submit a letter for the record with some points. I do reiterate the comments, again our property is truly ultimately the most affected by this in terms of day to day access and points that have all been made very well earlier by Tony and others.Again we continue to be concerned with access to the property,the roadway and the potential construction so I haven't seen anything yet that alleviates my concerns about that. So thank you for letting me add it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else from anybody cause we have to make a decision? T. A. DUFFY : Leslie can I just comment on the issue about using the setoff area? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. T. A. DUFFY : The Board has kind of addressed this in other contexts where without getting into whether it's been used or where the area is,the Board has addressed this in other context when it comes to development right being bought on property and this Board has as I'm sure (inaudible) has ruled that if you sold the development rights you can't count that in your as part of your yield when applying for building things. I think the same theory would apply here. MIKE KIMACK : I would disagree with that Bill,that approach. T. A. DUFFY :You're allowed to. MIKE KIMACK : I always am. Leslie on this survey we're going to put the 80,000 sq. ft. on and exclude the triangular piece notwithstanding Bill's statement but I'm not going to as we were asked I'm not going to update all of the names when the surveyor normally uses now or formerly that's more than appropriate to whoever may be owning the property next door. If you can recall this particular lot was subdivided from the Dunning piece and that's also if you could look at it doesn't meet any of the width setback either when it was done. It was a non-conforming piece and also built upon just to let you know. MEMBER DANTES : I have one more question. I'm looking through my packet and I'm looking through my emails, did we see a copy of this VanTuyl survey the original survey itself? (inaudible) transposing by Young&Young. MIKE KIMACK : You know I don't know Eric, I think I've got it I can send it along in terms of it's a very general as Guillaume said it's very general statement just 80,000 sq. ft. with a cut able area around the house and a few lines here and there. I'll get that to you with it the survey showing the 80,000 sq. ft. under the new circumstance. 29 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 WENDY LOMAS : There was a specific map that VanTuyl drew showing the 80,000 sq.--ft. setoff. It's at the I think page 21 of one of the Zoning Board the documents. BEVERLY GREENE : It's a Planning Board document. WENDY LOMAS : It was relatively a rough drawing but it did show the 80,000 sq. ft. and where it was located around the house and where it was supposed to begin on the easterly I believe the northeasterly corner (inaudible) go towards the Sound. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that would be very helpful because we need to look at the relationship between that specific setoff and the proposed transfer of property. BEVERLY GREENE : We had previously given that to you but I'll drive it up this afternoon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you and Mike TONY PASCA : I can also tell you that it was attached to my prior submission last month and I mean I'm looking at it right now and I can tell you that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You know what,we probably have it,we have so much paper here we don't even know where to TONY PASCA: I'm reading it and I don't agree that they're saying that it includes the building area on the lot. I don't think it does include the building area on the lot. Anyway I think it's important that we all see it, we all see what they're submitting and we have a chance to comment on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree, I agree. So then how do you want to proceed here Board members? We'll have to adjourn this obviously and I don't know how much time Mike you're going to need. MIKE KIMACK : Good question,we'd have to get back to Young&Young and see where they are on their progress. I really don't know whether we can make the Special Meeting. Guilluame what do you think? BILL GUILLLAME : My understanding is I thought I had even seen this 80,000 sq. ft. setoff with a the triangle done by Young&Young. My understanding is that it's done it just didn't get emailed so I don't expect it to take too long but I don't want to you know I don't want to over promise so let's let the Board decide and you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think what I'm going to suggest then because this taking up really valuable time, there's a lot of applications here so rather than you know the only alternative we have is to just adjourn it to January to the Regular Meeting, hopefully a month will give you enough time. The second we get any documents in we will contact Tony we'll let you 30 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 ;. know. Kim make a note, Liz, Donna that whenever we get any information in from I guess Beverly is going to send and make sure that Mike has copies of everything Mike Kimack. We'll just keep this open until we get this resolved. There are clearly so many civil issues involved here that MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at the file from Tony Pasca now Leslie and what it is, is the survey itself what they had is like a Xerox you can't really read it is the problem. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's very light with that orange on it, is that it? MEMBER DANTES : I'm just seeing like a gray blur. There's another one that I can't read either. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know they're old, they were all hand drawn you know and done with you know very antiquated kind of almost like a mimeograph kind of copying process, (inaudible) prints they were called back then. Let's get whatever we can together, I'm feeling like from now on we may probably other than we will hear it if there's other comments but I would prefer at this point the comments be submitted in written form because this is taking up an enormous amount of the Board's time and we don't want to rush it, we want to get it right and we want to hear everybody concerned with this decision but it is going on for quite some time and unless we have the material we really need to be conclusive in our conversation I see no reason in taking additional testimony. So I'm going to make sure that we wait until we have everything we just discussed in hand and everyone has a chance to comment on it. If then based upon the comments that are submitted we need to have additional testimony we will but hopefully we'll have everything we need from everybody who's concerned and we can move this forward and conclude with how to do this. Is everybody clear? I'm going to make a motion hearing no further questions or comments from anyone to adjourn this matter to the January 7th Regular Meeting. We can just put this on I guess first and hopefully you know there will be little left to discuss and we'll be able to move on. BOARD ASSISTANT : So do you want it as a hearing or a decision to close? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well we can put it on as a decision to close but if we need the problem is if we don't well we can decide not to close it. BOARD ASSISTANT :That's what I mean it would be a different category. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we get I just want to make sure that Tony and Mike are okay with this. If we get written comments and we have no questions and everybody's got a copy of everything then we may be able to close it. If there are reasons for us to take additional testimony then it will still be open and we can then hear verbal comment. Put it down on the agenda as possible resolution to close and we can keep it open if there's reason to. Is that fair enough to everybody?Alright so I made a motion, is there a second from someone? 31 _... ._-_ Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 _ w MEMBER ACAMPORA 'Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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#7441— 1750 STERLING LANE, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike we have just received I think didn't Kim send it to you the Planning Board comments? MIKE KIMACK : They did, yes we are before the Planning Board correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me just open this up read it into the record. This application is for 1750 Sterling Lane, LLC #7441. Request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's September 24, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing barn and construct a new barn building at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 60 feet located at 830 Sterling Lane in Cutchogue. This is as I said a demo for an existing barn, constructing a new one with a front yard setback of 21.6 feet where the code requires 60 feet and this also needs site plan approval from the Planning Board. Now I'm going to just read into the record comments from the Planning Board cause we 32 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 just got them. Planning Board received ydcW request for comments regarding the above referenced area variance application for an agricultural storage building with a proposed 21.6 foot front yard setback where 60 is required and generally has no objection. The proposed AG storage building is located on a 1.9 acre parcel with development rights intact and would be in addition to an existing accessory storage building and a single family dwelling adjacent to a 16.8 acre farm with development rights held by the Town of Southold. A site plan application for the AG storage building is currently being reviewed by the Planning Board for the removal of an existing storage barn and the proposed construction of the subject 4,584 sq. ft. storage building in generally the same location. Please be advised that the Planning Board is currently in the middle of its site plan review process for this application and reserves the right to make any necessary changes to the site plan after reviewing all proposals thoroughly.Thank you. Mike what would you like to tell us? I actually want to start with a question, there's a large really quite big storage building behind what is the current barn and what's being proposed and there's quite a big area in between those two buildings, thank you Donna let's see can we see this yes. Donna can you use your cursor to point out the building I'm talking about? That's the proposed and behind it up higher that's the existing. Then there's a big space it's like 39 or something is it? MIKE KIMACK : That's correct Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why can't you push this building back just a little bit more instead of 21 feet to this MIKE KIMACK : Leslie take a look at the location of the septic system that served that existing metal building, (inaudible) 10 feet from it in order to Health Department regulations. It's just a little bit off if you look between the buildings it's just up on the northeast corner of the building. It says existing septic to remain and that serves the one story metal building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I see it. MIKE KIMACK :We got to be according to the Health Department regulations we have to 10 feet off of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the answer to my question. BOARD ASSISTANT : I brought in Mr. Starkie as a panelist also who is the applicant. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS :There is also a Jim Glover. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's the neighbor. BOARD ASSISTANT : I just figured the applicant would like to speak first and then other people. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let Mike say anything else he wants to say. 33 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 MIKE KIMACK : I'm going to try to keep this closed I mean I think you understand what he's trying to do. He's putting in a big enough building to accommodate all of his equipment primarily. If you look at the design drawings, that little extension that juts out a little bit has a main door and a side door in order to get access to it and then on the north side is another access door to that particular barn. The other one obviously is not salvageable the one that's being taken down and Mr.Starkie has a deed for this particular space in this particular location. It really is the only place he really can put it on, on this property in order to accommodate his agricultural purposes and at that I'll leave it and Butch do you have anything to add to it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike what is going to be in the farm equipment? GEORGE STARKIE : I'm sorry ma'am I didn't hear the question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First of all would you state your name please. GEORGE STARKIE : Yes George Starkie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mr. Starkie, what do you plan to put in that building? GEORGE STARKIE : Well my tractors, irrigation, I have big irrigation guns that we use. If I could just give you a little background, back in the middle eighties I believe we were myself and my neighbors going west, three of us got together and we sold our development rights to the Town of Southold and we were brought down to Town Hall and got an ovation for doing the right thing and preserving the agriculture in the area and at that time I had to make a choice. I wanted to set off because I knew ultimately in the future I was going to build a house and become more of a gentleman farmer and do it more full time. Subsequently what happened was I was led at that time to believe that the house and the front yard with the part that faced Main Rd.that's what I was told and I went 200 by 400 deep and you now hindsight being twenty, twenty I never knew I wasn't I think I was married but you know my wife you know things changed so long story short we kind of created our own hardship in a sense in that I was told no the front yard now is facing the right of way and we're going to use that as your front yard. There's an existing barn there now.Subsequently I purchased the Sacred Heart Cemetery, I rented their cemetery for numerous years that part obviously where people aren't buried and they subsequently just sold their rights to Southold town. I purchased the residual and then I am in contract to buy the old Doroski Farm on Depot Lane that I've been renting for thirty years. So truth be told that barn is already overused. I have numerous tractors, pieces of equipment,the barn behind that I'm assuming you local folks would know that's North Fork Helicopters and they got multi-million dollar helicopters in there and they don't want me driving tractors in and out so that's not at my disposal. I also like to note that there's a barn that's still showing on that survey that was demo'd the barn that's closest to the right of way and closest to Main Rd. that barn no longer exists and you can see another one is actually coming down because this is actually going to take out the big barn and 34 Regular Meeting December 3,2020 the small one.You'll see the line going through that so-We are eliminating two creating one larger space with the ceiling heights, the doors and stuff to adequately have egress. I know Mr. Glover is on the line, he's going to want to speak to this application. He had a concern about access if I'm unloading trucks to load any materials into the barn and we thought ahead of that and there's actually a loading dock that's facing north. That's why that little piece juts out closer to the right of way. We put a loading dock so if our trucks that need to loaded they would be on my property back into that loading dock and then we would use our forklift to unload them so we wouldn't encumber the right of way in any way. I also want to point out that the survey shows that the right of way had migrated on to my property a hundred percent and little by little as I built the house we've kind of claimed more of the right of way and Jim my neighbor there's kind of a naturalized hedgerow there that really encumbers that right of way there. I think I'm giving up my whole 11 feet and I think he has 4 or 5 feet and I have survey stakes there showing. I said to Jim as long as we have access I don't care, I don't need 22 feet to drive a tractor up and down the road so I know he has some concerns about the fact that this barn moved a little closer. Again Mike pointed out the sanitary system is there,we have to meet those criteria.Also by jutting that piece out a little further it gives me the loading dock so there's no reason in the future I would have to block or cause any problems with Jim having access to his offices right next door. I will say that there's not another building lot back there. I think everyone pretty much surrounding me has sold their development rights and there's no more houses going in so that was the whole concept when we sold our rights to begin with. Again I think I created my own hardship not knowing what my future building would look like and now that this is happening you know if I don't know what the side yard setbacks are but if the Main Rd. was my front then I would be behind. I was always led to believe that was because the barn was in front of the house and not behind it that that created the hardship. So thank you for allowing me to speak on the matter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Does the Board have any questions? My question was about why it couldn't be pushed back farther than that and that has to do with the septic. We also now understand that there's a loading dock that's closest to the right of way that will allow all offloading to take place on the subject property and not on the right of way. Those were two important questions. BOARD ASSISTANT : I just brought Jeff Glover as a panelist. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Meanwhile is this proposed new barn going to have any plumbing in it? GEORGE STARKIE : Other than no. MIKE-KIMACK : No. 35 Regular. Meeting December 3, 2020 GEORGE STARKIE : We have hose bibs at the heliport that we have access to if we need. We ` (inaudible)trees and in the existing barn now the old one we just use their hose to keep the roots wet until they get planted. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie if I can, you asked if anyone has questions. I'm just curious to learn more about the heliport, I don't understand that and I was going to ask. I saw a helicopter parked behind the existing barn that's proposed to be removed and can maybe the applicant can explain what the heliport is? GEORGE STARKIE : Northfork helicopters actually I bought the farm from Art Schneider and he owned Northfork helicopters and he owned the farm at the time. John (inaudible) bought the helicopter company from Art Schneider and I subsequently bought the farm and it was kind of a marriage in that he needed me, I needed him because I was twenty five years old at the time and I couldn't afford to pay it so the rent was real helpful. Northfork helicopters is engaged in row crop you know potatoes are a thing of the past it seems but they do the contracts for Suffolk County mosquito control mostly now. They still do row crop, they do Christmas trees I know for the Llewyns and a few other farmers. A few times they've been called out when the I forget the exact disease but when the Irish potato blight shows up in a farm field there's still about three thousand acres of potatoes growing, you can't drive tractors through to spray them because you just spread the disease throughout the .whole field so they've still been engaged in potato spraying when necessary. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So agricultural in use and not commercial for pleasure or tourism? GEORGE STARKIE : No with everything going on with helicopters cause I don't even want to say the word. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's okay for AG purposes. MEMBER-PLANAMENTO : I had no idea it was there, so I'm delighted. MEMBER LEHNERT :They've been there for a long time. GEORGE STARKIE : It's been there for God long, long back in the seventies, sixties I think. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if Jim Glover wants to say anything. If you do sir would you please just take yourself off mute. JIM GLOVER :Thank you for allowing me to speak here today.Yes my name is Jim Glover, I'm the owner of Glover perennials nursery which is adjacent to and immediately to the west of the barn in question. Additionally Mr. Starkie and I share the right of way in fact our property lines are to the middle of the right of way if you can see from that I see you have the survey up. I do want to 36 Regular Meeting December-3,=2020. _ clarify a point that was stated the 21.6 feet noted on the barn's northwest corner there of the proposed barn is actually to the property line and I just wanted to clarify that in fact it's 10.5 feet to the edge of the right of way. So the proposed barn would have a 10 foot 10 % foot setback from the road that we share. Full disclosure, I did want to share with all of you that I am a long standing member of the Agricultural Advisory Committee. I have been an advocate a strong advocate for the rights of farmers including the right to build ag structures on ag land and so I in no way object to Mr.Starkie's abilities to build a barn you know for agricultural production which clearly this would be. I do have some concerns, namely that pushing the new barn closer to the right of way 12 feet closer to the right of way according to the survey is going to crowd the road, crowd the right of way which is our shared road. Sterling Lane is a private road and is our shared right of way. It's obviously a large deviation from the town code which requires a 60 foot setback I understand because of the limitations of between where the helicopter barn is located directly behind this proposed barn and because of his citing for his new home that he has little room there's little room for other locations within this two acres. However I would point out that his adjacent sixteen acres surrounding this two acres his development rights sold land which he is perfectly has the right to build a barn on as well if it's for agricultural purposes. I get as of a fellow farmer that you know this is probably the most convenient or is certainly a convenient location for him to have a barn, ease of utilities etc. makes it a convenient location. However this barn can be like a said could be placed elsewhere or it can be reconfigured to move it further away from the right of way. My first concern about other than just the sense of crowding the roadway visually, my main concern is our right of way our shared right of way drifts snow drifts really badly in the winter when we have those perfect storms. It doesn't happen every winter but I've literally been stuck back there unable to get out or get in in different events in the past. I literally have been stuck back there and I couldn't get my pickup truck out of there even with the snow plow cause the drifts are so bad. Now Mr.Starkie has graciously offered to lend me his front end loader if that ever were to happen you know in the future and I appreciate that. That's very neighborly of him but the fact is I may not be the person always around and you know one of my employees not going to be in a position of having one of my employees necessarily hopping on a big piece of equipment in the.middle of a snow storm to keep the are clear. So why is that a problem?The closer you put a building to this right of way it's my belief that it'll increase the chances of drifts occurring which would be immediately west of this proposed barn and so access you know of the road of the right of way is my primary concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see if George or Mike can address that a little bit, see if there's any other option they can think of to improve the setback. JIM GLOVER : Well I would just like to add Leslie additionally I do have a concern for truck traffic in the right of way. Mr. Starkie did alleviate and I think he's alleviated my concerns we did just 37 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 speak before this meeting about where he would be having a loading dock and the way I understand is I don't know-if you guys want to go back to the survey for a minute but I don't know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Donna can you put that survey back up please, thank you. JIM GLOVER : So the proposed loading dock is part of that extension westward from the existing barn I don't know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we can see it. GEORGE STARKIE : The 12 foot figure the 12 foot measurement is where there will be a door for unloading trucks on the side of the barn. JIM GLOVER : So that is the spot you know that area that square footage of this proposal that would accommodate the loading dock and I appreciate the fact that the loading dock would face northward if you can see where Mr. Starkie is indicating that trucks would be not pointing into the right of way but pointing northward which makes more sense in terms of access. However it's this very 12 foot extension if you can see where the existing barn's dotted lines are it's that very extension westward that in my mind crowds the road's right of way and the closer it gets to the right of way my concerns for snow drift will increase. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a question, is it possible to take that 12 foot bump out and add it to the back of that building closer to the existing one story metal hanger and therefore have the same depth to the building but just have it setback to the original footage of the existing barn the footage of the existing barn. GEORGE STARKIE :This is a Morton Building and it kind of comes in sections and the sections are kind of predetermined. They can do custom stuff but as it is now I have a proposal it's about $450,000 for a barn which shocks me but so be it. What happened if you look on the plans you'll see an entrance for at the right of way side but then there's also a door coming out the other end and that's to allow drive through traffic to access fields and stuff like that. So the closer I get to that building the harder it's going to be to navigate because that one building that has the 25.4 foot one story building storage that is going to remain.That's going to be the only old barn that's going to remain existing it's in great structural shape. We're going to reside it and that's staying so right now we have 14.9 foot off the corner of that that allows us access to drive through there and it also we have a door on the other side. That would get eliminated or we would not have that ability to utilize the barn if I flipped it and put it on the other side. The other thing too and I didn't mention it to Mr. Glover this morning when we spoke, we built that house out there our farming operation we also own Pinewood Perennial gardens up in front right behind King Kullen and it's really a little agricultural businesses exploded and the idea of building that house that we did was to spend a whole lot more time out there. My sons are taking over up the island, I'm 38 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 heading up east and I will be on hand. I'm not a snowbird and it's a great time to work on equipment in the winter and now I'll have a place to do it. I get Jim's concern about the snow, I do have pay loaders and all kinds of equipment that will not get stuck in snow. I also have agricultural housing with staff over at Pinewood that are more than capable in running that equipment. We've always been good neighbors you know we help when we need help and the last thing I want to see is him getting stuck in his property. So even if he wasn't on site and one of his men were or no one was I can call up one of the men up at the agricultural house that do run a pay loader and if that were to happen it's very difficult to make decisions on what ifs.There has been over the last fifteen years that Jim's been my neighbor a couple of storms that have been good. The other thing we didn't discuss and I'm not I see snow fencing going up all over throughout the towns from Riverhead all the way out east and I'm assuming that and I know why because that stops the drifts from reaching certain points and maybe that could be incorporated in this also so that the drifts wouldn't hit the road and it's just a temporary thing and I even sell it up here at my store so if anything I can do to alleviate those concerns or fears I'm more than open to that as a possibility. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me ask you a question, would you be okay with an approval that was conditioned upon the determination that you would be responsible for maintaining the snow clearance on the right of way down to the end of it, let's say from your property? You tell me what the area is that you know would be of concern to Mr. Glover and if you would be willing to just take responsibility for saying you will maintain clearance of that right of way from snow and GEORGE STARKIE : As long as it's just for snow, sure. I don't want to when trees come down we share the responsibility that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm talking about snow that was his only concern with drifting and things like that and getting stuck. GEORGE STARKIE : I have no problem that being part of your decision, absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fair enough. Anything else from anybody, is there anyone in the audience now who wants to speak. There are two Jim Glovers. JIM GLOVER : Hi I thought I wasn't on the meeting and so I tried to access it on my cell phone as well, my apologies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you are one and the same. JIM GLOVER : There's only one Jim Glover in this town as far as I know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn't want to discover a new one today so that's fine. 39 Regular Meeting December.3, 2020 JIM GLOVER : I would just like to comment if I could please or respond to the comment about snow plowing and snow removal, a gracious offer however in the past I have not been able to get speedy assistance from Mr. Starkie or his employees in the past when I have had emergency snow removal needs. Unfortunately and this is always my luck, these bad storms are often happening in the middle of the night. I have since bought a snow plow but the fact is snow plows on a pickup truck only get you so far in heavy, heavy blizzards. When you get three feet of drift there's no snow plow on a pickup truck that's going to take care of that you need a heavy piece of equipment. So I just would respond to say that my experience is that [ have not been able to get assistance from Mr. Starkie's employees in the past in a timely fashion to get to my greenhouses. I have heated greenhouses,they need sometimes you know in emergencies I need to be there in the middle of the night unfortunately. I would also just add that I would not feel comfortable having my concerns be addressed solely by Mr. Starkie's promise to be in charge of snow removal because I don't see that as realistic. GEORGE STARKIE : I just want to add to that MEMBER LEHNERT : Can I just say something here, you guys share a road isn't it both of your responsibilities Mr. Glover and Mr. Starkie to remove your own snow. I mean why are we dealing with snow as a Zoning Board? Shouldn't this be someplace else? GEORGE STARKIE : I agree totally and what I would offer and Jim be straight about it I've never my phone has never rang. MEMBER DANTES : Wait, wait, wait, no sir you can address I think we have enough information to make our decision. I mean there's a building there now so I don't see the snow drifting changing that. CHAIRPERSON WEI'SMAN : Okay look I guess the Board has heard all it needs to hear at this point. What's before us is a setback that has no concerns from the Planning Board. I've questioned how we could reduce the variance relief by increasing that setback. We've gotten answers in the record, one being septic, one being the maneuverability of equipment on the site and also the reconfiguration, redesign is more difficult and challenging by the fact that it's a Morton building that comes in components. So I can't think of anything else. We're way behind today because we got a little bit late start because of technical stuff and we spent a great deal of time on a couple of hearings. So unless there's anything really compelling that anyone wants to say at this point, I'd like to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date which means in two weeks'time we will meet again in the evening so we will have a decision in two weeks.You're welcomed to it will be another Zoom meeting. You're welcome to sit in and listen. This is not a hearing and no public testimony will be taken. No one will be speaking but you can listen to our deliberations and a decision will be mailed to you. You can also call the office the next day and 40 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 s _ they` will tell you what the decision was if you choose not to attend. Is that alright with everybody? GEORGE STARKIE : Yes ma'am CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date will someone second it please. MEMBER LEHNERT : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Call the roll please Kim. 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. BOARD ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS :Just a reminder to everyone, if you are here to comment on an application go ahead and raise the raise hand button or send a note via the Q & A and we will respond. Thank you. HEARING #7442—CLAUDIA CEBADA-MORA LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Claudia Cebada-Mora LLC #7442. Request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 9, 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 41 _ Regular Meeting December 3, 2020_ front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum single side yard setback of 15 feet located at 70 Pine Ave. in Southold. Can you bring in whoever is here for this. BOARD ASSISTANT :Todd O'Connell is here to speak for the applicant. THOMASE GREEN : My name is Thomas Green actually I'll be covering for Tod O'Connell. He had to leave given the time slot but I'll be taking care of this case. Basically it's pretty straightforward, the existing house is at the 34.1 foot setback where the required is 40. We are enclosing the existing porch into living space and then proposing to put a new smaller porch in front of that area as well as ripping down the existing deck that also doesn't conform to the side yard setback. We are going to rip it down because it is dilapidated and needs to be fixed and expanded an additional 8.5 feet up. The side yard setback required is 15 and we are at 9.9. With those two things the house being already in a non-conforming spot pre-existing non-conforming spot there is pretty much nothing we can do about our situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware we have all been to the site, we've inspected it personally and individually so we know exactly what we're looking at. We looked around at the neighborhood. I think this is pretty straightforward, I don't have any questions at all about this application it's very direct. Let's see if any Board members have any questions, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions this is pretty direct you're right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was there anybody else in the attendees list who wanted to make a comment about this. BOARD ASSISTANT : I don't have any hands up at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then hearing no further questions or comments I'm making a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second . 42 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 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. HEARING#7443—KRISTOPHER PILLES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The application before the Board is for Kristopher Pilles #7443. Request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 24, 2020 Amended September 15, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to elevate and relocate an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 560 Fisherman's Beach Rd. (adj. to Haywaters Cove) in Cutchogue. Anthony 'Portillo is here, Kristopher Pilles is here. So this is a single family dwelling with a rear yard setback of 24 feet where the code requires 35 feet and lot coverage of 24.7% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. My question is the lot coverage remaining the same? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Simply yes, we're relocating the existing building and elevating the existing building. We're not increasing lot coverage or footprint. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're moving this house 14 feet closer to the road is that correct? 43 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and proposing an IA system? ANTHONY PORTILLO :That's correct. CHAIRPESON WEISMAN : Tell me why you are relocating this, why are you picking this house up and moving it? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll give you my reasoning and I'm sure Kris will fill in the reason he is but we've done two things actually. We've rotated the house so that it's actually parallel with the bulkhead. We also are providing a non-turf buffer 10 feet from the existing bulkhead which by moving the home it's allowing us to do that. Obviously for you know flooding purposes for flooding and insurance Kris wants to be above and comply with the flood zone requirements Appendix G of the building code. The moving of the home is really to get off of the existing bulkhead. I mean he's right he's basically right smack on top of it so that was the reasoning behind it but Kris if you want to say your reason for wanting this if I didn't cover it. KRIS PILLES : That pretty much covers it. I mean it's a function of you know rising sea level and the 10 foot buffer that's going to be required when we replace the bulkhead and you know from a practical standpoint if that 10 foot buffer is there and is permeable we lose the patio and that whole water side of the house becomes much less usable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right okay did you get a copy of the LWRP on this? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I did yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just let me enter into the record the fact that it's consistent with the LWRP because of the IA system, the non-turf buffer, the storm water controls, the gravel driveway meeting FEMA flood zone requirements all those things are supported by the LWRP. Does the shed have a C.O? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is by no means a demolition, is this a poured foundation? ANTHONY PORTILLO : We're going do a closed foundation with flood vents and there won't be any subsurface area per Appendix G, everything will be at grade or below the home and below the home will just be storage use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The only other thing.I might have here is, we know this road very well of course and there's all kinds of non-conformities, all kinds of priors, do you have anything that you can submit to the Board showing prior front yard setback relief? I know they exist. 44 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 ANTHONY PORTILLO :I don't have it in front of me, I did pull though that you guys approved=Kris- for the lot coverage originally that was the former owner the Kearns. KRIS PILLES :That relief was granted on that secondary structure we constructed. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) in the early eighties in 1988 is that what you're looking for Anthony? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea that's it Eric, 19811 believe. MEMBER DANTES : I think the building at the end of the road we approved that for a non- conforming front yard setback a couple of years ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did, we approved a couple but we just like the ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can provide one.- MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't think there's a building on that street that's conforming. ANTHONY PORTILLO : In my opinion I deal with a lot of waterfront properties, I've done a lot of elevations. I think to if we were to just elevate the home in place I don't think we're doing justice to the residents of the property. I think allowing us to pull it back off of the water and you know obviously elevating it I think is really the proper approach to the current existing condition's. Another thing is we're also proposing dry wells so we will be piping and catching rain water,that's required. No problem I can send something to Kim showing maybe one or two different appeals that have been approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just the front yard setback cause the lot coverage is a done deal already so it's just a matter of front yard setbacks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony how high are you elevating the house? I believe the plans illustrated on the elevation 4 feet? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yep we're proposing 4.1 feet, we're going to be finished floor it's an AE zone so we'll be at finished floor at(inaudible)flood elevation orthe FRCE like I said we're allowed closed foundations in that zone so we're doing a closed foundation with flood vents. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good, anything from any other Board members? Is there anyone in attendance who wants to address the application. BOARD ASSISTANT: I have a raised hand here.Vince, I'm going to move him in. Hello Vince would you like to speak on this application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to unmute yourself and state your name please. 45 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 VINCE YEVOLI : Vince Yevoli and I'm here with my wife Kate Chanin we're the neighbors to the west I guess. I don't think we have much of a problem with him lifting and moving I think that's fine. I guess I'm a little bit concern cause during Sandy his house and our house were probably the only two flooded on that block. We're probably going to have to do the same thing at one point but I guess the concern here is it's going up 4 feet, is that going to be fill or it's going to be lifted up so we're bringing all that fill dirt or how is that going to work? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I can respond to that. So we will use whatever fill on site that we need that we can from the excavation of say the sewer and the drywells so a lot of times we try to recycle that fill to fill whatever we excavate When we install our foundation. VINCE YEVOLI : So you're not going to be hauling in additional fill? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I actually think we'll be probably having to remove some fill. I think we're going to have some extra fill because like I said the sewer the septic that we're putting in, the drywells the excavation for the foundation. VINCE YEVOLI : So the lot in general will be raised somewhat a couple of two three feet but the fill from the foundation and the drywell etc? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right from whatever excess fill we have from those structures we like to recycle that on site. I don't believe that we'll need to bring in any fill. KATE CHANIN : This is Kate Chanin, I was wondering what does that do then to the wetlands which is the empty lot directly to the west of the property? Does that mean all the runoff will then go into that lot? I'm already seeing a lot of die off of the grasses at the very closest to the road and I did notice in the plans that it looks like the wastewater treatment system that's proposed is in that same section next to where the grasses on our property appear to be dyeing I don't know why but they're all brown right directly west of that. I'm just curious,does that mean that that is that a fully contained treatment system so that there wouldn't be any seepage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll answer it as a two part, first we are proposing drywells as you can see on the plans and that will be to,catch all rain water off of the structures. The idea there is that you won't have runoff from rainwater on the structures. The IA system, the absorption trenches they are low lying and that's due to where the water levels are in that area. So these low lying trenches are basically your seepage tanks. So there will be some seepage into the earth but we are meeting all requirements put forth by the Health Department in regards to height above ground water and distance below final grade and that's the reason we're proposing the trenches. The actual septic is (inaudible) and that's what holds your waste. KATE CHANIN : So it's not leech system is that right? 46 _ -Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 ANTHONY PORTILLO : Just like any traditional system this is a leeching field in a sense so that's what is required in the design of a septic system. You have leeching that's required, a certain amount for what you're designing for the bedrooms. MEMBER DANTES : Well an IA system Anthony is leeching after treatment (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes right so there's actually two different Caissons the first one that's basically getting rid of the nitrates and then it goes into the septic tank and then it's leeching afterwards so we are yes we are removingthe nitrates and that's what the system does but there is leeching. I mean I don't want to say that it's not leeching. MEMBER LEHNERT:Also part of your building permit you're containing all the site runoff on your property. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Exactly we're definitely improving the runoff in capturing it as much as possible. We also are using you know all perveous walkways and driveways and obviously the non-turf buffer so I think in that sense we're improving you know the rain collection or the runoff of that property. KATE CHANIN :Thank you, so just to clarify then the grasses dyeing off in the wetlands on our lot next door, could that possibly be from current nitrates that are coming off the property currently? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's definitely a possibility that you know maybe some of the leeching some of the older there could be older systems that are not essentially you know meeting the requirement above of groundwater so there could be seepage into that. There's a lot of things that could be happening I don't want to speak to why that's happening. KATE CHANIN : Right, right but would those nitrates if it is fertilizer for example would that be captured in the treatment system that you're proposing or is that just house water? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's all water, black, gray you know all waters that are coming out or going into the sewage. KATE CHANIN : Okay so that potentially could be ameliorated with the system that you're proposing? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah for sure I mean I think like I said I think all this is an improvement of the existing conditions so yes to answer your question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else in the attendees list or any more questions from Board members? Hearing none I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date is there a second? 47 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 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 :The motion carries unanimously we'll have a decision in two weeks at the Special Meeting. HEARING#7444—CARRIE TINTLE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Carrie Tintle #7444. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 17, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built"additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 1235 Luptons Point Rd. (adj. to Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. So this is a single family dwelling with a rear yard setback of 29 feet where the code requires 35 feet and the setback is from the property line seaward of a bulkhead and is a two level raised garden bed and stone patio.Thank you Donna for bringing it up. It's right on the back of the house, it says first floor wood deck and then stone wall.That setback is 29 feet that's what it says in the Notice it looks like what does that say? BILL GOGGINS : It's 29.7 48 i Regular-Meeting December 3, 2020 MEMBER LEHNERT : 29.7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Got it. You know we've all been out to inspect the property and the property does slope down toward the water but there is a buffering there the bulkhead. What would you like us to know about this Bill? BILL GOGGINS : It's 29.7 feet as opposed to 35 feet which is what we're asking for a 15.6% variance. The deck was built they couldn't build it to grade because of the slope as you stated so the builder built it to make it level and when he made it level it didn't comply with the slope and they should have gotten a permit and they didn't. I don't put that on the owner I put that'on the builder. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well make him pay for the variance. Eric, questions? MEMBER DANTES : Not really no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else, Pat questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I just had a hell of a time getting through that gate. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And the street. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's a tight street. MEMBER DANTES : I actually do have a question, there's other variances on that block aren't there? I looking at the one from maybe ten years ago but there are a couple of other properties that received variances. BILL GOGGINS : Yes I mean that's the problem, it's a subdivision prior to zoning so the road as you mentioned the width of it is not what it would normally be for an improved road. It's a private road and a lot of the houses were built prior to zoning and as a result I think there are several variances,on that street not just through the ZBA but also there's been a lot of Trustee issues as well. It's not as bad as Fisherman's Beach issue or dealing with on the prior application but it's still MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Very similar. BOARD ASSISTANT : Do you want Mr. Goggins to submit copies of those? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there's any rear yard setback variances that you can find easily. We know that they exist, there's a lot of non-conformance but it always helps the application if we could BILL GOGGINS : I can look and hopefully I can find some and get them to you. 49 _ , _ -, `_ Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 MEMBER PLA-NAMENTO : Bill I have one question, does the Building Department require any'ort of a railing or a parapet to protect people from falling off that raised patio? BILL GOGGINS : If the raise is above 18 inches then yes they require a railing and around the deck as well as for the steps. If it's less than 18 inches it's not required. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it sounds like this will be required then,.correct? BILL GOGGINS : Yea and if you grant it yes, if you grant the variance then we'll apply for the building permit as built and then they'll tell us what we need but we'll submit plans which will include a railing and if we determine that it's more than 18 inches. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the else who wants to address the application? BOARD ASSISTANT : I have no raised hands here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I wanted to ask one other question I have a note here from my site visit, what prompted the application what prompted the variance request? BILL GOGGINS : When they build this deck they thought it was in conformity because they relied upon the builder and then they got ready to sell their house and they found out•that they may need a building permit for this platform. So then they tried and they realized that it was not in conformity so we had to go forward with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is often the case, when people go and try to sell their property then all of the anomalies come out and all the legalities have to be taken care of. BILL GOGGINS : I'm sure-you're dealing with a lot of it now cause the real estate market is-very hot and it seems like every deal we have there's an issue like this or potential CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There are quite a few. Well this is what you get when people out here build stuff and say well we'll ask for permission later. BILL GOGGINS : I think that used to be the way, now it's when you have out of town builders building stuff and they don't take the time to look at the setbacks and to figure out what they can and cannot do and then we have this happen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well anything else from anybody?Alright I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date subject to receipt of any prior rear yard- setback relief on the road. 50 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 BILL GOGGINS : I'll look it up but usually When I find these decisions I can't print them out on my computer for some reason. We really have a lot of issue with that for some reason. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bill if you send the application number the determination rather the file number to the office they can probably look it up on Laser and email it to all of us. BOARD ASSISTANT : You can also save the page to a pdf and then email me the pdf. BILL GOGGINS : Yea we tried to do that and then the computers don't let us do it even Januzzi has had a problem with it, I've had a problem with it and it's just too bad because you make it accessible to the public and then we can't print it out. I have to figure out what the problem is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Send us whatever information you can. MEMBER DANTES : I got another anomaly for you with this property. If you look at the GIS map it has the property line going out into the water. The survey has the property line ending at the water's edge. BILL GOGGINS : Yea which that doesn't make (inaudible) for sure. You know what we'll look at the deed because a lot of times the old deed you know describes (inaudible) going into the water and the new deeds they just go by a new survey and they ignore the history of the property. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) survey changing the, lot line as opposed to either way I mean (inaudible) BILL GOGGINS : The other thing I stated, you can't see this deck from the neighboring property the property to the east has a similar deck I'm not sure how close it is to the line. Again I think it's consistent with the waterfront properties on the creeks here in town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. So I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date, would you call subject to receipt of some priors. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. BOARD ASSISTANT : 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. 51 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 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. HEARING#7446 AGK RE MANAGEMENT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to move the agenda on to AGK RE Management#7446. This is item number nine for the time being. Liz would you please review the announcement of how people can participate? 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 click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and then you can let us know which application you are here for. Also if you're using your phone, 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 you can tell us what you're here for a give you further instructions. Thank you. I also want to let you know Kim I promoted Helen to panelist. BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes I saw that and I put a call into Mr. Jernick and he's going to launch he's going to you know going to the Zoom meeting right now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good thank you very much. Okay we are back in session. I'm going to read the application for AGK RE Management#7446. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 19, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 3655 Pequash Ave. in Cutchogue. So this is a proposed swimming pool, in-ground swimming pool in a front yard where the code requires a rear yard.This is a property that has two front yards though the front yard off of Stillwater as you can see by the survey is a really like a flag it is still nevertheless deemed another address so it is deemed another front yard. So this is a front yard setback from Pequash Ave., who is here to represent is that person in the panelist list now? BOARD ASSISTANT:They are in the panelist but they haven't unmuted yet. Here we go they have. 52 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Helen are you here t6represent the application? HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you happen to know what the front yard setback for the proposed pool is from Pequash Ave? It's not on the survey, we know it's very substantial but I'm just wondering. HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : I don't have that no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a fence along the entire property line, it looks like it's all conforming in height. HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : Yep there is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which way does your house actually face,the front of the house? HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : It actually faces, do you see where the steps are where it say CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep. HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : That's the front door. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So it's facing what is technically a side yard. Well I guess a front yard to the Stillwater side. HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : I guess you can say that cause Stillwater curves around so I'm not really sure if that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This looks very straightforward. BOARD ASSISTANT : Helen there's somebody else on the attendees list that I wasn't sure if you wanted to bring them in with you. HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : Constance? BOARD ASSISTANT : Constance Leperides. HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : No she doesn't have to come in unless it's necessary but she's my legal representation if I need it and she's also my sister. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who is Keri? HELEN KOUSTOGIANNIS : I don't know who Keri is, I don't even have her on my list of neighbors. BOARD ASSISTANT : Okay we'll bring her in afterwards. 53 _..,,__,Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :-I'm quite certain that the setback for the proposed pool cause you have such a very deep lot is greater than what the principle setback for a dwelling would be. I think that's logical even if we don't have the dimension. Wouldn't you agree Board members? MEMBER,ACAMPORA :Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You can see the width of the lot is 128 feet and at least 150 feet back if not more. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what I would think. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Closer to 200. MEMBER DANTES : I agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anybody have any questions, Board members have any questions about this? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie one that's sort of a housekeeping question, I noticed during my site inspection along the lot line with the Canavalles sort of getting closer to the Stillwater side of the property there was like a pvc stockade fence that I thought was in the front yard; we discussed that just not that that is sort of the front yard from Stillwater but it's a 6 foot fence. Is that going to be an issue or not? I mean I don't want to see them go through this hearing for the pool and find out that they need to come back because of the fence height. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Oh for a side yard, yea. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No for a front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't know because it's land locked. I would say the front yard is actually along the access to Stillwater but I mean we've had this before on Main Rd.,we've had something facing remember behind Sandy Perry's physical therapy you know. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're just really odd anomalies. It was a flag that brought you in from Main Rd. and they called it a front yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Then to that point I'm wondering like if it's the Carnavalle's property I don't know if that's how you say their name but their house is on Stillwater so if they had the fence in their back yard that would be in theory their fence for a back yard not a front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct but it's clearly the applicants. 54 Regular Meeting December.3,2-020 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh I think it's the applicant's tbo:` MEMBER ACAMPORA : But isn't that fence there by the Carnavalles that runs from the front to the side whatever it is, it's four feet that's not a six foot. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Six feet. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No it's not a six foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's all four feet. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think it's four feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's ask the homeowner to answer that question. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Most of it is all four feet but there's one section that runs that's taller. HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : If I may I don't mean to interrupt you but I probably can answer this real quick for you. When we put the fence in there's two things that we did, one was make sure that we called the town and we sent them the survey so we adhered to there were sections of the fence that we were allowed which is around the perimeter of the house to be 6 feet and then we had to go down to 4 feet I think it was and then we actually had,a subsequent visit from somebody from the town came out to confirm and they-walked the perimeter of the property and they said we were all compliant.So there is somewhere either somebody had called the town to make sure that we were compliant and they sent someone out there from zoning to adhere to that and confirm that we were right with the sizing of the fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No I think it's pretty benign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then let's see who else is there was somebody else here. BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes I believe there is a Keri and I'll bring her in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi Keri. Is there something that you would like to tell us about this application? 55 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 KERI REDA :Yes I'm Keri and my husband is here as well and I would just like to formerly say hello to Helen who is my across the street neighbor who we've never had the opportunity to meet. So I'm sorry that this is how we're meeting for the first time. Our concern is and I had actually sent a photograph to the addresses Elizabeth Sakarellos and Kim F. so I hope that you had seen that. That's just BOARD ASSISTANT : When did you send this photograph? KERI REDA : I sent it yesterday. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I forwarded it to the Board I believe. MEMBER ACAMPORA : We have it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I received it. KERI REDA :You have it okay. So we just sent that in because that is kind of our view of their yard where the pool will be put. Our main concern is with you know some privacy. You have to also consider we've had twenty years of a wooded lot over there and all of sudden now we have a bare lot and a white fence and now a pool is going in and although some shrubs have recently been planted there's not a whole lot of privacy. So we were wondering with this plan, are there plans in place for more shrubage to go in to create some more privacy so that you know we're not seeing everyone in their swimming suits every time we walk out our front door. How does this impact our property value one day when we want to sell to have a pool in the front yard? Is there a way so that if there are two front yards to maybe block off this opening permanently, create this as the back yard and use the Stillwater entrance you know use that as the official front yard of the house then making this the back yard and creating some more I think just privacy really is what I'm thinking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no the Zoning Board can't change the code.The code says that if you have any property line abutting a road frontage it's a front yard. It often works out in a very strange way like in this Stillwater is really like a driveway practically in terms of her actual frontage.We can't do that but we can discuss with the homeownerthe installation as a condition of approval of some evergreen screening. It can be along the Pequash road frontage you know Leyland Cypress or Green Giant arborvitaes something that will provide year round visual screening from Pequash so that you will also have some privacy in your back yard. The four foot fence is compliant with the height of a front yard fence. If they were allowed to put in a six foot fence you see then they'd have the privacy but they're not allowed to do that but we certainly can put in some evergreens. It could be just around the pool you know so that that's blocked and the yard remains open to the street or it could be along street frontage.What do you think Helen? 56 _ Regular Meeting December_3,:2020.__- " HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : We invested about I would see $8000-in nine foot Green Giant trees and we planted those on the side where not on the outside towards Pequash but on the other side of the fence. So I'm not sure we enclosed the entire perimeter with a fence,the addition of the trees, We're gonna also put some trees at some point on the sides but that doesn't affect Keri. I'm not sure in terms of privacy, believe me I don't want to see you guys as much as you don't want to see me in my bathing suit but the truth is I don't know other than nine foot trees that we planted last year I would say I'm getting the date right now no sorry we planted them ,May 26th of this year. I assume that they are going to continue to grow and like I said we'll put on the sides as well but that doesn't affect Keri's house which is directly across the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So where is the where did you plant those Helen? HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : Literally all along the front of Pequash Ave. So down right when you enter the driveway I actually think there might be pictures in what I sent you. KERI REDA : If you look at the photo I sent in you can see the trees and where they are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to find the photo. MEMBER DANTES : But if they're Green Giants I mean they grow like three feet a year, I mean a year or two that'll KERI REDA : They may fill in but then the issue is also the gate is open and there's no trees there so like there's it's not well disguised I guess is the point. So it's hard to have privacy when there's a gap in the trees.They're not going to fill in the driveway because that's their driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :When that stuff grows in look where the pool is, it's to the side of that driveway. Now you can only ask just so much of a homeowner. If they already put in the kind of screening that we would obligate someone to do in a front yard then it's done and there's little else that we can do about it. KERI REDA : I was just asking to see if there were plans for any future you know shrubage to be going in to add to the privacy that they've already done and I recognize those will continue to grow in but as you can see from that picture you know we walk out our front door and it's very front and center so you know if there is more that can be done we would appreciate it. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Well they have to put up a fence around the pool so that's something else too. They have to have a four foot fence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It showed being proposed. It's in the interest of the homeowner to make sure that they have the privacy that they require too. I mean it's not unreasonable to assume that when you have something in a front yard when you're having a good time around a 57 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 swimming pool that's not the time you want to necessarily be really public. That's why most people put it in the back yard because it is more private but the problem is she hasn't got a back yard. I mean you know so it's setback very, very far from the road. She has the right to put a dwelling probably about 40 feet from that property and this is a good 150 feet from the road and it's low to the ground, it's not going to be all that visible. I will tell you know we will require as a matter of fact a sound deadening container to go over the pump equipment. It's to your benefit and your neighbor's benefit. We try to mitigate noise from swimming pool equipment so it's a fairly standard condition of approval. So you can build something around it you know just make sure that it's not cause it does go off at all different times. They're on a schedule HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : I'm not familiar with the salt water pools. I don't know how loud they are or if this is required of a salt water pool but I will make sure that we have that, I would want that as well. MEMBER ACAMPORA : You have a variable pump it will be running all the time and that's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not the type of water it's the kind of pump. MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's the variable pumps that's what they all suggest because they don't draw a lot of electricity and they do run all the time. HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS : I have no issues with that whatsoever, I'd want that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright any other questions,from any Board members? I guess there's nobody else here for this application. Okay 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? 58 Regular Meeting December 3, 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. We'll have a decision at our next meeting which is in two weeks. That meeting is not a hearing. We won't be taking any testimony from anybody. It will be open on Zoom and it's like 5 o'clock around that in the evening and you're more than welcome to you know link in and you can listen to us deliberate on the draft. The next day I will go in and sign which makes it legal and you will be mailed a copy. Or you can call the office the next day and ask what happened it's up to you. HELEN KOUTSOGIANNIS :Thank you very much. HEARING#7447—ROBERT KEVIN MCLEAN BOARD ASSISTANT : I have promoted Mr. Mclean to the panelist list. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So we're going to move the agenda because we're still waiting for Mr. Jernick to join us I guess.This next application before the Board is for Robert Kevin Mclean#7447. This is a request for variances 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 additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1475 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck. This will be an addition to a single family dwelling with a rear yard setback of 34.85 feet where the code requires 35 feet and lot coverage of 23.4%where the code permits a maximum of 20%. There is a garden shed that will be moved as soon as you manage to get all of your (inaudible) removed from the property into the new one that you just put in which is 8 foot by 18 foot shed. You have an existing basement, there's a new attic being proposed. I guess my question is if 35 is conforming how come you couldn't get 35 in, you got 34.85 MR. MCLEAN : I talked to the architect and it would have been he had it designed at this level. I need the 5 foot porch on the back for my wife's wheelchair. That's the ADA expectation, 5 feet to turn the wheelchair around.So that was a given the 5 feet and he just added a couple of inches to the bedroom and the area that's right adjacent to that back deck you can see shaded in. If necessary I can move it back to the two inches but I'll lose a couple of inches in the bedroom 59 Regular Meeting Decernber3, 2020 which is already cramped. I'm trying to maximize the-space. If I can go out another 10 feet I would simply to give my wife more room to move around in the house. She uses a wheelchair or uses a rollater/walker that she usually sits on. She can walk with it pretty short distances but this house was a summer home when we were both well. We lived in Phoenix for about sixteen years, my wife fell ill, we came back here to be near our children sold the property in Phoenix and decided to make this our permanent home because it's convenient to stores, it's convenient we have a beautiful beach at the end of the block that we're able to go down to and we have great neighbors. We've been here since 2003 as a summer resident and relocated here at the end of 2017 to make it our full time home. When we looked at selling this and moving elsewhere we just kept coming back to the same thing location, location, location. So I'm trying to do the best I can with the small space I have to make this a little bit easier for my wife to get around that's why. I agree with you about the two inches but I'm not going to go back to the architect on that if I don't have to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm checking the dimensions on the floor plans that your architect provided you can't see what I'm doing I'm just trying to tell you that's what I'm doing. Well we do know Sigsbee Rd. very well. Most of the lots predate zoning, most of the houses are non- conforming. We've had a lot of variances on Sigsbee for setbacks and lot coverage. Do you know what the lot coverage would be without your new shed? KEVIN MCLEAN : It would be 144 feet less. I'd be over by 94 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you just put that shed in didn't you? KEVIN MCLEAN : Just put it in because I didn't know that that was going to count against me as lot coverage I'll be honest with you. I didn't do my due diligence. I put it in because during the transition the move we have to empty the house and I thought that if I had a decent shed the, other one that I had was failing apart literally falling apart I could use the new shed to store things while we're doing the renovation and then when it's finished take down the old shed and move my equipment garden equipment and other stuff into the new shed. That was my thinking. I put that in you know I would have been coming back for a variance on the shed if I waited until after the building was done but I could use it during the building construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Let's see if anybody has any questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. 60 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 _- MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if there's anybody else in attendance who wants to I don't think we have no attendees. So I don't think there's anybody else. MR. MCLEAN :The neighbors are thrilled I'm doing this because it's going to be a nice little house when we finish. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Oh it's going to be nice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will be, it'll be a very big improvement. Alright well that's it then, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. We will be meeting in two weeks around 5 o'clock in the evening and we will have a draft prepared with a decision and we will be 61 Regular Meeting December 3, 202Q_ discussing and voting on it then and you're more than welcomed to sit in, it's going to be another Zoom meeting. You can listen, the hearing is closed there's no more testimony it's just to listen to us talk about the decision and or you can just call the office the next day. I'm going to go in the next day and sign it and then it's legal and it will be mailed to you anyway and the Building Department will get a copy. KEVIN MCLEAN : Well thank you very much folks I appreciate your consideration. I want to thank Liz, she's been a great help to me just guiding-me through the process and I do appreciate your consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you and it's always nice to hear something about our very competent caring staff. Thanks very much. HEARING #7445—RICHARD and TARA JERNICK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is Mr.Jernick on now? BOARD ASISTANT : No I had contacted him twice. The first time he just didn't realize he had to log into a meeting and that his wife was not available to help him out and the second time I gave him the phone number and also emailed the link to an alternate email address so I don't know how long it's going to take for him to log on if he is successful at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know that we have ever actually or that we really legally can discuss an application without a representative. BOARD ASSISTANT : I don't believe so. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Can you get him on the phone again and see what he's doing? BOARD ASSISTANT : Well I don't want to get him on the phone while he's trying to use his smart phone to log in. I called him twice already. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What about Nancy Dwyer? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We have not dealt with her at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know why she's on the Notice of Disapproval because she might have done the drawings but she's not representing him apparently. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I wasn't sure if that's the case. 62 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can hang on for we have to do a couple of resold ions and we can hang on for another few minutes and then if we hear nothing from him I think we'll have to no choice but to adjourn it to January.So let's I'm goingto make a motion to hold the next Regular Meeting with public hearings on Thursday,January 7, 2021 at 9 a.m. is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora all in favor please raise your hands. Let the record show the motion was unanimous and carried. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on November 19, 2020 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. All in favor please raise your hands. Motion carries unanimously. I don't know what else there is to do here. I think we have basically covered everything. What we can do is actually recess, hang on for a few you know little bit, discuss a few BOARD ASSISTANT : We can finish our lunch how's that? MEMBER ACAMPORA :That's a lost cause. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know I'm waiting for dinner now. I don't want to unlikely event that he's going to show up I don't really want to close the meeting yet. I believe we can stop the recording and see if he comes on and then we will reconvene with a recording okay. I'm going to make a motion to recess. I really don't want to drag this on to January if we don't have to. We got a lot more applications coming so let me make a motion to recess, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor raise your hands. Whoever is recording I think it's Donna, are you recording? RECOVENED—HEARING#7445 RICHARD and TARA JERNICK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome, we did not want to have to adjourn this to January. Can you hear us Tara? I think if we all hang tight for a little bit and see if we can get this one finished. Well you know people vary in their use of digital platforms and so on and most people have very little experience. I just got something, yes I'm having trouble with computer, no I can't hear. MEMBER DANTES : So do you want to just chat up the questions and let's go? BOARD ASSISTANT : We have to ask Bill if we can do that. 63 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 , _- MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I was going to say is can you just call her on a land line tell her to just connect here and put her on speaker. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's probably the easiest way to do it. BOARD ASSISTANT : Do you want me to call and I will use the speaker? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah on your phone so we can hear her. BOARD ASSISTANT : Let's see if that works. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here type this into the chat, she obviously knows how to do that. Tell her to get off and we will call her and she can talk to us from her phone cause she just sent us a message to everybody. Here's her phone number it just came up you see it? BOARD ASSISTANT : I will call that number. Is this Tara? Can everybody hear her? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Tell her to speak louder. BOARD ASSISTANT : You have to speak louder Tara. TARA JERNICK : Hello I'm here. BOARD ASSISTANT : Is there any way you can increase your volume at all? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to open up this application by reading the Notice of Disapproval.This is an application for Richard and Tara Jernick#7445. Request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's renewed and amended August 10, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" covered entry and to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required minimum front yard setback from (Delmar Drive) of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum front yard setback to (Joseph St. ) of 40 feet located at 2020 Delmar Drive in Laurel. This is to legalize an "as built" covered entry and accessible ramp and to construct additions and alterations. The front yard setback is at 35 feet from Delmar Dr. and that's for the "as built" alterations of an entry porch and ramp and the proposed additional construction has a front yard setback of 21 feet 2.5 inches from Joseph St., it's a corner property. This is for a new guest suite 586 sq. ft. one story addition that will be accessible, wheelchair accessible. Now Tara if you can hear us is there anything special you want us to know about this application? TARA JERNICK : We are doing the addition of the room, we have a son (inaudible) years old and we're looking towards the future to have like if we need like a live in, we've had nurses in and 64 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 out but we just need-a "space for you know if we end up having a caregiver for him. So that'sUhat the addition is going to be you know basically used for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the size of the proposed addition is relative to creating this bedroom suite that has to be handicapped accessible? TARA JERN ICK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well just so you're aware, we've all been out to the property and we've all looked at the neighborhood surrounding your property and we realize that Joseph St. is really a very, very short very wide kind of dead end at both ends. The adjacent neighbors on the other side of that street from you and there's large evergreen screening on their property from view of where you're proposing to build. Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob do you have any questions about this application? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions about this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : None at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No I do not. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do not have questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Tara is there anything else you would like to put into the record? TARA JERNICK : No I think that's it. I mean if he's like you know we (inaudible) neighbors no one seems to have an issue (inaudible) surrounding homes so I mean I hope that this goes through I mean cause we usable needed space in the future so hopefully we can get it done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright 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 LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Would you call the roll please Kim. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 65 Regular Meeting December 3, 2020 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. Tara we'll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. You'll get a copy of it. TARA JERNICK : Okay great thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to now make a motion to close the meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. All in favor please raise your hands. Motion carries unanimously. Donna would you please stop the recording. 66 Regular Meeting December 3, 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 : December 15, 2020 67